We can't prove (yet) a God doesn’t exist (actually "isn't", since he was before existance)...

We can't prove (yet) a God doesn’t exist (actually "isn't", since he was before existance). The real question is: if he exists (is) why should he be a moral entity?

You mean why should we expect them to be conform to our moral values or why should their moral values be taken as objectively correct or superior to ours by default?

Because the structure of our physical existence is built on laws. Logos is the very first thing in our world.

Human society has a fundamental structure as well which brings peace, stability, and a healthy life to those who abide by it. Humans have the ability to disregard this and act in an immoral way.

>Human society has a fundamental structure as well which brings peace, stability, and a healthy life to those who abide by it.
No

t. anarchist

Not at all, but you can't say that abiding by the fundamental structure of society brings peace, stability, and a healthy life when many elements and functions of society impede those things and create things like inequality, oppression, etc.
If I lived in the pre Civil War Southern United States, my owning and exploitation of slaves would "abide" with the structure of my society. And by being obedient property, my slaves abide by it as well, but they do not benefit from it

When did the laws of physics become laws of morals?

When Jesus blesses them with the Holy Spirit

Oh,okay.

Because in the Christian view at least, the essence(?) of God is directly connected to goodness, love, and justice.

When they came from the same place.

>God is directly connected to goodness, love
When I read my Bible, I find that there is really only one thing that God hates and that is sin. He hates wickedness. He has destroyed entire groups of people because of their wickedness; idolatry, murders, and immorality, etc. etc.

In most cases He gave these groups of people, even hundreds of years to repent, and they refused, and they met with calamity.

But those people down through the ages who followed His ways, He blessed abundantly.

It seems that no matter how many times we as humans went through this cycle of constant defeat nothing really changed.

>creates things like inequality, oppression, etc.
Equality doesn't exist, get that out of your mind.
Hierarchy always exists, these facts of life can only be treated with dignity in a moral society.

>If I lived in the pre Civil War Southern United States, my owning and exploitation of slaves would "abide" with the structure of my society. And by being obedient property, my slaves abide by it as well, but they do not benefit from it
Not sure why you immediately framed the south as the template for my views, for the record I was talking about the fundamental morals of society: don't murder, don't steal, respect life, respect authority, etc. Nowhere did I say anything should be followed no matter what.
If you want to talk about the south though I don't think the Africans should've been brought over in the first place, and to be honest their community now is not much better than when they were in chains.

>Equality doesn't exist, get that out of your mind.
So you are willing to rescind your claim that society respects human life then. It is a simple objective fact that institutional slavery, one of the worst facets of society, by definition cannot exist without society.

>Not sure why you immediately framed the south as the template for my views
Because that is a perfect example to immediately and indisputably prove your claims about society false. Besides slavery, another example is: the greatest acts of war and violence in human history has been in concurrence with the greatest build up of society.

Society brings a modicum of stability, rarely healthy life, and never in history has it brought peace.

>If you want to talk about the south though I don't think the Africans should've been brought over in the first place, and to be honest their community now is not much better than when they were in chains.
This is nothing to do with the discussion; stay on topic.

I will say it again, not every society is good. But a moral society is.
The axiom is not society, it is the fundamental morals of human interaction. As soon as you have multiple people you have a society, and if these people live morally they will have the best one that can be achieved. It's as simple as that.

How do you place a "should" in a question that seeks to expose the fallacy in assuming moral objectivity? I guess it's sort of meta, and it gets your point across, but it seems hard to work around.

Interestingly, if you look at the earliest "proofs" for god, they revolve mostly around the "Prima Causa" (first cause), relying on syllogistic analogy to derive an order upon which all things are based.

This framework maps nicely onto Newtonian physics, because it relies on a linear structure of time and space, and we get modern thought experiments that suggest all things are predetermined if we can calculate the exact position and vector of all known particles in the universe (of which we are made, and therefore part of the equation).

Enter the quantum revolution: Heisenberg shows that knowing the position of a particle inversely relates to the knowability of its vector (velocity, trajectory, and ultimate destination). Thus, the Newtonian (classical) framework, along with the Greek counterpart of the "original cause" (even the big bang) is no longer sufficient in "proving" an extranatural force or deity.

However, what we are left with is probability, and the superposition of dual-states of particle-waves in a wave function that is collapsed only upon *observation.* This is amazeballs. This means that the didactic overtones of the "First cause(r)" are an unnecessary anthropomorphic device, and what we find in its place is the "First observer/observation." The proof of god may actually lie in the fact that without outside observation, nothing can exist. Of course, the recursion that results from this is only paradoxical when you impose a linear framework of spacetime upon the system, and the observer is assumed to have a temporal origin at a singular point instead of a non-binary transcendental existence outside of the system of known spacetime itself.

So, certainly there need be no argument for objective morality in the sense of "should"s.

