Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Goku

Morality Under God Or Atheism

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

God's morality comes from His own nature which depends on a good understanding of the term, "universe", being both, "united" and, "diverse". God's attributes can be shown to all be united and work together as one which is why the bible sometimes says, "the Lord is one", and why Jesus said He is "one with the Father".

God's attributes compliment each other meaning the fruit of the spirit of God directly flow from God upon their immediately natural outflow from that perfect character. Love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, self control, selflessness, etc....

The obvious next question is, where does God's nature come from?

Also, why is God's nature good?

Quote

Thus the dilemma can be shown to be a false one. God indeed commands things which are good, but the reason they are good is because they reflect God’s own nature. So the goodness does not come ultimately from God’s commandments, but from His nature, which then results in good commandments.

Hypothetically, if God's nature was different, would objective morality be different to match God's nature?

Quote

Beware the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma if that's what you were implying which is what atheists classically imply;

 "Where does God's morality come from" was simply an honest inquiry into what was said. I wasn't trying to invoke Euthyphro's dilemma, although I suppose its inclusion is inevitable in these types of discussions.

Quote

Indeed, the Euthyphro Dilemma can be turned around on atheists: Do you approve of an action because it is good, or is it good because you approve of it? If the latter, then your moral standard seems to be subjective and arbitrary, so you complain about God’s alleged arbitrariness. And if the former, then you are back to explaining where this objective moral standard comes from

I do think morality is ultimately subjective. However, as the saying goes, not all opinions are equal.

Quote

Conclusion: I don't really think it's a contentious issue anyway Goku to be honest, it's more of a definition-thing. It's simply obvious that under atheism it's overt implications lead to morality being relative and not truly existent except to the individual and those who agree with the individual, and with Christianity it's obvious that morality will not be relative because the commands will be coming from an all-knowing God Who therefore knows why His commands are correct morality. 

The way I see it, God's commands are, ultimately, God's subjective perspective, and if there is an objective moral system that God commands then it necessarily exists outside of God. Look at how you yourself phrased it, "because the commands will be coming from an all-knowing God who therefore knows why his commands are correct morality." This statement of yours implies that if, hypothetically, I became all-knowing, then I would discover this objective morality for myself irrespective of any deity.

In addition, we nonbelievers don't think that your morality comes from any deity, but from man. And so, treating it with such reverence to the point where it definitionally cannot be wrong or subjective could potentially lead to disastrous outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Goku said:

The obvious next question is, where does God's nature come from?

Also, why is God's nature good?

This depends on what, "good" is by definition. Is good for example, a world with no evil? I think so. And since God made the world with no evil at the beginning I think that's a lesson for us. You are asking the deeper questions and I don't have answers for everything. Like Tirian said, evil is basically the privation of good. Or the skewing of a good thing.

If we look at the creation, when God says, "it was very good" in a way that's like saying, "it's correct". In that way the term, "perverse" is also a good descriptor. For example a human is made to walk, if Adam randomly piped up, "let's chop Eve's leg off", we know that both his mind would be perverse in his thinking but also the action would be a perverse thing to. 

That is because God has made everything, "correct". So in a sense when incorrect/perverse things happen, it's, "not good". 

God's nature is good because God has no imperfections. To say, "His judgement is wrong" itself would only ever be incorrect. But like I say, this gets convoluted depending on how far we delve into this discussion. But I think it does make perfect sense that if God is a perfect being then God knows that anything perverse, incorrect or skewed is basically not as good as the correct thing and spoils it's purpose. Indeed the only reason why correct things occur is because God is there to invent them so we cannot divorce morality from God since morality can only exist if someone exists firstly.

11 hours ago, Goku said:

Hypothetically, if God's nature was different, would objective morality be different to match God's nature?

God is immutable. This is what I am saying all of God's characteristics are unified despite their diversity. When diverse parts come together by analogy, to create a whole united thing it all works together as, "one". Like Jesus said, "I and the Father are one". 

By analogy a plane or a car all have different parts but their purpose as a whole is one. However the plane as long as the design is correct will always do the same thing, there is no reason to believe it's goal will change. In that sense the design as long as it functions and the parts remain the same, is immutable in a sense.

I think the error in your questions is to basically FORCE questions that pertain to temporal caused things, ONTO God, so that you can keep asking the same question even when it no longer has relevance.

If it's turtles all the way down then FINE, you CAN ask, "then what is beneath the bottom turtle", but the whole point here is that God is an eternal being so the eternally caused causes (infinite regression) is basically just misapplied logic atheists use.

EXAMPLE:

"where did God come from then?"

"where does God's nature come from?"

It's sort of like asking a question when the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply like this;

"you either hate sport or you don't, simply answer do you hate it or do you not?"

But obviously the question must be wrong because you can't apply that law to that situation because the person may hate some sport and love other sport. In the same way when you ask where God's nature came from or where God comes from or where God's morality comes from, I think that's just to FORCE-FIT atheist-logic where it no longer applies because if you are reasonable, the questions are answered by the fact that the book stops with God. 

By definition if God is eternal there can be no original place where these things, "came from". That would be like before we discovered America, discovering it then asking, "but where is the rest of America?"

But once it's found it's found, the book stops there. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

11 hours ago, Goku said:

The way I see it, God's commands are, ultimately, God's subjective perspective

But that's anthropomorphism. God is not a man. 

This is why I see it as arrogance/pride, the belief a man can know more than God. It astonishes me that people of average intelligence have this belief and many times I correct all of their arguments, yet despite all of the errors they make it's ironic to me that despite me being the one to correct them I am the one that believes my own thinking isn't good enough to say, "I know better than God".

Don't you find that ironic?

That some lets face it, dunces online (not here, the likes of utube or EvC), basically cannot provide arguments that are at all difficult to refute yet they still retain their arrogant belief they can know better than an omniscient mind, yet there I am thrashing the pants off their arguments yet I am the one saying, "my thinking isn't good enough to outsmart an all knowing God."

you would think it would be the other way around, you would think the dunce would have no confidence in his own arguments.

Quote
11 hours ago, Goku said:

Look at how you yourself phrased it, "because the commands will be coming from an all-knowing God who therefore knows why his commands are correct morality." This statement of yours implies that if, hypothetically, I became all-knowing, then I would discover this objective morality for myself irrespective of any deity.

 

I just mean that God knows when He is correct. If you take a test on population genetics, an easy one, obviously you "know" when you are correct because you remember the correct answers having studied it. Yes?

I don't see it as God discovering things. Nothing can exist, "before" God.

I think what is at play here is that it's hard for our minds to conceptualise some things. 

The proof is in the pudding, if human beings were correct about morality their moralities would all line up. Yet rather absurdly and amusingly to those who watch on the sidelines, each group is filled with self-righteous indignation that their particular morality is the correct one. Lol! And is it a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would "just so happen" to remove all the moral ills of the world? Or were rapists and murderers and thieves all under "self control" and doing those things out of "gentleness" and, "love"?

At least SHOW how God's morality is ever wrong, guru. But you can't, because you know it isn't. 

In other words, it's not difficult to prove in an argument, why God's morality and goodness is correct and human behaviour that comes under the GUISE of, "morality", is not good and correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  9 hours ago, Goku said:

Hypothetically, if God's nature was different, would objective morality be different to match God's nature?

INDYDAVE SAID: I think so. For instance, a tribe of black people may have a black god who instructs them to kill all of the white people. In that society killing innocent white people would seem to be a good thing to do. Of course it would NOT be a good thing unless that god was the real God. If it was not, then it would be an evil thing. The question is whether you want to take the chance that the God of the Bible is not the real God. For those of us who have concluded he IS the real God, that is where we look to determine what true morality is. Of course that would not be true if the god of the Bible is not real. That means you could choose your own morality and it would have no negative consequence to you if you can get away with it in this life. But you can't get away with it at all if God exists, because even if you get away with it in this life there will be a judgment. If you had a daughter who was murdered and the killer was never found, it would be a comfort to you that the killer will one day have to face judgement. Or if you were married and some younger good-looking rich guy stole your wife...it would be good to know that there is a God who would recognize that immorality and harshly judge it. As an atheist, you have less basis to object to that. As long as the rich guy can get away with it, if he is happy and if your wife is happy what do they care if you are NOT happy? It seems like a simple math problem. you can either have two people who are unhappy or one person who is unhappy. Why SHOULDN'T they feel free to be together and leave you crying in the dust?... Why shouldn't that be the MORAL thing? Should morality be determined by majority vote? Why not? If you are the only rich guy in the room and there is a vote that we should all share our income equally, should that be forced upon you? Would that be the moral thing to do?

(This post was written by IndyDave, not by "mike the wiz".) My apologies Dave for posting this as my post, splitting the topics isn't as easy as I thought but I have figured it out now so I won't make this error again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not pleased that your decision to move the discussion to a new topic has apparently killed it. I think it might have continued if we left it in the other topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike didn't kill it; I've just been swamped in real life the past few weeks. I got maybe 3 hours of sleep in the past 65+ hours now lol. My system is so full of caffeine you could harvest my blood and sell it as an energy drink. I've been working on a response piece-meal when I've had the time. It should be ready in a few days. Real life is starting to calm down. If anything, Mike probably saved the discussion by moving it to a new thread where it wouldn't get buried while real life does its thing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

As an atheist, you have less basis to object to that.

It seems like there's a lot more bases to object to things when the question can be approached with reason as opposed to just being a matter of what whichever god actually exists wants you to do.

Quote

As long as the rich guy can get away with it

This isn't really something you can assume in real life though.

Quote

, if he is happy and if your wife is happy what do they care if you are NOT happy?

Asking whether people should care if other people are unhappy seems secondary to the fact that as social animals we naturally do care if other people (and even non-people) are unhappy to some extent.

Quote

It seems like a simple math problem. you can either have two people who are unhappy or one person who is unhappy. Why SHOULDN'T they feel free to be together and leave you crying in the dust?

In that particular instance, perhaps.  But we have to keep in mind that we aren't just talking about how people should behave in that situation, we're talking about how people should behave in general.  Hurting people to get what you want may make sense in an individual calculation, but what if everyone also made that same calculation in their dealings with you?

Quote

Should morality be determined by majority vote? Why not?

Not a simple majority, no.  We can see plenty of examples (both hypothetical and historical) of how that breaks down.  An idea think is helpful to understanding why is the Veil of Ignorance.  Put simply, the idea is that we can reach a just outcome when making social and moral decisions by considering them without knowing (or assuming) which end of the deal you're going to end up on.  Voting to strictly favor the majority makes sense when you assume that you'll be one of the majority, but may look a lot different if you ask "But what if I wasn't?"

Quote

If you are the only rich guy in the room and there is a vote that we should all share our income equally, should that be forced upon you? Would that be the moral thing to do?

Should the idea that you should have control over a disproportionately large amount of the available resources be forced on everyone else?  Even to the point that some people will die as a result of not having access to those resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2020 at 3:36 AM, indydave said:

I'm not pleased that your decision to move the discussion to a new topic has apparently killed it. I think it might have continued if we left it in the other topic.

"Keep them flying............"

"what flying?"

"Those flags of discontent." - Charlton Heston - Planet Of The Apes.

:P 

---------

It's ok Goku, I myself don't intend a big debate about this so perhaps you and Dave can continue it at some point. As you may have noticed my own energies for debate tend to dwindle compared to the past. It all seems argumentative to me these days and more and more I find I just prefer discussions. I don't get a lot from simply arguing over these things and it's a lot of back and forth, IMHO. 

(As you know it wasn't really my intention in that other thread to argue atheism and morality, but I like to give an answer if I feel there is a need in some area to clarify such as with Euthyphro's dilemma and those type of things.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2020 at 6:14 AM, mike the wiz said:
Quote

The obvious next question is, where does God's nature come from?

Also, why is God's nature good?

This depends on what, "good" is by definition. Is good for example, a world with no evil? I think so. And since God made the world with no evil at the beginning I think that's a lesson for us. You are asking the deeper questions and I don't have answers for everything. Like Tirian said, evil is basically the privation of good. Or the skewing of a good thing.

If we look at the creation, when God says, "it was very good" in a way that's like saying, "it's correct". In that way the term, "perverse" is also a good descriptor. For example a human is made to walk, if Adam randomly piped up, "let's chop Eve's leg off", we know that both his mind would be perverse in his thinking but also the action would be a perverse thing to. 

That is because God has made everything, "correct". So in a sense when incorrect/perverse things happen, it's, "not good". 

God's nature is good because God has no imperfections. To say, "His judgement is wrong" itself would only ever be incorrect. But like I say, this gets convoluted depending on how far we delve into this discussion. But I think it does make perfect sense that if God is a perfect being then God knows that anything perverse, incorrect or skewed is basically not as good as the correct thing and spoils it's purpose. Indeed the only reason why correct things occur is because God is there to invent them so we cannot divorce morality from God since morality can only exist if someone exists firstly.

I'm not sure you understand the questions. It makes sense in my head, but I can see why it wouldn't get fully conveyed.

I asked where does God's morality come from, and you replied, "his nature". So when I ask where his nature comes from, I am asking why is God's nature the way it is. What determines the properties of his nature?

When I ask why is God's nature good, I am not asking why the teachings of God are good or why the actions of God in this universe are good. I am asking, as a follow up to the previous question of what determines the properties of God's nature, why is whatever determines the properties of God's nature affords God good qualities instead of bad qualities?

Saying things like good is the absence of evil is meaningless in this discussion. Good and evil only have meaning when there is a standard to judge. This standard, conveniently, is whatever God's nature is, which seems highly circular to me. You say God's nature is good because God has no imperfections, but by which standard is God absent of any imperfection, God's?

Quote

Indeed the only reason why correct things occur is because God is there to invent them so we cannot divorce morality from God since morality can only exist if someone exists firstly.

I guess this makes sense from your world view; if there is no God then murder is not wrong. But, if the world exists just as it is, only there is no God, and murder is now a-okay, what kind of objectively morality is that? Nothing between these two worlds has changed in terms of the consequences of our actions as it is felt by our fellow man, yet the exact same action with the exact same outcome here on earth is interpreted two completely different ways under your/Christianity's system of objective morality. I find that strange.

To put it another way, if there is no God then helping others is not good. If we add God into the equation, the act of helping others now becomes good. This means that helping others and all the good acts God tells us to do are not inherently good acts, at least in the sense that an action helped another. Any action we take is inherently meaningless; the real-life consequences here on earth are morally meaningless. When God says to give to the poor, giving to the poor is not a good act because you are helping the less fortunate, it is *only* a good act because it correlates with God's nature.

If I torture you for no reason, under your expressed system of morality, it may be immoral, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with the pain and suffering I caused at a fundamental level. God may say it is immoral because it causes pain and suffering, but that is only because God's nature compels it to be so. The fundamental problem is not that I caused you pain and suffering (causing pain and suffering is not inherently immoral in of itself, according to your expressed beliefs), rather the problem is that it goes against God's nature.

To ask a fundamental question, what exactly is meant by objective morality?

Quote
Quote

Hypothetically, if God's nature was different, would objective morality be different to match God's nature?

God is immutable. This is what I am saying all of God's characteristics are unified despite their diversity. When diverse parts come together by analogy, to create a whole united thing it all works together as, "one". Like Jesus said, "I and the Father are one". 

By analogy a plane or a car all have different parts but their purpose as a whole is one. However the plane as long as the design is correct will always do the same thing, there is no reason to believe it's goal will change. In that sense the design as long as it functions and the parts remain the same, is immutable in a sense.

I think the error in your questions is to basically FORCE questions that pertain to temporal caused things, ONTO God, so that you can keep asking the same question even when it no longer has relevance.

If it's turtles all the way down then FINE, you CAN ask, "then what is beneath the bottom turtle", but the whole point here is that God is an eternal being so the eternally caused causes (infinite regression) is basically just misapplied logic atheists use.

EXAMPLE:

"where did God come from then?"

"where does God's nature come from?"

It's sort of like asking a question when the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply like this;

"you either hate sport or you don't, simply answer do you hate it or do you not?"

But obviously the question must be wrong because you can't apply that law to that situation because the person may hate some sport and love other sport. In the same way when you ask where God's nature came from or where God comes from or where God's morality comes from, I think that's just to FORCE-FIT atheist-logic where it no longer applies because if you are reasonable, the questions are answered by the fact that the book stops with God. 

By definition if God is eternal there can be no original place where these things, "came from". That would be like before we discovered America, discovering it then asking, "but where is the rest of America?"

But once it's found it's found, the book stops there. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

But, in the quote you are addressing, I didn't ask what caused this or what was before that or anything at all to do with time or anything related to an infinite regression.

I'm saying, hypothetically, in another world, if God's nature was different, what impact would that have on morality compared to our world?

I really don't think I am forcing any question here. I asked where does God's morality come from, and you said, "his nature". In order to understand the dynamic between God's nature and morality, this hypothetical where God's nature is different seems like an obvious and natural question. Granted, I don't think it is an easy question to answer, but just because a question is hard doesn't mean that it is unfair.

Are you saying that God's nature is required to be the way it is? That for whatever reason, it is theoretically impossible that God's nature could hypothetically be different in another hypothetical world? Does God have a choice? What constrains God's nature to be this way?

Quote

But once it's found it's found, the book stops there. Otherwise it's turtles all the way down.

If God's morality is derived from his nature, and his nature just is what it is, and that's it with no explanation, then what makes it objective?

Quote
Quote

The way I see it, God's commands are, ultimately, God's subjective perspective

But that's anthropomorphism. God is not a man. 

This is why I see it as arrogance/pride, the belief a man can know more than God. It astonishes me that people of average intelligence have this belief and many times I correct all of their arguments, yet despite all of the errors they make it's ironic to me that despite me being the one to correct them I am the one that believes my own thinking isn't good enough to say, "I know better than God".

Don't you find that ironic?

That some lets face it, dunces online (not here, the likes of utube or EvC), basically cannot provide arguments that are at all difficult to refute yet they still retain their arrogant belief they can know better than an omniscient mind, yet there I am thrashing the pants off their arguments yet I am the one saying, "my thinking isn't good enough to outsmart an all knowing God."

you would think it would be the other way around, you would think the dunce would have no confidence in his own arguments.

How is it anthropomorphism? I don't understand your objection. God's commands are, obviously, from God's perspective (if God's morality is not part of God's perspective then how can we say it is God's morality?). As you and other Christians keep asserting, morality only exists in the presence of God. Subjective means that it is coming from within rather than from external reality. As far as I can tell, an axiom of the Christian paradigm here is that morality is coming from within God rather than something that can be gleaned from external reality ("we cannot divorce morality from God since morality can only exist if [God exists first]."). So, it would seem, by definition, in the way you have expressed yourself, God's morality is God's subjective perspective.

