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!
Not to be difficult but, what's so good about man with God?Abram said:This is a great question written by the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky. This question was a hot topic of the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion.
So can man be good without God?
Natural Law is not a message or a sense, it's a learned reaction that all must take into consideration for survival. There's nothing in our DNA saying don't kill. We learn the awful results of killing after we're born and we avoid it. No God in that unless that's the angle our parents choose to use.AlanGurvey said:Yes as long as natural law is imprinted genetically, but I view G-d as the greatest inticement to be a more "good" person.
He would have to be measured in order to be considered "good." As we all know, a measurment is a comparison to a standard unit to an unknown unit. The unknown unit is the man, because without the ruler, to what is he being measured? (I'll return to this later.)Abram said:So can man be good without God?
Is this really how God works? I don't think so. God doesn't measure men, he sets out rules and they either follow the rules or they don't. Everything else is just a suggestion. I think what you mean is "better" not "good" because you can be "good" enough for God or you can be "better" or "worse". But "good" is clearly defined by rules not measurements.spookboy0 said:He would have to be measured in order to be considered "good." As we all know, a measurment is a comparison to a standard unit to an unknown unit. The unknown unit is the man, because without the ruler, he is neither good nor bad.
But wait! What is the standard unit? What would he be compared to be thought of as "good?" Let's look at some possiblites.
His parents? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.
His peers? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.
Politics? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.
Obviously, it boils down to a conflict, or something obstructing the way. More of an impediment. What are possible impediments?
Arrogance,
different opinions and/or beliefs,
physical fitness,
mental well-being,
judgement,
bias,
partiality,
and many more.
All these have this in common: they are man-made. So obviously, there is a standard in this universe that isn't a part of this universe. "In this universe" because we know it exists; "not a part of this universe" because we didn't make it.
If not, then how can you explain all the people out there that are being good without God? It seems like a pointless question to me.Abram said:So can man be good without God?
Good? Compared to what?Ðanisty said:If not, then how can you explain all the people out there that are being good without God? It seems like a pointless question to me.
Natural law is what all men and women know regardless of who is there parents, the only way you do not know natural law right when you are born is when you are born mentally challenged.I think lolOrmiston said:Natural Law is not a message or a sense, it's a learned reaction that all must take into consideration for survival. There's nothing in our DNA saying don't kill. We learn the awful results of killing after we're born and we avoid it. No God in that unless that's the angle our parents choose to use.
Maybe we're just playing with words but a rule to me is more like a switch: it's either off or on, good or bad. A measurement to me is more gradual. I will admit that, in the absense of God, men would not be good to God's standards because many of them involve interacting on God's behalf and worshipping, etc. I think the question comes down to what exactly good is. Is it subjective or objective and I can't possibly see us coming to a decision on that. But we should try.spookboy0 said:What do you think a rule is? It is a measurement. If you follow the rule, you meet the measurement. If you break the rule (which is the same thing as not following it), you don't meet the measurement.
Are you telling me mentally challenged infants know less than normal infants? I didn't think either knew a damn thing. Here's the defintion according to Merriam-Webster:AlanGurvey said:Natural law is what all men and women know regardless of who is there parents, the only way you do not know natural law right when you are born is when you are born mentally challenged.I think lol
Wrong it is a universal law. How else would it be the same for all peoples all over the whole damn world? It is a base part of being a human. Atleast thats the classical viewpoint 0.oOrmiston said:Are you telling me mentally challenged infants know less than normal infants? I didn't think either knew a damn thing. Here's the defintion according to Merriam-Webster:
:a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law.
It seems to me to be about the effects of people living together, not some message passed through the DNA.
When we were growing up, we learned that we as humans are a specific phase. Water could be poured on us, and we would still think we were in the same phase. However, when we were taught the difference between "dry" and "wet," we learned that these weren't the same.Ormiston said:Maybe we're just playing with words but a rule to me is more like a switch: it's either off or on, good or bad. A measurement to me is more gradual. I will admit that, in the absense of God, men would not be good to God's standards because many of them involve interacting on God's behalf and worshipping, etc. I think the question comes down to what exactly good is. Is it subjective or objective and I can't possibly see us coming to a decision on that. But we should try.