Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
But wars happen in heaven. God is so incompetent that He lost the planet to a disgruntled employee.1) no more hunger
2) not more violence
3) no more illnesses
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But wars happen in heaven. God is so incompetent that He lost the planet to a disgruntled employee.1) no more hunger
2) not more violence
3) no more illnesses
Again, you are not appreciating the difference between our world and a hypothetical one where a God factually exists.
It doesn't matter what humans can perceive, the laws are there regardless. The same as the speed of light exists regardless of whether humans know about it or not.
We can say these exist because we are engaging in a discussion of a hypothetical scenario which is contingent on a God existing.
Bingo
Do you see any difference between creating a new lottery and creating a new universe external and unconnected to the one created by the God
This is the point you keep missing.
You exist in a closed system, and your "solution" is always "leave the system" which is impossible. You can't, unless you claim to be more powerful than the hypothetical omnimax God, and can create rival universes on command.
That is ludicrous.
It's only important if you doubt the existence of God, our discussion is contingent on God existing so this makes no sense.
The mechanics are 'judging' your move and applying the correct damage based on what you do. Some games even have good/evil mechanics based on your actions. They don't limit what you can do, but do change the endgame.
What can't an all-powerful God create definitive standards by which your behaviour is judged, given video games already do this?
You seem to assume video game designers are more powerful than God
Through critical thinking and the complete lack of evidence for it. If we can agree on what a human is, meaning that we are a being born from "two" other beings on a small planet in the middle of nowhere in the Universe.How would you figure if morality created by humans doesn't apply to the rest of the universe?
Because God is said to be outside time and space, internal and the creator of everything and is not a biological being created within this universe. If such a being exists it would give a foundation for objective morality. But obviously, this doesn't make God unique, because any such being or "force" that humans can think of, given similar properties could be a foundation. So this is the axiom that people in support of objective morality seem to have to rely on. Which obviously causes some massive issues as I see it.How exactly is morality created by God any more objective than morality created by humans?
I agree. But given the attributes of God and what people believe about him, a great number of people believe this to be the most plausible explanation. Keep in mind that we are not talking about knowing for certainty here, merely the best explanation. And obviously, if the debate was between an atheist in support of subjective morality vs objective morality it would be a very different one. But in the second video I linked, both the speakers are in support of objective morality.From your texts it looks like that since God is God, he can do anything. But you would first need to show that creating objective morality is logically feasible. In other words, that it can be done with enough power. And second, that humans don't have the power to create it.
I'm not sure one can look at it that way. That is speaking with the knowledge of knowing that it is wrong.And even if there was proof of God AND proof of objective morality, our perception would be more be more important than objective morality. Wouldn't you agree? Would you rape people if it was proven that it is objectively moral to do so? You wouldn't, unless your moral perception itself changed.
Weird how we only supposedly hear from two out of twelve.All of the Apostles - we know 100% that all of the apostles really did exist, this is not falsifiable
Through critical thinking and the complete lack of evidence for it. If we can agree on what a human is, meaning that we are a being born from "two" other beings on a small planet in the middle of nowhere in the Universe.
Somehow given that description we would have to demonstrate how human morality would be able to travel or get imprinted into other beings. As I mentioned in one of the other posts, we would expect to see this in animals here on Earth and draw a logical conclusion that they got it from humans. And I don't see any evidence that it is even remotely the case.
Because God is said to be outside time and space, internal and the creator of everything and is not a biological being created within this universe. If such a being exists it would give a foundation for objective morality. But obviously, this doesn't make God unique, because any such being or "force" that humans can think of, given similar properties could be a foundation. So this is the axiom that people in support of objective morality seem to have to rely on. Which obviously causes some massive issues as I see it.
But given that we don't know everything with certain and what exactly caused the Universe, we can simply exclude this as a possibility. But ultimately the real debate is whether morality is subjective or objective and what explains reality best, not whether such a being/force exists or not.
I agree. But given the attributes of God and what people believe about him, a great number of people believe this to be the most plausible explanation. Keep in mind that we are not talking about knowing for certainty here, merely the best explanation. And obviously, if the debate was between an atheist in support of subjective morality vs objective morality it would be a very different one. But in the second video I linked, both the speakers are in support of objective morality.
I'm not sure one can look at it that way. That is speaking with the knowledge of knowing that it is wrong.
It is like me asking you, "You would kill infants, even if you knew it was wrong?" assuming that killing infants were considered a good thing. If the morality of raping each other was as "imprinted" on us as that of not randomly killing each other is, then I think we would prefer going around raping each other, because it would be good and not doing it, would be a bad thing.
Let's imagine that the bible said:
"Thou shall rape your neighbour and show them, love."
And everyone could look at this and go, "Yes, love is very important it brings happiness to the world." then it would be considered immoral to not do it. Given that the bible in many cases reflects common morality, it is not purely based on random things.
