Value and it being proof of God.

[A Vestigial Mote]

The argument is this and simple:

Humans have objective value.
Humans would not have objective value without God.

I see this as a blatant attempt to appeal to the human ego - which prizes itself (most likely to foster self-preservation) and plays host to things like arrogance and conceit. And, in fact, many people DO believe that they have some objective value - at which point their conceit is shown to be working in full swing - and possibly overtime in many people's cases. As people hear your argument, and find themselves not wanting to admit that they may not actually have objective value, they might find themselves succumbing to your "logic" (if you can call it this), and agreeing with you. Unfortunately for you, all this means is that you will have a bunch of arrogant people as members of "Team Link."

 

[Link]

It's rather ego that denies value from God and fails to appreciate it, and it's love by definition that values and believes in and recognizes and appreciates value for what it is.

 

[Friend of Mara]

(1) If God doesn't exist, what is a human's value?
(2) What is the measurement and criteria of the human's value if God doesn't exist?
(3) How did evolution bring us to value objectively and not in illusionary magical made up way?

1: Entirely dependent upon situation and circumstances.
2. Typically society gives certain members more or less value depending on various things. Examples are the traincart problem, if a child and an old person are drowning and you can only save one. Ect. And almost always you have ingroup preferences over outgroup. Otherwise we would just view war as mass murder as the lives of the enemy soldiers would have just as much value and meaning as our own family. The fact that we have these different values means that it is personal. For example my mom means more to me than she does to you. I mean more to some people than I would to a total stranger. Given many of my....attributes... I am not valued at all in whole parts of the world.
3. Given our highly social nature and evolution as such we have not only logical but emotional trends that have helped us survive. If we were all psychopaths then we could live in a society. And those that are able to live in society have greater benefits than those that don't. The lone wolf dies off and the collaborators thrived. It gets far more complicated than that but its a simplification. It also explains why in our societies we have variances of values. Its also why we tend to hold our ingroup more dear and not only that there are layers to our ingroup. For example its pretty common to have most valued people go; children, partner, relatives/friends, community, tribe, other tribes.

I believe God's light and value himself is the basis of all value, he lives with all things in this sense and is immersed with them.

If you deny or doubt the first premise, here are some questions:

(1) Why do believe in value and love human beings and appreciate states of being in form of good actions and will of humans?
(2) How do you know humans don't objective value?
(3) If we do have objective value, should we doubt it?
(4) If we do perceive objective value, why should we doubt anything about it including if it's God's light?

1. Because empathy is a developed trait that allows us to understand others and sympathize. We, as well as many other animals, also have a sense of fairness. Fairness is a key component to cooperation. Without fairness cooperation is impossible. So those that developed empathy and also a sense of fairness (justice as it is sometimes referred) thrived better than those that did not.
2. We argue about morals and values every day. Those morals and values differ from culture to culture and even person to person within homogenous communities and families. If people had objective value to each other then we wouldn't murder or have wars. Yet we do. Colonialism is an excellent example of how whole nations of people can reject the value of other peoples simply to obtain resources.
3. I believe all people have value. Though that is a consequence of my moral framework. The lengthy explanation of how I think the world should be run wouldn't fit here and probably isn't very relevant to the conversation.
4. Well even if we said we had objective value, which I don't, why would it be god? I could come up with alternative answers that explain the phenomenon equally to "it is from god". It isn't self evident even if objective morality is granted.

 

[Kooky]

So what is the objective value of humans, then?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Another "proof" of God that changes no minds?

The sine qua non of a proof is that it convinces. You were unsure before, or had a wrong notion, but now you are convinced. That's a proof. Even if fallacious, even if specious, if an argument convinces, then it proved something to somebody. Contrariwise, if nobody's mind was changed, then how is this "proof" different from something that you wouldn't call a proof?

Let me rephrase that. If you call something a joke, but nobody ever laughs at it or considers it funny, is it correct to keep calling it a joke?

“Knock, knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“Guitar.”
“Guitar who?”
“Guitar if you don’t have a house!”

This is a joke in the same sense that bare, unsupported claims such as "humans have objective value" and "humans would not have objective value without God" are a proof of God.

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

The argument is this and simple:

Humans have objective value.
Humans would not have objective value without God.

