Commented on my last post:
The morality argument for a creator still doesn’t explain why we should respect or worship said creator.
We don’t know that there is one or not, but even if there is, it should make no difference to how we act or think or live our lives.
My off the cuff response:
It interests me that I should proffer an argument for the existence of God, and in response to this be informed I did not argue for how we should react to God. In the same way a spoon is not a fork and a knife is not a spoon, I’m less than certain as to the import of this response, and as to what context I should consider it. My argument does not argue why we should, “respect and worship said creator,” and I never meant it to do so.
However, that later part of this response seems absurd. It is of obvious import to our actions, to our lives, whether or not there is a God, or as the response puts it, a creator. Now there are certainly parts of life—perhaps for a majority of life—where the existence of God is moot. In general, a large amount of time is spent in unimportant ways. We eat, sleep, wash, dress, and unless we conclude God to be a tyrant, this has little or nothing to do with religion or theology.
Yet in the long run, life is not the putting on of clothes or the eating of food. I see now that it must be laid out what life is, its purpose, before it can be said what part, if any, God should play in it. Here is the rub, does life have purpose?
Should we conclude, “Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless,” it would be, in a sense, contrary to then place meaning upon anything else. Working in this framework, God’s existence could have no meaning. We should eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
But considering the alternative, that there is some point, that amid this chaos of light and sound, as we eternally fall towards an ever burning inferno, this mad dance of atoms should have some author, a director, then that direction, that author’s scribbles, would be of inestimable importance.
The Takeaway:
Forgive me my ramblings, but they help to frame my response. One can chose either side. If you accept meaning, then that will logically lead to ultimate meaning, God himself, and it is in following this meaning (as Christ puts it, He is the way) that life should be led.
Of course, C. S. Lewis puts it better than I have.
If Christianity should happen to be true, then it is quite impossible that those who know this truth and those who don’t should be equally well equipped for leading a good life. Knowledge of the facts must make a difference to one’s actions. Suppose you found a man on the point of starvation and wanted to do the right thing. If you had no knowledge of medical science, you would probably give him a large solid meal; and as a result your man would die.
C. S. Lewis, Man or Rabbit?
Tale Told 
You ought to unequivocally acclaimed other than solid pulling in, which means notice: Wisenee
LikeLike