13

The One True God

Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
86 comments | Share | Flag

Robin Craig, BSc (Hons 1, Univ. Medal), PhD graduated in molecular biology and is now an owner and COO of Australia’s longest surviving private biotechnology company. He has a long-term interest in both science and Objectivist philosophy and has hosted private monthly philosophy salons for over 15 years. His publications are wide ranging and include numerous scientific papers in genetics, philosophically-themed near-future science-fiction novels (the Just Hunter series) and short stories, the chapter “Good Without God” in The Australian Book of Atheism, philosophical essays on Amazon, and twenty years of Philosophical Reflections, a popular and controversial column in TableAus (the magazine of Australian Mensa). His website monorealism.com includes essays and debates on numerous philosophical topics.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only reason people believe there is no "valid objective evidence for one" is because the evidence has been obscured by the brainwashing of evolutionary theories. I say brainwashing because the teaching of creationism alongside evolutionism is not typically allowed. Brainwashing is indoctrination without the option to "opt out" for other possibilities.

    In your world, anything is possible except that there is a God who is personal and created you. You reject it for the purpose of self-determination; however, what you forget is that you did not self-determine yourself to exist, therefore, what do you do with all the activity you cannot control? Why are not all the life-sustaining environments and elements and measurements we have observed changed enough to eliminate our lives over the supposed 4+ million or so years life has supposedly been on the earth? In your world, it is chance...only chance.

    Frankly, I would venture to better believe in a man from mars seeding man here than just go by chance. Once you get to there, getting to God is not a far stretch.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Without absolutes, anything is meaningless; therefore, if you intend to communicate in such an environment, I would question whether you actually can.

    Reasoning to the point of nonreason isn't reason at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok...try this one on for size.

    Is murder wrong because our culture says so, or is it always wrong? I define murder as the extinguishment of a human being's life without cause or threat to your life; therefore, some killing is legitimate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is the usual response I get here in the Gulch...I have numerous examples.

    By the way...you define my God as a false god...is there a true god in your world, or are you him?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have to say that like his novels, the article is sublime and magnificent, and Savvy Street is a site that all the wise would do well to visit.
    On the other hand, there is major entity overlap involved.
    Sorry, I thought that was knowable from the profile, but I guess not!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. Did you enjoy Robin's article watcher? Have you checked out other article on Savvy Street? New online magazine...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would not bother replying to this except as a signpost to future anthropologists who might wish to use it as a study point. A fascinating example of how people can think they are making an argument despite completely ignoring everything they think they are refuting.
    It is sad that this person is betting his or her eternity on the blind luck of being born into the "right" religion when in fact they have been deceived by a false god :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So you are willing to bet your eternity on our just being "lucky" to be here? Your last statement is very dangerous and justifies anything anyone has ever done, including those atrocities many have historically called "evil." There can be no true evil in your world, so there can be no good. Whether I help the old lady across the street, or bang her head in with a crow bar, it makes no eternal difference in your world in an absolute sense because you have no absolute standard to measure the behavior against. There can be no love or hate in your world. There can be no reason for anything in your world. How do you even justify your own existence from a meaningful perspective that is absolute?

    Regarding the change by an extra-human entity, that depends on the entity you are referring to. Has that being communicated to us? You have to get back to established laws (natural laws if you will), that haven't changed since their creation we depend on in life, which if they changed, then live would not exist. Again, if you say these exist because of random, time plus chance events, you still have to deal with where the original matter came from? Either matter is eternally existent or God is eternally existent...

    If you are willing to risk your entire life by ignoring the obvious signed of creation all around you and deny you were created, then so be it. I simply accept the obvious for anyone who can think outside themselves.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 10 years, 6 months ago
    If you follow his logic, then without God, we truly are here via arbitrary means. If you trace God, or nature back far enough, you end up with the original reasons for anything being arbitrary.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RaceRev 10 years, 7 months ago
    The debate will be over at the moment of your death, then who is correct will only matter for an eternity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, they are and they aren't!
    People believe you can rationally believe in a supreme being because they believe there is valid evidence for one. However there is no actually valid objective evidence for one. Which means that in fact, the belief is an arbitrary claim (one without evidence).
    The analysis of such evidence and why there isn't any is quite another topic: and The One True God does not address that issue. It is targeted at a quite different animal: the one which explicitly tries to dodge the need for evidence (the Pascal's Wager/"You don't know there isn't a God"/"You can't prove there isn't a God"/"What if you're wrong, huh?" cluster of thought). It also shows the emptiness of arguments based mainly on "design", especially the "how do you account for the Universe existing" or "how do you account for Life existing" ones: by showing that such arguments prove nothing about any particular version of God and that in fact the One True God fits those "facts" much better than traditional religions do.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see that rational thought and a supreme being are mutually exclusive. Actually, my particular theology requires free will and rational thought.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You said he was on the Navy team. Not many shooting at them, unless he's dumb enough to go Marines.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Watcher55 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is not meant to "negate the possibility of a deity". It is meant to show that claiming some theoretical possibility of any deity or worse, any particular deity, is meaningless.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo