/lit/ - Literature

>>22609021
at the bottom of the iceberg you learn anything that goes against physics is by definition immoral

>>22609021
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non%20sequitur

He was just projecting. "I am a terrible person but because I fear of going to hell I won't do anything bad. I would if I could though."

>>22609033
So what is your basis for morality? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just curious.

>>22609021
This argument works in reverse too

Since everything is indeed permitted, therefore there is no god.

>>22609021
To rephrase the question, is our obvious need of God proof of his existence? In my mind not necessarily, but it does certainly suggest it.

>>22609040
Not him, but it's an issue that has extensively been dealt with by philosophers of ethics.
The usual lines that people start off with are:
>Humans are capable of feeling both pleasure and pain. Pleasure feels good and pain feels bad, which is why humans should do that which causes the least pain and the most pleasure for everyone
or
>Humans are capable of reason. Since they can judge that which is good from that which is bad, it is imperative for them to do what is good for all people to do.
You can find some ethicists who've sought for some kind of middle ground, like John Stuart Mill, who believed that certain types of pleasure (mostly the ones of a more intellectual kind) were more virtuous than others, and others who claim that reason is what makes people decide what types of pleasure are more likely to lead to long-term well-being. You can even find people who think that virtue ethics is possible without believing in God because humans are naturally drawn towards balance, or moderation.

I'm not saying you should give up your faith in God because other people claim that God doesn't exist. For some people it is necessary to believe that there is a God who imposes morals on them so that they have a strong reason to follow them, but I want you to be aware that in some people's case, "the force of nature" and "human reason" take the place of "God", and for them that is a good enough of a reason to follow what they believe to be good and just.

>>22609072
>is incels' obvious need of pussy proof of its availability? In my mind not necessarily, but it does certainly suggest it.

>>22609088
Thanks for the effortpost anon.

>>22609088
>>22609094
You are like babies
>Human mind favors patterns
>Maximizing order and patterns is the only moral endeavor

>>22609021
See Euthyphro and Hume's is/ought problem. God is just as incapable of giving us objective morality as anyone else.

>>22609094
This but unironically

>>22609021
His point is the impotence and insufficiency of morality.

>>22609021
It doesn't follow that since people can call something good or bad that there is some sort of ghostly entity with such and such powers such and such personality and that the nature of time and space is based on this entity poofing things into existence.

It's like saying that because we can think about the past reincarnation must be real.

>>22609040
Not the other guy, but it has been argued that Morality has roots in Evolutionary selection and therefore is older than humans. Assume we have two groups of cavemen, one eats their babies, one not. Which one do you think will be around 20y later ?

>>22609021
How does this prove the existence of God? You're pretty much saying
>LIFE WITHOUT GOD IS SCARY SO GOD HAS TO EXIST BECAUSE THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS ARE SO SCARY

>>22609021
>Morality from God

>>22609021
Reddit quote

>>22610361
Dosto's point is not a proof.
it's a consequence of the contrary thought.
there is necessarily nothing you could not do, if life truly was just a fickle few years here and nothingness.
you see it in his characters, like how Kirillov shoots himself and how Ivan commits murder to prove that exact point

>>22609021
I really like the moment Zossima and Ivan have at the beginning of the book when Zossima questions whether or not Ivan really believes that.

>>22609021
You don't need God for morality. Read picrel.

>>22609021
That’s not even an argument for gods existence so no. That is like Plato’s noble lie but condensed into a Reddit quote.

>>22610492

why do atheists seem to universally fail to understand the premise here and always go for the irrelevant "heh you need god to tell you not to be bad, that means youre bad" cope even though its completely out of left field and doesnt even attempt to explore the philosophical premise?

its like theyre literally too stupid to have this conversation, but they saw a smug comment on reddit once and thought it was an epic burn, so they copy and paste it

>>22609040
Suffering bad
Simple as

>>22610584
Because either Good and Evil map on to material causes and effects, meaning they are discoverable, or God mandates what is Good and Evil meaning there is no other basis than the caprice of a deity. The very concept of morality breaks down when you introduce an ultimate authority who has already mandated an absolute totalitarian mandate unless it maps on to a standard that exists in the material world which would render God superfluous. The desire for a God is the cry of a small child needing a parental figure to sort things out for them. Also, to be clear, it's not my that Christians are the most overt about this aspect of religion when they literally call God their "Heavenly Father". Infantilization is the goal.

>>22609072
There is no obvious need of God

>>22610604

literally just became atheist
holy shit..... fuck. this was it. this was the moment. this was the post. took a lot to get me here, but that's it. atheist. I'm done.

I don't even know what to say. just take responsibility. what do I do? like, what do you do when you just starkly realize everything your post just said? I think it was your post combined with >>22610546 It took me a second to understand the image, but when I did, it felt like the tick of the minute hand in my brain. And when I read your post, the hand ticked again with perfect synchronization of the hour hand. well what do I do???

>>22609021
We would need to precisely define what needs to be understood by God and morality, and why is there a logical relation between both of them. For example, the universe could have been created by an impersonal God that didn't also create morality and 'doesn't care' about your actions. If this was the case then everything is permitted. On the other hand, someone that acts purely out of self interest could be moral. A sufficient reason for acting morally that doesn't involve God could be the following: living in a just society is in your personal interest, and since a just society can only exist insofar everyone acts morally, it's in your self interest to act moral. Hence, in this context, our definition of morality would need to include good actions that aren't tied or conditioned by individual self interest. But with this definition, the basis of morality cannot be eternal reward from God, because in that case morality would be conditioned upon the self interested wish of an individual reward. If someone uses eternal reward as the basis of morality, they're presupposing individualism. And if individualism is true, then morality is conditioned by the individual i.e. morality isn't objective as such. Thus, it's contradictory to say that there is objective morality because there is eternal reward from God. If someone accepts that not everything is permitted, they must accept eternal reward doesn't have anything to do with the basis of morality.
So, if God is the basis of objective morality and objective morality is more than individual self interest, then individualism can't be a sufficient reason for the existence of objective morality. If there is objective morality, then it can't be a means to an end, but rather the end in itself. But if the end entails the existence of God, then the end can't be means to God, the end must be God himself; or if the end isn't the same as God, then God wouldn't have to do anything with the content of the end itself, but rather he would be the only possible ground in which 'transcendentals' such as good can exist. If the first, then the experience of the divine must be explicit in morals, and if that was the case then there would be no question as to the connection between morals and God's existence; and if the latter, the proof for the existence of God wouldn't come from ethics, but from metaphysics.
In conclusion, my answer is no. There is no possible way in which a moral argument proves the existence of God unless we already presuppose God's existence, but then a proof wouldn't be required.
>>22609026
Can you name something that goes against physics? How do you distinguish between phenomena that goes against physics and counterevidence to a physical theory? Suppose a theory predicts X and X doesn't happen, does that mean the theory is false or that something went against physics? How do you tell?

>>22609088
>>Humans are capable of feeling both pleasure and pain. Pleasure feels good and pain feels bad, which is why humans should do that which causes the least pain and the most pleasure for everyone
Doesn't this ignore the important problem in ethics? Everyone knows pain is bad and pleasure is good, but the problem is we don't know if there is something better or worse, or if pleasure or pain lead to something better or worse. In order to make the search of something such as pleasure a moral imperative, it must be presupposed there is nothing more desirable than pleasure. But we cannot know this by simply statinp pleasure is good and pain is bad.
>>Humans are capable of reason. Since they can judge that which is good from that which is bad, it is imperative for them to do what is good for all people to do.
Isn't this an appeal to common sense? How do we know the judgement of some humans is correct? Even more so if we consider how it can change according to culture. And even if were correct, how does ''my judgement tells me I ought to do X'' entails ''I ought to do X for everyone''?

>>22609021
I believe in God because it's cool, it looks cool, and it feels good. Simple as.

>>22609040
Compulsive reactions to stimulus with cooked up justifications long after run time. The reactions are based. The cooked up justifications overreach.

>>22609021
problem of evil is the most obvious counter against christian god, if we're talking ethics

>>22609021

No. But the point of brothers K is that people who don’t believe in God dont actually believe in the necessary consequences that come without God. This is also what N writes about when the old Saint comes down from the mountain and everyone laughs at him.

>>22610348
That’s not ethics though that’s just natural selection.

>>22610881
Problem of evil is the most obvious redditor filter.

>>22610928
Yeah how hard is to just reply, choices.

>>22610936
Good morning sir.

>>22610881
Epicurus can’t even move the first atom and you give a shit about his arguments?

Reddit

>>22610938
So you choose to believe I was an ai

This is what chatgpt told ya?

The problem of evil is that people choose evil?

>>22610974
You are a fifteen year old atheist redditor. Come back and shitpost when your balls drop.

>>22609026
that explains so much.

I only wish I had some sort of metric to gauge how I should be punished for such infractions, so i could make an informed choice..

>>22610974
>The problem of evil is that people choose evil?
Incorrect. The problem of evil is that we are able to choose evil at all.

>>22610991
It should not be an option, and a just god would not will it to be so.

>>22610992
So we must accept, god is not omniscient, god is not omnipotent, but he is still very powerful none the less.

>>22610994
so what does this god want? why does he disguise himself in the cloth of all other gods? Why does he lie about his powers, what are the nature of his flaws, who is he as a personification of man, what is he like as an individual?

If not this, then god should be described as a force, which he may also very well be, the force and the personification at odds at times and cooperating during others.

Why is it this god, from his rhetoric, has no face?

>>22610998
so what then, is this third, angry and wrathful god? What is HIS nature, what does HE personify. Why is he at times at ease and at peace and others angry and stormy like the winds? Why is there no consistency in how he behaves?

>>22610998
So then what IS god?
A benevolent personification of a loving diety, an unstoppable force older than time, or a wrathful and irrational destroyer who meets out justice on terrible sinners?

>>22611004
If there is a 'one-god' then I can't help but think he is terribly fragmented, even in our perceptions of him. These different narratives are incompatible with one another yet we are told they are all the same thing.

>>22611010
is it no wonder then, that the bible is so confusing? We have our scripture but we have no idea where it originates, though there are answers to these questions if you look hard enough, they are not obvious and one might never find them having been taught in the way of their parish.

>>22611016
One might never think to ask a jew anything, if one were so inclined.

>>22611020
a dedicated atheist would pursue theology, to build the strongest case against himself, to tear it down piece by piece, to reduce god to rubble.

Dosto was an atheist

>>22610992
A just god gave you all the tools and every language on earth with a word for it, morality is universal in the sense tha it's born of self and others preservation, one of the most fundamental principles of life, defeat loneliness

>>22610626
live your life faggot, being an athiest is based because you don't have to go to church anymore and just work for yourself and fuck bitches

I think you can argue for the existence of God from the existence of evil, but only if you have the intuition that something is behind the evil you see in the world, a force for evil, implying that a counterforce for good exists.

>>22611016
You are so jew brained its unreal.

>>22611117
See this makes sense

At the same time good for everyone is a more complicated question

>>22609021
This is objectively true; I don't understand how seething libtards can comprehend this. If there is no God, then life is meaningless. If life is meaningless, there can not be objective good and evil.
>inb4 muh I can le choose the meaning of my own life
If meaning is subjective then anyone can deem their own actions good, so everything is permitted hence.

>>22610361
Ivan loses his mind when he realizes the ultimate consequence of his belief

>>22611526
You realize God choosing what has meaning is just as subjective as any random person choosing what has meaning. I suggest you look up what subjective means.

>>22611129
Seethe for me baby

I don’t think he was arguing for the existence of God on the basis of morality. He was merely stating the moral implications for the presupposition that God doesn’t exist.

>>22611712
>I-it's just God's opinion anyway!
Gaytheists are embarrassing.

>>22610922
>>22611720
They get it.

>>22611712
Even if there's no objective meaning, there are objective differences between things. If God exists, and imposes values on those differences to make some of them meaningful and others not, the differences are no less real. Besides that, there's nowhere in the Bible that argues that people should believe in God to find meaning.

>>22612328
>>I-it's just God's opinion anyway!
>Gaytheists are embarrassing.
Christian: Atheists can't have morality
Atheist: Murdering people is wrong
Christian: That's just your opinion!
Give me a break man.
>If God exists, and imposes values on those differences to make some of them meaningful and others not
Again how is that different than any random person imposing values on things? If God's opinions can make things meaningful why can't mine?

>>22612328
>there's nowhere in the Bible that argues X
when has that ever stopped a christian

>>22609040
>So what is your basis for morality?
Given that our universe is infinite in time, reincarnation is not only real, but inevitable. You can behave in an immoral, destructive way, but in the long term, you'll live out the consequences of your own actions.

