Would you agree that metaphysics is primarily focused on the analysis of the phenomenology of the world as it appears to us?

Perhaps "non-natalism" would be a better term? Interesting discussion. I'm with you on the weak-version; birth is usually merely unnecessary (and overrated imho), although in certain situations I do have to wonder what the fuck the parents were thinking having a child.

The strong-antinatalist tends to be associated with such movements as the complete eradication of all life on earth, permanently and immediately. I'm not sure if you have ever wasted some of your time reading some of the philosophy behind the fringe group "efilism" (life spelled backwards) but it is basically that life is just absolutely horrible and needs to be exterminated.

Both. I try to do the former and definitely do the latter. — Thorongil

I hope I'm not being too personal here, but I would like to understand why this is. I share your views on birth, but I believe that sex is an important aspect of someone's health. Abstaining from all sexual encounters and/or actions is, in my view, unhealthy in that it builds up stress and perhaps even loneliness in some people.

Do you abstain out of asceticism? I see the attraction towards asceticism but have always been turned off in the end because the complete rejection of all pleasure seems very artificial, and only reminds me of why I'm trying to be an ascetic in the first place.

Because life's problems are structural, and individual gestures don't remedy them. — The Great Whatever

What does this esotericism mean?

If you were actually interested in 'teaching how to fish,' then by this you would mean stopping reproduction altogether, since the source of starvation is reproduction. — The Great Whatever

No, I would teach a man to fish.

Life does not revolve around anyone's ego. Again, the problems are structural: they are not caused by the whims of 'bad guys,' nor will their replacement with 'good guys' and 'happy thoughts' cure them. — The Great Whatever

Prove it.

Continuing to live isn't endorsing your own birth. I had no control over being born, and it would have been better if I hadn't been. — The Great Whatever

So why are you not suicidal again?

The term "American" is definitely a tricky one to define, since the country is such a melting pot of cultures. It's almost as if, in the case of not being able to identify what cultural background something is, the default position is "American".

I think there are certain things (oftentimes cuisine) that is endemic to a particular location. But I am skeptical of apparent entire cultures that are restricted to one single area.

Perhaps, if I had to place an answer on what these terms mean, I would say that "American" refers to anyone who was born in America or who currently lives in America and has taken the necessary steps to integrate themselves into the society. And a "European" would be someone who has a bladder problem.

That depends on what you mean by 'helping people.' Most things that you might think would help them actually won't — The Great Whatever

This is a very large sweeping claim. How do you know this?

and those that do (like giving them food) arise due to structural problems that 'giving a man a fish' will not solve in any substantial way (they will starve tomorrow instead of today). — The Great Whatever

This is why you teach a man to fish. Or even better teach him to be a vegetarian. You get them back on their feet so they can live life again.

If you don't approve of life because it's not good enough to live, then you need to reconcile this with your views on your own life, which are inconsistent. — The Great Whatever

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that life has the potential of being quite bad, especially since the world revolves around the egos of the least trustworthy.

However, I enjoy my life for the most part and understand that by living I am making a conscious choice, a risk, that may not end well. But I accept this and am willing to take the chance, because I think most things that are "suffering" can be lessened to a degree that is not as bad as it would seem (of course there are exceptions, nothing is perfect).

But I will not force this choice on someone who cannot choose, especially when the consequences affect them more than me. Additionally, having a child is overrated (in my opinion) and is just one more attachment. If I really wanted a kid, I would adopt one.

So, actually, I would argue that it is you that must reconcile your position of vehement anti-birth with your conscious decision to endorse your own birth by continuing to live. It's one thing to not have a child because you fear that they may potentially experience something truly horrific (my position); it's quite another to resist having a child because you think there is absolutely no worth in living and at the same time continue to live. If you are to take the latter route, then you logically must feel suicidal to avoid being disingenuous.

Meaning is not 'derived.' We do not 'make our own meaning,' that's liberal bullshit. — The Great Whatever

lol. Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of liberalism, and yet advocated for finding meaning in suffering.

