Does it matter whether God exists or not?

[Nihil]

Maybe this is a really stupid question, but I can't for the life of me see why it matters. I think most of us (with a few exceptions) will accept that the existence of God is not something that can be conclusively shown to be or not to be. So, not only is it an enormous waste of time worrying about it, but what difference does it make in any case?

Personally I am 100% indifferent to the old guy. I have nothing against him. But I'm not his fanboy either. I am quite capable of making my own decisions without consulting him. If he does show up, I can't imagine that it would change anything about my life. It's not like I could have done anything any differently, being a rational being and all.

Common sense and basic intelligence should, IMHO, furnish us with a morality and a life philosophy that is adequate to face the challenges of both Godless and "Godful" universes. Otherwise you're just not trying hard enough. I don't mean that we need to adapt our morality to allow for this flexibility, I just mean that the only rational morality that is possible also happens to be one that God would surely approve of (unless he's evil).

So why does everybody worry about it so much? It's not like we need him. Show some initiative here people, and just get on with it. If the big guy wants us, he knows where to find us.

[Søren]

Whether it matters or not depends on whether God exists or not; thus taking it from a hypothetical situation, where his existance is, for the purposes of the arguement, un-resolved in reality, as well as conception; it does matter.

Taking the Judeo-Christian God as an example - if God does exist and one does not believe in him/whatever the requirement is, one goes to hell (or nothingness, in some judaic beliefs).

But perhaps I miss your point; and you wish to expand further on it, making the point both more complex, and more valid?

[Nihil]

Whether it matters or not depends on whether God exists or not; thus taking it from a hypothetical situation, where his existance is, for the purposes of the arguement, un-resolved in reality, as well as conception; it does matter.

Taking the Judeo-Christian God as an example - if God does exist and one does not believe in him/whatever the requirement is, one goes to hell (or nothingness, in some judaic beliefs).

But perhaps I miss your point; and you wish to expand further on it, making the point both more complex, and more valid?

Hehe, I was labouring under the illusion that my point was self-evident. Surely such a conception of a God so petty and vindictive that he would send you to hell for not believing in him is hardly worth taking seriously? This kind of base vanity and egotism - a trait of only the lowest of men, and rare enough even in humans - can't possibly be found in the supreme being? If so, then God is indeed evil, and as I pointed out, that would put a slightly different complexion on things. If this is the case , however, and God is indeed evil, then we are obliged to overthrow him as a matter of common decency!

Shall we also discuss how long his beard should be?

[Insurrectionist]

If God doesn't exist, we have nothing to worry about. Our bodies will return to the soil and our consciousness will end with the death of the brain, so we won't experience anything, it's hard to comprehend, and pretty bleak, but at the end of the day, we won't be be "conscious" to complain. That's how I look at it, though I am a RC with increasingly Agnostic leanings, so I believe in some form of afterlife. Twould be abit of craic, lol.

[Nihil]

If God doesn't exist, we have nothing to worry about. Our bodies will return to the soil and our consciousness will end with the death of the brain, so we won't experience anything, it's hard to comprehend, and pretty bleak, but at the end of the day, we won't be be "conscious" to complain. That's how I look at it, though I am a RC with increasingly Agnostic leanings, so I believe in some form of afterlife. Twould be abit of craic, lol.

A fellow Irishman I take it?

To be honest, the outcome of death seems just as unknowable as the existence of God - and hence, just as unprofitable a line of investigation. We have so many useful things we could be thinking about. Why dwell on these dead ends?

[Insurrectionist]

A fellow Irishman I take it?

Indeed.

To be honest, the outcome of death seems just as unknowable as the existence of God - and hence, just as unprofitable a line of investigation. We have so many useful things we could be thinking about. Why dwell on these dead ends?

I suppose people are fascinated by it, it's one of the great "unknowns". They may not be able to prove it but it will fascinate them all the same. I think one of the reasons people want to create their own concepts of the afterlife is probably comfort, like hoping a dead relative is in a better place. So when it's attacked by a cynic as "unknowable", they're going to argue to defend it, because not knowing is uncomfortable for them. They don't want to entertain the notion that they may never see their dead relative again in the afterlife. So it's argued more for peace of mind than anything else IMO.

[Søren]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here; or as my namesake would call it: a method of indirect communication.

In your first statement, you have already begun to analyze the nature of God "Surely such a conception of a God so petty and vindictive that he would send you to hell for not believing in him is hardly worth taking seriously?". This examination of a hypothetical personality of God is in fact the first step in evaluating his existance. If the different possibilities are important (if God was malicious and one had to appease him by severing ones testes, surely that would be important to know?), then surely his existance is also important.

This, in fact, is the main error of your statement: it assumes that God is a relativly placid and/or ineffectual creature - ignoring him will not lead to (m)any consequences.

For instance, the Judeo-Christian God is not one to be ignored, eternal damnation is even worse than the hypothetical severing of the Potential-For-Life-Creating-Containers, which the hypothetical God would require.

Therefore you are right to say that: it is pointless to evaluate 'X' God (inc. existance of said), but wrong to say that: it is pointless to evaluate 'X,Y,Z e.t.c.' God (inc. existance of said).

You also said : "Common sense and basic intelligence should, IMHO, furnish us with a morality and a life philosophy that is adequate to face the challenges of both Godless and "Godful" universes." Perhaps they should; I'm not so sure that they do. Morality comes from where? Intuition, I suppose. Reason leads us to think that intuition is un-reliable. Perhaps we should resort to common-sensical reason then? Difficult, as the self-same reason tells us that our reason is probably inadequate. So really, we have to conclude that we are not able enough to construe our own system. Morality, you see, is a high form of prgmatism - praagmatism - i.e. what is best for everyone, and one, in it's most refined form (base pragmatism only deals with the self and the near future).

So personally, I would be inclined to look higher for my morality system. The obvious choice, considering that morality is pragmatic, is the entity which it would be most pragmatic to agree with/follow, i.e. the most powerful one.

Thus that would be a very good (and self reason for searching for a divinity. This is, basically, rather (as we would perceive it) selfish. Thus to expand outside of self-interest, one persuades others to do the same.

Of course, most people cannot think in these terms very well, and provide other reasons. But this seems to me to be the wisest reason for establishing the existance of God,and also why it is important.

(As I said, I play devils advocate just a little here. The reasons for my evaluation of deities and belief or lack of it in them are rather more complex than I have addressed here (though the points I make are by and large contributing reasons). Instead I attempt to put forward a few examples of why divine existance is relavent, and important, even perhaps necessary, to ascertain as much as poss.)

[Nihil]

In your first statement, you have already begun to analyze the nature of God "Surely such a conception of a God so petty and vindictive that he would send you to hell for not believing in him is hardly worth taking seriously?". This examination of a hypothetical personality of God is in fact the first step in evaluating his existance. If the different possibilities are important (if God was malicious and one had to appease him by severing ones testes, surely that would be important to know?), then surely his existance is also important.

This, in fact, is the main error of your statement: it assumes that God is a relativly placid and/or ineffectual creature - ignoring him will not lead to (m)any consequences.

For instance, the Judeo-Christian God is not one to be ignored, eternal damnation is even worse than the hypothetical severing of the Potential-For-Life-Creating-Containers, which the hypothetical God would require.

Therefore you are right to say that: it is pointless to evaluate 'X' God (inc. existance of said), but wrong to say that: it is pointless to evaluate 'X,Y,Z e.t.c.' God (inc. existance of said).

There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, if God is evil or insane, the we should not court his favour, no matter how powerful he is.

If he is evil and we still consider it prudent, through some warped morality and rather cowardly thinking, to try to appease him and divert his malice elsewhere - surely this is doomed to fail? Never trust a villain. An omnipotent evil that wishes to harm us will always harm us whether we obey him or not. Besides, what could we offer him? He's omnipotent, remember? If God is evil, then the only hope is to try to defeat him. To surrender without a fight would be making it too easy. Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

But I find it inconsistent that the supreme being should have any of these all-too-human flaws, or he wouldn't be very supreme. If you insist, I suppose I could try to explain the reasoning of this...

*hopes Søren doesn't insist*

As for your second objection, you have answered yourself here:

Morality, you see, is a high form of prgmatism - praagmatism - i.e. what is best for everyone, and one, in it's most refined form (base pragmatism only deals with the self and the near future).

If we are sincere in our efforts to do what is best for everyone - which, we have both agreed, is no more than a kind of pragmatism that looks at the big picture (as we should always do - as a basic prerequisite of survival), then how can a non-evil God object? We don't need several dubious, conflicting, and highly disputable holy books telling us not to eat radishes on a Thursday. We can rely on our own intelligence to act only with the best of intentions. If God exists, won't he be pleased! If not - we will still have justice and harmony, and the best of all possible worlds. Simple!

Faith in any morality that is handed to you is simply evidence of a lack of imagination and initiative. God helps those who help themselves, haven't you heard?

[I Have a Clever Name]

So personally, I would be inclined to look higher for my morality system. The obvious choice, considering that morality is pragmatic, is the entity which it would be most pragmatic to agree with/follow, i.e. the most powerful one.

Thus that would be a very good (and self reason for searching for a divinity. This is, basically, rather (as we would perceive it) selfish. Thus to expand outside of self-interest, one persuades others to do the same.

Of course, most people cannot think in these terms very well, and provide other reasons. But this seems to me to be the wisest reason for establishing the existance of God,and also why it is important.

Morality isn't pragmatic in my view - our sense of 'right' and 'wrong' stem from inner inhibitions and compulsions, our addressal of situations grounded in emotive responses. Morality is only pragmatic when it is filtered, made abstract and formalized by humans. We are social creatures, our branding of certain actions as right or wrong has a firm instinctive, darwinist explanation.

How precisely you base your morality in religion is a mystery to me. How do you know what God percieves to be good or bad, what evidence is there to support your view? Why does God's view have more weight than that of an ordinary mortal - such as yourself? Are you really 'looking higher', or just projecting your own moral outlook into the stars in the hope that this will give them substantiation? Your outlook seems very reliant on the 'pragmatic' foundation of morality, which I wholly disagree with.

In reference to Nihil's OP - the existence of God is of importance to me, but I do not live my life any differently just because there is a formal 'possibility' of his existence. What impact would he have on my life? It would depend on the substance of his character. If he were one of the Abrahamic Gods I would hope I could summon the courage to defy him despite the horrors he could unleash upon me, for he is at direct contrast with my cherished sensibilities (which are primary).

But, I won't lose any sleep over it - I am content to accept the limitations of my knowledge and live with the constant nagging of curiousity. Science cannot answer all of my questions, if indeed there is an answer, and the information portrayed by dogma is hollow, unconvincing - all too anthropomorphic, all too appealing (if unexamined or understood selectively).

Edit: I should be shot for unorthodox sentence structure.

[Søren]

I Have a Clever Name:

Morality isn't pragmatic in my view - our sense of 'right' and 'wrong' stem from inner inhibitions and compulsions, our addressal of situations grounded in emotive responses. Morality is only pragmatic when it is filtered, made abstract and formalized by humans. We are social creatures, our branding of certain actions as right or wrong has a firm instinctive, darwinist explanation.

And thus pragmatism.

Intuitive morality does appear to be darwinist; I agree, and thus also pragmatic, in it's most refined form. Morality is a social order, a creation for the general perpetuation and well-being of humans, and not only humans but the world in general.

That is why I would base intuitive morality on pragmatism; and also why I would suggest it has no value outside of pragmatism (as it does not even correctly exist outside it).

How precisely you base your morality in religion is a mystery to me. How do you know what God percieves to be good or bad, what evidence is there to support your view? Why does God's view have more weight than that of an ordinary mortal - such as yourself? Are you really 'looking higher', or just projecting your own moral outlook into the stars in the hope that this will give them substantiation? Your outlook seems very reliant on the 'pragmatic' foundation of morality, which I wholly disagree with.

Again pragmatism. Which as you've said, you disagree with. Though your first quote seems to suggest a disrepancy.

Nihil:

It is pointless to attempt to fight an omnipotent deity. It is pointless to attempt to lie to an omnipotent deity. It is pointless, in fact, to try to do anything that he doesn't wish you to.

Cowardice? Useful for dealing with people on our own level, perhaps. For an entity which one is (literally) powerless, and useless before - well, perhaps discretion is a better term?

Presumably courage is also to be used when pragmatic, thus when it is not pragmatic - why should it be used? And not when it is vain-glorious, at best.

As to your point of God being evil: evil is a term connected to morality, which is a subjective truth, and cannot be evaluated in the same way. Whereas unreliability m ight be a better term - being objective, and concerning itself with events, as opposed to abstract terms.

Is God unreliable? Perhaps. But if he is, what can we do about it? Nothing. It doesn't affect the fact that we should still go by what appears to be the best option - to follow what he wishes at the time. Dubious at best. But it is *best*. The best choice; indeed, the only tenable one.

I could go on, but it seems pointless before we establish the basis of morality, and value of it, which seems to be our main point of disagreement.

Eitherway; I'm off to play Oblivion and turn to cinders some little green gremliny thingys, so I'll have to continue this discussion later (unless of course you've already seen some flaw-most-terrible in my arguement, labelling me ingenuous and finding the only possibly route is to to send large quantities of toxic waste in my general direction).

[Nihil]

It is pointless to attempt to fight an omnipotent deity. It is pointless to attempt to lie to an omnipotent deity. It is pointless, in fact, to try to do anything that he doesn't wish you to.

Cowardice? Useful for dealing with people on our own level, perhaps. For an entity which one is (literally) powerless, and useless before - well, perhaps discretion is a better term?

Presumably courage is also to be used when pragmatic, thus when it is not pragmatic - why should it be used? And not when it is vain-glorious, at best.

As to your point of God being evil: evil is a term connected to morality, which is a subjective truth, and cannot be evaluated in the same way. Whereas unreliability m ight be a better term - being objective, and concerning itself with events, as opposed to abstract terms.

Is God unreliable? Perhaps. But if he is, what can we do about it? Nothing. It doesn't affect the fact that we should still go by what appears to be the best option - to follow what he wishes at the time. Dubious at best. But it is *best*. The best choice; indeed, the only tenable one.

I could go on, but it seems pointless before we establish the basis of morality, and value of it, which seems to be our main point of disagreement.

I was just musing on this while I was chomping on my well-deserved dinner, and I reached a similar conclusion. Some people would say that the definition of good is that which God wants.

I disagree. I believe that, if we are to return to pragmatism again, we can reach a consensus, based on human social experience, of what good and evil are, and independant of what God wants. We may not be omniscient, so our grasp of the right or wrong of things may be faulty. But we can do our best with the information at our disposal. It would be hard-hearted God indeed who would begrudge such sincerity and effort.

However, you seem to be implying, by saying that if God is omnipotent it is useless to resist him, that we have no free will. In which case, this discussion is meaningless. The fact that we are having this discussion is therefore either 1) predetermined, or 2) proof of our own free will. Both cases argue strongly in favour of continuing the discussion.

It is futile to contemplate right and wrong, as well as belief and disbelief (which are volitional) in the absence of free will. Therefore, (for the sake of continuing the discussion) logically, God is either not omnipotent or not interested in coercing us into doing anything in particular against our wills. We are free to believe in him or not.

Moreover, if he is omnipotent and we cannot resist, then all the reason to try! Our fate has already been decided, and we have nothing to lose. If I'm about to be executed, I can at least hurl invective at my accusers and call them pox-ridden bastards with my dying breath. If God is omnipotently evil, then we have yet another good reason not to dwell on him - I'd rather enjoy myself while I can.

In any case, I don't believe that any supreme being could be malicious. Why would he create us just to torture us? It's just not consistent. What we call "evil" acts spring from weaknesses and inadequacies. The omnipotent have nothing that can threaten them, therefore no reason to be "evil". They can afford to be magnanimous. The omnipotent stand to gain nothing from having their egos stroked by miniscule ant-like things like us. What would be the point?

To continue the point that evil springs from weakness, looking at it from a human perspective - do the strong steal? They have no need. They can get what the want by legitimate means without risking prison or other punishment. Do the powerful commit murder? Well, yes they do, but arguably they really shouldn't have to. Killing is done for reasons such as eliminating rivals, revenge, jealousy, to steal somebody's possessions, or insanity. None of these are symptoms of an ordered mind or a successful life. The omnipotent certainly have no need for such desperate recourse. Everything is easy for the omnipotent.

So, to recap - Søren's point was that we may have to believe in God, to avert his wrath. I hope I have given some reasons why there is no rational explanation why this should be so (you might argue that God is not rational I guess... :hmmm: ). If God can possibly be "evil", then we should not, in my opinion, obey him (assuming we have the ability to disobey).

We seem to have agreed (although Clever Name is being recalcitrant on this point ) that a basis for judging good and evil from a purely pragmatic basis should be possible. I have tried to suggest various reasons why it seems inconsistent that an omnipotent being should be afflicted with human frailties like evil or cruelty.

[I Have a Clever Name]

And thus pragmatism.

Intuitive morality does appear to be darwinist; I agree, and thus also pragmatic, in it's most refined form. Morality is a social order, a creation for the general perpetuation and well-being of humans, and not only humans but the world in general.

That is why I would base intuitive morality on pragmatism; and also why I would suggest it has no value outside of pragmatism (as it does not even correctly exist outside it).

Apparently we're both referring to different definitions of pragmatism! Pragmatic has, within my mind, become coterminous with 'logical'. My apologies for the confusion. However, I must disagree that mimicking the most powerful entity is pragmatic - because morality is by definition subjective, resolute. It is simply a matter of opinion, despite the potency of God.

From the approach you are using however, that of practicality, I can see another viable argument (and its similiar to the views expounded in your latest post). If morality is about the perpetuation and survival of the species, then presumably it should conform with a deity that is capable of wiping us out in an insant. Unfortunately, as a survival mechanism, our morality does not always immediately coincide with the most powerful or influential figure within a society - and those that conform are usually keeping up appearances, whilst subjectively rebellious sentiments froth.

Despite God's power and scope I would still value, subjectively, my own moral convictions - arbitrary as they may be - over that of a deity. Why? Because what we define as 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of opinion, of perspective. God's sentiment is of little consequence, despite his knowledge or power - unless he is privy to universal 'forms' of good or bad, as Plato referred to in his philosophy. But were these forms created by God? If so, they are merely his moral inclination manifested as a palpable force (though undetectable to us) - this hardly provides justification for God's moral elitism. Did they exist prior to God? Naturally, this would be contrary to his status as the creator. Until the said omnipotent deity proves his morality can somehow be elevated as something other than a set of emotive responses to actions, I could never force myself to be congruent with his morality.

Perhaps I'm again misunderstanding you when you refer to 'pragmatism', in which case I apologise. I'm posting this rather late.

We seem to have agreed (although Clever Name is being recalcitrant on this point ) that a basis for judging good and evil from a purely pragmatic basis should be possible.

Pragmatic, presumably, in terms of survivability? That is the only pragmatic approach I can percieve as remotely tenable. In which case what is good for the species is inherently good. But this seems contrary to our sense of justice - imagine for example that you had the option of hanging an innocent man. If you hung him, it would deter criminals from infringing the law. This would be beneficial for the species (assumption), but would you say it was moral? Perhaps so, but many would strongly disagree as a matter of principle.

I have tried to suggest various reasons why it seems inconsistent that an omnipotent being should be afflicted with human frailties like evil or cruelty.

Assuming God is a personal being, could it not be possible that God is somehow 'mentally' deranged? He has no reason to be evil or cruel, but his nature is simply such that he inflicts suffering on others even though it serves no pragmatic purpose. He could be omnipotent, and extremely knowledgeable (let us assume, for the sake of simplicity, that he does not know the future) - but he is compelled to act in a contemptible manner. I think this is entirely possible.

To refer to a point you made earlier in your post (yes, I did read all of it, I'm just very haphazard in my approach to pretty much anything in life):

To continue the point that evil springs from weakness, looking at it from a human perspective - do the strong steal? They have no need. They can get what the want by legitimate means without risking prison or other punishment. Do the powerful commit murder? Well, yes they do, but arguably they really shouldn't have to. Killing is done for reasons such as eliminating rivals, revenge, jealousy, to steal somebody's possessions, or insanity. None of these are symptoms of an ordered mind or a successful life. The omnipotent certainly have no need for such desperate recourse. Everything is easy for the omnipotent.

Quite so. But the psychopath kills, even though he doesn't have to. Does he feel he has to? I couldn't say. Perhaps he just derives pleasure from killing, perhaps the same is true for God. There is no reason, just an impulse. Is it not possible for there to be a deity that has infinite power, a large repositry of knowledge and yet prone to a cycle of creation and suffering? Perhaps he kills in droves for his own amusement, or perhaps he just does slaughters with no rationale, no logical reasoning behind his actions at all. He might be fluxive, purely arbitrary. A visceral God is not one I like the idea of.

Edit: Once again I warp the concept of a sentence beyond all recognition.

[carl-the-conqueror]

not really imo, but forcing people to convert to religion <X> is