>>22610696
>Can you name something that goes against physics?
Beliefs and mental constructs can go against physics. Delusions are the primordial root of immorality. E.g. you can believe you're a woman even if you're biologically and physically male.

>>22612341
>Again how is that different than any random person imposing values on things? If God's opinions can make things meaningful why can't mine?

Authority. If God exists, he has the authority to tell you what matters and what doesn't. My point, however, is that the Bible doesn't really do this. People obsess over meaning, value, and purpose, but the God of the Christian Bible doesn't seem interested.

>>22612577
>If God exists, he has the authority to tell you what matters and what doesn't.
Why does he have the authority to say what matters and no one else does? Don't you see how silly this is? By definition God's opinions are as subjective as anyone else. God can not give objective morality.

>>22610593
I suffer greatly when I go for my morning runs. I am assured it is great for me.

>>22610926
These are both the same
Caveman group views eating its babies as bad. It survives. This is spread. Boom you have a universal value
Food food
Water good
Family good
and so on

>>22612341
Why is murdering people wrong?

>>22612596
Why does God saying murdering people is wrong make it wrong?

>>22612588
No, it's not silly. That's a step too far. Also, I never said God's opinions weren't subjective but that they'd be authoritative if, indeed, there was a God telling people what to do.

I realize other anons will say that, but I never did.

This matters because the Bible never appeals to anything besides God's authority. The Bible doesn't say, "If God says murder is wrong, murder is objectively wrong." It distinguishes between types of killing God does and does not permit. It appeals only to objective differences.


Now, suppose I don't believe there should be speed limits and drive at 90 in a 50 zone. The State has the authority to fine me. That doesn't mean the State is producing objective values, only that I must submit to its power or face the consequences.

>>22612621
>This matters because the Bible never appeals to anything besides God's authority.
Again why does God have authority and I don't?
You even give up on this and devolve to might makes right.
>That doesn't mean the State is producing objective values, only that I must submit to its power or face the consequences.
And this is you giving up on claiming that God gives us morality and shifting instead to him enforcing his laws. But the whole point of this was to use an argument from morality to try and prop up God's existence. There is zero evidence of God existing or enforcing any type of law.

>>22612637
Anon, I answered a question:

>>22611712
>You realize God choosing what has meaning is just as subjective as any random person choosing what has meaning. I suggest you look up what subjective means.

I said that's inconsequential, not that it isn't true.

As for why God has authority, if he exists, because he can throw you into hell. If other anons want to argue that might makes right is an unacceptable way to view it, they can. But at that point, my claim stands.

>>22612697
>As for why God has authority, if he exists, because he can throw you into hell. If other anons want to argue that might makes right is an unacceptable way to view it, they can. But at that point, my claim stands.
I already addressed this in the post your responding. Please read the whole post before responding
>You even give up on this and devolve to might makes right.
>And this is you giving up on claiming that God gives us morality and shifting instead to him enforcing his laws. But the whole point of this was to use an argument from morality to try and prop up God's existence. There is zero evidence of God existing or enforcing any type of law.

>>22612703
I did, anon. Let me know if you want to come back to this later because right now, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If free will exists you can simply choose not to do bad things
And if it doesn't well of course you have no choice what you do
Either way the existence of god doesn't matter

>>22612724
I understand and even anticipated you claiming might makes right before you said it. God can't give objective morality and argument for his existence that depends on him giving us objective morality doesn't work. To address a different claim might makes right relies on some of evidence of might and there is zero evidence that God exists.

>>22612011
you will never be a real christian

>>22612598
if God exists, then He decides what is good or evil.

>>22613238
Why? What difference is there between God any random person when it comes to deciding good and evil? Ask the exact same question you asked me to God when he says killing people is wrong. Why is murder wrong God?

>>22610626
Unironically start with the Greeks

>>22610922
Dosto seems to believe that no one actually "doesn't believe in god", since his main atheist, Ivan, is set up to basically secretly believe in God (a theist's wet dream strawman).

>>22610936
>"Why do small children die agonizing deaths of a natural disease like bone cancer?"
>"UHH, WELL, DUH, BECAUSE PEOPLE NEED THE FREEDOM TO MAKE CHOICES!"
The average IQ on this board has to be in double digits with the number of people dragging it down.

>>22613499
In fairness, I think that has to do with solipsism. If you believe in God, it's hard to imagine not believing in God. Van Til understood this at an academic level.