The best way to end starvation is not to reproduce. You approve of the suffering of starvation because you accept that the world should continue as it is. — The Great Whatever

When did I say this? (hint, I never did) I'm an anti-natalist because of the existence of things like suffering, although I don't dwell on the fact of birth. It's merely unnecessary.

Also, complaining won't do anything at all whereas helping people will at least keep the suffering lower than it has to be.

You can't rationalize suffering because rationalization is itself a response to suffering. — The Great Whatever

What the hell does this mean?! If you can't rationalize suffering than you must not be able to derive any meaning from it.

It literally, factually is. And not only those who are starving! — The Great Whatever

Meh. Help the starving, it will make you feel good, or at least more than complaining will.

Sleep is another physical need. — The Great Whatever

And a wonderful one at that.

Life can't both be meaningless and filled with suffering: suffering is a kind of meaning, a bad one, which is why it matters. — The Great Whatever

You misunderstand me. When we see no reason for suffering, when we see no way of rationalizing this suffering (btw rationalizing suffering is normal, healthy and productive), that is when we open ourselves up to suicidal nihilism. If I were to give you a cockroach to eat, and as you munched you found it absolutely disgusting and you could not find anything redeemable about it, you would spit it out just as you would kill yourself if you thought the amount of irredeemable suffering was greater than what you could handle.

Your life literally does revolve around eating, though. In order to have your needs met, you must spend the largest portion of your life doing things you would rather not do, and in turn damaging your body and mind. If your physical needs were automatically met, you could just do whatever you wanted. — The Great Whatever

Biologically speaking, your life does revolve around eating. That's what life is: the transfer of energy in a very compact and efficient manner. It actually is quite remarkable how well life does this, even if it is often at the cost of suffering.

But I would stress that you can "transcend", so to speak, the basic revolving around food. Perhaps food is one of our weaknesses or our anchors, but it is certainly not usually the number one thing people are worried about in a first world country.

We could easily just say that people go through the trials of work and marriage just to be able to afford the bed they sleep on.

Also, work does not have to be a chore. You can change that.

I think I agree with much of what you have said. We are meat tubes, simple as that. We try to make all these cultural artifacts to try to cover up this truth (this is one of the reasons I do not like fashion very much - at least ridiculous fashion).

But the truth of us being meat tubes has no logical connection to how we evaluate our lives. Perhaps I rather like being a meat tube.

Furthermore, we've found some ingenious ways of making food taste good and aesthetically appealing.

It seems like you are struggling to come to terms with the fact that life is completely meaningless and filled with suffering. The inherent meaninglessness of life does not have any logical connection to how much we enjoy our lives. And if it seems to be the case anyway, then there are a plethora of existential literature on this, from the Stoics to Sartre. It's the suffering that matters and is problematic. I believe it was Frankl that said that humans despair at suffering because they find no meaning behind it; if there is no meaning behind suffering, then suicide may as well be the best option. (Frankl was a Holocaust survivor).

Hunger/starvation. And it doesn't matter whether you have sufficient nutrients, any more than it matters that you have sufficient heroin. Without it you collapse into horrible pain and death, and your life has o revolve around preventing that. We call that a cognitive disorder, an addiction. A very, very bad one. — The Great Whatever

I don't need heroin to keep living, so I don't know what you're going on about in terms of that.

Perhaps if we were wild animals without access to a supermarket, our lives would quite literally revolve around eating.

But we are not animals in that sense (we are animals though).

I see no problem with having to eat food and drink water. Why are you making this such a big deal? Because life isn't what you expected it to be?

Let me put this short and sweet: the universe doesn't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else expects.

As soon as you come to terms with what reality is like and forget your existential narcissism (we shouldn't have to eat, wah!), you can move on and learn to enjoy life a bit. Learn to trim your sails instead of complaining about the wind.

So I think the real question here that we ought to discuss is whether or not the state of the world is bad enough to warrant suicide.

Agustino, I want to add something on to what I said previously about happiness. Like I said before, I still believe happiness to be synonymous with contentedness, but additionally I would like to add that happiness is a process, not an end-state.