How would it get there then?But objective morality doesn't have to travel nor get imprinted into other beings.
Because he is the creator of everything there is, and that he is said to be all good, perfect etc. Given these characteristics, God wouldn't simply have a subjective opinion about morality, it would have to be objective. If it was subjective he could be wrong and it would go against these attributes such as being perfect and all good. So the morality God imposes must at all times be perfect and apply to everything.You are essentially saying that God has a given set of attributes and therefore he is able to create objective morality rather than merely subjective. But you are not showing what is the connection. How does possessing those attributes entail being able to create objective, rather than subjective, morality?
To morality.The most plausible explanation to what?
Because objective morality exists beyond the subject, there is a clear difference here. I would suggest watching this 5-minute video, as I think it will explain it quite well.I have no idea in what way this disagrees with my argument that what matters is our perception rather than objective morality.
Realize there is no God actually saying any of this. There are humans acting as proxies for an absent God (assuming it exists at all). We don;t see God doing on hands management of human affairs, all we have are a lost list of religious organizations with human leadership who claim to represent God.How would it get there then?
Because he is the creator of everything there is, and that he is said to be all good, perfect etc. Given these characteristics, God wouldn't simply have a subjective opinion about morality, it would have to be objective. If it was subjective he could be wrong and it would go against these attributes such as being perfect and all good. So the morality God imposes must at all times be perfect and apply to everything.
If you take the trolley example.
"Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?"
To God, this would have an objectively correct answer of what would be the right thing to do. Whereas humans would have to raise a lot of moral questions, such as is it better to save 5 rather than 1? If they pull the lever they are directly guilty of killing that person? But if they don't do it, they allow 5 people to get killed? so what to do?
There is no correct answer to this, some people will pull the lever and some won't depending on whatever justification they have for doing one over the other.
To the indifferent of nature's balance and the importance of ecosystems, no. They are self-absorbed. This is similar to conservative Christians who don't care about climate change and the negative effects of it. Some even think this descrutive behavior is bringing the End Times according to God's will. Religion at work, greed and selfisshness, and a severe lack of "love thy neighbor".To morality.
For instance, is it reasonable to think that there are any lifeforms now or ever, that have followed the moral code of eating each other to the point of extinction? and is it reasonable to think that it could be the case? If not, that could suggest that morality is objective rather than subjective, but can subjective morality explain this?
That is funny. How do you know there were 12 if you say you "only supposedly hear from two"?Weird how we only supposedly hear from two out of twelve.
huh, maybe I should say yes under certain conditions. Namely if we imagined for example that squares were circular and time went backwards and nobody existed --only then-- could we say that it would be moral. I wouldn't like it though but then again I wouldn't exist so how would I know?... Imagine for example that it happens to be the case that killing, theft and lying is always objectively moral. Would you do those things whenever just because it is moral?
How would it get there then?
Because he is the creator of everything there is, and that he is said to be all good, perfect etc. Given these characteristics, God wouldn't simply have a subjective opinion about morality, it would have to be objective.
If it was subjective he could be wrong and it would go against these attributes such as being perfect and all good. So the morality God imposes must at all times be perfect and apply to everything.
If you take the trolley example.
"Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realise that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five?"
To God, this would have an objectively correct answer of what would be the right thing to do. Whereas humans would have to raise a lot of moral questions, such as is it better to save 5 rather than 1? If they pull the lever they are directly guilty of killing that person? But if they don't do it, they allow 5 people to get killed? so what to do?
There is no correct answer to this, some people will pull the lever and some won't depending on whatever justification they have for doing one over the other.
To morality.
For instance, is it reasonable to think that there are any lifeforms now or ever, that have followed the moral code of eating each other to the point of extinction? and is it reasonable to think that it could be the case? If not, that could suggest that morality is objective rather than subjective, but can subjective morality explain this?
Because objective morality exists beyond the subject, there is a clear difference here. I would suggest watching this 5-minute video, as I think it will explain it quite well.
huh, maybe I should say yes under certain conditions. Namely if we imagined for example that squares were circular and time went backwards and nobody existed --only then-- could we say that it would be moral. I wouldn't like it though but then again I wouldn't exist so how would I know?
Meanwhile, most people agree that the earth goes around the sun, the spacial distortion of gravity makes objects appear to fall, and killing, stealing, lying are objectively wrong. Of course while that's what most people agree to, I'll admit there are some how don't believe it. They're wrong too, but that's mho..
They do if humans are to be the creators I would say. Just as humans didn't appeared out of nowhere either, equally would I assume that morality across species wouldn't either, unless we are talking the supernatural.Why does it need to get anywhere?
The existence of objective things doesn't require them to be perceived.