The fundamental flaw with your "do you know better than God" statement, is that the presuppositions of the two parties are not aligned. You start with the presupposition that moral system X is from God. Nonbelievers do not share that presupposition, and instead believe that moral system X was invented by humans. It's not that nonbelievers are arrogant dunces (at least not because of this), you are just jumping the gun before you have established the necessary presuppositions for your statement to accurately reflect the views of others.

Quote
Quote

Look at how you yourself phrased it, "because the commands will be coming from an all-knowing God who therefore knows why his commands are correct morality." This statement of yours implies that if, hypothetically, I became all-knowing, then I would discover this objective morality for myself irrespective of any deity.

I just mean that God knows when He is correct. If you take a test on population genetics, an easy one, obviously you "know" when you are correct because you remember the correct answers having studied it. Yes?

I don't see it as God discovering things. Nothing can exist, "before" God.

I think what is at play here is that it's hard for our minds to conceptualise some things. 

The proof is in the pudding, if human beings were correct about morality their moralities would all line up. Yet rather absurdly and amusingly to those who watch on the sidelines, each group is filled with self-righteous indignation that their particular morality is the correct one. Lol! And is it a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would "just so happen" to remove all the moral ills of the world? Or were rapists and murderers and thieves all under "self control" and doing those things out of "gentleness" and, "love"?

At least SHOW how God's morality is ever wrong, guru. But you can't, because you know it isn't. 

In other words, it's not difficult to prove in an argument, why God's morality and goodness is correct and human behaviour that comes under the GUISE of, "morality", is not good and correct.

Let me rephrase it as a question: If I attained all knowledge outside of God, would I then know objectively morality and why it is correct?

Quote

Yet rather absurdly and amusingly to those who watch on the sidelines, each group is filled with self-righteous indignation that their particular morality is the correct one.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Christianity is just another group convinced they are correct?

Quote

And is it a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would "just so happen" to remove all the moral ills of the world? Or were rapists and murderers and thieves all under "self control" and doing those things out of "gentleness" and, "love"?

It's not a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would remove all the moral ills of the world. All that statement really means is that moral system X defines immorality, and if everyone followed said moral code all the immorality of the world as defined by that system will go away. The statement is all but meaningless.

Quote

At least SHOW how God's morality is ever wrong, guru. But you can't, because you know it isn't. 

In this dialogue I have never once said God's morality is wrong. That is a separate topic altogether. In a nutshell, at least for now, I am asking what is the justification for the assertion that God's moral code is objective morality.

Quote

In other words, it's not difficult to prove in an argument, why God's morality and goodness is correct and human behaviour that comes under the GUISE of, "morality", is not good and correct.

You mean like the idea that humans shouldn't own other human beings as property? My intention is not to start some debate on how good or evil Yahweh's moral system is. However, if your evidence/justification for why Yahweh's moral system is objectively moral is because it is so obviously correct compared to human behavior, I don't think it is as obvious as you believe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goku said:

You say God's nature is good because God has no imperfections, but by which standard is God absent of any imperfection, God's?

Yes, because there is no higher authority that exists. "For when the Lord gave a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by nobody higher, He swore by Himself." (paraphrased, since that's from memory)

But basically it's like asking, "but how do you know a circle is a circle if you can only go by a circle?" Or that's how it comes across to me.

(BTW, I won't have time to read and address everything you say so will just manage what I can for now in this post.)

You see because God is all-knowing and there isn't any knowledge God does not have, He would know if His action was imperfect. But then if it was, He wouldn't be God. 

1 hour ago, Goku said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that Christianity is just another group convinced they are correct?

I know of the argument in my mind. I wouldn't say I, "consider" it, but in the past I did consider it. But once knowledge is attained the question no longer applies. It's like asking me, "have you considered the possibility you don't exist?" If I know I exist the question becomes redundant.

There is only one way that the question itself can become redundant to the individual and that't not only when they are "born again", as Christ described but after spiritual maturity has come. 

But in terms of the hypothetical nature of the question I understand where you're coming from. I even understand why atheists think like they do. But I can see both sides, because I have knowledge of both, but to be an unbeliever you only have the knowledge of the absence of evidence in respect to your own personal evidence-base. 

But it's a bit of a personal issue, I don't want to go into personal details too much but something happened to me in the summer of 2013 which continued for 45 days. If you like you could describe it as my own, "personal hell on earth". The key thing though was that it only had spiritual meaning. Like a car chassis won't come from rock, in a natural world it had no reason to occur. It pertained to something I have been going through since early 2002. Since that time God for some reason has chosen to perform the miraculous for me to encourage me pertaining to that issue, in ways I have never seen before. I won't say I thought it was impossible for such miracles to occur, but I admit that like most people I did think, "those things just don't happen". 

And I think that is the real key here; people act, live and go about their business in unbelief. Even believers at times, simply because day after day after day events occur and they are all seemingly random. Even when you experience the miraculous like I did, those events can also be tarnished with time, and hundreds of days pass and the mind starts to ask those sort of questions of unbelief such as, "is this all just in my head?" I ask those questions EVEN FULLY KNOWING that events external to my body cannot be events of delusion since delusion only exists between the ears. 

It APPEARS on face value, looking at the, "outer packaging", that Christianity is just another religion. But underneath it isn't. For some reason God wants it that way because, "we live by faith not by sight."

"It is too late for me my son. " - Darth Vader - Retrun Of The Jedi

Some things run too deep. The gift of my pain runs deeper than anything the world offers as a temporal ape as they have chosen to believe.

"I don't want my pain taken away from me, I NEED MY PAIN." - Captain Kirk - The Final Frontier.

Why does a tribesman that received the gospel from a missionary allow his whole family to be murdered because the angry chief of the tribal is furious him and his family converted to Christianity? Why did people exist like that, that died. Because as Hebrews said they saw "a better country". 

Conclusion: I guess what I am saying guru, is that there is no turning back for me. Perhaps the answer can't be conveyed intellectually, but perhaps the words will resonate and cause you to understand; (it's only 3 minutes, please listen to all of the words;

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Goku said:

It's not a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would remove all the moral ills of the world. All that statement really means is that moral system X defines immorality, and if everyone followed said moral code all the immorality of the world as defined by that system will go away. The statement is all but meaningless.

I think this would be a strawman and I wouldn't argue the tautology in order to back up my argument, my argument doesn't depend on the tautology.

I will explain fully what I was actually arguing;

For example, let's say since you believe the bible is just made up, that Goku writes down his fruit of the spirit and they are traits/virtues that you list as, passion, ambition, purpose, dilligence.

Now let's say someone else writes down what their fruit of the spirit are, such as, happiness, giving pleasure, charitable

So what I was saying was, if we think of anything we agree is obviously immoral such as murder, rape, theft, the ones we all agree on, then obviously with your fruit of the spirit perhaps you can be a thief or rapist because you may be a dilligent, purposeful, passionate, ambitious thief/rapist.

And that's what we would expect if we just make up some fruit of the spirit because we are not really penning God-inspired scriptures but are instead shooting from the hip. And if the bible is false we also would expect this. 

Now with that other list of fruit, you can be pursuing happiness and still be charitable still be a murderer. (John Gacy was a very charitable person, so was Jimmy Saville) But they used charity as a front to pursue abuse/murder, and throw people off their scent.

Can you see what I am saying yet?

With the ACTUAL fruit of the spirit, written in the bible, is it a coincidence that if you have them you can actually do nothing immoral at all because they all come together in a unity which prevents all immorality? For example if I rape is that, "self control" Is it "loving" and "gentle"?

So if we follow many types of moral systems they can still lead to immorality and crime but with the fruit of the spirit they cannot lead to immorality.

Love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness

Conclusion: I don't think it is a coincidence that if you have all of these fruit it leads to a total absence of immorality and crime. So what are you saying, that the bible-writer just happened to hit upon the only list of virtues that work perfectly to remove immorality?

Can you be a thief, rapist, murderer, adulterer, mocker, hater, racist, or anything else you would yourself deem immoral if you have the fruit of the spirit?The answer is, no, you cannot do those things if you have the fruit of the spirit because they rule them all out.

So for me I think that is good evidence God's morality is the true morality. Even if I can't fully define why objective good is good, like with kinds that won't stop good or animal kinds from existing anyway. There will still be a genetic limit for animals even if I can't define kind.

In the same way I think it is reasonable and realistic that if there is a true morality it will be the one that leads to a world without the worlds ills, such as crime and starvation. Even if our moral systems don't line up, MOSTLY they do, which implies morality isn't only relative. Most groups even wildly different ones like g*y-atheist and bible-believing Christian, would all agree there is a, "good" if there was no crime, no starvation or neglect, no misery, etc....I think that is good evidence there is an objective good, compounded by the fact that this objective moral good SHOULD cure the worlds ills, and low and behold, if you happen to be Jesus Christ, and everyone was like you, there would be no crime or moral ills. 

But if we go with human reason, relative systems of morality, they don't cure the worlds ills. For me that is not a coincidence. It means it is highly likely the small differences in our moralities occur because in relative systems human reason and sinful desires have SKEWED the person's sense of what is objectively good. So the person will MOSTLY agree with God's morality, but not all of it. 

That's where moral relativity is coming from, it isn't that morality is relative, it's that human desires of the individual COLOUR their moral compass. For example the Moors murderer had a morality that, "everything is lawful". Which means all actions are equally moral, even child murder. But it's obvious he only had that morality in order to justify his wicked desires to kill children for his own sadistic pleasure. It's the same with all relative morality, the person will have a moral compass which says their sin is not a sin. It isn't that there is no objective morality, it's that peoples desires hide behind, "morality". The relative moral compasses aren't really, "morality" they're human-sinful desires with the epithet, "morality" used as a name-tag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:

It seems like there's a lot more bases to object to things when the question can be approached with reason as opposed to just being a matter of what whichever god actually exists wants you to do.