For many (most?) people, having goals is necessary to be happy. I would not be happy (forever) if I sat on a rock on a mountain all day long. I would grow restless and bored. I need stimulation. So pursuing goals would make me content.

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. You are literally moving toward excruciating pain / starvation at every second, and must take steps to avoid this. How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

What is the excruciating pain that you speak of? And given that you have internet access, I would assume you have the means to obtain sufficient nutrients.

How is that not a psychological problem? It's far worse than any mundane 'addiction.' — The Great Whatever

Everyone is suffering from a psychological problem: it's called being alive. — The Great Whatever

Ah, yes, so all of us are somehow hoodwinked into continuing to live despite the obvious conclusion that life is this miserable pain in the ass, and that you are doing everyone the highest of favors by repetitively reminding them just how terrible their existences are.

I have to wonder what your motivations are. What are you achieving here? What is your ideal goal? Because the only result I can imagine you desiring is that everyone decides to give it all up and kill themselves.

People are happy. People do appreciate their lives. But you are doing them any service (in fact quite possibly a disservice) by attempting to convince them otherwise.

It's a choice so long as one isn't suffering from a psychological problem.

No one is happy. Obviously you're not, unless you're just not paying attention to yourself. — The Great Whatever

What is your definition of happy?

Seems to me that if you pay too much attention to yourself, you end up unfulfilled and grouchy.

Darth, I thought you were going to give it a rest for your mental health. No? (For my sake, I'm relieved you haven't taken your mental health break yet.) — Bitter Crank

The flight to neverland was cancelled because of all the snow. :P

You're both nuts. — Bitter Crank

Most likely.

The Dalai Lama. Beware of jokers, con men, and bastards. — The Great Whatever

And why should we believe this claim about the Dalai Lama?

You're not going to be happy. But there's no 'more important' thing either. Stop being a child. — The Great Whatever

LOL you might not be happy. And many of us have more important things to do than demean other people by calling them a child.

A better question would be why, evolutionary speaking, happiness is even a thing at all.

Perhaps faith is not the blind fideism we typically attribute it as but rather a rational confidence.

That is an interesting point. If we had unfallible arguments for the existence of a god, faith would not be a requirement. I suppose these arguments could be used as a complement to faith to act as a basic structure (but not prove).

Just thought I'd point out that you can quote other people on this board by highlighting the text.

Already done. Life has its ups and downs, with or without medication.

Oh, no doubt, I saw some of your advice. It's just that some of us aren't exactly "normal" when it comes to neurobiology and have problems with severe anxiety, panic, depression, etc.

Easier said than done, unfortunately. :(

Basically, what I posted previously is a culmination of a shit ton of thoughts mulling around my mind that required a catharsis to relieve the tension. I understand completely that most of this is not exactly the best philosophy ever. But, like most here (I assume), philosophy tends to be something that we are drawn to automatically, by default, and it just so happens that the philosophical thoughts that I tend to have are that of skepticism of the validity of all the philosophical thoughts that me and everyone else has. And it is frustrating when, at times, it seems like these kinds of questions are either overlooked or taken for granted.

Examples are: Is metaphysics possible (not that metaphysics is not meaningful [logical positivism; and we all know how that turned out], but rather, are we even able to make metaphysical claims, to make progress in metaphysics, etc, or are our brains just too limited to make any substantial theses?), what is the "point" behind philosophy (thanks for the great answer, , btw), how do we get from language to the world (what is the correlation, how is language a stable structure for philosophical theses), is it rational to hold any philosophical position, is there progress in philosophy, are philosophical questions merely linguistic misunderstandings, etc.

Wittgenstein has been a saving grace for me; his conception of philosophy as therapeutic clarification, the distinction between what is a question and what is an answer (Witty would have said the answer is within the question), the rejection of the academic philosophical atmosphere, etc...Kant too.

I definitely like 's answer, that there is no "one way" to do philosophy, there is just "a" way of doing philosophy (like the distinctions between analytic, continental, pragmatic, and quietist philosophy).

I seem to recall reading something like this. Are you over at Reddit?

Now I am the master!

Thanks for posting this, I read it a while ago but mostly forgot about it.

