There Is No Logical Necessity That Requires the Existence of God As a Moral Entity
Although I understand that notions of Gods were conceived by rather natural lines of reasoning, there is no really logical necessity that requires the existence of God as a moral entity.
For ancient people with quite limited knowledge, notions of Gods may have been natural, but with knowledge modern people have, the existence of God as a moral entity isn't required to explain anything we know in the world.
For example, some ancient people may have asked themselves, "Why do we have these consciences? God must have implanted them into us." However, that can be perfectly explained by the theory of evolution. Consciences were conducive to the survival of the species because helping each other contributed to the survival of the species.
Yes. The existence of consciences isn't any proof for the existence of God as a moral entity.
They also probably reasoned, "This chair is made by me in my intention to sit on it. The universe must have been made by someone in some intention." However, there is no logical necessity there. Rocks haven't been made by an entity with an intention. We know that rocks have been made just through courses of physical events.
Yes. An assumption as there is always an entity with an intention behind any creation is groundless.
On the other hand, we can't logically deny the existence of God as a moral entity, if we think of an arbitrary God.
No, we can't.
What Is Our Hypothesis?
When there is no necessity to assume the existence of something but there is also no proof of nonexistence of it, should we assume the existence of it or nonexistence of it?
Basically, as far as a hypotheses system doesn't include any contradiction inside it or with the reality, it is allowed as an opinion.
So, we can assume either way.
Basically, yes. However, as a strategy, is it wise to assume something that isn't necessary to explain anything we know?
For one thing, if we begin to assume such existences, we can assume many arbitrary existences without any support by information. That seems quite futile.
Obviously, it's premature for us to think of such existences. Before we think of such existences in vain, we should try to learn what we can.
If we encounter a phenomenon that can't be explained with existing assumptions, that will be the appropriate timing for us to assume a new existence to explain the newly known phenomenon.
That sounds a sound strategy.
We should note the distinction: we don't deny the existence of something because we don't know anything about it, but we defer the assumption of the existence of it until our knowledge matures enough for us to be able to handle the assumption.
As a pure possibility, ancient people could have imagined the existence of neutrons. However, would it have been meaningful for ancient people to make a wild guess about the existence of neutrons? I don't think so.
So, we shouldn't assume the existence of God as a moral entity, should we?
From the viewpoint of pure cognition, I think that's the most sound strategy. However, from the viewpoint of selection of our actions, there may be a room for other considerations.
What do you mean?
What if assuming the existence of something has merits and assuming the nonexistence of something has no merits?
Ah, it's a matter of bets.
Note that having merits doesn't improve any probability, but still, having merits can be a factor for which we would bet on.
I read an Earthian named Pascal say a similar thing. The probabilities of the existence and the nonexistence of God are 1/2 and 1/2. When one bets on the existence of God, if God exists, he or she will gain all, while if God doesn't exist, he or she will lose nothing. So, why not one bets on the existence?
Ah, the problem is that we don't regard obeying and being rewarded by a tyrant God as 'gaining all'. And believing in a tyrant God while such a God doesn't exist and a fair God exists won't be 'losing nothing': the fair God won't think of us well for believing in such a tyrant God.
But the existence of a fair God who is powerless on matters of this world has merits, doesn't it?
It may, but the merit of the existence of such a God and the merit of assuming the existence of such a God are different.
Ah, the existence of such a God is completely welcome, but assuming the existence of such a God while it doesn't exist may be harmful. Sacrificing our life in expectation of afterlife may be just a waste.
In the first place, your attitude of doing something in pursuit of rewards isn't recommendable.
If that assumption becomes such a temptation, the assumption can be rather harmful. As we have to do fair acts regardless of the existence of such a God, the assumption may not have any merit. . . . Probably, our best case scenario is that we don't assume the existence of any God, but there happens to be such a God.
Gods of some monotheisms require to be believed by people, but a morally fair God won't get angry because of not being believed if it gets angry because of people's doing unfair acts.
It will be unfair to blame people of not believing, because they aren't given any means to know bases to believe on.
If a God is a fair God, the God will make judgments based on whether one did fair acts, not based on whether one blindly obeyed the God.
Do morals have to be decreed by God?
There is an important issue left. If there is no God as a moral entity, from where does the legitimacy of morals come?
Do we need a God as the authority of morals?
That's what I'm asking.
When we consider morals we will obey, do those morals have to be decreed by a God?
Hmm, . . . actually, I have claimed that if a God has decreed unfair morals, I will never obey them. It follows that I have already placed fairness over any God.
And what's your question?
. . . From where does the legitimacy of fairness come from?
From where do you think?
Well, . . . probably, the fact that if moral fairness prevails, human species will prosper more. If we prioritize the prosperity of the whole of human species, or the whole of life forms, expanding our scope, moral fairness is the best option. Not allowing someone to exert his or her full potential because of ignorance, greed, selfishness, or whatever of some people, even if those people are a majority, is a great loss as a whole.
The idea that the prosperity of the whole takes precedence may be confused with totalitarianism.
Ah, totalitarianism sucks. My idea is very opposite to totalitarianism. Maybe we will discuss the differences in future articles.
Anyway, human bodies including their brains are formed to promote the prosperity of human species by the mechanism of evolution. That's the essence of our existence, and we don't need any God to legitimize that essence.