Fine... Then give me a good reason why the majority should not determine what is morality. You haven't done that.

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:
Quote

As long as the rich guy can get away with it

This isn't really something you can assume in real life though

There are plenty of immoral people who do exactly that and many of them are successful in getting away with it. How can you say to them that it is immoral? Especially if there is a minority who is hurt and the majority who benefit from it?

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:

Asking whether people should care if other people are unhappy seems secondary to the fact that as social animals we naturally do care if other people (and even non-people) are unhappy to some extent

COME ON NOW. We might agree that a majority of humans would see something as being immoral, but what about the minority who DON'T naturally see that and only think about what might benefit them or perhaps might benefit a majority? As an atheist, how can you object to that unless there is some OBJECTIVE source of authority for what is or isn't immoral?

And BTW, you should try to contemplate why it might be that anyone in the majority of humans who would consider that naturally to not be a moral thing to do... in terms of evolution, how can you explain this general moral nature of man? As I was studying Evidences in college 40 years ago, the Moral Argument for the existence of God was one of the top three as I recall.

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:
Quote

seems like a simple math problem. you can either have two people who are unhappy or one person who is unhappy. Why SHOULDN'T they feel free to be together and leave you crying in the dust?

In that particular instance, perhaps

REALLY? So you are saying that if some rich dude can seduce your wife and the two of them run off and leave you squirming in the dust, that is PERHAPS the moral thing for them to do??? DON'T DODGE!

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:

Hurting people to get what you want may make sense in an individual calculation, but what if everyone also made that same calculation in their dealings with you?

As long as you have a gun, you will be okay. And if you have no conscience and no objective source of morality, you won't even feel bad when you take things from others. And if you are an atheist and others take something from you, including your wife, you have nothing to complain about because they did the MORAL thing.

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:

Voting to strictly favor the majority makes sense when you assume that you'll be one of the majority, but may look a lot different if you ask "But what if I wasn't?"

True... But what if you have already counted heads and you KNOW you are in the majority? YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME ANYTHING! So let's say you are one of the people in the room who has less money than the richest the guy...can you all MORALLY agree to steal his money and share it? AND WHAT IF YOU ARE THE RICH GUY WANTING TO STEAL A MAN'S WIFE AND YOU CAN COUNT... SO IT IS TWO AGAINST ONE? You may not care at all if someday YOU are the old guy and some OTHER young guy steals her from YOU. Maybe you will decide you should go shoot him if he does that or tries to do that... So you don't have concern that will happen to you. Your morality system would say that it IS MORAL to steal another man's wife if she wants to do that with you. It's two against one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Goku said:

torture you for no reason, under your expressed system of morality, it may be immoral, but it would have absolutely nothing to do with the pain and suffering I caused at a fundamental level. God may say it is immoral because it causes pain and suffering, but that is only because God's nature compels it to be so. The fundamental problem is not that I caused you pain and suffering (causing pain and suffering is not inherently immoral in of itself, according to your expressed beliefs), rather the problem is that it goes against God's nature.

I guess this is exactly the rationale that tells some people that if they baby in the mother's womb before it can experience pain, then that is morally right, but if they find out that it does experience pain, then it would be morally wrong I guess that would also just fun smothering you didn't like while they were sleeping.

 

12 hours ago, Goku said:

To ask a fundamental question, what exactly is meant by objective morality?

A moral system that comes from outside humanity. Of course this assumes that there is something outside of humanity.

12 hours ago, Goku said:

I am asking, as a follow up to the previous question of what determines the properties of God's nature, why is whatever determines the properties of God's nature affords God good qualities instead of bad qualities?

By definition. Because he had the power to make us (and destroy us or reward us), he gets to make the rules for any reward or punishment he will be meting out. 

12 hours ago, Goku said:

When God says to give to the poor, giving to the poor is not a good act because you are helping the less fortunate, it is *only* a good act because it correlates with God's nature.

In fact, if all a Christian did with his giving was to provide food or medicine for the poor, it would be an immoral thing according to the scriptures because there is spiritual work that should be done also, which will result in enormous benefit to others eternally, in addition to simply pleasing God. SOME of what we are able to give should be set aside to help support the spreading of the Gospel! Indeed, I would say most of it should. What if there is no God, even if you are wanting to do things to benefit others, then there would be 0% that you would want to use for evangelistic purposes...except I supposed to teach others that they should also give to the poor.

12 hours ago, Goku said:

I'm saying, hypothetically, in another world, if God's nature was different, what impact would that have on morality compared to our world?

And the I very directly answered you. I accept the consequences of a position that has objective morality even if that system would be in opposition to a humanly subjective system.

Goku, will you reply to what I previously wrote?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Goku said:

I really don't think I am forcing any question here. I asked where does God's morality come from, and you said, "his nature". In order to understand the dynamic between God's nature and morality, this hypothetical where God's nature is different seems like an obvious and natural question. Granted, I don't think it is an easy question to answer, but just because a question is hard doesn't mean that it is unfair.

I think the answer is that God simply is and his nature is his nature. But for us, the reason God's morality should be our own, is tied directly to his ability to give life and to reward or punish. That's all you need to know in order to decide that you should adopt whatever morality God dictates. Of course if you are an atheist that does not apply to you. But you should be doing your very best to determine if it is more likely that God does exist so that you can then try to determine which god/God that might be, especially if there is a God that offers to you eternal life if you are in submission to him. If you don't really care about whether you can have eternal life, then I guess your morality can be purely subjective and then you will have to accept the consequences if you are wrong.

 

14 hours ago, Goku said:

To put it another way, if there is no God then helping others is not good. If we add God into the equation, the act of helping others now becomes good. This means that helping others and all the good acts God tells us to do are not inherently good acts, at least in the sense that an action helped another. Any action we take is inherently meaningless; the real-life consequences here on earth are morally meaningless. When God says to give to the poor, giving to the poor is not a good act because you are helping the less fortunate, it is *only* a good act because it correlates with God's nature

There are some acts which would be considered moral (by many if not most) whether God exists or not. There are other acts which are morally ambiguous. There may even be a few acts which are considered to be morally wrong by humans but morally right when we consider what God has revealed. (Perhaps the death penalty might fall into this category or the expectation of submission of a wife, for corporal punishment of a child, or "telling a woman what she should do with her own body".) If all you are considering is the reward or punishment of this life then you don't need to be concerned about those moral requirements where man's morality might disagree with God's. 

14 hours ago, Goku said:

What constrains God's nature to be this way?

In your mind you could define a god which is evil by our human standards. indeed some have said that some of the acts or commandments of God in the old testament are evil. This is a difficult question but it is a legitimate one which eventually should be answered but I don't think we should go down that road until we first attempt to answer some more basic questions. This God of the Old Testament is simply the standard for morality, if indeed he does exist and if he is the only God. I certainly would admit that if he does not exist there could be some other moral standards. If no God exists at all then humanity is free to define its own morality. If you admit that, then if humanity defines it differently than YOU personally do, such as making it not a moral crime at all to let someone steal your wife for your children, as happens to many of us today, then you have no basis to complain.

14 hours ago, Goku said:

If God's morality is derived from his nature, and his nature just is what it is, and that's it with no explanation, then what makes it objective?

It is objective with respect to man. It comes from outside of man. And it is subjective with respect to God. God does not get his morality from outside of himself. I think that would be true of any ultimate eternal creator who was not himself created.

14 hours ago, Goku said:

As far as I can tell, an axiom of the Christian paradigm here is that morality is coming from within God rather than something that can be gleaned from external reality 

It is certainly true that other moral systems can be developed outside of the God of the Bible and they may arrive at the same positions much of the time. It can be merely a coincidence if man's idea of what is moral is the same as God's some of the time. What as an atheist you need to try to rationalize is why is it that man has a moral nature AT ALL? Can you say that all animals have that kind of a moral nature? Or even that some of them do? Why would any human ever come to a conclusion that the right thing to do might be something that is actually contrary to his own self-interest? How does that fit with evolution? Why shouldn't humanity agree that if you can get away with it, then stealing from someone else, especially if it is a corporation and not an individual, would be perfectly fine to do? Obviously there are many humans who think that is the case. And there are also many who would say it is true even if it is some individual, if that individual is richer than you are. And there are even some who would say it is true if that individual is NOT richer than you are!

14 hours ago, Goku said:

So, it would seem, by definition, in the way you have expressed yourself, God's morality is God's subjective perspective.

Why is that a problem? He made you and he is the ultimate giver of life or death when we leave this earth. Why SHOULDN'T he be the subjective determiner of what is good or bad? Yes this is somewhat Machiavellian, but we are very blessed that our God actually loves us and wants the best for us!

14 hours ago, Goku said:

You start with the presupposition that moral system X is from God. Nonbelievers do not share that presupposition, and instead believe that moral system X was invented by humans. It's not that nonbelievers are arrogant dunces (at least not because of this), you are just jumping the gun before you have established the necessary presuppositions for your statement to accurately reflect the views of others.

I'll agree. It would be jumping the gun to ask any atheist to abide by biblical morals. I don't know of any Christian who would disagree with that. Of course whether you are an atheist or not you will be subject to the criminal justice system wherever you might live. But in the USA that won't help you a bit if that rich guy decides to run off with your wife and leaves you squirming in the dust. If he and your wife came to you and asked you to explain why they should not do that, you wouldn't have anything you could say, would you? (Let's assume no children are involved.)