I think the core of the unmoved mover argument is that something cannot come from nothing. And that doesn't change whether time is linear or not.
It doesn't even change if you remove time as a factor.

What is the nature of our existence? What lies outside of it?

Ain't that the question, friend?

Something/Nothing is a binary. Therein lies the rub. So long as the metaphor we use to describe our reality depends on a binary system of existence versus non-existence, we will forever run into the paradox of "something coming from nothing." The way to resolve a paradox is to step outside the system (yes, I realize that there is a paradox in this very explanation, as the term "outside" implies its binary opposite of "inside," but I really don't know how to transcend that linguistic barrier without just like randomly appearing and hugging you with some transcendental force, so whatevs for now, right?).

The framework of the quantum is the framework of the non-binary, though, and the simultaneous coexistence of wave and particle is a pretty solid moment for humanity to stop and say "wait - we really need to rethink some shit."

The observer does not need an identity. The consciousness of the observer that lies outside all spacetime is the collective consciousness of all observers within all spacetime. We are triangles, tessellated throughout this existence, and the borders that define our selves connect with all other obervers to form an infinite boundary of all possible information. Outside that boundary, we may as well say there is nothing or everything, because those concepts only have meaning within the context of the living, and there is only life as we know it.

This stuff is really hard to talk about. I hope this is useful.

There is no paradox in the first place.
Would you agree that our physical world is built on logic, properties, and laws?
Is the world definable to our consciousness, is our conscious perspective limited?

If so then we can use logic to determine the nature of our physical world. The fact that it's finite would mean that existence itself is of a finite nature, so this means non existence must exist and begin and end at a certain point. The fact that time doesn't exist in non existence means that existence and non existence must somehow coexist, but this is contradictory. This is another paradox along with the previous paradox of something which has no other option but to be born out of nothing.

So what is the only option we are left with?
The nature of existence is not finite, it is infinite. It is eternal with no beginning and no end, it is everything that could ever be. Our world is "created" by infinite existence, the material world is merely a finite perspective of the infinite existence which is god.

Well, my scripture says so, thus.

If you consider Source, the original essence that started existing by itself, you will see that loving your neighbor as your self, there is great benefit, because if we all come from the same Force, we are connected.

If you don't believe in God, at least understand that the reality is that you are a living being, that the complexity of our situations are not by some random chance and even the creation of this time space reality may or may not be exclusive to one deity alone.

And if you believe that God exclusive to only a handful of people you are clearly being deceived. If you believe God only saves your kind, or that God is a "jerk" because He only chooses which religion He wants in on, then you should again consider God as the Source.

Source is the original substance. The fact is that all entities that are alive make conscious decisions and can move on their own. Basic matter is not nearly as complex.

This looks good on paper, but that's not how humanity works.

I think you're forgetting about the factor of greed, corruption, and lust (also subjectivism).

Even in you Moral society, it takes 1 fuck up to destroy it all.

Instead of trying to build your society on the greatest strenghts, you should focus on build a society with the less weaknesses. A group is only as strong as their weakest link

I completely agree with you. That's why I said "the best one that can be achieved". Humans are flawed beings and every society will meet it's end one day.
A person with strong morals is someone far from weakness.

>We can't prove (yet) a God doesn’t exist
Fucking retard. You can't prove that anything doesn't exist. Until it is proven, logically, it should be assumed that it does not exist.

Gnosticism explains it well. The 'God' of this world is a malevolent imperfect entity that is entirely material. He thrives off human suffering.

The true God is a perfect spiritual being that inhabits the spiritual plane. Thus he is disconnected from this world.

Basically demiurge ensnared us in the physical dimension.

Fucking babbling christ niggers 1917 and emperor nero best day of my life

The God of the Spirit is also the God of this world, for there is only one true God.

The "god of this world" is simply an illusion to those who worship God for material gain and go all the way out of their way to be contrary to God's will in order for material gain.

Even with the demiurge, we are driven into illusion when we hear they are fully malevolent. We are in illusion when we hear they are fully exalted.

You see, I can't believe that because a perfect God wouldn't kill like the Christian God of the Old Testament did when there were much kinder alternatives (aka convincing people to become good instead). He even wipe out entire civilisations and killed babies and infants who were innocent. This it is illogical to me that this is a kind and perfect God.

This is why I like the gnostic idea of God because it literally makes logical sense to me and answers all the doubts I had that my Christian teachers at school could not answer.

>we are in illusion even when they are fully exalted

Who are you referring to by 'they'? Are you referring to God and saying he is not perfect? In our logic at least?

By the way, the Gnostics don't propose that the demiurge is a God. They also believe in one God. Some even think Jesus was his messenger trying to turn the masses away from satan. There are other theories saying that the snake that made Adam and Eve eat the apple was an agent of God.

...Says the curmudgeonly malfunctioning spam-bot?!