The Moral Argument Against God's Existence

[Bill]

The poll, above, is with respect to the following situation: Let us suppose, hypothetically speaking, that Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister of Israel, wakes up tomorrow morning and orders the mobilization of the entire Israeli defense forces. Those forces are then ordered to exterminate all Palestinian people living within the borders of Israel. Every man, woman, and child of Palestinian descent is subsequently killed by the Israeli defense forces. Would that be an act of unspeakable genocide? I would say so. And at least, under modern standards of international law, it is clear that the world community as a whole would largely condemn such a state of affairs in exactly those terms: unspeakable acts of genocide.

Now, lets change the circumstances just a bit. As soon as he wakes up on that fateful morning, Ariel Sharon proclaims on television that God gave him a vision and, in that vision, God ordered him to perform those acts which international law would call "unspeakable acts of genocide." Shortly thereafter, numerous religious leaders from around the world also announce that they, too, have received revelations from God verifying that just such a commandment was issued to Ariel Sharon. Every single Palestinian person within the enlarged borders of Israel is thus killed by order of God. Would the fact that God commanded this genocide to occur alter the description of these acts as "unspeakable genocide?" Does our duty to follow God's commandments override our duty to abide by international law and refuse to commit genocide? One of the atheistic arguments in which I have taken a personal interest is the Moral Argument Against God's Existence (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/moral.html). The crux of this argument is to assert that morality exists independant of God's commandments (in other words, humans have moral values which derive from some other source besides what any God commands humans to do or refrain from doing). If this is the case, then those human moral standards can be used to evaluate God's behavior. My complete argument is given in my Secular Web essay Is God a Criminal? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html)

Here is how I personally feel about each of the answers I have included in the poll, above: This is my personal choice, and I feel that most who are not followers of the Judeo-Christian God ought to choose this option. Those who pick the second option choose obedience over morality. Unfortunately for them, this was a central issue in the Nuremburg trials, and the world stood up and declared, with a single voice, that morality must override obedience. Those who pick this option have the blood of the victims of a genocidal God on their hands. This is William Lane Craig's own answer (in the Craig-Washington debate), although he also hints that, if God did issue such a command, he would go with option 2, above, and obey God. However, people who choose this option are essentially denying the truth of the Holy Bible. In the Appendix to my essay, above (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god-A.html) I quote at length from the Bible to clearly demonstrate that, not only did the Jewish God issue just such commands to the Jews, but the Jews obeyed those commands, and committed acts of unspeakable genocide upon the orders of the Jewish God. Any Christians who pick this option have renounced the truth of the Bible and you need to pick a new religion which is neither Jewish nor Christian. People who pick this option clearly see the moral quandry presented by this state of affairs. Only they are refusing to pick the correct moral choice (option 1, above) because they know that to do so would cause them to disobey God, and that would be sinful too. Christians who pick this option are potential future atheists. Ditto, basically. After the Nuremburg trials, there is only one internationally acceptable answer: 1, above. Without regard to the predominant religious beliefs of any given nation, most of the world's nations have signed onto the idea (by way of UN-sponsored international treaties) that genocide can never be justified by anything whatsoever. In fact, a religious justification for genocide just seems to make the genocide all that worse because it is genocide predicated upon some sort of religious bigotry.

Of course, once you admit that objective standards of morality supercede and are greater than the commandments of a Judeo-Christian God, then you have essentially admited that this God does not exist. So, any of you Christians out there who picked option 1, I have your newly-minted II T-Shirt right over here.... ;)

== Bill

[Spenser]

:notworthy

I like the fact you put it into the form of a poll which requires an answer. Much more difficult to ignore or avoid taking a stance...

[Peter Kirby]

Twisted logic says that it's genocide but it's justified, as god would know the facts, and the facts must then be that the people ordered to be killed had deserved it. In other words, there's something about these people we don't know but the Wise One does. Or forget orders--look at Noah's flood for an action that can only be described as genocide (or worse), but which must be justified under inerrancy.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Doctor X]

Unfortunately, people can justify the unspeakable rather easily in their mind . . . indeed Palestinian and Israeli terrorists are essentially doing that right now.

--J.D.