14 hours ago, Goku said:

Have you ever considered the possibility that Christianity is just another group convinced they are correct?

Of course. Anyone with a brain would say that is a possibility! What is your point? You are convinced YOU are right, so why are you pointing a finger of accusation toward Christians who think that THEY are right? Our thinking it or your thinking it does not make either of us right! When this life is over we may or may not have a consciousness. If we DO, then you had better hope that you made decisions in this life that would please whoever your creator is!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Goku said:

. In a nutshell, at least for now, I am asking what is the justification for the assertion that God's moral code is objective morality.

I may be missing your point, but my answer would be that God's morality is certainly objective with respect to humanity just like I could say that your personal morality is objective with respect to me personally. If there were multiple gods and the god of the Bible happened to have created us, then it might be possible to say that his morality was subjective with respect to other gods...I suppose. Humanity, if it is created by any God, may very well have a morality imposed on it from that God. If deism is correct then the Creator may not care whether we murder each other or not. If deism is NOT correct, then the Creator HAS moral expectations of us and we need to try to determine if that Creator has revealed them to us...and try to adhere to them.

On 4/30/2020 at 9:15 PM, Goku said:

The way I see it, God's commands are, ultimately, God's subjective perspective, and if there is an objective moral system that God commands then it necessarily exists outside of God.

So? if God created you and he has the power to reward you with life or punishment, and if he has defined for you what his own standards of morality are, what difference is it to you whether that is his own subjective standard, or if it is some kind of objective standard that he has adopted for himself? Regardless, he can and he does impose his morality system on you and if he exists, and if the Bible is his word, it reveals to us that your eternal fate depends on whether you have adopted his morality code and complied with his terms of forgiveness. You need to recognize that and get yourself in compliance while you still have time!

 

14 hours ago, Goku said:

You mean like the idea that humans shouldn't own other human beings as property? My intention is not to start some debate on how good or evil Yahweh's moral system is. However, if your evidence/justification for why Yahweh's moral system is objectively moral is because it is so obviously correct compared to human behavior, I don't think it is as obvious as you believe.

I agree. There are some things such as human slavery which seem to be evil to many humans, but not all, which the Bible indicates at least during that time period was not intrinsically evil. (However God does have standards for how a master should treat a slave, so please try to make that distinction.) There are also things which are considered to be good by many humans that God does not consider to be good. Abortion or divorce would be examples. We should not expect there to be perfect alignment between God's morality and what humans tend to think of as being moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, indydave said:

Fine... Then give me a good reason why the majority should not determine what is morality. You haven't done that.

On 5/15/2020 at 1:29 PM, popoi said:

Not a simple majority, no.  We can see plenty of examples (both hypothetical and historical) of how that breaks down. 

I assumed you were smart enough to be able to look at history and see examples of where a majority did a bad thing to a minority that strikes you as wrong.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

There are plenty of immoral people who do exactly that and many of them are successful in getting away with it. How can you say to them that it is immoral? Especially if there is a minority who is hurt and the majority who benefit from it?

"People get away with things" is a very different statement than "I can assume I can get away with things".  But sure, it may not be possible to convince someone that a thing is wrong if they don't accept basic premises like "hurting people is generally bad".  It may be possible to negotiate a middle ground, or they may just have to be opposed rather than convinced.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

COME ON NOW. We might agree that a majority of humans would see something as being immoral, but what about the minority who DON'T naturally see that and only think about what might benefit them or perhaps might benefit a majority? As an atheist, how can you object to that unless there is some OBJECTIVE source of authority for what is or isn't immoral?

If the appeal to fairness or empathy or any of those other qualities doesn't work, at a certain point we might have to fall back on "Ok, this is just how we're going to conduct society, and if you want to be a part of it you have to abide by those conditions too or be shamed/shunned/imprisoned/killed".

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

And BTW, you should try to contemplate why it might be that anyone in the majority of humans who would consider that naturally to not be a moral thing to do... in terms of evolution, how can you explain this general moral nature of man? As I was studying Evidences in college 40 years ago, the Moral Argument for the existence of God was one of the top three as I recall.

Humans are better able to survive as a group than as individuals.  Cooperation is obviously a very successful strategy, given the number and variety of species that exhibit various forms of it.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

REALLY? So you are saying that if some rich dude can seduce your wife and the two of them run off and leave you squirming in the dust, that is PERHAPS the moral thing for them to do??? DON'T DODGE!

From a strictly utilitarian perspective that is limited to that one instance, sure.  But my point was that strict utilitarianism focused on a single instance is a short sighted way to frame things.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

As long as you have a gun, you will be okay.

Hey what if we just cooperated?  Seems like we can get what we need and save a lot of unnecessary danger and worry.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

And if you have no conscience and no objective source of morality, you won't even feel bad when you take things from others.

But you probably do have things like empathy and a sense of fairness though.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

And if you are an atheist and others take something from you, including your wife, you have nothing to complain about because they did the MORAL thing.

I mean if my wife left me for some reason (perhaps because I thought of her as a piece of property to be taken instead of a voluntary participant in the relationship) I may well have some things to complain about.  Do you think you need an objective reason to complain about things?

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

True... But what if you have already counted heads and you KNOW you are in the majority? YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSUME ANYTHING!

Obviously most of the time people can tell if they're in a position to benefit from a particular policy.  The point is to engage their sense of empathy and fairness and think about how the policy would affect people who aren't them.

Even if you are presently in the majority, it's not guaranteed that you will remain so, or remain in control of the power to impose on the minority, so there is still a self-serving argument to be made there.

21 minutes ago, indydave said:

So let's say you are one of the people in the room who has less money than the richest the guy...can you all MORALLY agree to steal his money and share it?

Why are we operating on the assumption that it must be considered "his" though?

I'd certainly consider property rights less important than survival.  If someone is taking a loaf of bread so they don't starve, I don't think it's going to be very persuasive or productive to say "Hey you should die instead of violating his property rights", especially if the rich person has more bread than they could ever possibly eat.

59 minutes ago, indydave said:

AND WHAT IF YOU ARE THE RICH GUY WANTING TO STEAL A MAN'S WIFE AND YOU CAN COUNT... SO IT IS TWO AGAINST ONE? You may not care at all if someday YOU are the old guy and some OTHER young guy steals her from YOU. Maybe you will decide you should go shoot him if he does that or tries to do that... So you don't have concern that will happen to you.

Is there some looming threat to the nation's wife stockpiles that I'm not aware of?  You seem really worried about this particular scenario.  Unless you actually mean kidnapping I don't think it would ever occur to me to try to murder someone for "stealing" my wife.

I guess you can assume that you'll be able to wield enough force to do what you want with no fear of repercussions, but I wouldn't expect that to last too long once the neighbors start comparing notes about the crazy guy who keeps shooting any man who tries to talk to his wife.

59 minutes ago, indydave said:

Your morality system would say that it IS MORAL to steal another man's wife if she wants to do that with you. It's two against one.

Uh, what morality system are you referring to here specifically?  I've mentioned a few general principles, but I don't think I've specifically advocated for anything that would have a particular judgment here, other than again that wives are people, not property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

 Conclusion: I guess what I am saying guru, is that there is no turning back for me.

I may not have fully understood what you were saying regarding the miraculous event in your life. But I hope you would agree that if you cannot convince an atheist that this was truly a miracle from God, that it cannot serve any purpose in hoping to convert the atheist. You have to look to other methods. It is entirely possible that what you regard to be miraculous, was not. I assume you would say exactly the same thing regarding miracles that are professed by Mormons or Catholics or perhaps some Pentecostals...or Muslims, Hindus, Confusians, pagans etc. I personally am convinced that ALL of those are not true miracles in the sense that the term miracle is used in the New Testament. God certainly can and DOES act in our lives beyond what would naturally occur (eg.answering prayers), and if that is the definition of a miracle then I would say that miracles do happen today. But if we define the term as being a miracle in the sense that the term is used in the New Testament, I would say such miracles are not happening today. But whether they are or they are not, unless you can convince an atheist that they have actually happened (in your life or in others') today, they can serve no purpose in trying to convert him...IMO. In the New Testament it was indeed very rare that a miracle was used in the process of conversion. And Paul instructs us that when the completed revelation came, then the partial, including miracles, would be done away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, indydave said:

may not have fully understood what you were saying regarding the miraculous event in your life. But I hope you would agree that if you cannot convince an atheist that this was truly a miracle from God, that it cannot serve any purpose in hoping to convert the atheist. You have to look to other methods

I don't really try and convert atheists though. Goku asked if I ever considered Christianity to be another false group. I answered with some fairly vague references to my own testimony because the reasons aren't really intellectual but experiential.

As for Goku and other atheists response I believe it would be something like this; "Occams razor. On the whole the most likely explanation will be true, what is more likely that Mike the wishful thinking Christian conjured up miracles of delusion or that these fantastic events really occurred supernaturally?"

They then choose the former. That's how they see it, and present it in my experience. It's a nice, simple, flippant response which SOUNDS right, and which is smart enough to get past most Christians.

11 hours ago, indydave said:

I assume you would say exactly the same thing regarding miracles that are professed by Mormons or Catholics or perhaps some Pentecostals...or Muslims, Hindus, Confusians, pagans etc. I personally am convinced that ALL of those are not true miracles in the sense that the term miracle is used in the New Testament

They wouldn't be the same thing though. The logical error is to put all claims under one umbrella then treat the specific claim according to the general rule of thumb. EXAMPLE; "what, you claim you're an innocent prisoner, well so do many guilty therefore I lump you in the guilty group". (But that's sweeping generalisation fallacy, for he might be innocent!!!