Another way to phrase this:

The value of humans is not illusionary but an objective reality.
Without God, there is no objective reality to the value of human beings.

This simple argument would prove God.

I've for years agued for both premises. I will not do so in this thread, but in another one, but just want to see people thoughts on each.

The following I hope will be responded in posts if people deny the 2nd premise:

(1) If God doesn't exist, what is a human's value?
(2) What is the measurement and criteria of the human's value if God doesn't exist?
(3) How did evolution bring us to value objectively and not in illusionary magical made up way?

I believe God's light and value himself is the basis of all value, he lives with all things in this sense and is immersed with them.

If you deny or doubt the first premise, here are some questions:

(1) Why do believe in value and love human beings and appreciate states of being in form of good actions and will of humans?
(2) How do you know humans don't objective value?
(3) If we do have objective value, should we doubt it?
(4) If we do perceive objective value, why should we doubt anything about it including if it's God's light?

I think that "atheism" is an illusionary word for people who do acknowledge God, but they give everything a different name.
They say there is morality, and if you push them, they say, hmmm, just because. Or evolution.

They say there is meaning, and if you push them they say, Because I say there is meaning. Because a child's smile.

In other words, an atheist is someone who is not concerned with something having its correct name. They are just concerned with rejecting God.

Why do they reject God?
I suppose for any number of reasons personal to them. But in terms of rational discussion, I am very sceptical that they can be convinced otherwise. You may as well talk in nonsense rhymes.

Per your phrasing, I actually think that the subjective/ objective distinction is a cause of much confusion and intellectual dead-ends, and actually wouldn't allow for God. Why not?

Because if there is this thing called "the subjective", then by definition, surely, "the objective" would be unknowable. Furthermore, "the objective" would be so, because it wouldn't come from a "subjective" (i.e. personal) source.

In other words, it would be "scientific" - but as we know that scientific truth is impossible, an oxymoron, and all we have is scientists and their theories, then we know that this "objective" is also not possible.

 

[osgart]

I think human value is based on an individual's potential for love, charity and wisdom toward others. Having those intentions makes one valuable.

Intentions can't always be realized. But without intentions there is no actions. Value rests inside intentions.

Society operates out of systems of self interest and equal exchanges of value; much different than charity. Charity is what you give freely without expectation in order to make the world better off. Everyone benefits from charity. Charity can be simple acts of kindness, or other things.

Wisdom knows how to apply love, and charity. It's not blindly giving to those who abuse what's given. It's about giving where one can make a positive difference.

It's in these three qualities that human value rests.

If a God were to exist then I'm sure God would desire other living creatures to have intrinsic value in and of themselves. Otherwise God would have to be a strict father figure forever and ever to those who don't even care but only rely on God to keep them on the right path. At some point fear should turn to love, and people ought go about being valuable in and of themselves. If God's ways are all good ways then humanity ought to adopt those ways and make themselves valuable.

The question becomes can humanity be valuable in and of themselves. If they can then they make friends of such a God. Otherwise they are begging for mercy , and blind to values.

I believe humanity can be valuable on their own accord.

I don't believe in God. But the idea of God offers productive insights. If God is existent and right, and humanity is solely relying on God's mercy so be it. Good then! I just don't think that God exists for other reasons.

 

[ecco]

The argument is this and simple:

Humans have objective value.
Humans would not have objective value without God.

Where is evidence for your assertion?

The following I hope will be responded in posts if people deny the 2nd premise:

(1) If God doesn't exist, what is a human's value?
(2) What is the measurement and criteria of the human's value if God doesn't exist?

I'll ask you...
(1) If God exists, what is a human's value?
(2) What is the measurement and criteria of the human's value if God exists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The argument is this and simple:

Humans have objective value.
Humans would not have objective value without God.

Another way to phrase this:

The value of humans is not illusionary but an objective reality.
Without God, there is no objective reality to the value of human beings.

This simple argument would prove God.

If the worth of a human being were contingent on God, then it would not be objective.

 

[firedragon]

Not a good start. Value itself is a subjective concept.

Thats a debate of its own.

Yet I would like to hear your proof(s) to that statement.

 

[sayak83]

The argument is this and simple:

Humans have objective value.
Humans would not have objective value without God.

Another way to phrase this:

The value of humans is not illusionary but an objective reality.
Without God, there is no objective reality to the value of human beings.