[RTS]

Genocide is genocide, period.

I could not vote in this poll because in the #1 choice you included "even if God orders it". There are NO Gods to order anything. Anyone hearing voices or seeing visions from God either present a medical condition diagnosed as clinical psychosis with delusions of grandeur, or they are attempting to con others into following their personal/political agendas for personal gain.

Quote from 'Seneca the Rhetorician', who was the private teacher to Nero:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.'' -- Seneca

Morality is a definitional term. Different societies define morality in many different terms, standards and parameters. There IS NO universal, uniform "Morality" even amongst our resident Christians as the Episcopalian Bishop controversy signifies. Throughout history, most civilized societies agree that murder (in most cases) is wrong, and that all should live by a "golden rule' philosophy, but a belief in God(s) is Not a precondition to the development of any "rules of conduct" (whether they be personal or societal). Many Asian and far eastern societies are some of the most honorable/moral, and they developed these high standards without the need for any Gods.

And it is beyond all logical comprehension how Christians can proclaim their "Good Book (???)" as "THE" standard of morality with all the disgusting acts committed by their God and in God's name.

Want to become a disciple of Christ? Read Luke 14:26 from the KJ Version or an original Greek to English translation.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Great post Bill. :) You've touched on one of the reasons why I could never be a fundamentalist Christian. It requires one to approve of all the various cruelties and atrocities commanded by the OT deity. An army going into a village and hacking up women and children with swords and spears? It's okay if God says so. Chop off a woman's hand if she grabs a man's genitalia to break up a fight? It's okay if God says so. Stone a women to death because she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night? It's okay if God says so.

This is the kind of ethical philosophy that fundamentalist Christians accept -- obedience over morality, as Bill discussed. This is kind of how I feel when a Christian attempts to evangelize me -- a man approaches me and hands me a gun, saying, "see that toddler over there? You can have eternal life if you point the gun at her head and blow her brains out in front of her mother, and after that, kill the mother too. Obey that request and you'll know God's love and have eternal life." You think that's too much of a stretch? Not really, since the OT deity, if true, ordered pretty much the same thing to Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and the Israelites. As a Christian, I'd be required to accept the commands of the OT deity. This kind of "morality", of course, is something I can never accept and would rather die than obeying it. Hence the same reason I could never be a fundamentalist Christian. It requires worship of a cruel vindictive monster. If an omnibenevolent god exists, then it's not the fundamentalist Christian deity.

Jason

[Spenser]

Hmmm... One vote for number 2 and no comment fessing up to it.

[Normal]

Anyone who says god commanded them to do anything is simply delusional.

[beastmaster]

Assuming the existence of the OT God, and taking that notion seriously, I can see no legitimate answer but #2. The Creator of Life is the Master of Death. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is not a moral precept; rather, it is a statement that God has plenary power to decide the conditions and circumstances of death and that no human shall invade God's plenary authority by taking the life of another in his or her own hands. I think the First Commandment trumps all others: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." I think that human morality and international law qualify as "other gods" that cannot be put before obedience to the Creator of Life and the Master of Death.

Luckily, God does not exist, so we don't have to worry about these implications.

(btw, I am the second person to vote for #2.)

[wiploc]

A toughy. I definitely don't believe in god, and I don't believe he would have any moral authority if he did exist. But whence comes the presumption that international law has moral authority? I could have voted if you'd given me the option of being against massacres regardless of whether god or law approves. :)
crc

[Jobar]

Hm. I voted #1, before I read any of the replies; but if one stipulates the existence of God, as the poll does, then beastmaster has a powerful point.

I'd say that a God that would order such a thing might be omnipotent, but could not be omnibenevolent. Rather like the OT God, in fact.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by Jobar
Hm. I voted #1, before I read any of the replies; but if one stipulates the existence of God, as the poll does, then beastmaster has a powerful point.

I'd say that a God that would order such a thing might be omnipotent, but could not be omnibenevolent. Rather like the OT God, in fact.

I too read his point and had to rethink the issue. If it is given that God exists, that he is real then everything attributed to him would be real as well including such things the UPD. If it was fact that God exist, is omnipotent and omniscient and is in fact our creator; then duty to him should be first priority (unless you really do want to burn in hell). I myself might still believe it to be wrong, but since God is real, it must be right. Gross, you're making me feel like a theist.