>>22613238
"Decides" based on what criteria? Caprice? In this case, you are Nietzsche's perfect example of a person with slave morality. You are uninterested in actual moral right and wrong, only in obeying some authority.

>>22613506
This is my conclusion as well but as a person who actually doesn't believe in God, it's an extremely glaring flaw and limiting factor to Dosto's writing. If his main recommending attribute is his excellent grasp of human psychology, the inability to comprehend people outside of his mode of thinking is a pretty significant blind spot. Also, I don't level this criticism at Dosto alone, it seems likely that Freud operated in the opposite direction, being unable to comprehend what is it actually like to be a true believer. But he excelled at outlandish theories woven together to provide valuable insights, so his blind spot was not as damaging to his work as Dosto's was to his fiction.

>>22612729
In relation to your second point, would you agree with this quote from Robert Sapolsky's new book on Determinsm?

Could someone summarise the main arguments people are making when they say 'the argument from morality'?
For example, one argument seems to be that we need to argue about the feasibility of objective morality without God
Since we cannot find a basis for objective morality without God, God exists since we assume that objective morality exists

>>22609021
How can anyone seriously believe this?
History is a tale of religious people using their belief system to justify all sorts of horrible atrocities.

If anything, if there is God, everything is permitted.

>>22613601
>assume there is god
>therefore, everything is permitted
>oh, except for murder that's wrong
>ALSO stealing, that's bad
>furthermore, not washing your hands properly, and having certain kinds of livestock generally associated with a decrease in health or our ability to produce enough grain is also banned
>oh and no inbreeding
>and a trillion other rules that literally hold our society together and are the sole reason why we have medicine or engineering at all
yeah other than those things EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED wowweeee retard

>>22613530
Firs off, this is literally retarded because even in a deterministic, mechanistic world, incentives and threatened punishments would be inputs that shape the output, so there would still be a purpose to punish and scold. What ceases to make sense is revenge, and this is actually what I believe is true. Causing someone pain because they caused you pain has no moral justification unless it can serve as a deterrent to future unjust behavior. Again, the goal of morality is to produce future circumstances that are better than they were previously. Praise is the same, if praise is desirable, and it occurs when contributing something good, people will gravitate towards doing things that get praise, and we all benefit as people produce better circumstances than they otherwise would have. Why do people seem to lose all basic reasoning like try to discredit determinism?

>>22613622
The fact that murder and theft exist goes to show that, if a God exists, he permits it.

>>22609021
I think it's more of an argument about how fucked the human condition is, that we need fantasies to keep us from killing ourselves. I don't mean this as disrespect to his view. Rather, it is clear that without God we either concoct a dumber replacement (human rights, natural rights, categorical imperative, the greater good, etc.) or go full nihilist. Mackie and error theory has answered all of this. So you really have three options: (1) God, who may or may not be real, (2) morals values that were clearly invented at well documented points in history, or (3) nihilism, which some evidence suggests is true. It's just that option (2) is so clearly stupid, so you're really left with either God or nihilism.

>>22613530

>>22612598
Moral truths are not possible, whether God is real or not. But this is irrelevant to the situation. If God, who was all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere, thought something was not how he wanted it, then most people would factor His supernatural opinion into their own decision making.

>>22613676
You've got it.

>>22613622
No, are you?
I will repeat. Religous people use God to justify murder. It was more frequent in the past but it still happens now. At least with atheist types you can potentially convince them out of commiting a certain act by constructing an argument. Whereas with religious people, if they think they are acting in accordance with God's will, there is nothing you can do about it.

>>22613676
This

>>22609040
As per usual, Pratchett had it right. Morality, ethics, justice, order, etc is all a lie that we must believe in. Our basis is as made up as the concept itself. To not do what is best for all is to have already been lost.

>>22613646
do you really believe your grandfather was a monkey?

>>22609021
I feel like because we have morality there definitely is something good in this world... but morality is not that strong... not a dominating force... so god is pretty weak in my eyes...

>>22613499
I think he’s overly accusing most atheists of not sincerely not believing in god as he doesn’t actually criticize the view as much as point out the consequence of it.

Everyone reads the book agrees that murder is bad which is not an atheist position

>>22613731
this is true of any moral doctrine, secular or religious
the largest mass killings in history were primarily justified under secular ideology
religion does not make people irrational but rather reflects the inherit irrationality of humans

>>22614152
I am not African