Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
I have already answered these questions. The train leads to nihilism. God is the result of attempting to overcome nihilism. But the conception of God that nihilism leads to is not the same as that found in the Bible, which tends to anthropomorphise God. God must be something above man which man can strive towards but never achieve, otherwise all of man's striving is just a closed circle, the snake eating its own tail.
|
There's a couple of huge presumptions here. The first, of course, is that a closed circle is a bad thing. Another is that the idea of a God somehow breaks us out of a circle. By adding God to the equation, you aren't solving the problems, you're just transferring them. The same questions still exist, they just become questions about God instead of questions about humanity: What is God's purpose? Why should God endeavor to create morality? Etc., etc., the snake is still eating its own tail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
This idea of God also implies that man's purpose is to overcome his own nature, which is the goal of morality.
|
What makes you think that the goal of morality is for "man to overcome his own nature"? To me, it seems like the goal of morality is to create as pleasant a life experience as possible for ourselves and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
I'm not trying to prove that this concept of God is real, that would be completely absurd. I'm just arguing it is necessary for morality. This concept of God is not one that's going to talk to you and tell you what to do, in fact, it is the complete opposite: this God sits entirely outside experience.
|
So how can you possibly derive a moral code from a being that sits completely outside of experience? If he has no communication with humanity, then how can he be of any assistance with regard to morality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
Experience does not give us God, in fact, experience gives us futility. Thus we are compelled to either move beyond experience or to embrace futility and thus reject morality.
|
Sorry, but this is a false dichotomy. You have given no reasons for this either/or statement. What's to prevent someone from embracing experience and morality at the same time?