Is God necessary for morality?

[Immanuel Can]

I have a problem with causal chains.

Okay, then we have to pause there, because that's a premise to the mathematical argument.

Is it your supposition that things can happen for which there are no causes?

[Ginkgo]

I have a problem with causal chains.

Okay, then we have to pause there, because that's a premise to the mathematical argument.

Is it your supposition that things can happen for which there are no causes?

In the physical world, no. In the quantum world, yes.

[Belinda]

I am pointing to the sorts of causes there are. From one point of view the cause of creation is God. Okay. From the point of view of eternity God never ceases to create as He is immanent cause.He is both the algorithm itself and also the products of the algorithm.

Not following you, B.

Was there a point?

My leading point is it's not false to say God caused creation. But it's a little misleading because God is both how creation works, and also He is each and all of the multitudinous things and events . So God is immanent in time and space. You may not like the immanence of God , because the immanence of God fits so well with pantheism. Theists generally prefer to concentrate on the essence of God instead of what God does.

[Immanuel Can]

I have a problem with causal chains.

Okay, then we have to pause there, because that's a premise to the mathematical argument.

Is it your supposition that things can happen for which there are no causes?

In the physical world, no. In the quantum world, yes.

Well, I won't challenge that claim. Let's just consider instead what it means, logically.

You're suggesting that "the physical world" looks like a cause-and-effect world, but it's really "the quantum world"...where you believe cause-and-effect doesn't always apply? Because it's really the same "world," isn't it? It's not like the term "quantum" applies to somewhere actually different from "physical"...

So you do not believe that cause-and-effect are real?

[Immanuel Can]

I am pointing to the sorts of causes there are. From one point of view the cause of creation is God. Okay. From the point of view of eternity God never ceases to create as He is immanent cause.He is both the algorithm itself and also the products of the algorithm.

Not following you, B.

Was there a point?

My leading point is it's not false to say God caused creation. But it's a little misleading because God is both how creation works, and also He is each and all of the multitudinous things and events .

Oh. That's Pantheism.

No, I'm not on board with that. God is not identical with His Creation.

("Immanence" means something quite different from Pantheism, and from the way you're using it, by the way. It doesn't mean God is identical with His own Creation. It means He indwells or is with that Creation, but it is not Him.

Here's a short, understandable summary on it, from theologian John Frame:

"The terms transcendence and immanence are not found in most versions of the Bible, but they are common in the theological literature to designate two kinds of relationships between God and human beings. In general, to say that God is transcendent is to say that he is exalted, above, beyond us. To say that God is immanent is to say that he is present in time and space, that he is near us. There is no biblical term that captures all of what theologians want to say about God’s transcendence, but the idea of immanence is helpfully summarized in the term Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23)."

[uwot]

God is not identical with His Creation.

Indeed, the whole point of christianity is that there is something so much better and more beautiful than the stuff that the universe is made of. However metaphorically you wish to interpret this, the bible tells us we are made of dirt.

There is no biblical term that captures all of what theologians want to say about God’s transcendence, but the idea of immanence is helpfully summarized in the term Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23)."

Or as the Nazis put it 'Gott mit uns', the slogan on the belt buckle of every member of the Wehrmacht.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted:

"The terms transcendence and immanence are not found in most versions of the Bible, but they are common in the theological literature to designate two kinds of relationships between God and human beings. In general, to say that God is transcendent is to say that he is exalted, above, beyond us. To say that God is immanent is to say that he is present in time and space, that he is near us. There is no biblical term that captures all of what theologians want to say about God’s transcendence, but the idea of immanence is helpfully summarized in the term Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23)."

Thank you.

I understand how the Virgin Birth may be interpreted as God with us. As usual I prefer meaning to be arising from the human but not from an agent above and beyond the human. The Virgin Birth then means to me and other relativists that the Virgin symbolises human consciousness and
'her' consciousness is fertilised by the continual human pursuit of meaning. Meaning is naturally subjective or intersubjective, so meaning depends upon the perspective of the subject.

I also understand how you understand God as external to men and how He is the originator of good in men, and indeed how He originated the whole creation as an actual event in time.

[Ginkgo]

So you do not believe that cause-and-effect are real?

Yes. I introduced my quantum concept a bit too early. I will return to that later. So, please go on with your argument.

[Immanuel Can]

So you do not believe that cause-and-effect are real?

Yes. I introduced my quantum concept a bit too early. I will return to that later. So, please go on with your argument.

This is actually an important point. We must make it clear.

Do you believe things can begin without causes? Are there things for which no prior explanation of cause is even possible?