An example is when Goku says, "did you ever consider Christianity another group convinced they're correct".

People fail to search for the truly sound logic. You can't lump all claims under, "religion" for example. 

The Lord is true, so Christianity is true. So then what is the true lumping? Is the correct lumping to say, "Christianity, Islam, Hinduism" because they are, "religious"? Do we lump them together like Goku wants us to because they are religious and atheism isn't religious?

But logically that lumping has no significance if in actual fact Christianity is true because then you would lump atheism with Islam and Hinduism for all three would be equally fictitious. Think about it, when you read a fiction novel does it matter if it is a supernatural horror like Stephen King books, or whether it is a fictional story without anything supernatural depicting false events and characters.

The lumping would be, "fictional books", and if one fictional book is science fiction and the other religious, what groups them is they're both fiction, so lumping Christianity with Islam or Hinduism would be a superficial category of, "religion", because in fact materialism if it is a fictional set of events, is closer to Islam and Hinduism than Christianity is, if Islam and Hinduism are also fictional. 

So to my mind the material belief is just as fantastic as fiction, as those other religions of Islam and holy cows and Thor because the claim is fiction; that a cell which is one of the most sophisticated designs to exist, created itself even though something far simpler as a design such as a car chassis, could never create itself. The belief a tornado whipped through a junkyard and assembled a 747 universe is as fictitious as Thor farting being the cause of thunder, for we know the miraculous design in nature is factual.

So really that is all that happens in these debate, Goku always asks the question, "what about your group" and lumps Christianity with any absurd religion he can find then defines his own group as supreme scientific beings. Atheists USE and ABUSE the vague term, "religion" to make it seem like only our groups believes the fantastic and to make it seem the gospel should be lumped with holy cows and Thor. But you can be a religious atheist pagan that believes crystals can heal!

But anyone who reads the gospel can see there is more meaning in the gospel message than in any other belief, be it materialism, Islam, holy cows or Thor. Nobody can say that God becoming a man in the flesh and dying for our sins is comparable to any other claim, and if they investigate the claim they CLAIM it is similar to, and properly investigate, they will find those other false religions and beliefs to be absurd, preposterous and superficial. The love of God in Christ by dying for sins on the cross is the deepest most meaningful message.

Don't believe me? Believe someone then, that experienced all religions and he will tell you that was his conclusion; all other beliefs ultimately don't mean anything; I think that testimony coming from someone that has experienced all "groups" matters, because they can tell you if there is a true belief from an experience we ourselves will likely never have. When he studied the bible in it's original languages he found all of the popular "contradictions" atheists argue, vanished. 

"I have been practising and studying every faith system I could find since i was about eight years old...after studying all the worlds religions I came to a dead end in every single one. There was always something that contradicted itself...every person I studied under from a pastor to a shaman to a guru to a rabbi it didn't matter when the doors closed you see they curse, throw fits, their flesh takes over, it always enraged me because these people were presenting themselves as the place to get truth."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K4KYbew0Hg&t=2649s

(His final conclusion if you don't want to watch his prolific testimonies spanning very many hours, is that ultimately his experiences of all other religion were ultimately superficial and meaningless, it was only Christianity that ultimately meant something. And as humans above the animals that is what we seek, deep, meaningful truth to the big questions. He found none in, "religion". But he did experience altered states, he said he "flew in his astral body", presumably by some demonic activity or drug/mind-induced state but even the truth of experiencing things other religions say are true led to him being empty on the inside ultimately because it was all temporary pleasure and pleasing the flesh, that they were all based on. 

It truly is only the true God, the Lord Jesus Christ that can give that meaning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, indydave said:

I may be missing your point, but my answer would be that God's morality is certainly objective with respect to humanity just like I could say that your personal morality is objective with respect to me personally. If there were multiple gods and the god of the Bible happened to have created us, then it might be possible to say that his morality was subjective with respect to other gods...I suppose. Humanity, if it is created by any God, may very well have a morality imposed on it from that God. If deism is correct then the Creator may not care whether we murder each other or not. If deism is NOT correct, then the Creator HAS moral expectations of us and we need to try to determine if that Creator has revealed them to us...and try to adhere to them.

I don't think it follows that if people have "different moral codes" that therefore there isn't an objective one. It's only "relative" to those who have sinful desires and so say it is, "perfectly moral to me to do P". But that doesn't mean that logically it follows that, "therefore morality is relative". First of all that's begging the question because who is to say those "relative moral codes" are really moral anyway? All humans are flawed and have agendas and desires, but objectively moral righteous things are truly moral.

Think about that logically, if 100 people claim to own gold and one actually is a true claim, does that mean that there is no objective gold that exists, or does it just mean the other claims are not truly gold?

In the same way the, "moral codes" that exist, are not really, "moral", they are just called "moral codes".

A g*y person will say, "my moral code is that a g*y lifestyle is not sinful." But they only say that because they are g*y, not because it truly is moral.

In the same way the moors murderer had a moral code that said, "everything is lawful", meaning any action is moral, but he only said that because he murdered children for sadistic lustful pleasure it gave him. 

But the question is, what is truly "morally good". I think basically we can show what that is, it can be difficult to define TOTALLY but everyone is aware of what is morally correct.

Let's see if objective morality exists with a test, (which we all innately know the correct answers to proving morality is objective).(note if you have the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, you can never choose the wrong actions.)

1. A woman drops her purse full of cash and you see her walking away not realising she done it. Which is the correct action;

a. Pick up the purse, run after her and give her it back.

b. Take the cash for yourself to spread your genes by using it to pick up girls on behalf of evolution.

c. Just taking enough cash to get you home and give her it back.

2. A man accidentally kicks you in the leg and is very embarrassed by what he doneWhich is the correct action;

a. Kick him back and call him a brainless dog-turd he endangered your sperm count.

b. Forgive him seeing it was an obvious accident.

c. Rape his wife and murder him.

d. Ask him for some compensation or threaten him with a court action.

3. Goku and Mike are arguing, Goku gets angry and calls him a dog fart. Which is the correct action;

a. To laugh and join in the insulting.

b. Goku should apologise he lost his temper.

c. Goku should open a forum where he shows insults have more effect on gene spreading because they can make people angry and you can then take their wife after murdering them.

4. A person is starving and comes up to you crying asking for food. Which is the correct action;

a. Give him some food/money to help him or guide him to a homeless place they give free food, etc..

b. Tell him to go and get a job you bum!

c. Tell him he is not the fittest so natural selection is just ruling him out, so he should get over it.

d. Advise him how to survive without food by smoking on Darwin mushrooms.

Conclusion: If objective morality doesn't exist why is there a game called, "scruples"? You see even though the game won't always be correct we all know that MOSTLY there is a reason why there are correct answers and that's because we innately know what the morally good thing is. (Pointing to areas of disagreement or moral dillemmas which are the odd exception or issues such as abortion or whatever, doesn't change objective morality because if there is disagreement that doesn't mean there are two moral codes, it just means one side is wrong. And the world is the world of sin and crime that it is because people say, "to me it's moral", so what I am saying is, we mustn't infer morality is relative because of differing moral codes, because there is only one correct moral code, the other "moral codes" simply call themselves "moral codes", what they are is a mixture of human reason and sinful desires/warped Godless thinking.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 10:36 PM, indydave said:
Quote

Hypothetically, if God's nature was different, would objective morality be different to match God's nature?

I think so. For instance, a tribe of black people may have a black god who instructs them to kill all of the white people. In that society killing innocent white people would seem to be a good thing to do. Of course it would NOT be a good thing unless that god was the real God. If it was not, then it would be an evil thing. 

All my questions are under the assumption that we are talking about the real true God.

So, you are saying that the instruction to commit genocide is not good if it comes from a false God, but it is good if it comes from the true God? How is this different than an argument from authority? How does God instructing an action that would otherwise be bad automatically make it good? What is so objective about this system of morality?

Quote

The question is whether you want to take the chance that the God of the Bible is not the real God. For those of us who have concluded he IS the real God, that is where we look to determine what true morality is. Of course that would not be true if the god of the Bible is not real. That means you could choose your own morality and it would have no negative consequence to you if you can get away with it in this life. But you can't get away with it at all if God exists, because even if you get away with it in this life there will be a judgment.

But I have not concluded your God is real. As for the "chance" tactic, I find it rather silly; if I apply it to all Gods/religions so as to be fair the end result would be madness.

Quote

If you had a daughter who was murdered and the killer was never found, it would be a comfort to you that the killer will one day have to face judgement.

I'm sure that if I was in such a situation it would provide some comfort and closure to know that ultimately justice will be done, if not this life then in the next. However, just because something "ought" to be does not mean it "is".

Quote

Or if you were married and some younger good-looking rich guy stole your wife...it would be good to know that there is a God who would recognize that immorality and harshly judge it. As an atheist, you have less basis to object to that. As long as the rich guy can get away with it, if he is happy and if your wife is happy what do they care if you are NOT happy? It seems like a simple math problem. you can either have two people who are unhappy or one person who is unhappy. Why SHOULDN'T they feel free to be together and leave you crying in the dust?... Why shouldn't that be the MORAL thing? Should morality be determined by majority vote? Why not? If you are the only rich guy in the room and there is a vote that we should all share our income equally, should that be forced upon you? Would that be the moral thing to do?

As with the previous scenario, just because something ought to be does not mean it is.

Quote

As an atheist, you have less basis to object to that.

