Was at a BBQ. the other day. Great friends, great food, a few drinks didn't hurt either. One of the guys, very nice man, retired cop, we've had some great conversations over the years, came up to me at the end of the night, and said," we have to believe in the good lord upstairs, we are blessed...reember, He controls everything." Of course, I didn't want to begin a debate, or an argument and ruin a perfectly wonderful day, so I bit my tongue,said goodnight, and kept quiet. I know that this family is religious, and they are aware that I do not believe as they do ( I am the lone outcast) so we really don't get into any religious discussions. Buit that is a delve into the mind of the true theist...they really do believe that God cotrols everything, but yet, cannot explainwith any logical intelligence why it is 118 degrees in India, and the death toll is up around 2,000... or why it hasn't stopped raining in Texas and Oklahoma for the last 2 weeks, killing people and putting thousands of others out of their homes...or why there was an earthquake in Nepal that killed thousands of people...or why there are countries that every few seconds, someone starves to death...these things have NOTHING TO DO with "free will", unless of course it is Gods free will, which it appears it is, because He " controls everything." The above mentioned also has nothing to do with humans " ruining Gods perfect creation." Why dors God want to kill people? Why does He allow these things to happen? Is it His "plan?" Is it His "Will?" What possible explanation, with any logic, or reason, would a theist have for that? I would like to hear from a theist, to hear what kind of ridiculous reasonong is given. It still boggles my mind that there are so many people who believe this garbage...and/or who WANT to believe it...it's pathetic, and a huge reason why we have gullible, weak minded people who are addicted to this or that, and can't handle this or that, or find themselves in a mess because they believed some ridiculous scam, that made no sense.
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.
same old problem. God (at least as described by most theists) is 100% incompatible with the idea of free will. At best only one of those 2 ideas can be true.
Well, if you're looking for a theist to make sense of it all for you I advise against holding your breath waiting for him.
Yep, that is tough. This is a big problem for theists.
I think the problem we have is that when bad things happen (floods, tsunamis, etc.), we look at God and ask, "If He existed, why would He allow these things happen to us?" We think of ourselves as basically good people... and why would God allow bad things to happen to good people?
I completely understand this. But let me ask you something. If these bad things happened to liars, cheaters, murderers, etc... would you have as much of a problem? Probably not... because we don't put up much of a fuss when bad things happen to bad people.
Now for the next part: have you ever lied? If so, you are a liar. Have you ever cheated? If so, you are a cheater. Have you ever been unjustly angry at someone? If so, you are a murderer. Have you ever desired sexual relations with someone who is not your wife/husband? If so, you are an adulterer.
Now, let me ask you again, if bad things happen to bad people (liars, cheaters, murderers, adulterers), why is that a problem? It shouldn't be, and yet when bad things happen to us (bad people, me included) and we raise such a fuss. With His control, He allows bad things to happen to bad people.
I don't really see a problem with that. As liars, cheaters, murderers, adulterers... we deserve the bad things that happen to us.
P.S. I'll quickly address the "what about the innocent, suffering children?" question... children are going to Heaven (if they die as children) so, while tragic, I don't have as much of an issue with it.
Sorry ILQ ...
but I can't let you get away with that one....
You attempted to change the "thrust" of the question...
The OP's statement was "God controls everything" ....
you by trying to say that God allows bad things to happen , are changing the emphasis......
In these scenarios... God does not just stand back and allow bad things ...
if he CONTROLS everything then this supposed entity actually CAUSES the bad things.
So how much of an issue do you have with the suffering of innocents now ???
@watchman
Thanks for the comment!
God controls everything, and He allows bad things to happen to bad people (us). I guess that would be better summary of my post.
Also, there is active control, and passive control. The President can either write his own speech (active control) and give it, or he can choose to accept speech-writer's speech and roll with that (passive control). The President approved and gave a speech either way, but he was active in one situation and passive in the other. He was still in control either way.
God is either active and doing things to control the world, or He is passive and allowing things to happen. He's in control either way.
Oh my... is there no limit to the excuses that theists will give...no matter how ridiculous??!!
Those theists... completely and totally ridiculous!
Your best comment yet! :D
"Have you ever lied?"
I have never borne false witness against my neighbor, which is what is actually meant by that commandment.
"If so, you are a liar."
Good thing god himself lies:
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." 1 Kings 22:23
"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets." 2 Chronicles 18:22
"Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people." Jeremiah 4:10
"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." Jeremiah 20:7
"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." Ezekiel 14:9
"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." 2 Thessalonians 2:11
So, if we are to be as "good" as god is, it would seem that lying is a requirement.
"Have you ever cheated?"
Nope. Not on so much as a pop quiz.
"If so, you are a cheater."
Good thing I am not.
"Have you ever been unjustly angry at someone?"
Who hasn't, Jesus himself was unjustly angry at a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, which is about as unjust as one can get. Fuck you, apple tree, die for not giving me apples in the winter. So, yes, another requirement if we are to act like Jesus.
"If so, you are a murderer."
Whoa, Nelly! Their is a very large unfjordable chasm between being angry with someone and murdering them! Most of us have got along just fine without killing a single person, and being angry with someone is NOT the same as murdering them, as much as you might want or need it to be for your argument.
"Have you ever desired sexual relations with someone who is not your wife/husband?"
She became my wife, furthermore, unless you actually have sexual relations with someone while you or they are married, you cannot be an adulterer by definition. Moreover, god himself impregnated a woman who was married to someone else, the cuckolding old goat.
"If so, you are an adulterer."
Nope. Never have been unfaithful to my wife, and I never will.
"Now, let me ask you again, if bad things happen to bad people (liars, cheaters, murderers, adulterers), why is that a problem?"
Because I don't condone injustice, suffering and death are not proper punishments for most mundane "crimes", and you would adamantly and vociferously reject and oppose absolutely any of your standards actually being implemented as law. This makes you a very special type of hypocrite, whether you realize it or not.
"With His control, He allows bad things to happen to bad people."
And bad things to happen to good people, and good things to happen to bad people, the innocent to suffer, and the guilty to go scott free, etc. All you have done, quite simply, is shine a light on your cognitive dissonance concerning the subject.
"I don't really see a problem with that. As liars, cheaters, murderers, adulterers... we deserve the bad things that happen to us."
In that case, push to have them implemented as law. Hell, push for sharia law, it is basically the same already. If you don't, I will consider that a blatant admission that you are just saying we deserve them out of convenience, instead of any actual true belief on your part.
"P.S. I'll quickly address the "what about the innocent, suffering children?" question... children are going to Heaven (if they die as children) so, while tragic, I don't have as much of an issue with it."
Then perhaps we should give Boko Haram a medal then, for doing the lords work. You are simply an example of everything wrong with religious thought, and I am sorry, but this kind of thinking is beneath the most base person on the planet. It isn't just immoral, it is amoral, and no amount of justification could possibly be used to defend it.
@Travis
You are a perfect human being who has done no wrong :) My post doesn't apply to you haha
Considering the voluminous variety as to what is defined as "human being", there is no idealized version with which to compare, so the concept of a perfect human being is a misnomer. Perfection is a qualifying adjective, and as such, only can apply as far as one defines it with conditionals. For instance, it could be said that you are the perfect example of posters in this forum with the moniker Ilovequestions, but that is only because you are the only example of such. Hence, when divorced from this rigid definition, perfection looses all meaning. The perfect pizza is a matter more of opinion than actual quantifiablity, so all allusion to it is rather moot at the outset in values with a range of diversity.
Secondly, just because one is not "perfect" does not mean they deserve either misery or death. My son sometimes does things he knows he isn't supposed to, but I doubt anyone would actually propose executing or torturing him for it. In order for the very concept of "justice" or "deserve" to exist there must be a gradient scale, so we aren't executing people for pulling tags off the pillows at wal mart, as that would be an abortion of anything resembling proper jurisprudence. Also, I take some exception to your implications that rape an murder victims have brought it on themselves, or that they are complicit in their own victimization because they are "sinners". Following that logic we shouldn't ever punish anyone, for murderers, thieves, and rapists are doing the lords work; and should be left to the justice of the same god that used them as a cats-paw.
So, no matter how I attempt to look at or rationalize your post, it is twisted and very offensive.
I didn't mean to offend you :( I am very sorry :/
All I'm is that we are all (except you) are bad people because we do bad things (if you've lied, you are a liar. If you've cheated, you are a cheater. If you've stolen, you are a thief). So when bad things happen to us, why do we complain?
They weren't complaining because bad things happened to THEM, but disasters and horrible tragedies happening to other people, so you are moving scope at the outset. However, even if someone was a liar, a cheater, and a thief; that would not justify killing them or their families, either for other people or your god. Your justification is flimsy, it blames the victims of tragedies, and is so self-serving and rabidly dogmatic that it wouldn't really even be fit for the most amoral jackass on the planet.
do god exist ?
You are INSANE!!
I hear you, it is a crazy world, and I try to avoid contact with religious people. I find religious drivel annoying. I’ve heard so much religious talk in my life it is hard not to roll my eyes when they speak Sometimes you have to bite your tongue and let it go.
Since when does being unjustly angry with someone constitute murder ?
Unjustly angry? I can't define that with my own modicum of logic so I'll just call it as I see it - odd. Being angry is a normal human condition. It always has a cause and we all justify our anger relative to cause. To say I'm unjustly (unjustifiably) angry is something I would not be - ever. I need a good effing reason to get torqued off about something.
Or -
Perhaps murder is what happens when a person is unjustifiably angry (psycho).
Okay, you all have a problem with "unjust anger", so let me explain:
Jesus was concerned just as much with the heart as our actions. Actions: murder, sexual intercourse, theft, etc.
These are extreme actions, and because many of the Israelites didn't do these things, they thought they were good.
Jesus was like "hold up, it's not just your actions, but your heart that matters too". So what did He explain? He said that you've committed adultery IN YOUR HEART if you've lusted after someone you have no business lusting after... even if you've never had sex with that person. That raised the bar and told the Israelites their hearts mattered too, and not just their actions.
What about murder? You all have to admit that murder doesn't start with the action of just stabbing/shooting/strangling/whatever-ing the person to kill them... it starts with the heart. Before the actions, there is a hatred there, a rage. An intense anger. Just like with lust, Jesus told the Israelites that even if they hadn't physically murdered the person, if they had this feeling in their heart it's the same thing.
Having illicit sex and murdering someone are actions... Jesus went beyond that and looked at the conditions in our heart necessary to produce these actions.
"Okay, you all have a problem with "unjust anger", so let me explain:"
Oh, my problem wasn't with the concept of unjust anger, but comparing it to an unrelated crime. Even if I was angry with you for no good reason doesn't mean I would want to kill you, think about killing you, or want you dead.
"Jesus was concerned just as much with the heart as our actions. Actions: murder, sexual intercourse, theft, etc."
Which is rather stupid, as humans are biologically incapable of not thinking of such things some of the time. Might as well punish the bull for charging and the fish for swimming while you are at it. If your god or Jesus was upset at something that biologically predestined by neurology, then they were simply incompetent, and didn't understand a damn thing about the biology they claimed to have given us.
"These are extreme actions, and because many of the Israelites didn't do these things, they thought they were good."
Well, I can understand you considering murder extreme, but they were hardly extreme at the time. Reading the bible it is hard to come away with any conclusion but that the Israelites were some genocidal and bloodthirsty savages, or that they had a problem stealing land or young women, or that they had many problems with raping people that weren't Jewish. So, I seriously doubt I would have called them anything approaching good, but they weren't all that different than the other people around at the time. They just had far more delusions of grandeur than others...
"Jesus was like "hold up, it's not just your actions, but your heart that matters too". So what did He explain? He said that you've committed adultery IN YOUR HEART if you've lusted after someone you have no business lusting after... even if you've never had sex with that person. That raised the bar and told the Israelites their hearts mattered too, and not just their actions."
Which, as stated, is nearly as stupid as punishing a dog for barking.
"What about murder? You all have to admit that murder doesn't start with the action of just stabbing/shooting/strangling/whatever-ing the person to kill them... it starts with the heart. Before the actions, there is a hatred there, a rage. An intense anger. Just like with lust, Jesus told the Israelites that even if they hadn't physically murdered the person, if they had this feeling in their heart it's the same thing."
Which is even dumber, as anger doesn't lead directly to murder.
"Having illicit sex and murdering someone are actions... Jesus went beyond that and looked at the conditions in our heart necessary to produce these actions."
He actually attempted to convict everyone and make them guilty as what amounts to thought-crime legislation, which is immoral by all reasonable definition, because thinking about something is NOT the same as doing it. If it were, then Christians would be a murderous cult, as they revel in the death of Jesus on a daily basis.
ILQ comments are so out of the box, they no longer merrit responses.
I was going to comment on Travis' most recent response... but then I read on :) Alright, I'll stop responding :) It's been a pleasure, y'all
I have come to the conclusion that I LOVE QUESTIONS is on this site to just try and rile everyone up...and it is working. There is no substance, or reasonable sensibility to his/ her comments.
im a perfect human doing no bad things in my life and ive done so many wrong things. haha. natural phenomenas have natural causes. that answers that. if something bad happened to you, you think of those things that you did you think is wrong. then youll ask god for forgiveness imagining yourself that when you die you will be with satan on the land of fire. but only if you observe yourself in a systematic way, youll know this isnt even about any other conflicts between you and your god. youll be brainwashed if youre a believer since you was a kid.
Hi all
Here is my 5 cents on the topic.
The basic question is “are you denying God... or are you questioning the moral integrity of god?”
In this thread, i think the objective is the latter - questioning god's morality. Which means it starts from the assumption that god exits (even if it is only hypothetical).
Well, in that case, you are trying to judge the morality of an eternal, omniscient entity. How can we humans, with limited faculties and knowledge, judge an enteral being using standards of morality that is applicable to us.
Imagine a person sees a child being given a vaccine shot. He sees that a woman is thrusting a needle into the tender flesh of an innocent child, who is being held by another person restraining it from moving. A person who gets to see only this… and knows nothing about the larger objective of the vaccine and what effect it’s going to have on the baby in future… would see it as cruel and unjust. But we know that it’s an act of mercy.
How then, can you judge the actions of an entity that has absolute knowledge of the past, present and future, till the end of times, including the life in the hereafter… using our limited knowledge and faculties.
I think, once you accept that God is omniscient and eternal, then raising these kinds of questions about his moral standards – which are only applicable to limited beings like us – is entirely misplaced.
"The basic question is “are you denying God... or are you questioning the moral integrity of god?”"
Doing the former means you are automatically doing the latter, as nonexistent entities can only have moral integrity in the sense that any fictional character could.
"In this thread, i think the objective is the latter - questioning god's morality."
More like questioning the description of god in whichever holy book it appears in, much like we could discuss the actions of Bilbo in the Hobbit. If I said that I thought Scooby-Doo was a coward, based off of the cartoons I watched as a child, that is not the same as operating under the assumption that he is real.
"Which means it starts from the assumption that god exits (even if it is only hypothetical)."
Sure, why not, thought experiments are useful constructs for considering the coherence of concepts.
"Well, in that case, you are trying to judge the morality of an eternal, omniscient entity. How can we humans, with limited faculties and knowledge, judge an enteral being using standards of morality that is applicable to us."
For one, because we HAVE to. For two, because if morality WAS objective, it would HAVE to apply to everyone(even any gods). Otherwise, it isn't objective, and you are right back in the quagmire of relativism. So your theoretical god might have information I don't. So what? Hitler may have had information I don't, but I doubt one would argue that because of that he may have been morally correct, or that we don't have the right to judge him because we don't have the same information.
In the end, the excuse for god is little better than those neo-nazis use for Hitler.