But that of course is only if God is a given, not if a bunch of religious leaders tell us they had visions, in which case I'm still glad I voted the way I did...

[Hedshaker]

I voted #1

It's very thought provoking though. Isn't the fundy camapaign to instate the death penelty for homosexuals advocating a form of genocide?

I ask this because I engaged some of them on TOL about it. The bible is clear in what it says, but aren't they just using God to justify the hatred and biggotry in their own hearts?


:eek:

[Bill]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
I voted #1

It's very thought provoking though. Isn't the fundy camapaign to instate the death penelty for homosexuals advocating a form of genocide? Yes. I ask this because I engaged some of them on TOL about it. The bible is clear in what it says, but aren't they just using God to justify the hatred and biggotry in their own hearts? I think that it is a bit more complex than that. Some have hatred and bigotry in their hearts before they even think much about the Bible. Others grow the hatred and bigotry in their hearts based upon what they perceive that the Bible teaches. And those two groups of folks frequently discuss issues like this in Bible study classes to ensure that the issue is raised to even those who have not considered the whole issue before.

Wiccans have a similar problem with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live...." (KJV: Exodus 22:18)

== Bill

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Spenser
I too read his point and had to rethink the issue. If it is given that God exists, that he is real then everything attributed to him would be real as well including such things the UPD. If it was fact that God exist, is omnipotent and omniscient and is in fact our creator; then duty to him should be first priority (unless you really do want to burn in hell). I myself might still believe it to be wrong, but since God is real, it must be right. Gross, you're making me feel like a theist.

How do we get from, "God created us," to, "We ought to do what god says."

The fear of burning in Hell has nothing to do with this question, since we are talking about duty, about moral obligation, rather than about personal benefit.
crc

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Spenser
Hmmm... One vote for number 2 and no comment fessing up to it.

Perhaps they voted that way for satirical reasons. ;)

[Bill]

Originally posted by Spenser
I too read his point and had to rethink the issue. If it is given that God exists, that he is real then everything attributed to him would be real as well including such things the UPD. If it was fact that God exist, is omnipotent and omniscient and is in fact our creator; then duty to him should be first priority (unless you really do want to burn in hell). I myself might still believe it to be wrong, but since God is real, it must be right. The Unknown Purpose Defense falls victim to the modern rejection of "the ends justify the means."

Again, the main point here is to define whether or not something is moral becaue God commands it (meaning that whatever God commands is automatically the moral thing for humans to do) or whether morality exists independant of God's command(s).

If we consider the former case, it is easy to conclude that merely living according to the commands of a dictator does not make a person moral. God is no different than Stalin in this event. If Stalin commands you to perform immoral acts, you may well need to perform those acts in order to avoid great misery, but that will not make the acts moral (it would lessen your personal moral culpability, however; at least in the eyes of international law). And it seems naturally intuitive to know that it is not the case that "might makes right." Just because you are dealing with God Almighty does not mean that God's commands are necessarily moral. (Take the Book of Job as an example of this: in Job, God is essentially persecuting Job just to see what Job does in response. That can't be a morally correct thing for God to do!)

Accordingly, I believe it is the case that standards of morality exist independant of God, even if you adopt the Christian idea of God. And, it would appear, most Christian nations have agreed that this is the case by signing onto the UN treaties regarding genocide and related topics. And, based on the foregoing arguments about the first option serve to illuminate and enhance the ideas presented with the second option. Here, I am with Wittgenstein, who told Drury this about the Christian God: It is a dogma of the Roman Church that the existence of God can be proved by natural reason. Now this dogma would make it impossible for me to be a Roman Catholic. If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
Recollections of Wittgenstein, Ed. Rush Rhees. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 107-108. The rationale for such a duty becomes even more intense when you examine just what that God has allegedly done to mankind, either directly or by ordering the Jews to act on His behalf. The fact that you will burn in Hell for all eternity for disobeying God merely further demonstrates God's own immorality.