What is the added theistic basis to object such things, God? On what grounds does God object to such things? Is there something beyond an appeal to authority fallacy?

Quote

As long as the rich guy can get away with it, if he is happy and if your wife is happy what do they care if you are NOT happy? It seems like a simple math problem. you can either have two people who are unhappy or one person who is unhappy. Why SHOULDN'T they feel free to be together and leave you crying in the dust?... Why shouldn't that be the MORAL thing?

Simple utilitarianism has its uses, but it is limited in my view. Apart from the emotional drama, where does the wife's marital vows to stay faithful come in? Shouldn't such solemn vows be not easily overturned?

As for a "numbers" argument, society functions due to people cooperating with each other. Such actions breed mistrust, and if enough of those types of actions happen then society will begin to break down, and then everyone will suffer. Obviously, one unfaithful wife will not do this, but if you'll allow the analogy of littering. If one person litters the consequences may be negligible, but if everyone litters it would turn a place into a dump. In order to be fair, everyone must follow the rules.

Quote

Should morality be determined by majority vote? Why not? If you are the only rich guy in the room and there is a vote that we should all share our income equally, should that be forced upon you? Would that be the moral thing to do?

No; if there is an objective morality out there then it doesn't matter what any majority or what any God has to say, that objective morality will not change. If there is no objective morality, then I derive my own personal morality from other sources than mob rule.

As for your communist question, I do think the moral thing for governments to do is to take care of the lower classes when able which will inevitably involve some sort of wealth distribution. Both extremes of communism and run-away capitalism have fundamental flaws in my opinion. As for where we are right now in America, I do think we have shifted too far towards run-away capitalism and we should move the needle towards a more equitable society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Think about that logically, if 100 people claim to own gold and one actually is a true claim, does that mean that there is no objective gold that exists, or does it just mean the other claims are not truly gold?

You're assuming that one of the claims is true.  100 people claiming they have a gold thing when only one exists obviously means at least 99 of them are lying, but it might be more.

Quote

A g*y person will say, "my moral code is that a g*y lifestyle is not sinful." But they only say that because they are g*y, not because it truly is moral.

Uh, plenty of people recognize that someone else being g*y isn't any more of a moral issue than them being left handed is.

Quote

In the same way the moors murderer had a moral code that said, "everything is lawful", meaning any action is moral, but he only said that because he murdered children for sadistic lustful pleasure it gave him. 

But the question is, what is truly "morally good". I think basically we can show what that is, it can be difficult to define TOTALLY but everyone is aware of what is morally correct.

Let's see if objective morality exists with a test, (which we all innately know the correct answers to proving morality is objective).(note if you have the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, you can never choose the wrong actions.)

This doesn't seem to show much other than that there's agreement between most moral systems on broad principles.  I would say that's just as easy to explain by the fact that all the moral systems are being created by humans and are shaped by similar factors like empathy, fairness, and balancing individual and collective interests.  That there is broad agreement on certain principles doesn't mean that the things we agree on are being caused by some force outside of humanity.

As a comparison, if you asked "Which is the best lunch?: A bag of poop, a rubber ball, or a ham sandwich and some chips?" you'd get almost universal agreement on the last option, because it appeals to what the vast majority of people want from their food, and the other options very obviously don't.  But that by itself doesn't imply that a ham sandwich is objectively the best lunch.  Ask instead which of these lunches is the best, and you'd get a much wider variety of answers, probably with a large divide between cultures, and probably quite a few explanations that prioritize different things (nutrition, taste, cost, variety, etc.).  Similarly, we could ask moral questions where there are fewer obvious distinctions between the options, or the options appeal to other sets of values than "kick the baby", "don't kick the baby", or "don't kick the baby if it shares your genes otherwise kick the baby".

Quote

Conclusion: If objective morality doesn't exist why is there a game called, "scruples"?

That would be a pretty boring game if everyone agreed on everything.  It seems designed to present questions that can be approached from multiple angles.  I suspect it also suffers from the issue of people giving the socially acceptable answer instead of what they'd actually do in that situation.

Quote

You see even though the game won't always be correct we all know that MOSTLY there is a reason why there are correct answers and that's because we innately know what the morally good thing is. (Pointing to areas of disagreement or moral dillemmas which are the odd exception or issues such as abortion or whatever, doesn't change objective morality because if there is disagreement that doesn't mean there are two moral codes, it just means one side is wrong. And the world is the world of sin and crime that it is because people say, "to me it's moral", so what I am saying is, we mustn't infer morality is relative because of differing moral codes, because there is only one correct moral code, the other "moral codes" simply call themselves "moral codes", what they are is a mixture of human reason and sinful desires/warped Godless thinking.)

It doesn't seem like we innately know what the morally good thing is if you have to qualify the agreement by just sweeping aside all the instances where we don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 9:07 AM, mike the wiz said:
Quote

You say God's nature is good because God has no imperfections, but by which standard is God absent of any imperfection, God's?

Yes, because there is no higher authority that exists. "For when the Lord gave a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by nobody higher, He swore by Himself." (paraphrased, since that's from memory)

But basically it's like asking, "but how do you know a circle is a circle if you can only go by a circle?" Or that's how it comes across to me.

(BTW, I won't have time to read and address everything you say so will just manage what I can for now in this post.)

You see because God is all-knowing and there isn't any knowledge God does not have, He would know if His action was imperfect. But then if it was, He wouldn't be God.

Is God perfect because whatever God does/is by definition is perfect (i.e. if God was hypothetically different the qualities of perfection would shift to match God), or is God perfect because there is some standard of perfect apart from God that God fulfills by being God?

This is why I specifically asked: If I attained all knowledge outside of God, would I then know objective morality and why it is correct?

I am getting mixed signals from your posts. Sometimes you seem to be saying that the definition of perfect or objective morality is whatever God is (e.g. his nature). And at other times, you seem to be saying this perfection and objective morality of God comes from God being omniscient.

Also, why do you assume that if someone has perfect knowledge of morality that that entity will choose to be moral? Going by experience in the real world, just because someone knows something is right doesn't mean that they will do the right thing.

Quote
Quote
Quote

Mike: Yet rather absurdly and amusingly to those who watch on the sidelines, each group is filled with self-righteous indignation that their particular morality is the correct one.

Goku: Have you ever considered the possibility that Christianity is just another group convinced they are correct?

Mike: I know of the argument in my mind. I wouldn't say I, "consider" it, but in the past I did consider it. But once knowledge is attained the question no longer applies. It's like asking me, "have you considered the possibility you don't exist?" If I know I exist the question becomes redundant.

My point was not really a personal one. I was just pointing out that from my perspective Christianity is not on the sidelines but up on stage as just another actor proclaiming their version of moral truth.

Quote

It APPEARS on face value, looking at the, "outer packaging", that Christianity is just another religion. But underneath it isn't. For some reason God wants it that way because, "we live by faith not by sight."

In terms of morality, I don't see anything particularly special about Christianity that would make me think it came from some transcendent deity rather than humans being human.

On 5/16/2020 at 1:50 PM, mike the wiz said:
Quote
Quote

Mike: And is it a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would "just so happen" to remove all the moral ills of the world? Or were rapists and murderers and thieves all under "self control" and doing those things out of "gentleness" and, "love"?

Goku: It's not a coincidence that the fruit of the spirit would remove all the moral ills of the world. All that statement really means is that moral system X defines immorality, and if everyone followed said moral code all the immorality of the world as defined by that system will go away. The statement is all but meaningless.

Mike: I think this would be a strawman and I wouldn't argue the tautology in order to back up my argument, my argument doesn't depend on the tautology.

I will explain fully what I was actually arguing;

For example, let's say since you believe the bible is just made up, that Goku writes down his fruit of the spirit and they are traits/virtues that you list as, passion, ambition, purpose, dilligence.

Now let's say someone else writes down what their fruit of the spirit are, such as, happiness, giving pleasure, charitable

So what I was saying was, if we think of anything we agree is obviously immoral such as murder, rape, theft, the ones we all agree on, then obviously with your fruit of the spirit perhaps you can be a thief or rapist because you may be a dilligent, purposeful, passionate, ambitious thief/rapist.

And that's what we would expect if we just make up some fruit of the spirit because we are not really penning God-inspired scriptures but are instead shooting from the hip. And if the bible is false we also would expect this. 

Now with that other list of fruit, you can be pursuing happiness and still be charitable still be a murderer. (John Gacy was a very charitable person, so was Jimmy Saville) But they used charity as a front to pursue abuse/murder, and throw people off their scent.

Can you see what I am saying yet?

With the ACTUAL fruit of the spirit, written in the bible, is it a coincidence that if you have them you can actually do nothing immoral at all because they all come together in a unity which prevents all immorality? For example if I rape is that, "self control" Is it "loving" and "gentle"?

So if we follow many types of moral systems they can still lead to immorality and crime but with the fruit of the spirit they cannot lead to immorality.

Love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness

Conclusion: I don't think it is a coincidence that if you have all of these fruit it leads to a total absence of immorality and crime. So what are you saying, that the bible-writer just happened to hit upon only list of virtues that work perfectly to remove immorality?

Can you be a thief, rapist, murderer, adulterer, mocker, hater, racist, or anything else you would yourself deem immoral if you have the fruit of the spirit?The answer is, no, you cannot do those things if you have the fruit of the spirit because they rule them all out.

But by what standard do you define immorality? Where does this standard come from? I don't see how this response demonstrates that your statement isn't a tautology. Obviously, your standard is not whatever humans generally agree is good and bad behavior, but comes from your religion. Your religion says X is bad and do Y. And so if everyone does Y, there will be no more X.

I don't understand how basic agreement among humans that things like murder and theft are immoral means that: if everyone perfectly follows your religion, then there will be no more immorality (with immorality defined by your religion), is not a tautology. Adding that all the rules of your religion perfectly combine what is necessary to get rid of immorality doesn't seem to address the tautology issue.

Quote

So for me I think that is good evidence God's morality is the true morality. Even if I can't fully define why objective good is good, like with kinds that won't stop good or animal kinds from existing anyway. There will still be a genetic limit for animals even if I can't define kind.

In the same way I think it is reasonable and realistic that if there is a true morality it will be the one that leads to a world without the worlds ills, such as crime and starvation. Even if our moral systems don't line up, MOSTLY they do, which implies morality isn't only relative. Most groups even wildly different ones like g*y-atheist and bible-believing Christian, would all agree there is a, "good" if there was no crime, no starvation or neglect, no misery, etc....I think that is good evidence there is an objective good, compounded by the fact that this objective moral good SHOULD cure the worlds ills, and low and behold, if you happen to be Jesus Christ, and everyone was like you, there would be no crime or moral ills.

How did you determine what is and isn't a "world ill"?

You could probably choose a lot of different moral systems and if everyone followed it the exact same way we would have world peace.

The g*y issue actually brings up a good point. I, and many others, do not think being g*y and being in a g*y relationship is inherently immoral. From my perspective, a "world ill" is the mistreatment of g*y people, some of which comes directly from your religion. So, when you say all the world's moral ills would go away if we all followed your religion, I disagree. My point is that when you point to general agreement like stealing and murder is wrong, that doesn't negate the fact that people do have different conceptions of morality and they don't always perfectly line up with your religion. And that brings us back to my earlier question of, how do you define immorality so that when everyone follows your religion all this immorality will go away?

Quote

But if we go with human reason, relative systems of morality, they don't cure the worlds ills. For me that is not a coincidence. It means it is highly likely the small differences in our moralities occur because in relative systems human reason and sinful desires have SKEWED the person's sense of what is objectively good. So the person will MOSTLY agree with God's morality, but not all of it. 

You mean like how people disagree with your God that owning other human beings as property is wrong?

Quote

That's where moral relativity is coming from, it isn't that morality is relative, it's that human desires of the individual COLOUR their moral compass. For example the Moors murderer had a morality that, "everything is lawful". Which means all actions are equally moral, even child murder. But it's obvious he only had that morality in order to justify his wicked desires to kill children for his own sadistic pleasure. It's the same with all relative morality, the person will have a moral compass which says their sin is not a sin. It isn't that there is no objective morality, it's that peoples desires hide behind, "morality". The relative moral compasses aren't really, "morality" they're human-sinful desires with the epithet, "morality" used as a name-tag.

So the idea that people shouldn't be slaves is not really morality, rather it is the sinful desires of people masked under the guise of morality?

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate about slavery or specific laws/actions of God. I'm trying to point out that your speech about how great God's moral system is and everyone that disagrees is just trying to justify their own sin might work when preaching to the choir, but unbelievers look at that stuff and find it silly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 8:32 PM, indydave said:
Quote

The fundamental problem is not that I caused you pain and suffering (causing pain and suffering is not inherently immoral in of itself, according to your expressed beliefs), rather the problem is that it goes against God's nature.

I guess this is exactly the rationale that tells some people that if they baby in the mother's womb before it can experience pain, then that is morally right, but if they find out that it does experience pain, then it would be morally wrong I guess that would also just fun smothering you didn't like while they were sleeping.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I am describing the moral paradigm of Mike's Christianity as I understand it, and you have made similar remarks that lead to a similar conclusion. You seem upset at the description. I am too, and that is partially why I disagree with the underlying foundation of the moral paradigm expressed by you and Mike in this topic.

Quote
Quote

To ask a fundamental question, what exactly is meant by objective morality?

A moral system that comes from outside humanity. Of course this assumes that there is something outside of humanity.

So, if an alien civilization contacted us, then you would consider their morality objective morality because it comes from outside humanity? I don't think I agree with your definition of objective morality.

Quote
Quote

I am asking, as a follow up to the previous question of what determines the properties of God's nature, why is whatever determines the properties of God's nature affords God good qualities instead of bad qualities?

By definition. Because he had the power to make us (and destroy us or reward us), he gets to make the rules for any reward or punishment he will be meting out. 

How is that any different than "might makes right"? Isn't that one of the moral objections to evolution creationists use?

Quote
Quote

When God says to give to the poor, giving to the poor is not a good act because you are helping the less fortunate, it is *only* a good act because it correlates with God's nature.

In fact, if all a Christian did with his giving was to provide food or medicine for the poor, it would be an immoral thing according to the scriptures because there is spiritual work that should be done also, which will result in enormous benefit to others eternally, in addition to simply pleasing God. SOME of what we are able to give should be set aside to help support the spreading of the Gospel! Indeed, I would say most of it should. What if there is no God, even if you are wanting to do things to benefit others, then there would be 0% that you would want to use for evangelistic purposes...except I supposed to teach others that they should also give to the poor.

I honestly have no idea what this has to do with what I wrote above. Assuming that what you give to the poor is in the correct amount and proportions according to whatever system you desire, do you have a response to my description of the Christian moral paradigm (as has been expressed to me) above?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Goku said:

How is that any different than "might makes right"? Isn't that one of the moral objections to evolution creationists use?

I'd say it is undeniably true that if you made something yourself (NOT your child) and you sustain it, and if you have an opportunity to either keep it with you or rid yourself of it, you can morally make the choice to rid yourself of it if it does not please you. The fact that you made it and that you sustain it gives you that power. All I can think of as an example is maybe a farm animal that you bred and raised and continue to feed. It is indeed a matter of might makes right. You should subject yourself to God's moral authority because he made you and he can give you eternal life or he can destroy you. OF COURSE I recognize that you first must be convinced that you were created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, indydave said:

I'd say it is undeniably true that if you made something yourself (NOT your child) and you sustain it, and if you have an opportunity to either keep it with you or rid yourself of it, you can morally make the choice to rid yourself of it if it does not please you. The fact that you made it and that you sustain it gives you that power. All I can think of as an example is maybe a farm animal that you bred and raised and continue to feed. It is indeed a matter of might makes right. You should subject yourself to God's moral authority because he made you and he can give you eternal life or he can destroy you. OF COURSE I recognize that you first must be convinced that you were created.

IOW, there is no underlying moral system in your view, at least in the sense that there is an underlying set of rules that certain actions/consequences are good or bad; whoever has the power determines what is morally correct. I am not sure that is what most people consider to be an objective moral system.

As I told Mike, according to your expressed views of morality, helping people in need or hurting people without good cause are not inherently good or bad actions, at least in the respect of their consequences here on earth in making someone's life better or worse. They are *only* good or bad acts based on whoever has the most power views those acts (in MIke's case it was whatever correlates with God's nature, in your case it is whoever has the most power).

Why do you think "might makes right" is an objective moral system? And, why would atheists not be able to use this objective moral system whereas Christian can? Is it only because God is more powerful than any human or any human system of power? What about moral systems that aren't derived from power, but on principles of things like well-being, happiness, and fairness; why can't they be considered objective moral systems if might makes right is an objective moral system?

I find your qualifier of "NOT your child" to be interesting. Why do you make this exception with your "might makes right" objective moral system? Is there a moral principle more fundamental than might makes right?

Also, in your religion, aren't we considered God's children? So, why does God have the moral authority to destroy his children (us) whereas we don't have the moral authority to destroy our children despite that we have the power to do so? Is it only because God forbids it and he has the most power, and since might equals moral correctness God is correct? Or, is there some sort of power scale in which what is morally permissible does not correlate 1:1 with who has power to do what?

My last question for now. If, hypothetically, someone more powerful than God exists, would God's moral authority be rendered obsolete?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Goku said:

find your qualifier of "NOT your child" to be interesting. Why do you make this exception with your "might makes right" objective moral system? Is there a moral principle more fundamental than might makes right?

Because humans are not animals. And because we do not create humans when we make a baby, however you can say that humans make livestock in the same way that they make corn. Of course God is the ultimate maker, but a human can rightly decide the fate of his livestock. It is moral for him to do that. IF God exists, then it is moral for him to determine the fate of his Creation and to dictate what is moral.

I am not saying that someone who does not believe there is a Creator cannot invent their own morality system, but it is not an objective system. It is SUBJECTIVE, produced from within the human system.

1 hour ago, Goku said:

Also, in your religion, aren't we considered God's children? So, why does God have the moral authority to destroy his children (us) whereas we don't have the moral authority to destroy our children despite that we have the power to do so?

Because "in my religion" there is someone above the parents who has greater power and authority. It is as if a farmer is a steward for an owner of the farm. The buck does not stop with the steward.

 

1 hour ago, Goku said:

My last question for now. If, hypothetically, someone more powerful than God exists, would God's moral authority be rendered obsolete?

Yes of course. And I will go one step further and say if there was some being who has equal in power to God then we would have to decide which moral system weed should follow and that might come down to a coin toss if they are exactly equal.

I hope you will be as conscientious to answer my questions as I am trying to be of yours. I do recognize that you and Mike have asked other questions of me and I hope to get back to answering more of yours. I have an issue with Mike right now so until that is resolved and I am not being chastened unfairly by him anymore I will exercise my option to ignore his questions. If I don't respond in a way that pleases him he has his sickle of death aimed at my neck and I'm not going to put up with that here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms