Agnostic.com

1 0

Necessity and sufficiency are the to conditions that have to exist in order to prove or disprove anything.
Proving based on the obvious is the only way of learning.
Believes need no proving.
The notion of God or god(s) is neither necessary nor sufficient in explaining of the physical reality and of the moral philosophy.
The opposite is denying the facts.

gamajun2002us 4 May 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Agreed. In some scenarios in the past, the notion of God might have been useful, but yet might not have been necessary. For example, during the barbaric age, when a powerful man could just kill a weaker man with his sword, when no one is around and steal everything, I can imagine one possible way to stop such act might have been invoking an invisible punisher god who won't accept evil acts. So, the idea of an invisible entity and heaven or hell might have been very useful. But now that we know better, and all it's bad consequences, and already established some good moral philosophy of what's communally good and bad, we can throw those ideas away. 😉

You are describing an experiment, conducted in order to find out the origin of moral law.
The God was necessary in order to survive the combat, but not sufficient for two reasons: (1) if the ideal god is the only origin of moral law, then the mortals will never be able to learn entire moral law, and therefore will never be able to be the judges and (2) the adversary can have an alternative interpretation of God's will

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:79392
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.