"Imagine a person sees a child being given a vaccine shot. He sees that a woman is thrusting a needle into the tender flesh of an innocent child, who is being held by another person restraining it from moving. A person who gets to see only this… and knows nothing about the larger objective of the vaccine and what effect it’s going to have on the baby in future… would see it as cruel and unjust. But we know that it’s an act of mercy."
True, but the choice could be explained and the person could be made aware of the reasons, thereby solving the dilemma. Meanwhile, the things all the theoretical gods have done, done mostly without explanation or justification, remain unanswered and for the most part unjustifiable. An immoral act, like killing, might be done for justifiable reasons; but it is incumbent upon the beings acting to justify their actions if they do not want to be perceived as immoral.
"How then, can you judge the actions of an entity that has absolute knowledge of the past, present and future, till the end of times, including the life in the hereafter… using our limited knowledge and faculties."
Appeal to omniscience again? Okay. So, if you are NOT omniscient, how did you determine that god was, exactly? Oh, that's right, you didn't.. You simply believed some book that said it was, despite the obvious paradox of it not being able to know what it doesn't know.
"I think, once you accept that God is omniscient and eternal, then raising these kinds of questions about his moral standards – which are only applicable to limited beings like us – is entirely misplaced."
Only if you are a relativist, assume any piece of knowledge justifies the wonton slaughter of innocent people(some babies mind you), and forget that this supposed god could easily change the outcome without murdering anyone at all.
@Travis
“If I said that I thought Scooby-Doo was a coward, based off of the cartoons I watched as a child, that is not the same as operating under the assumption that he is real.”
Oh Travis, I was just laying the ground for my response… I was not trying to say that since you guys raised the issue of god’s morality, therefore you guys accept the existence of god. I was just laying the ground that in the context of this discussion, we all are assuming God exists… meaning ‘if god exists, then why are bad things happening…” sort of like that.
"For one, because we HAVE to. For two, because if morality WAS objective, it would HAVE to apply to everyone(even any gods). Otherwise, it isn't objective, and you are right back in the quagmire of relativism.”
Is morality ‘objective’ according to you? I thought it was not. Can you objectively arrive at all the things that we consider moral? I would like to hear your position on that. Meanwhile, I think, morality (from a godless perspective) can only be subjective. Therefore, it is not very effective even in judging the moral standards of fellow humans. Leave alone an eternal being.
“So your theoretical god might have information I don't. So what? Hitler may have had information I don't, but I doubt one would argue that because of that he may have been morally correct, or that we don't have the right to judge him because we don't have the same information.”
The fact of the matter is, staying where you are (subjective morality) there is really no way you can say that Hitler was wrong. It’s just that your intuitions formed from years of moral conditioning, reinforced by experience, makes you think so.
However, if I were to humor your question, I would say I that we can consider Hitler immoral on the following grounds. The proof of the burden always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. If Hitler says he has some unique knowledge unknown to any of us to justify his actions, then he better bring the proof. Has he been existing since the beginning of time, or does he have any special machine that allows him to look far into the future… or something like that? If no, then we have no reason to believe him, therefore he is immoral. Moreover, Hitler did explain the reasons for his actions – namely racism. This can be easily dismissed as baseless using our knowledge. Doesn’t sound like a very convincing claim of omniscience… does it?
“In the end, the excuse for god is little better than those neo-nazis use for Hitler.”
This is the reason I was laying the a priori ground for this discussion. Once you at least theoretically agree that God is eternal and omniscient, then God’s morality can’t be questioned like Hitler’s morality.
" Meanwhile, the things all the theoretical gods have done, done mostly without explanation or justification, remain unanswered and for the most part unjustifiable. An immoral act, like killing, might be done for justifiable reasons; but it is incumbent upon the beings acting to justify their actions if they do not want to be perceived as immoral.”
Once again, if we are talking from the premise of God the omniscient and eternal – then there is no way we can even demand an explanation from him. It would be better explained when looked at from the perspective of the baby in the vaccination example. Instead of the onlooker, imagine the baby has an issue with being subjected to pain. Would we even bother to explain to the child about the vaccine? No, because the logic behind vaccination is way too complex for the child to understand. Now, compare our limited intelligence with that of the eternal wisdom of God… and how do you expect to share that wisdom with your tiny intelligence. The gap between our intelligence and God’s wisdom surely is way greater than the gap between the intellect of the baby and us.
"Appeal to omniscience again? Okay. So, if you are NOT omniscient, how did you determine that god was, exactly?”
This is a totally different argument, irrelevant to this topic. This requires me to explain why I believe in God in the first place. But for a question that is premised on an assumption of ‘God is’ (as I explained above) to then digress into questions of god’s existence/omniscience is misleading. Let’s take it one step at a time. Firstly, it’s about “can we judge the morality of an omniscient and eternal being?” Once that is settled, let’s move on to the question of “Is God really omniscient?”
"Only if you are a relativist, assume any piece of knowledge justifies the wonton slaughter of innocent people(some babies mind you), and forget that this supposed god could easily change the outcome without murdering anyone at all.”
This once again presupposes that you know better than God. If God knows everything and has power over all things… and he decides to do some things in some ways, there is really no way we can question his deeds, just because it doesn’t make sense to us.
"Oh Travis, I was just laying the ground for my response… I was not trying to say that since you guys raised the issue of god’s morality, therefore you guys accept the existence of god. I was just laying the ground that in the context of this discussion, we all are assuming God exists… meaning ‘if god exists, then why are bad things happening…” sort of like that."