There are certain rules attached to God:I have absolutely no idea how exactly you are reaching this conclusion. Is God good because he acts in accordance with his own moral values? Then God's goodness derives from his subjective values. Is God good because he acts in accordance with objective moral goodness? Then objective morality precedes God. In both cases, God isn't creating objective morality.
Subjective morality can't be wrong in that sense, that was a poor way of describing it. But what I mean is that subjective morality can change, which means that a thing that was once considered good once is suddenly considered bad. This works fine for humans because we make mistakes or simply change our minds along the way. But as above, God doesn't follow these rules and wouldn't change his mind if he knows all implications.I also have no idea why you think subjective morality could be wrong in the first place. Perhaps, only if you think the truth value of subjective moral claims depends on the truth value of objective moral claims. Which is not the case.
Hopefully the above explains that. God can't be wrong, he is said to be perfect. Therefore his answer must be objectively right.Why would God have an objectively correct answer?
The point is, that you wouldn't perceive it like that if it was considered good to rape people. That was why I made the example with killing infants. Your very perception would be completely different if objective morality is true and things were different. Therefore rape would be considered a good thing and not bad. This is why I said that most likely people would rape each other because it would be a good thing to do.I understand quite well the distinction between objective and subjective. What I don't understand is how what you said in the last part of your former post contradicts what I was saying, that what actually matter is what we perceive as moral even if objective morality could be said to exist.
They do if humans are to be the creators I would say. Just as humans didn't appeared out of nowhere either, equally would I assume that morality across species wouldn't either, unless we are talking the supernatural.
There are certain rules attached to God:
1. He is all good.
2. He is all perfect.
3. He is all-knowing.
If his morality were subjective, one would assume that God would just as humans weigh for and against what is morally good and what is not. For God to do this wouldn't make sense. Imagine you knew the future, anything you would do or say you would know how would affect things and whether it would result in something good or bad. Not only that, but you have also decided what is good and what is bad. Therefore you would never be in doubt whether you were right or wrong, otherwise, you wouldn't have chosen set morality, to begin with. Therefore your morality must be objective and that must apply to all of your actions as well, given that you are all good.
Subjective morality can't be wrong in that sense, that was a poor way of describing it. But what I mean is that subjective morality can change, which means that a thing that was once considered good once is suddenly considered bad. This works fine for humans because we make mistakes or simply change our minds along the way. But as above, God doesn't follow these rules and wouldn't change his mind if he knows all implications.
Like the example of sexuality.
It wouldn't make much sense for God to suddenly realize that any sexuality is perfectly fine. He should already know this. That is something we as humans do, a lot of people today think that whatever sexuality a person has is completely irrelevant, but go to certain countries today or 1000 years back in time and it wouldn't be, this is obviously because we have gotten more knowledge and more relaxed in regards to God and our culture has changed etc. Time for God would be unimportant, so if it doesn't matter, then it should also haven't mattered 1000 years ago.
Hopefully the above explains that. God can't be wrong, he is said to be perfect. Therefore his answer must be objectively right.
The point is, that you wouldn't perceive it like that if it was considered good to rape people. That was why I made the example with killing infants. Your very perception would be completely different if objective morality is true and things were different. Therefore rape would be considered a good thing and not bad. This is why I said that most likely people would rape each other because it would be a good thing to do.
Im not sure what you mean.Does a tree need to be perceived by everyone if it objectively exists? No, it doesn't. It doesn't even need to be perceived by anyone. Likewise, the same goes for objective morality.
Let's try to turn it around then.I was keeping up with your rationale until now. Then you suddenly did a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and I have no idea what is going on here. Your premises in themselves don't get us to your conclusion.
It's not exactly the same.I will try to explain it this way: Think of any given tree. Whenever you look at the given actual tree you will notice that it keeps changing, slowly, but surely. Does this have any impact on whether the tree objectively exists? None whatsoever. Likewise, objective morality doesn't have to be unchanging to exist. Plus, in an universe created by God, the existence of a tree that keeps changing was at least in part willed by God. Therefore, God can will for changing things. And therefore he can will for a changing morality. Assuming of course he does have this sort of power.
Plus, I have no idea why talking about whether morality can change is relevant.
If we don't perceive it at all, then we wouldn't categorize it as morality in the first place. So we have to perceive it. And based on how we look at morality, there seem to be certain rules or things that we associate with being either good or bad. For instance, rape is bad, murder is bad and killing infants is bad.This is completely false. The existence of objective morality does not, in any way, entail that we are necessarily going to perceive objective morality accurately. Or even perceive it, at all.
I did not say you needed them. You don't need Messengers now because they already came and revealed what was necessary.Cool. So, now that we agree on a basic standard... tell me: why do you need gods or messengers to come to moral judgements? Seems to me that this basic simple definition provides you with all the required tools for moral reasoning.