What would an example of such a thing be?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can quoted:

"The terms transcendence and immanence are not found in most versions of the Bible, but they are common in the theological literature to designate two kinds of relationships between God and human beings. In general, to say that God is transcendent is to say that he is exalted, above, beyond us. To say that God is immanent is to say that he is present in time and space, that he is near us. There is no biblical term that captures all of what theologians want to say about God’s transcendence, but the idea of immanence is helpfully summarized in the term Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23)."

Thank you.

Well, then you understand that immanence doesn't mean what Pantheism needs it to mean.

Meaning is naturally subjective or intersubjective, so meaning depends upon the perspective of the subject.

Not "subjective." One can make imaginary false meanings for things, but one cannot make anything inherently meaningful. In a secular cosmos, nothing has inherent meaning; and "meaning" is a delusion in which humans happen to indulge...no more than that.

In contrast, Theism sees the cosmos as inherently meaningful, because it is the deliberate creating of a God who "meant" something by everything He created, and indeed, by the entire drama of the cosmos itself, all things in it included. So Theists discover meaning...they don't invent it, and they certainly don't generate it subjectively. And nothing at all about meaning depends on the perspective of a human being. Human perspectives, as you well know from experience, I'm sure, are often very, very wrong.

This implies also that "intersubjectivity" is also wrong. For it is not mankind who generates any part of the inherent meaning of the universe. I mean, think about it: how can a being that is born without his/her knowledge or intention, lives only for a minuscule span of cosmic time, in a tiny corner of the universe, with little actual power over anything, then winks out forever like a snuffed candle be capable of producing meaning?

There is but one great Source of meaning. That is, the mind of God. Human beings are rather "meaning detectors," who unfold the truth about the meaning God has already instilled into the cosmos. It's objective, and it's there to be discovered. But man doesn't "make" it.

[Skepdick]

Not "subjective." One can make imaginary false meanings for things, but one cannot make anything inherently meaningful. In a secular cosmos, nothing has inherent meaning; and "meaning" is a delusion in which humans happen to indulge...no more than that.

In contrast, Theism sees the cosmos as inherently meaningful, because it is the deliberate creating of a God who "meant" something by everything He created, and indeed, by the entire drama of the cosmos itself, all things in it included. So Theists discover meaning...they don't invent it, and they certainly don't generate it subjectively. And nothing at all about meaning depends on the perspective of a human being. Human perspectives, as you well know from experience, I'm sure, are often very, very wrong.

This implies also that "intersubjectivity" is also wrong. For it is not mankind who generates any part of the inherent meaning of the universe. I mean, think about it: how can a being that is born without his/her knowledge or intention, lives only for a minuscule span of cosmic time, in a tiny corner of the universe, with little actual power over anything, then winks out forever like a snuffed candle be capable of producing meaning?

There is but one great Source of meaning. That is, the mind of God. Human beings are rather "meaning detectors," who unfold the truth about the meaning God has already instilled into the cosmos. It's objective, and it's there to be discovered. But man doesn't "make" it.

Word salad. If truth and meaning are different concept then what does it mean for meaning to be true?

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/322

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can quoted:

"The terms transcendence and immanence are not found in most versions of the Bible, but they are common in the theological literature to designate two kinds of relationships between God and human beings. In general, to say that God is transcendent is to say that he is exalted, above, beyond us. To say that God is immanent is to say that he is present in time and space, that he is near us. There is no biblical term that captures all of what theologians want to say about God’s transcendence, but the idea of immanence is helpfully summarized in the term Immanuel, God with us (Isa. 7:14; 8:8; Matt. 1:23)."

Thank you.

Well, then you understand that immanence doesn't mean what Pantheism needs it to mean.

Meaning is naturally subjective or intersubjective, so meaning depends upon the perspective of the subject.

Not "subjective." One can make imaginary false meanings for things, but one cannot make anything inherently meaningful. In a secular cosmos, nothing has inherent meaning; and "meaning" is a delusion in which humans happen to indulge...no more than that.

In contrast, Theism sees the cosmos as inherently meaningful, because it is the deliberate creating of a God who "meant" something by everything He created, and indeed, by the entire drama of the cosmos itself, all things in it included. So Theists discover meaning...they don't invent it, and they certainly don't generate it subjectively. And nothing at all about meaning depends on the perspective of a human being. Human perspectives, as you well know from experience, I'm sure, are often very, very wrong.

This implies also that "intersubjectivity" is also wrong. For it is not mankind who generates any part of the inherent meaning of the universe. I mean, think about it: how can a being that is born without his/her knowledge or intention, lives only for a minuscule span of cosmic time, in a tiny corner of the universe, with little actual power over anything, then winks out forever like a snuffed candle be capable of producing meaning?

There is but one great Source of meaning. That is, the mind of God. Human beings are rather "meaning detectors," who unfold the truth about the meaning God has already instilled into the cosmos. It's objective, and it's there to be discovered. But man doesn't "make" it.