Not really, we are assessing the supposed morality of, what I would consider to be, a fictional character.
"Is morality ‘objective’ according to you?"
I consider it about as objective as any other form of knowledge and understanding. Sure, we might have USED to think that raping a pillaging were ok, but we also thought the world was flat; turns out we were wrong on both counts.
"I thought it was not."
It depends, wholly, on if you are attempting to conflate objective to mean absolute or universal. I could create an objective unit for measuring distance right now, and you could use it, but that does NOT mean that you would.
"Can you objectively arrive at all the things that we consider moral?"
For the most part, yes.
"I would like to hear your position on that. Meanwhile, I think, morality (from a godless perspective) can only be subjective."
I know that morality from a god is just as subjective as any other, and is in fact, a completely AMORAL system.
"Therefore, it is not very effective even in judging the moral standards of fellow humans. Leave alone an eternal being."
Just because something isn't as effective, does not mean it isn't accurate. A hammer isn't as effective as a nail gun, but it gets the job done.
"The fact of the matter is, staying where you are (subjective morality) there is really no way you can say that Hitler was wrong."
Yes, actually, I can. Even without claiming to be morally superior, one can easily see that his choices were NOT the right ones to actually achieve his objectives. Before ever bringing morality into the debate we can honestly state his choices were completely, and unequivocally, wrong.
"It’s just that your intuitions formed from years of moral conditioning, reinforced by experience, makes you think so."
I actually implement moral reasoning, which is part of the reason why we won't likely agree, because I actually do not suspend my morality for the dictates of a book.
"However, if I were to humor your question, I would say I that we can consider Hitler immoral on the following grounds. The proof of the burden always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim. If Hitler says he has some unique knowledge unknown to any of us to justify his actions, then he better bring the proof."
Huzzah! Finally, a good argument! Harken all ye religious types, if you are going to claim that God has some unique knowledge unknown to any of us that would justify his commands and actions, then they had better bring proof!
"Has he been existing since the beginning of time, or does he have any special machine that allows him to look far into the future… or something like that? If no, then we have no reason to believe him, therefore he is immoral."
Oh, no, and you were doing so well... What if he did claim to have a time machine, or to have precognition, or even that he always existed? What then? Oh, right "The proof of the burden always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim." This also means that anyone who claims that their god had any of these abilities would ALSO have to meet that burden.
"Moreover, Hitler did explain the reasons for his actions – namely racism. This can be easily dismissed as baseless using our knowledge. Doesn’t sound like a very convincing claim of omniscience… does it?"
Having read the Bible, some of gods supposed 'reasons' were even worse than that. I would assume the Qur'an is little different in that regard, so I will direct your question directly back at you.
"This is the reason I was laying the a priori ground for this discussion. Once you at least theoretically agree that God is eternal and omniscient, then God’s morality can’t be questioned like Hitler’s morality."
...and that is where you drop the ball, so to speak. Why should I, or anyone else, theoretically agree that a god is eternal or omniscient without its followers offering up a single speck of proof for such outlandish claims? We shouldn't, and neither should they! There is no reason to believe a god exists, but if there WERE, that still would NOT be enough to establish even more paradoxes to explain absurdities.
"Once again, if we are talking from the premise of God the omniscient and eternal – then there is no way we can even demand an explanation from him."
Wrong. If this god did not expect or demand anything of us, then an explanation would be unnecessary. However, when you want someone to do something, you had damned sure better explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously.
"It would be better explained when looked at from the perspective of the baby in the vaccination example. Instead of the onlooker, imagine the baby has an issue with being subjected to pain. Would we even bother to explain to the child about the vaccine?"
If it was capable of understanding it? Hell yes. Yes, yes, yes. Just as soon as my child was able to talk, I explained why he needed vaccinations. Who the hell doesn't? Oh, right...
"Now, compare our limited intelligence with that of the eternal wisdom of God… and how do you expect to share that wisdom with your tiny intelligence."
So, let me get this straight. YOU think your god is too INCOMPETENT to be able to explain his moral reasoning without having to impart divine omniscience? Holy shit, you give your god even LESS credit that I do, and I straight up think he is fictional. You should probably work on that...
"This once again presupposes that you know better than God."
I very well might, prove me wrong.
"If God knows everything and has power over all things…"
Yes, yes, we already know that you fall into the "might makes right" camp. Spare us.
"...and he decides to do some things in some ways, there is really no way we can question his deeds, just because it doesn’t make sense to us."
Actually, it is downright NECESSARY to question it, else how would or could we learn? If something is moral, the only way to determine it is to examine it, and vice versa. It seems to me that this is simply a plea to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
@Travis
"Not really, we are assessing the supposed morality of, what I would consider to be, a fictional character.”
I know you don’t believe in the character called God. But in the context of this discussion, we all are assuming that “IF this fictional character does exist, then why are bad things happening.” That is what I am clarifying. This also means that we all agree that this fictional character is ‘omniscient and omnipotent’ according to the fictional narrative. This discussion springs from that platform. I was just making this point clear.
“I consider it about as objective as any other form of knowledge and understanding. Sure, we might have USED to think that raping a pillaging were ok, but we also thought the world was flat; turns out we were wrong on both counts.”
What I mean by objective are things that can be concluded based on a logical explanation that can be agreed upon by all. If you think the flat earth theory had logic which all the people in the world could understand and agree on… yes, it was objective. And today, if I asked you why you support the spherical earth theory, you will give a logical explanation which I can check out and confirm.
