Part of the problem in your argument is coming from lacking the most important point in it - why God makes you happy? You never clarified that.
You just keep saying God makes you happy. But if you could provide reasons why God makes you happy, and if those reasons are something people could agree with and acceptable from their own understanding , then it could be more reasonable claim.
For example, did God give you something good? Did God do something good for you or your family? Or is the word God just makes you happy whenever you see it or say it?
You could list the reasons why God brings you happiness.
Guys, it seems like we have come full circle on the argument of “The Problem of Happiness”.
In previous posts, I have supported Delirium’s premise that “God is the source of happiness” and given my reasons for “why God makes you happy”. My reasoning is:
God is the Creator of the beautiful and good.
The enjoyment of the beautiful and good gives us pleasure.
The enjoyment of pleasure gives us happiness.
If you believe that hormone chemistry is the source of happiness, then you must believe that hormone chemistry created the beautiful and good.
Your argument that Happiness \to Good and Beautiful \to God is far better than my Happiness \to God. I understand why other posters are unwilling to accept my shorter version. I tried explicating further with n-adic thought, offering (Happiness, God) as a natural pair, appealing to common sense that effortlessly latches onto such pairs as (summer, ice cream) and (chocolate, love), (electricity, water).
The discussion veered into the Christian story of A&E, which I welcomed because (A&E, Eden), (Eden, Happiness) and (God, Eden) are all critical 2-ads that can be rearranged into the higher order dyad, (God, ((A&E, Eden), Happiness)).
Every existence has cause. If God is existence, then it must have cause for the existence.
There is no compelling necessity to believe above claim. I am not claiming anything hence I don’t need to prove anything. I am just saying your claim makes no sense.
Above is just your imagination. There is no scientific proof for your claims. Please provide evidence for your claims.
That is not telling anything newer than what you said before. Question arises immediately “What do you mean by beautiful and good things?” Prove they are made by your God.
We already have an argument from perfection, viz. St. Anselm’s Ontological argument (that than which nothing greater can be conceived). Perhaps a reference can be made to it.
Perfection = Flawlessness/Non-defectiveness/Satisfying all conditions. God’s perfection is doctrinaire. Many theological arguments depend on God’s perfection.
However we know the universe is far from perfect. Many (most?) people are unhappy/suffering and those who’re happy have to bend over backwards to be in the condition of adequate levels of serotonin, dopamine, endorphin and oxytocin. It’s a dark, dystopian circus, run by a dark, dystopian cult.
That’s the PoS in a nutshell.
However, some have counter-argued that there’s a PoH for atheism. From an St. Augustinian perspective, in which darkness is an absence, light is a presence. Happiness \to A presence and that presence is, IMHO, God. Just as (Suffering, Atheism) is a dyad so is (Happiness, Theism).
Happiness is a state, transient at that. So is suffering.
The problem is that the God we are usually talking about is of the Christian variety.
If you postulated something like Plotinus’ The One or the Good, that makes a lot more sense. He’s probably wrong, but such a view of a supreme entity is extremely powerful.
The issue in this case would not be why doesn’t God give us happiness, that’s not his business. His business is to himself alone, we happen to be extras.
Incidentally, modernizing Descartes, it’s as he pointed out, nature (God) owed us nothing and we got life. That difference between the two is just massive. And we should be grateful for this much.
I don’t see an issue introducing a different conception of God but the discussion, as you can see, has stalled. At the moment we’re stuck at the dyads (God, happiness) and (God, (A&E, Eden), Happiness)).
What is the issue if it isn’t (God, Happiness)? I’m trying to prove the existence of God with happiness. If you’ve read the thread you would’ve seen the Hume-spinoff question, whence cometh happiness?
This is not about whether there’s any owing between almighty God and us mere mortals. The crux of the matter is happiness is proof of God, just as suffering is disproof of God.
Problem here is that there is no compelling connection between happiness and God.
Some folks might be extremely unhappy with God, because of the state of the world which is full of ugliness of immoral things and unfair things happened, and the futile unnecessary tragic wars causing the innocent young people losing their lives.
If God was truly omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, why and how would he have allowed the ugly, unfair, immoral and tragic consequences happen in the world?
There is no problem. I ask, which is a better dyad
(Human, Happiness)
(God, Happiness)
?
No answer forthcoming
We already agreed that there is a PoS. Nobody’s denying the reality of suffering. I’m calling your attention to the reality of happiness. Aren’t you happy?
God is not existence. Existence is a part of God. God is the cause of existence.
You are claiming that the premise does not make sense. Give me your reason for saying the claim makes no sense.
This is the common definition for God. If this is not an acceptable definition to you, then what is your definition for your God?
I will ask again. What scientific proof or evidence are you asking for that will be accepted by you?
Are you saying that you do not know the meaning of beautiful and good, and you don’t know what beautiful and good things are? What proof are you looking for that the beautiful and good are made by God?
So where is God? Show us how he created existence.
They are just empty claims out of blue with no credible evidence from experience or perception.
God is just a word you typed on your keyboard.
You say God is the cause of existence. You need to show what existence you are talking about, and how the existence was created by God detailing on the tools, materials, and methods he used for the creation.
For example, if you want create an ice cube, you need to get some water and freeze it in your fridge.
If you want to create a book, you need to sit down and type the book on the computer.
If you want to create apples, then you need to get the apple tree, and plant it in your garden.
No, I am saying your answers for beautiful and good things do not tell anything substantial and real what it means. You have been repeating yourself with the same empty sentences.
