Let's say that for the sake of argument God really does exist; and by God I mean a maximally powerful necessary being who created all of reality outside of Himself. What's more, this God is interested in His creations and wants people to freely enter into a relationship with Him.
OK. Let's say the aforementioned being exists.
And this being tells you that homosexual behavior is wrong and that sex outside of marriage is wrong, including merely thinking about having sex with women (or men) you're not married to.
Would you want to enter into a relationship with this God? How would you feel about this God's moral beliefs? Would it cause you to self-reflect upon your own moral beliefs?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
No, I would not wish to enter a relationship with that god.
Homosexuality exists in the natural world, why would a god make this all come into existence and allow it to naturally happen but be upset by the act, and frown upon it?
Either that god is an idiot (for creating homosexuality but not liking it) or he is a vindictive narcissist for creating species that have no choice in the matter whilst he/she sits there and watches on, doing absolutely nothing in the process.
I follow my own conscience and do not believe that morals come from god. Whether god exists or not does not change that.
The problem of the OP defining god as a necessary being is that you make god exist by definition, when in reality, god only necessarily exists if it exists.
"I follow my own conscience and do not believe that morals come from god."
What if your conscience tells you that raping little children is good?
"Whether god exists or not does not change that."
So if your conscience said raping children is good, but a maximally great being told you it wasn't, then you'd trust you conscience over the maximally great being?
"The problem of the OP defining god as a necessary being is that you make god exist by definition, when in reality, god only necessarily exists if it exists."
By necessary I mean exists in all possible worlds or cannot fail to exist. This is opposite of contingent being.
@myusernamekthx
Another being such as a god could also tell me that raping children is good.
If I follow my own conscience, it is shaped by my perception. If I follow what someone else tells me to do, it is shaped not only by my perception, but the perception of someone else. I'd rather rely on my own conscience rather than give up my capacity to think and rely on what someone says I should do.
I can can only know if a being is maximally great if I am maximally great. If a being does something I think is immoral, why should I follow it just because it says it is moral?
myusernamekthx: "By necessary I mean exists in all possible worlds or cannot fail to exist. This is opposite of contingent being."
If the laws of nature are not necessary, then nothing is necessary. And if the laws of nature are necessary, then everything is necessary.
myusernamekthx,
"What if your conscience tells you that raping little children is good?"
The biblical fairy tale includes several stories where Yahweh approved of baby rapers. So his conscience isn't the best one to se as an example of goodness.
"The biblical fairy tale includes several stories where Yahweh approved of baby rapers. So his conscience isn't the best one to see as an example of goodness."
In my hypothetical I'm using a very generic form of God that has no connection with the Bible.
Also, you never answered the question. If your conscience says that raping children is good, then does that mean you keep on raping children? And what if a maximally great being, who is your creator, told you that you were making the wrong decisions, would you listen? Or would you presume to know better?
When someone gives advice on morality, they should justify themselves. It does not matter who they are.
Myusername, you wrote, “If your conscience says that raping children is good, then does that mean you keep on raping children? And what if a maximally great being, who is your creator, told you that you were making the wrong decisions, would you listen? Or would you presume to know better?”
This happens daily. Without any gods. Bad guys do bad shit, the legal system says, “no, no”, and the bad guys don’t listen. The stoopider ones get caught and punished.
My own personal morality would tell me that raping children is wrong because I, like everyone else, base my interpersonal moral code on empathy. People that do bad things lack empathy, not religiosity. The sooner you realize that, the better off everyone will be.
myusernamekthx,
"If your conscience says that raping children is good, then does that mean you keep on raping children? And what if a maximally great being, who is your creator, told you that you were making the wrong decisions, would you listen? Or would you presume to know better?"
Have you ever read the Jewish Babylonian Talmud essays on this issue? They see nothing wrong with raping two and three year olds. They supposedly have a direct link to a deity. And countless people believe every idea in it.
Religions are not the best standards to use as moral guides. In most instances when you use religions as moral guides you're doing it wrong.
myusernamekthx,
"And what if a maximally great being, who is your creator, told you that you were making the wrong decisions, would you listen? Or would you presume to know better?"
Such a situation shouldn't exist if there was a maximally great being who is the creator. That's because if it allows me to do evil against someone he is perfectly OK with letting me hurt one of his other creations, whom he should value as much as he values me. By allowing me to hurt another person he is saying that I'm better than the other person. So why should he complain and whine about me hurting the other person? He should have protected them.
Notice in the biblical fairy tale the Yahweh creature plays favorites. He only cares about the Israelites. For him the Gentiles were just animals to be killed and abused. So he is not your hypothetical maximally great being who is our creator.
@Myusernamekthx: What if your conscience tells you that raping little children is good?
This is an atheist site. You'll need to take that question to a Catholic site. They're the experts on child rape.
"No, I would not wish to enter a relationship with that god."
Interesting.
"Homosexuality exists in the natural world, why would a god make this all come into existence and allow it to naturally happen but be upset by the act, and frown upon it?"
True. Given the constraints of this hypothetical (maximally powerful being), wouldn't you presume that this God had a good reason to permit it? Or perhaps something happened to the creation that knocked it off track?
"Either that god is an idiot (for creating homosexuality but not liking it) or he is a vindictive narcissist for creating species that have no choice in the matter whilst he/she sits there and watches on, doing absolutely nothing in the process."