However, let’s look at morality. Do you say there is a logical way you can prove that things we consider immoral are wrong? I think the answer is no, because we make these decisions only based on intuitive feelings and conventions. There is no logical way you can explain why killing animals for food is alright… while killing humans for the same purpose might be wrong. Some people bring forward the argument that by ensuring humans are not killed you actually ensure your own safety… premised on the logic of self-interest. This is actually conceding to ‘Might is Right’ argument. Because, if you can be sure that you are too powerful to be touched by others, then you can actually go about killing others… because your self-interest is preserved by your power and not by your abiding by social norms. Atoms bombs on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped if the US had feared a retaliation of similar kind, right? There is no objective reason why killing is bad… other than the fact that we intuitively feel so. Intuitions are not objective.
“I know that morality from a god is just as subjective as any other, and is in fact, a completely AMORAL system.”
Morality from god is objective, based on my explanation above. How is it objective… that takes a wholly different discussion. If you are interested, we will get into that discussion. However, if you look up my exchanges I had with Pragmatic on this link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/possible-method-dispro... you will know what I mean.
"Just because something isn't as effective, does not mean it isn't accurate. A hammer isn't as effective as a nail gun, but it gets the job done.”
Probably, I should have chosen a more suitable word than ‘effective’. I should have said ‘impossible.’
"Yes, actually, I can. Even without claiming to be morally superior, one can easily see that his choices were NOT the right ones to actually achieve his objectives. Before ever bringing morality into the debate we can honestly state his choices were completely, and unequivocally, wrong.”
You said this about Hitler. Can you explain how his choices were wrong… from a moral perspective. Yes, his choices were wrong from a tactical perspective, because he ultimately lost the war. But NOT all those who lose wars are morally wrong. So tell me how he was wrong in a moral sense.
"I actually implement moral reasoning, which is part of the reason why we won't likely agree, because I actually do not suspend my morality for the dictates of a book.”
Just explain how you apply moral reasoning. What is the method?
"Huzzah! Finally, a good argument! Harken all ye religious types, if you are going to claim that God has some unique knowledge unknown to any of us that would justify his commands and actions, then they had better bring proof!’
This is precisely why I had to lay out the ground for this discussion. We started by agreeing that we are discussing the moral judgment of ‘God’… which by definition (in the fiction) means an omniscient, omnipotent being.
Now, you are asking me to prove something that you started out by agreeing.
If you insist I shall prove that to you – well that’s another debate. In fact, if you go through my discussion with pragmatic in the link mentioned above, you will understand how I come to proving God.
"Oh, no, and you were doing so well... What if he did claim to have a time machine, or to have precognition, or even that he always existed? What then? Oh, right "The proof of the burden always lies with the one making the extraordinary claim." This also means that anyone who claims that their god had any of these abilities would ALSO have to meet that burden.”
Absolutely. I agree with you. The burden of proof is on the one saying God is all knowing. We will move on to that discussion if you please… but in the context of this discussion it is irrelevant, because we started out from the premise (even if it fictitious) that God exists. God by definition is the eternal, omniscient. Do you agree that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then we can’t judge his morality? If you agree on this premise… then let’s move on to the more fundamental questions of is God omniscient. I am game.
"Having read the Bible, some of gods supposed 'reasons' were even worse than that. I would assume the Qur'an is little different in that regard, so I will direct your question directly back at you.”
I don’t want to speak for bible here. But I can tell you about Quran. The reason that God demands us to do anything rests only on one reason: that he is omniscient and our knowledge is deficient. That’s it. But why should we believe he is omniscient is another question. As I said, if you are interested, we can debate that as well.
"...and that is where you drop the ball, so to speak. Why should I, or anyone else, theoretically agree that a god is eternal or omniscient without its followers offering up a single speck of proof for such outlandish claims?”
Yes you are right .You don’t have to agree. If the debate was about does God exist, and is he omniscient and so on… I agree I will have to bring the proof. But if the debate is about the moral actions of God, then it is evident that it springs from the assumption that God exists – and by God believers mean an omniscient being.
"Wrong. If this god did not expect or demand anything of us, then an explanation would be unnecessary. However, when you want someone to do something, you had damned sure better explain yourself if you want to be taken seriously.”
You can’t say so. What if the explanations are too much for us to understand… after all we all know that our cognitive faculties have limitations. However, what can be explained is why we need to believe that God is omniscient. There are reasons for that. But as I said, that’s another topic.
"If it was capable of understanding it? Hell yes. Yes, yes, yes. Just as soon as my child was able to talk, I explained why he needed vaccinations. Who the hell doesn't? Oh, right...”
An example should be understood in the right perspective. In this example, the baby represents mankind. The nurse giving the injection represents God. Therefore, to say that I will explain things to the baby when it grows up is digressing from the example. Mankind will never grow up enough to wise up on these deeper ontological questions.
“So, let me get this straight. YOU think your god is too INCOMPETENT to be able to explain his moral reasoning without having to impart divine omniscience? Holy shit, you give your god even LESS credit that I do, and I straight up think he is fictional. You should probably work on that...”
You can call it god’s incompetence only if God thinks that it is important to explain moral reasons to us, and yet finds himself incapable. But he thinks there is no need to explain these things. He has given us the intelligence to grasp that the wisdom of an omniscient being should be trusted. That’s good to go.
“Yes, yes, we already know that you fall into the "might makes right" camp. Spare us.”
No. no. Not might makes right… omniscience makes right.
"Actually, it is downright NECESSARY to question it, else how would or could we learn? If something is moral, the only way to determine it is to examine it, and vice versa. It seems to me that this is simply a plea to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
It is plea to pay attention to the man behind the curtain – God. If the moral reasons are not explained then it become very crucial to try and understand the source of these laws. That’s where the inquiry of God begins.
"I know you don’t believe in the character called God. But in the context of this discussion, we all are assuming that “IF this fictional character does exist, then why are bad things happening.” That is what I am clarifying. This also means that we all agree that this fictional character is ‘omniscient and omnipotent’ according to the fictional narrative. This discussion springs from that platform. I was just making this point clear."
Seems to me that you are shuttling in more unjustifiable propositions to prop up the original. Not only are we now supposed to operate under a framework in which a god exists, but now it must also must be all knowing or all powerful, not to mention having to accept that it is a moral being. All of which is in dispute, but furthermore, the latter two are wholly unnecessary to the former. Even if I entertain the notion of a god existing, it is entirely unfruitful and unnecessary for me to entertain impossible properties that have never been, nor ever could be established.
"What I mean by objective are things that can be concluded based on a logical explanation that can be agreed upon by all."
Well, that would be a mean feat, considering that there are still people who believe the world to be flat. For something to be objective, it DOESN'T have to be agreed on by all, it only needs to be independent. The rules of Chess and the standard metric are not objective because they are universal, because they aren't, they are objective because they do not rely solely on individual players or measures. Likewise, an objective morality need not be universal, but merely not rely on individual participants in society. You are, in fact, conflating objectivity and universality. EXACTLY as I suspected...
This is nothing if not a special form of an argumentum ad populum, even if EVERYONE agreed about something, that would not make it objective.
"However, let’s look at morality. Do you say there is a logical way you can prove that things we consider immoral are wrong? I think the answer is no, because we make these decisions only based on intuitive feelings and conventions."
Depends on what objectives you use. If you start with the generally accepted standard of reciprocity, yes.
"There is no logical way you can explain why killing animals for food is alright… while killing humans for the same purpose might be wrong."
Other animals are not sentient, nor moral agents, so killing them is not the same as killing something capable of both.
"Some people bring forward the argument that by ensuring humans are not killed you actually ensure your own safety… premised on the logic of self-interest."
Which is true, it a strict sense. If you make a society where murder is legal and normal, the chances of being killed go up drastically. If you make one were murder is considered moral, then the chances get even closer to 1. If I start from the basic objective that humans should do as much good and as little harm as possible, it is rather easy to see that murder is NOT the right means for achieving that objective.
"This is actually conceding to ‘Might is Right’ argument. Because, if you can be sure that you are too powerful to be touched by others, then you can actually go about killing others… because your self-interest is preserved by your power and not by your abiding by social norms."
Nope. Conceding that you live in a group, and that your survival does depend(at least in part) in the structure of the group, does not mean you are simply agreeing with the group. Nor does it mean you would be less moral without said group, it only means you are capable of living in a community.
"Atoms bombs on Japan wouldn’t have been dropped if the US had feared a retaliation of similar kind, right?"
I am not so sure. While we had no reason to believe they had weapons of the same type or grade, we actually seemed to expect some kind of response other than surrender, so we did fear some kind of retaliation and did it anyway. Now, I am not in the camp that thinks this particular action, by my own country, was moral. Nor were many other people, after seeing the devastation and destruction left behind, which is part of the reason we never used them again.
"Morality from god is objective, based on my explanation above."
No, it is hardly even consistent or coherent, and it certainly isn't objective.
"How is it objective… that takes a wholly different discussion. If you are interested, we will get into that discussion."
It may be necessary, as it seems we are using different definitions of the word. You seem to interpret it as something absolute, inviolate, and universal. None of these ever have or could cover morality, they don't even cover language or rules, so they go far beyond simple objectivity.
"However, if you look up my exchanges I had with Pragmatic on this link: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/possible-method-dispro... you will know what I mean."
I will have to read it, and will probably respond there as well. Though that will have to wait until I am done with my current project.
"Probably, I should have chosen a more suitable word than ‘effective’. I should have said ‘impossible.’"
Yes, but then you have made a claim, and one that I fear neither of us could ever confirm or falsify.
"You said this about Hitler. Can you explain how his choices were wrong… from a moral perspective. Yes, his choices were wrong from a tactical perspective, because he ultimately lost the war. But NOT all those who lose wars are morally wrong. So tell me how he was wrong in a moral sense."
My answer was a bit more broad than that. I have read some of his speeches and have a general idea of what he was trying to do, which is to set up a strong socialist government with a somewhat democratic slant. That type of government, in itself, isn't inherently wrong; but his actions too fascist and totalitarian to let it work. It would be near impossible to implement such a government using those methods, and when you add the slaughter of a large minority of the population, you cannot help but understand that his ideals and methods simply did not match one another.
As to why we might be able to call it immoral, well we are capable of understanding that our actions have consequences, and those consequences are not limited to just ourselves. Through an understanding of how our actions affect others, and an innate sense of empathy and fairness(which most of us possess), we can reach moral conclusions about our actions and others. While it may not be universal, in many ways it is very close, as most cultures have come to the same conclusions on things like theft and murder; despite the fact that they hold different values. In some cases, VERY different values...
"Just explain how you apply moral reasoning. What is the method?"
Generally, the same methods we use when applying law.
"This is precisely why I had to lay out the ground for this discussion. We started by agreeing that we are discussing the moral judgment of ‘God’… which by definition (in the fiction) means an omniscient, omnipotent being."
Not all gods are either omniscient or omnipotent, and before asserting that one is, one needs to provide evidence that it is.
"Now, you are asking me to prove something that you started out by agreeing."
No, I only ever agreed to assume a god exists for the sake of argument, I never agreed to allow you to shuttle unfalsifiable and paradoxical properties onto it. I am sorry that you cannot envision a god, even yours, lacking such attributes. However, until they are empirically established properties of your god, we have no reason to consider them. Further, I can hardly see the attempt as anything but a poor exercise in trying to define your god in such a way that it cannot even be examined.
"If you insist I shall prove that to you – well that’s another debate. In fact, if you go through my discussion with pragmatic in the link mentioned above, you will understand how I come to proving God."
I'll check it out, it should be good for a laugh if nothing else.
"Absolutely. I agree with you. The burden of proof is on the one saying God is all knowing."
Awesome, seems that we are mainly in agreement, then. On this point, at least.
"We will move on to that discussion if you please… but in the context of this discussion it is irrelevant, because we started out from the premise (even if it fictitious) that God exists."
No, it is still relevant, because we never agreed to assume the properties of the fictitious god, as that would be poor even for a thought experiment.
"God by definition is the eternal, omniscient."
No, it isn't. Few of the gods ever created ever have been.
"Do you agree that if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then we can’t judge his morality?"
Not entirely, no. Even if god were both, it would still be necessary to judge his morality to ever ascertain if he even appeared to be moral. Conclusion: He doesn't, and without good evidence that his actions were in fact moral, I have to reject the proposition as unfounded. It is entirely possible that god is neither good nor moral, a neutral or even evil god is possible, so no.
"If you agree on this premise… then let’s move on to the more fundamental questions of is God omniscient. I am game."
Sure, though we should probably make a separate thread for it. I would hate to have hijacked this conversation.
"I don’t want to speak for bible here. But I can tell you about Quran."
You will probably have to, I haven't ever read the whole thing, nor the numerous Hadiths(sp?) that go along with it. From what I understand, it is more than just the one book, but a slew of religious writings external to it as well. You will probably have to correct me if I am misinformed on that, though my inability to understand Arabic will probably be a liability in the discussion.
"The reason that God demands us to do anything rests only on one reason: that he is omniscient and our knowledge is deficient. That’s it. But why should we believe he is omniscient is another question. As I said, if you are interested, we can debate that as well."
It is actually very important to establishing gods morality, I would think, as your entire argument hinges on it.
"Yes you are right .You don’t have to agree. If the debate was about does God exist, and is he omniscient and so on… I agree I will have to bring the proof. But if the debate is about the moral actions of God, then it is evident that it springs from the assumption that God exists – and by God believers mean an omniscient being."
However, if their entire argument hinges on the presumption of greater good unknown to us, one first has to establish it. I would think that would be the natural course.
"You can’t say so. What if the explanations are too much for us to understand… after all we all know that our cognitive faculties have limitations. However, what can be explained is why we need to believe that God is omniscient. There are reasons for that. But as I said, that’s another topic."
Regardless, I could NOT ask you to do something without explaining why, and then expect you to simply agree because I was smarter than you. It doesn't work that way. Just because another person or being is smarter, doesn't make them more moral, or even correct.
"An example should be understood in the right perspective. In this example, the baby represents mankind. The nurse giving the injection represents God. Therefore, to say that I will explain things to the baby when it grows up is digressing from the example."
Why not? Do you think we have made no progress in the last few thousand years?
"Mankind will never grow up enough to wise up on these deeper ontological questions."
Another assertion that you cannot possibly justify, you have simply assumed such for little reason.
"You can call it god’s incompetence only if God thinks that it is important to explain moral reasons to us, and yet finds himself incapable. But he thinks there is no need to explain these things."
Then he isn't omniscient, or he would know that there is a need to explain such things, or thinking beings wouldn't do them.
"He has given us the intelligence to grasp that the wisdom of an omniscient being should be trusted. That’s good to go."
Nope. Just because a being is omniscient does not automatically justify trust in it. It may not be trustworthy, or may not have your best interests in mind, so no.
"No. no. Not might makes right… omniscience makes right."
Pretty much the same thing. "Do this thing because someone smarter told you to!"
We were made to do more than follow the orders of those we think are superior, and that is a good thing. We firmly established that "just doing what you are told" is not a justifiable defense, while we were trying Nazi war criminals, so no.
"It is plea to pay attention to the man behind the curtain – God."
Well, to explain the reference, god is the illusion and not the people controlling it. In this case, the man behind the curtain would be the people who claim that god gave them laws, and that those laws are "good".
"If the moral reasons are not explained then it become very crucial to try and understand the source of these laws."
No, actually. If the moral reasons are not provided, and the law appears immoral, then it is necessary to REJECT the law until you can provide a sound reason as to its value.
"That’s where the inquiry of God begins."
Actually, it has to begin before a discussion of morals, because tons of religious baggage need be accepted to get even this far.
Pages