I particularly like one of the comments on the article, which says that we need philosophy desperately because science has failed to produce rational thinking individuals.

Well, it went from a thread about having confidence in one's beliefs to explicitly theological semantics.

Perhaps we should make a different thread?

sanctity of human life — Hanover

Why is it that when someone runs out of arguments, this kind of cop out bullshit hand wave gets used?

The more I learn about conservative philosophy ideology, the more it seems like a group of people desperately clinging to the past for emotional stability. Perhaps this is why the Right tends to oppose evolution and global warming while attaching themselves to a romanticized idea of what life was like "in the good ol' days."

However, should we attempt to not latch on to any intellectual theory (scientific and philosophical alike), since it most likely is false?

Although I agree with your correspondence theory of truth, as I understand it there are two other major theories, pragmatism and coherentism. Pragmatism argues that what is true is what is useful/pragmatic. Coherentism argues that what is true is what makes coherent sense, that is, a certain proposition under scrutiny holds truth if it is coherent with other propositions.

I find that neither two objections are sufficient for defeating correspondence theory; in fact I think both of them end up utilizing correspondence whether they realize it or not.

For a pragmatist, what is true is what is useful. However, this means that a person who believes in god and finds great value in their religion would be said to hold a true belief, which to many others would strike them as irrational. For pragmatism, truth is inherently relative, which is quite unsettling. Furthermore, what is useful is very often what actually is the case (correspondence), so it seems like pragmatism simply is a facet of correspondence theory.

For a coherentist, what is conceptually harmonized is what is true. But this is problematic; the coherentist theory of truth is actually a theory of justification. The related, justifying propositions are exactly what we use as evidence for some proposition.

So there's my two cents. If I got any of this wrong, someone correct me.

I hate labels as well but they are useful for communication purposes.

Agreed.

Whoops, I meant to say that Pascal's Wager is the most convincing argument to have a belief in god.

If you don't find that the arguments theists (masquerading as deists most of the time) — Thorongil

Very well stated response in general, Thorongil, but especially this part. Nowhere do I see any adequate explanations for why the "first cause" must be external and somehow have its own personality while simultaneously not being under the influence of causal relations.

Atheism is much too strong of a position, in my tastes. Agnostic deism seems to be where I fit the best, at least currently.

Alright, here we go!

I particularly enjoyed the introduction, and how it highlighted how faith necessarily needs a rational basis. Not that I actually take faith to be a good thing or have faith in a deity, but I'll be charitable.

ARGUMENT #1: THE ARGUMENT FROM CHANGE

"Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it."

This is quite unscientific. These "desires" and "wills" come about from interacting molecules. Also, a chemical reaction occurring within a flask changes itself as the reaction goes underway. If we break down an object into its constituents, we might just find that some of them actually do change the overall consistency of the object. Granted, this seems like this requires an external catalyzing agent.

"Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change."

I'm not convinced by the assertion that everything in the universe is under the influence of causality. Why is pantheism disregarded here? Why can't the causal agent be the universe itself?

Furthermore, how can an unchanging entity outside of the universe act in such a way that causes change? Would that require this unchanging entity to change? Sounds like this actuality is actually just logical necessary; it could not fail to happen. Which kind of goes against certain conceptions of god.

ARGUMENT #2: THE ARGUMENT FROM EFFICIENT CAUSALITY

Keep in mind that causality is by no means an uncontentious metaphysical topic.

"Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be."

Agreed, although all this means is that there has to be some kind of actuality. Why this cannot be part of the universe is never explained.

"But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright."

Why can't the concrete ground be seen as the source of actuality? Why can't we hypothesize the existence of a type of substance in the universe that chugs out causality?

All of these causality arguments are founded upon unsubstantiated claims of the the nature of the universe.

ARGUMENT #3: THE ARGUMENT FROM TIME AND CONTINGENCY

This section seems to operate under the assumption that contingency is possible. The fact that we can imagine the universe not being the way it is is no argument for any kind of contingent modality.

If we are to go the modality route, why not argue that all possible worlds exist? We can use David Lewis' modality, Derek Parfit's analysis, and possibly even modern physics to argue this.