I never said that claiming it comes from God solves anything, but if it came from God it came from God.So what's missing in your opinion? And how does claiming it, whatever it is, comes from a god, solve anything - whatever it is that needs solving in your opinion?
Now that I understand where you are coming from I can agree on all of the above.Yes, psychological suffering is suffering. And you already agreed that how things affect suffering / well-being ultimately determines if those things are moral or immoral.
So, if you engage in an action, say cheating, and the result of which is your wife being really hurt and unhappy and betrayed, then your act of cheating was immoral for that reason.
Your actions raised suffering on innocent victims.
And no, the depressed person is not immoral because he is depressed
However, if the depression is the result of intense bullying at school or work for example, then the bullies' bullying was immoral.
Now that I understand where you are coming from I can agree on all of the above.I have a hard time taking you seriously here tbh. I'm having problems with accepting this could be misunderstood to this level.
I'm obviously not saying that. I'm obviously saying that ultimately, actions that result in higher well-being are good while actions that result in higher suffering are bad. Simplistically and generally speaking, off course.
Emotional states etc aren't moral or immoral.
Behavior is moral or immoral. Actions.
It is not required for everyone since some people can be moral without religion.That doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory.
Either it's required or it isn't. Make up your mind.
I don't know if they 'had to be told' but they have been told by Messengers throughout history, so it is impossible to know what would have happened if those Messengers had never come to earth.And do you really believe that people had to be told that suffering and harm, aren't desirable emotional and physical states to shoot for?
I believe adultery is immoral because it is contrary to the Law of God, and I also believe in the sanctity of marriage for the same reason.So when you agreed before to the statement that the difference in moral and immoral / good and bad / right and wrong, is in how it affects well-being and suffering... What's that about?
Apparently it's more like "that's how it works unless god says otherwise".
So you have no moral reasoning whatsoever to get to the point of saying "and that's why adultery is always immoral", but you are going to go ahead and say it's immoral anyway because a perceived authority says so.
Why?
That is a moot point since no Messenger of God would ever say that.So if the authority says genocide is okay, then genocide is okay?
I accept it because I am a believer. If a Messenger was sent by God He is the authority on morality.The standard I presented is an objective one.
There is no disagreement about what constitutes well-being and what constitutes suffering.
It's pretty straightforward.
Ironically, it's you who's bringing "special" and, from my pov, arbitrary standards into it... And it's even a standard that doesn't allow for critical thinking or proper moral reasoning. No. Instead, it's just "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO. PERIOD!!!". We are expected to just accept it and that's final.
There's no argument for it. There's no way to get from A to B rationally. There is only the assertion of authority.
The 'actual reasoning' of people is 'different' so there can be no objective standard agreed upon by everybody.Meanwhile actual reasoning using the actually objective standard, concludes the opposite.
The reasoning behind the religious standard is "because God says so" but there is no conflict between the religious and secular standards since what God says has generally been incorporated into the secular laws, in case you have not noticed that. Where standards of sexual behavior are concerned is there no secular law against behaviors when they are in private, between two people, like adultery or homosexuality, because those laws would never be enforceable. However, the law generally prohibits nudity in public places in the United States and nudity is also generally illegal on a person's own property if the nude person is visible to the public.No.
The religious standard is an assertion of authority.
The secular standard explicitly rejects assertions of authority.
The reasoning behind the religious standard is "because says so".
With the secular standard, you are actually expected to make your case using actual reasoning. When you claim something is immoral, you actually have to argue why it is so. What harm is inflicted, what suffering is caused. WHY is it immoral. And assertions from authority are not allowed here. You require an actual reasoned reason.
He admitted He smites Job without reason. Is that moral?It would be if God knows what is right and wrong at all times. If God says it is good then it is and if he says it is bad then it is bad. It is not to be compared to a parent telling their kid they did something bad, because the parent thinks so. God in this scenario, I assume, is that he can't be wrong, that is the claim of believers when talking about objective morality.
No, it is not. Job is the book of the OT that I detest the most.He admitted He smites Job without reason. Is that moral?
Not in my understanding, he also let Satan kill his children despite them having done nothing wrong.He admitted He smites Job without reason. Is that moral?
We can agree (how about) that "there is no basis for this" that you and others would find acceptable. At the same time, virtually every jurisdiction in the entire world has laws that their people have voted in resoundingly to outlaw murder, stealing, libel, and slander. There's greater unity on those morals than there is on whether the earth is flat.We generally take for granted that our moral compass points towards an objective moral code. But there is no basis for this, which is the biggest challenge to moral objectivism. At the end of the day, whether morality is objective or subjective doesn't really matter. What matters is that we perceive certain things as moral and others as immoral.
satan wants us to think that..As an atheist, I do not think that God is moral..