BORIStheCrusher;643959 wrote:^^^^^^^^
Now you are just rambling.
Not at all. Simply being intellectually consistent.
I'll break that down into if/then statements. They would be considerably more concise than my previous word vomit, I suppose. I tend to err on the side of wordiness because of my obsession with being clearly understood, but sometimes the sheer volume ends up being counterproductive.
If:
I need evidence to believe in an inherently supreme being,
Then:
I need evidence to believe in inherent values.
If one refuses to believe in God based on a lack of evidence, one cannot believe that anything has any inherent value, either. It's like two tables sharing the same base. If you remove the base from one, both fall down.
Bigred1995;644071 wrote:I guess it's post like this, is the reason I don't have religious back & forth with you. I understand that I'm not equipped to talk such things at such a high level! I'm sure you can site two or more books/authors that state in order for anything to have any value there must be some sort of higher power, but for the life of me I just don't understand. The way I see it, all things have an inherit value, but not to everyone! I value my iPhone, but my girlfriend couldn't care less about it. I value life, but I value the life of my loved ones more than that of a complete stranger! Value is a very subjective thing and requiring a supreme being in order for anything to have value, would at some level take that subjectiveness away!
By which measuring stick do we gauge value; Islam's, Judaism's, Christianity's or Pagan's?
I don't think that any one worldview is the "lucky winner" in terms of having all the values arranged properly. Having a worldview of a Judeo-Christian bent, I can certainly say that Christianity, as a whole, often misses the mark.
That isn't to say that none of them are of any value, as I think that some have it right when it comes to the bigger issues of value, but I honestly don't think there is an earthly worldview that would be adequate as a plum line, and that includes theistic and non-theistic worldviews alike.
I'm sorry if my post came across in an unengaging way. I don't mean for it to, and actually I love when someone IS provoked to dialogue with me. You and I have indeed had some of these discussions on TOS, though, and I can respect someone who has at least given some thought to this, and I know that you have.
tcarrier32;644253 wrote:Requesting evidence for an "inherent" value is quite a bit different than requesting evidence for a being which is allegedly omniscient. I would argue that there are no inherent good or bad things.
Well, then at least you are consistent.
That does, though, eliminate the argument that if God exists, he must be responsible for all evil or good as we define it, because he may define it differently, having a broader view (like a parent would view a shot as opposed to a toddler).
And honestly, the request for evidence is really no different once you attribute inherence to the values. To suggest that anything has intrinsic value begs how you arrive at such a value. Without any acceptable proof, one cannot believe that inherent value exists.
tcarrier32;644253 wrote:I'm not trying to antagonize you with this question, I am actually interested in your response, and yes I understand it is an elementary question. Is something good because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is good?
That's actually a high-theology kind of question, and one that is often posed in academia by or to students of theology (regardless of affiliation).
My own conclusion, given the suppositions I've accepted thus far, is that something is good because God has deemed it so. I view good and bad in terms of how things ought to be versus how they ought not be. If God created the universe to function in a certain way, but it has the potential to act in a way other than that which it was intended, then you have a push and pull. When the universe DOES run the way it was intended, that is good. When it does not, that is bad.
My own personal view concludes then that even things like large-scale evolution would be inherently good if it, in any way, transpired (and I think it did, personally, though I reserve the right to be wrong in the end). Anything that occurs as it was created to occur is good. Anything that occurs as it was not intended to occur is bad.
For example, a hurricane itself could be a wonderful thing, displaying the power of the created world's weather climate. However, people dying as a result is a bad thing, so there can even be a mix. Bad things can bring about good things, and vice versa.
I hope that didn't sound too convoluted. I tried my best to be clear. Hopefully, it gives you something to engage.