ARGUMENT #4: THE ARGUMENT FROM DEGREES OF PERFECTION
"So we arrange some things in terms of more and less. And when we do, we naturally think of them on a scale approaching most and least."

A scale that depends purely on our own experiences. To say "dark" describes the "perfection of blackness" is disingenuous; there exist a huge spectrum of EM radiation outside of our vision.

"Now when we think of the goodness of things, part of what we mean relates to what they are simply as beings."

Why should we accept that "goodness" and "badness" exist objectively?

"Why? Because we apprehend at a deep (but not always conscious) level that being is the source and condition of all value; finally and ultimately, being is better than nonbeing."

Heh...I don't think that's exactly uncontentious.

ARGUMENT #5: THE ARGUMENT OF DESIGN

Just like any other teleological argument, this is just an argument from incredulity.

"The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder."

No, it doesn't. In fact it exhibits a rather large amount of unintelligibility. Intelligibility stems from our own rationality, and it's quite obvious that our rationality is not exactly, well, perfect.

"The first premise is certainly true-even those resistant to the argument admit it. The person who did not would have to be almost pathetically obtuse. A single protein molecule is a thing of immensely impressive order; much more so a single cell; and incredibly much more so an organ like the eye, where ordered parts of enormous and delicate complexity work together with countless others to achieve a single certain end. Even chemical elements are ordered to combine with other elements in certain ways and under certain conditions. Apparent disorder is a problem precisely because of the overwhelming pervasiveness of order and regularity. So the first premise stands."

Bullshit. The argument fails to account for the great amount of time that the universe has been around for and can therefore exhibit "designed" tendencies through natural selection (both biological and non-biological).

"If all this order is not in some way the product of intelligent design—then what? Obviously, it "just happened." Things just fell out that way "by chance."

"By chance" is seen as like the Boeing 747 gambit. Except it's completely wrong. Nothing just appears like this, it undergoes refining over a massive amount of time.

"In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order."

This screams of incredulity.

"Question 2: Maybe it is only in this region of the universe that order is to be found. Maybe there are other parts unknown to us that are completely chaotic—or maybe the universe will one day in the future become chaotic. What becomes of the argument then?
Reply: Believers and nonbelievers both experience the same universe. It is this which is either designed or not."

Incredulity. And perhaps this is only one of many possible universes.

ARGUMENT #6: THE KALAM ARGUMENT

"1Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2The universe began to exist.
3Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
Grant the first premise. (Most people—outside of asylums and graduate schools would consider it not only true, but certainly and obviously true.)"

Then perhaps the common sense reasoning is flawed. #1 may be argued against by quantum mechanics. #2 is unfounded: the "causality-dependent" universe "began" to exist, there's nothing to say that the "non-causality-dependent" universe was always around.

Therefore #3 is not necessarily true.

"Is the second premise true? Did the universe—the collection of all things bounded by space and time—begin to exist? This premise has recently received powerful support from natural science—from so-called Big Bang Cosmology."

This misunderstands the Big Bang theory of cosmology.

"It must somehow stand outside the limitations and constraints of space and time."

I'm not entirely sure how uncontentious this is. But it seems to me that we can postulate the existence of abstract objects that don't exist in the spatio-temporal world, and yet are still seen as "part" of the universe.

ARGUMENT #7: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONTINGENCY

"Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time."

Why is has to be a god is not clear. Why a thing of pure actuality must be a god and must be "outside" of the universe is not clear.

"Question 1: But why should we call this cause "God"? Maybe there is something unknown that grounds the universe of change we live in.
Reply: True. And this "unknown" is God. What we humans know directly is this sensible changing world. We also know that there must exist whatever it takes for something to exist. Therefore, we know that neither this changing universe as a whole nor any part of it can be itself what it takes for the universe to exist. But we have now such direct knowledge of the cause of changing things. We know that there must exist a cause; we know that this cause cannot be finite or material—that it must transcend such limitations. But what this ultimate cause is in itself remains, so far, a mystery."

Oh, I see. Not really, though.