So, if this God existed, and He felt that homosexual behavior was wrong, you'd conclude that He's an idiot and that there couldn't possible be a good reason for why He feels that way--or for why He'd permit homosexual behavior? And you'd assume that God intended for there to be some people and animals with proclivities towards homosexuality as opposed to God creating a perfect world that went awry, leading to people and animals with homosexual tendencies?
If a maximally powerful God created the universe, nothing would go awry unless, like previously concluded, he's an idiot. I'd say nice try, but I'd be lying.
"True. Given the constraints of this hypothetical (maximally powerful being), wouldn't you presume that this God had a good reason to permit it? Or perhaps something happened to the creation that knocked it off track?"
Knocked it off track? And this all powerful god could not have foreseen that?!
If this God created it by necessity, it follows that it is perfectly natural.
"So, if this God existed, and He felt that homosexual behavior was wrong, you'd conclude that He's an idiot and that there couldn't possible be a good reason for why He feels that way--or for why He'd permit homosexual behavior? And you'd assume that God intended for there to be some people and animals with proclivities towards homosexuality as opposed to God creating a perfect world that went awry, leading to people and animals with homosexual tendencies?"
I am saying that if someone has the ability to create the universe in all its majesty from stars to bosons, from planets to upward quarks, that I would expect him/her to be able to make a decision on homosexuality to be fine or not!
If he allows it in nature then by definition it is perfectly natural, if he was against it, why create it?
Would you want to enter into a relationship with this God?
Absolutely not.
How would you feel about this God's moral beliefs?
This god has proved itself amoral by creating homosexuals then denying them any way to express themselves with dignity as creations of the god.
Marriage is a civil legal fiction. What kind of marriage dd this god create you did not specify? The biblical forms of marriage, you know by conquest, rape, multiple partners and concubines. The Qu'ranic? e.g child marriage, multiple wives?
Before this section deserves a reply, your terms of reference should be specified.
Would it cause you to self-reflect upon your own moral beliefs?
No absolutely it would not. I don't have moral beliefs, I have morals, ethics and considerable empathy. All qualities this putative god you moot, has not.
"Absolutely not."
Very interesting.
"This god has proved itself amoral by creating homosexuals then denying them any way to express themselves with dignity as creations of the god."
Do you feel the same about pedophiles?
"Marriage is a civil legal fiction. What kind of marriage dd this god create you did not specify?"
Monogamous and romantic relationship between a man and a woman.
"No absolutely it would not. I don't have moral beliefs, I have morals, ethics and considerable empathy. All qualities this putative god you moot, has not."
So you'd assume that you know better than the maximally powerful being?
@ Myusername
"Do you feel the same about pedophiles?"
No I don't feel the same way about Peadophiles. I told you, I have morals and ethics.
The god of the bible nor Qu'ran have any problems with peadophiles, infanticide or torturing babies.
"Monogamous and romantic relationship between a man and a woman."
So where did that concept come from? Its not been commonly accepted or enforced for that long.
"So you'd assume that you know better than the maximally powerful being?"
Haven't we just demonstrated that? It is not an assumption, if this god of your construct behaved the way described I sure have better morals, ethics and demonstrate them in my behaviour.
myusernamekthx,
"Monogamous and romantic relationship between a man and a woman."
There's NOT ONE example of a monogamous and romantic relation between a man and a woman in the entire Bible.
Myusername, you asked, “Do you feel the same about pedophiles?”
It’s interesting that you seem to be connecting homosexuality to pedophilia.
I think it’s rather telling...
myusernamekthx,
"Let's say that for the sake of argument God really does exist;"
The only reason to worship any God is because you want something from him. And if you aren't interested in eternal life there's no reason to worship and deity, even if it's real.
Nothing is worthy of worship because worship is a degrading act. Anything that requests it is not worthy of it.
@Jared Re: "Nothing is worthy of worship because worship is a degrading act. Anything that requests it is not worthy of it."
BINGO! You hit the nail on the head, good sir!
I do t assume I know better than OP's god, I know it. I am also more logical and moral.
The OP decries those who follow their own conscience and is in favor of individuals following the morals of a being that at best is practically contingent with a tendency to appear in hypothetical moral conundrums.
"The OP decries those who follow their own conscience"
So if your conscience tells you to rape children, then so be it?
And what if a maximally great being, who is your creator, told you that conduct is wrong, would you listen?
How would I know a being is maximally great or absolutely moral, except through my own perception?
I can only be informed by own perception, and act accordingly. If someone tells me to do something that I find immoral, then why should I do it?
If god told you to kill a child, would you do it?
"If god told you to kill a child, would you do it?"
Of course. I'd be stupid not to.
So you believe yourself to be an infallible perciever of god, and you know with certainity that god is an omnibenovolent being.
You'd kill and rape children even if your conscience told you it was immoral to do so.
"So you believe yourself to be an infallible percieving of god"
Well which is it? You said if God told me, so I took you seriously. Now you're shifting the question towards how would I know that it's God speaking to me, but that's a separate question.
If the true God told me to kill a child, then I'd hope I'd be wise enough to follow His command, for it makes no sense for me to claim that I am better or know better than God.
Pages