Yes, I do understand theists hold God transcends creation as well as being present in creation.
I also understand all your explanation about the cosmos as inherently meaningful. I used to believe it was, so I understand the theists' point of view, and I even respect it as how could I not having been reared by Xians.

Pantheists don't hold with the transcendence of God but they agree with the immanence of God i.e. God-or-nature. Nature is now understood by scientists to be movable. By "movable" I mean in the sense that science is based on inductive reasoning which is never conclusive, and is ideas based on inductive reason are subject to falsifiability and paradigm shift, so that there is no inherent nature except for existence itself.

Men are bound to their particular cultures and can't be otherwise: no man has ever lived another man's life. Yet God is not dead, because God is not only immanent but has resurrected to be a name for the striving for good that all men need if only to stay alive.

[Immanuel Can]

If truth and meaning are different concept then what does it mean for meaning to be true?

They're not.

"Meaning" refers to teleology, which can be correctly or incorrectly imputed. "True" refers to the truth-value of the same. Or we might say, "true" relates adjectivally to the noun "meaning." In other words, it acts as a modifier.

You can have "false meaning" too, so "true" is not redundant.

However, you do (inadvertently?) point out a serious problem -- a fatal problem, in fact -- with the idea of any "human-based meaning."

IF all "meanings" are equally dignified and equally "true" merely by way of the fact that some human being imagines them or wants them to be true, then none is ever "true" or "false." To have any one "meaning" at all would then be as "true" or "false" as any other...which is to say, all would be false, since none reflects any truth about reality. They're all nothing but frauds, all empty sugar-coatings on a reality that would itself be inherently meaningless.

And then you're right: "true" and "meaning" would have no relationship to one another.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the theists' point of view, and I even respect it as how could I not having been reared by Xians.

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not you should "respect" a thing. A thing should be respected because of its truth value, not because of a history one has with it. Were it otherwise, you might have to say that all people raised in Germany under Hitler should "respect" Nazism.

By "movable" I mean in the sense that science is based on inductive reasoning which is never conclusive, and is ideas based on inductive reason are subject to falsifiability and paradigm shift, so that there is no inherent nature except for existence itself.

That doesn't follow, logically. It does not follow that if a thing is falsifiable you should doubt it. Popper's argument is to the effect that good science is always potentially falsifiable, even if it's not falsified. And a paradigm shift (Kuhn) refers to a change in epistemology, and says nothing at all about ontology.

So it does not follow from either that there is "no inherent nature." In fact, both Popper and Kuhn had to believe there is, or nothing could be falsified, and nothing could warrant a paradigm shift.

Men are bound to their particular cultures and can't be otherwise...

If this were true, you could not have stopped being a Christian and become a Pantheist. But you did, you say...so you've just falsified that claim. People can convert from one view to the other...you're a case in point.

[Belinda]

I understand the theists' point of view, and I even respect it as how could I not having been reared by Xians.

That's interesting, but irrelevant to the question of whether or not you should "respect" a thing. A thing should be respected because of its truth value, not because of a history one has with it. Were it otherwise, you might have to say that all people raised in Germany under Hitler should "respect" Nazism.

By "movable" I mean in the sense that science is based on inductive reasoning which is never conclusive, and is ideas based on inductive reason are subject to falsifiability and paradigm shift, so that there is no inherent nature except for existence itself.

That doesn't follow, logically. It does not follow that if a thing is falsifiable you should doubt it. Popper's argument is to the effect that good science is always potentially falsifiable, even if it's not falsified. And a paradigm shift (Kuhn) refers to a change in epistemology, and says nothing at all about ontology.

So it does not follow from either that there is "no inherent nature." In fact, both Popper and Kuhn had to believe there is, or nothing could be falsified, and nothing could warrant a paradigm shift.

Men are bound to their particular cultures and can't be otherwise...

If this were true, you could not have stopped being a Christian and become a Pantheist. But you did, you say...so you've just falsified that claim. People can convert from one view to the other...you're a case in point.

I did not claim Popper and Kuhn were relativists, and don't know whether they were or not.I think it's likely both philosophers thought they could not have any ideas at all unless they had some previous background of belief that could evolve with changing experiences.

People reared as Nazis would after half a century respect Nazism only if the Nazis who were their significant others had been lovable people. I have no reason to change my mind or affections about any Christians I have known, but many Germans have reason to change their minds and affections about Nazis they respected during their childhoods.

As long as there are living people who belong to a culture that culture changes through time. All of us have changed through time as our experiences alter our brain-minds. I became a little better informed about what intellectual choices I had. I became more interested in philosophy and religion, while retaining my respect for the beliefs of people who were good people.All this is nothing to do with not believing anything or not learning new practices, such as how to drive a car for instance. Cultures are cultures of beliefs and practices; they evolve.