"But at least we would know what path of questioning to pursue; at least we would know that someone did it."

NO! At least, not necessarily. Again why this has to be a "someone" is not made clear. Screams of anthropomorphism to me.

ARGUMENT #8: THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WORLD AS AN INTERACTING WHOLE
I found this to be a little confusing. But I still got the incredulity-vibe from it. Discussion over this would be appreciated.

ARGUMENT #9: THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES

"After all, to call some happening a miracle is to interpret it religiously. But to interpret it that way demands a context or setting which invites such interpretation. And part of this setting usually, though not always, involves a person whose moral authority is first recognized, and whose religious authority, which the miracle seems to confirm, is then acknowledged."

What if you reject moral and religious authoritarian figures?

"But miraculous events exist. Indeed, there is massive, reliable testimony to them across many times, places and cultures.
Therefore their cause exists.
And their only adequate cause is God.
Therefore God exists."

What a load of garbage. There are far more miracles attested in the past that ended up as being purely natural phenomenon.

ARGUMENT #10: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIOUSNESS

"When we experience the tremendous order and intelligibility in the universe, we are experiencing something intelligence can grasp. Intelligence is part of what we find in the world. But this universe is not itself intellectually aware. As great as the forces of nature are, they do not know themselves."

Asserted but not justified. Surely a conscious universe is just as "crazy" as the existence of a god.

"Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance."

BECAUSE OUR MINDS ARE THE PRODUCT OF EVOLUTION. IF THEY COULD NOT ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE UNIVERSE, WE WOULD HAVE DIED OUT.

The incredulity is becoming incredulous.

" If naturalism is true, Lewis argued, then it seems to leave us with no reason for believing it to be true; for all judgments would equally and ultimately be the result of nonrational forces."

Incredulity once again. Our opinions of how our thought works has no influence on how it actually is. It's not as if our thought is a simple reaction, either.

ARGUMENT #11: THE ARGUMENT FROM TRUTH

"Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being."

Can they?

None of this argument makes any sense. Why truths cannot just reside in a temporary mind as beliefs is beyond me.

ARGUMENT #12: THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF GOD

"This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause."

I beg to differ about perfection. Rubbish. How are we measuring "greater than"? A little firecracker can produce a brilliant explosion.

And let's be honest here, the conception of god does not stem from "ideas of perfection". It stems from not knowing what the hell something is, and then rationalization take place afterwards.

ARGUMENT #13: THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I can safely say (as the authors themselves do in the introduction) that this is a very flawed argument. It's not taken seriously today.

ARGUMENT #14: THE MORAL ARGUMENT

The authors claim that if ethical subjectivism is proven false, then this argument succeeds in the first premise. Not only is this a simplification of what I see to be the entire field of ethics, but their argument against ethical subjectivism isn't even that compelling.:

"(Many think they are, and say they are—until they suffer violence or injustice. In that case they invariably stand with the rest of us in recognizing that certain things ought never to be done.)"

Quite anecdotal, not to mention that perhaps this isn't what would happen all the time?

The argument is begging the question.

ARGUMENT #15: THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE

The authors assert that ethical subjectivism is popular today. I was not aware and don't know of any references that could help me with this. In fact, I thought it was rather unpopular.

"How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?"

VERY EASILY: see, empathy and the survival of a group of animals.

"If we are the products of a good and loving Creator, this explains why we have a nature that discovers a value that is really there. But how can atheists explain this? For if atheists are right, then no objective moral values can exist. Dostoyevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Atheists may know that some things are not permissible, but they do not know why."

Sounds like the Euthyphro Dilemma to me. Why is god seen as good? Why is whatever god does, good? And why is the Dostoyevsky quote seen as a "bad" thing? Again, it is begging the question.

"The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will, morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience."

ayy, that's scary stuff right there.

"Morality exists only on the level of persons, spirits, souls, minds, wills—not mere molecules."

I was not aware of this. Nor do I find it convincing.

ARGUMENT #16: THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE

"Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.
This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."

This implies that god programmed us to be obedient and wanting his companionship. Which is quite ridiculous and scary.