This simple argument would prove God.

I've for years agued for both premises. I will not do so in this thread, but in another one, but just want to see people thoughts on each.

The following I hope will be responded in posts if people deny the 2nd premise:

(1) If God doesn't exist, what is a human's value?
(2) What is the measurement and criteria of the human's value if God doesn't exist?
(3) How did evolution bring us to value objectively and not in illusionary magical made up way?

I believe God's light and value himself is the basis of all value, he lives with all things in this sense and is immersed with them.

If you deny or doubt the first premise, here are some questions:

(1) Why do believe in value and love human beings and appreciate states of being in form of good actions and will of humans?
(2) How do you know humans don't objective value?
(3) If we do have objective value, should we doubt it?
(4) If we do perceive objective value, why should we doubt anything about it including if it's God's light?

I do not perceive objective value. The idea of objective value is INCOHERENT. Something can have value only in relation to a entity that can ascribe value. There are many many such entities who can ascribe value (cats, dogs, humans, elephants, gods, demons etc.) and each ascription is dependent on the mental properties of the evaluating entity along with the properties of the object being valued. Mental properties of every entity who can ascribe value is different and unique from one another. So all valuations will be unique, each entity or being will necessarily ascribe different values to the object he/she/it is evaluating. Hence, there can be no such thing as an unique objective value to anything or anyone. Objective value does not and CANNOT exist, by definition of what it means to value things.
The end.

 

[Magical Wand]

Hi, I'm new here. Experimenting this website. I hope it is good as it seems!

So, I reject the premise that morality is objective (in the sense that it exists or obtains outside of human minds).

The reason is very simple. I can subjectively differentiate between an objective feature of reality and a feeling or emotion. I can't provide an argument proving it is not objective, the same way I can't really prove I'm able to experience what it is like to feel love and fear. But I know it is a product of my mind rather than something I can "sense" objectively, the same way I sense a tree or the blue sky.

Anyway, I can say more about this, but let's see what's your response.

(Btw: what are some other forums and websites you guys use to discuss the topic of religion, science, philosophy and apologetics? I would appreciate some recommendations.)

 

[firedragon]

I don't think humans can know whether they have objective value. IOW it would be beyond what humans are capable of knowing.

How would one approach this what you called "knowing"?

If one is to do a research and "get to know", what do you think would be the path?

 

[firedragon]

The reason is very simple. I can subjectively differentiate between an objective feature of reality and a feeling or emotion. I can't provide an argument proving it is not objective, the same way I can't really prove I'm able to experience what it is like to feel love and fear. But I know it is a product of my mind rather than something I can "sense" objectively, the same way I sense a tree or the blue sky.

Are you saying consciousness is subjective, thus morality is a creation of our subjective consciousness?

 

[Link]

I will tell my thoughts about this in a thread I will title "My response to existentialism", I was hoping people go that route (argue by existentialism), but no one did. I think my survey on replies shows people have not deeply thought about it. For example, we all aware how evolution works, but no one is showing how the value we got through that is not delusional magical egoistic thinking we evolved with magical thinking and myths. We all aware of mechanisms of evolution in theory, whether we believe it happened or not, we aware. I've thought about this very deeply, but was interested to see if others have.

I was atheist for a week (10 days to be exact), and couldn't bare the pain of recognizing there is no meaning and that existentialism doesn't work either and is a false way of thinking. I returned to God but not only that, a week later, became Muslim again, realizing that it was Quranic wisdom, that made me realize everything I realized about praise/value and God.

 

[Nakosis]

How would one approach this what you called "knowing"?

If one is to do a research and "get to know", what do you think would be the path?

Having an theory/explanation that is constantly correct in the face of constant testing and disproving any possible alternative explanation.

 

[firedragon]

Having an theory/explanation that is constantly correct in the face of constant testing and disproving any possible alternative explanation.

I asked what research can be done. Anyone can have theories just like you did in your post.

 

[Nakosis]

I asked what research can be done. Anyone can have theories just like you did in your post.

The attempt to disprove a theory is part of research.

 

[firedragon]

The attempt to disprove a theory is part of research.

No. But that's not part of research.

 

[Nakosis]

No. But that's not part of research.

Since I do that kind of research all the time, we will just have to disagree on that point.