I like Zapffe's theory that the universe is unable to provide for the existential needs of a human being. We literally became too smart for our own good and our reality became a shambled, desolate desert.

Also, I would be willing to bet that if someone were in bliss, they might not care about god.

I will contend though that this is one of the arguments that made me think a little. But again, it's basically just incredulity and sourced from an inflated ego.

" This denial may take two forms. First, one may say, "Although I am not perfectly happy now, I believe I would be if only I had ten million dollars, a Lear jet, and a new mistress every day." The reply to this is, of course, "Try it. You won't like it." It's been tried and has never satisfied. In fact, billions of people have performed and are even now performing trillions of such experiments, desperately seeking the ever-elusive satisfaction they crave. For even if they won the whole world, it would not be enough to fill one human heart."

So, Buddhism or Schopenhauer. Neither affirm the existence of a god.

This desire can be explained by the hedonistic treadmill, that resulted from evolution.

Furthermore, many of tried the whole "god thing" and found it unfulfilling.

ARGUMENT #17: THE ARGUMENT FROM AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE

Lame.

ARGUMENT #18: THE ARGUMENT FROM RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

"It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience."

No, it's not. All it shows is that humanity has a history of bad rationality.

Once again, incredulity at the fact that our religious experiences are caused by temporal lobe lesions.

"You cannot say ahead of time how it will affect you. But it is evidence; it has persuaded many; and it cannot be ignored. "

Many people have experienced ghosts...this does not mean ghosts exist.

ARGUMENT #19: THE COMMON CONSENT ARGUMENT

"True enough, it is conceivable that this side of our nature is doomed to frustration; it is thinkable that those millions upon millions who claim to have found the Holy One who is worthy of reverence and worship were deluded. But is it likely?"

Probably.

"It seems far more likely that those who refuse to believe are the ones suffering from deprivation and delusion—like the tone-deaf person who denies the existence of music, or the frightened tenant who tells herself she doesn't hear cries of terror and distress coming from the street below and, when her children awaken to the sounds and ask her, "Why is that lady screaming, Mommy?" tells them, "Nobody's screaming: it's just the wind, that's all. Go back to sleep."

Sucks to be the ones who don't get to experience this great god, huh?

"This is not really a naturalistic explanation of religious belief. It is no more than a statement, dressed in psychological jargon, that religious belief is false. You begin from the assumption that God does not exist. Then you figure that since the closest earthly symbol for the Creator is a father, God must be a cosmic projection of our human fathers. But apart from the assumption of atheism, there is no compelling evidence at all that God is a mere projection.
In fact, the argument begs the question."

The irony!

ARGUMENT #20: PASCAL'S WAGER

I'll admit it, this is the most convincing "argument" for god. Basically, believe in god to save your own ass or get a cool reward after you die.

" If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him."

If god wants my obedience, he can ask for it. Nobody deserves that, though. Not with suffering.

"The Wager cannot—or should not—coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguments that seek to show that there is Something—or Someone—who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life."

Key word: Something. Not necessarily someone, and most definitely not anything that is worthy of worship.

Alright, cool, that was fun! It sure looks like most of these arguments are either begging the question or arguing from incredulity, or both.

I am. Why?

This is where the real evaluation takes place in my view; that is, what (ultimately) groundless presuppositions are the most plausible? — John

Sweet, this rings very true with me. Philosophy, in my opinion, should be about untangling the crap in our minds and clarifying the basic suppositions of life. It's when grand theories begin to be stated that things get way too twisted and out of touch with reality.

Interesting response, Mongrel. I share your annoyance with a lot of philosophical "deep-shit" philosophy that hides behind sophisticated word-language. As I like to say, I hate quasi-sophisticated, pretentious fucks. Q.E.D. Why on earth it's so hard just to say what you're trying to say without using a thesaurus is beyond me.

But maybe it's because I'm stupid. :-d

Or maybe it's because some of these philosophers realized they made a mistake pursuing a degree in philosophy and now have to compensate. Or maybe it's because reason (and intimidating wordplay) is too often used to justify bullshit.