If the atheist case is true (that there is no God), and if you were confronted by Stalin and ordered to perform acts of horrible genocide, it would be your moral duty to resist. The fact that resisting would lead to your own horrible tortures and eventual early death would not subtract one iota from your duty to resist Stalin's commandments to commit genocide. This is the commonly accepted morality that most modern nations have agreed to. And the fact that Stalin offered you the alternative of great reward if you just participate in his genocidal scheme would again in no way justify your participation.

Replacing Stalin with God in the above analogy does not change the moral equation one iota, in my own humble opinion. That is the whole purpose of considering moral situations in advance and agreeing upon what the results ought to be. The fact that it is God Almighty who is ordering that genocide be committed is no justification for genocide.

Again, the Unknown Purpose Defense is a question of whether or not "the ends justify the means." And again, humanity as a whole has by-and-large rejected the idea that "the ends justify the means." No matter how great and good the ends might be, you cannot employ the worst possible means (genocide, in this case) in order to obtain those ends.

Humanity as a whole has agreed what the right answer is, and institutions like the World Court stand ready to bring to justice anybody who lives according to the creed that "the ends justify the means" or the creed that "God's might makes right." Thus, humans have (as I've said) by-and-large agreed that morality exists independantly of God, and as rules of moral conduct for human beings, if you are a human being, your first duty is to obey these generally-accepted moral commandments without regard to whatever you might consider your duty to God to be.

The moment you go the other way, wether it is based upon asserting that your duty to God is greater than your duty to behave according to the commonly agreed morality of all mankind, or whether it is based upon "the ends justify the means" in some way or another (like the Unknown Purpose Defense), then you have separated yourself from the vast bulk of mankind who have rejected those two ideas and asserted that they have the right to punish any person who places God above the rights of other humans.

The rationale for this is that anybody can claim that God gave them such-and-such of a command and there is no way to verify that. This is why I included the part about religious leaders verifying the command. But if this happened in real life, would you tend to believe that God was real after all? Or would your rather tend to believe that a bunch of religious leaders had in some way been "paid off" to verify what Sharon said? How would we judge this?

The only possible answer is that we should stick to our previously agreed moral code unless and until a compelling reason is given to change the moral code. The Holocaust of World War II was the last such time we achieved that level of agreement on a universal declaration of a moral code.

Anyway, I really do fear those who would obey God's commandments ahead of the agreed moral standards of all of humanity. People claiming that sort of authority for their actions have harmed many, many people down through history.

== Bill

[Hedshaker]

I think that it is a bit more complex than that. Some have hatred and bigotry in their hearts before they even think much about the Bible. Others grow the hatred and bigotry in their hearts based upon what they perceive that the Bible teaches. And those two groups of folks frequently discuss issues like this in Bible study classes to ensure that the issue is raised to even those who have not considered the whole issue before.


I'm in full agreement with that. And of course, fundies don't have the monopoly on hatred and bigotry. They are, however, the biggest group in America that adopt that stance as default and I find that a little scary.

Thanx

"Christ, I like your christ. I do not like your Christians for they are so unlike your Christ." Ghandi.

bya

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Bill
Some have hatred and bigotry in their hearts before they even think much about the Bible. Others grow the hatred and bigotry in their hearts based upon what they perceive that the Bible teaches.

There is a quote. I didn't make it up. It goes something like, "In the metaphysical supermarket, most people pick their morality before they pick their religion."
crc

[Grive]

Well, I'm safe in picking option number one.

First of all, I believe on something very similar to the basic premise of deism: God exists, god created everything, but God has no active control (or chose not to exert it) over us and what we do. The very idea of God asking me to do something is preposterous.

However, to give an argument outside of "I don't follow the bible, so neener neener!", in case God were to ask me to do such a thing, and assuming I believed that He has some active control and likes to impose His will upon us, I would still disobey. Morality is, in my opinion, defined by our culture and education, and those are only partially based on religion. Thanks to the gift of Free Will, it is possible to have a set of morals that Trascend God's desires without denying God himself. By choosing my own morals over God's desires, I'm not denying His existence: I could even argue that I'm asserting it, since I'm following his original and supreme wish for the human race over a specific, comparatively small request of his.

Originally posted by Normal
Anyone who says god commanded them to do anything is simply delusional.

As far as I understand it, we're assuming such a command was not a simple delusion, but an actual order the real God made. If we assume it's just a delusion, then there is no conflict in the first place.

[BioBeing]

In the hypothetical "a real God ordered him to do it" situation, how do we, the common people, know that God ordered him to do it? How do we know that God did not order some frustrated housewife to kill her children? If God issued his orders in triplicate on immutable paper, then maybe #2 might stand a chance. Since I have never seen such, I go with #1.

[Peter Kirby]

Maybe it's a dumb question, but wouldn't this be an argument against the existence of a good God if this God actually did order genocide? We can establish that the Old Testament is largely myth in other ways, and the OT itself doesn't even claim omnibenevolence, so that is irrelevant.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Normal]

Originally posted by Grive
As far as I understand it, we're assuming such a command was not a simple delusion, but an actual order the real God made. If we assume it's just a delusion, then there is no conflict in the first place.

I interpret the question as being simply ridiculous.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Normal
I interpret the question as being simply ridiculous.

So it's too hard for you?

[Normal]

Originally posted by winstonjen
So it's too hard for you?

It's not too hard - it's a false quint-lemma.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Normal
It's not too hard - it's a false quint-lemma.

Then why didn't you pick this option?

Undecided. This choice troubles me and I cannot chose any of the above alternatives.

[Normal]

The "choice" doesn't trouble me at all.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Normal
The "choice" doesn't trouble me at all.

Then what does? Your faith? Your religion? Representative of said religion?

[Normal]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Then what does? Your faith? Your religion? Representative of said religion?

False (edit: tri)-lemma. None of those things trouble me.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Normal
False (edit: tri)-lemma. None of those things trouble me.

So the choices aren't exhaustive? What option do you suggest?

[xorbie]

How do we get from, "God created us," to, "We ought to do what god says."
The fear of burning in Hell has nothing to do with this question, since we are talking about duty, about moral obligation, rather than about personal benefit.
crc


:notworthy :notworthy

Wow, thank you for that. Now that I see that, it makes perfect sense. I think I shall go ahead and sleep more comfortably (of course when I say sleep, I speak hypothetically) with my choice of #1.

[Doctor X]

Anything that would demand unjustified genocide does not deserve to be obeyed.

--J.D.

[Peter Kirby]

I agree, JD. Now how does the deduction get made to the non-existence of God? (A conclusion with which I agree.)

1. God is good.
2. If God commanded genocide, he does not deserve to be obeyed.
3, 4, 5???
Therefore, God does not exist.

Please fill in the missing steps--I'm always looking for more ammunition for my atheology.

best,
Peter Kirby

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I agree, JD. Now how does the deduction get made to the non-existence of God? (A conclusion with which I agree.)

1. God is good.
2. If God commanded genocide, he does not deserve to be obeyed.
3, 4, 5???
Therefore, God does not exist.

Please fill in the missing steps--I'm always looking for more ammunition for my atheology.

best,
Peter Kirby

I'm not Doctor X, but I'll try.

3. Either genocide is good if it is commanded by god but bad if commanded by humans, or genocide is universally bad.
4. Either morality depends on the act itself or who does/commands the act.
5. If morality depends on who gives the order, anything can be justified without another reason.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Grive
Well, I'm safe in picking option number one.

First of all, I believe on something very similar to the basic premise of deism: God exists, god created everything, but God has no active control (or chose not to exert it) over us and what we do. The very idea of God asking me to do something is preposterous.

However, to give an argument outside of "I don't follow the bible, so neener neener!", in case God were to ask me to do such a thing, and assuming I believed that He has some active control and likes to impose His will upon us, I would still disobey. Morality is, in my opinion, defined by our culture and education, and those are only partially based on religion. Thanks to the gift of Free Will, it is possible to have a set of morals that Trascend God's desires without denying God himself. By choosing my own morals over God's desires, I'm not denying His existence: I could even argue that I'm asserting it, since I'm following his original and supreme wish for the human race over a specific, comparatively small request of his.



As far as I understand it, we're assuming such a command was not a simple delusion, but an actual order the real God made. If we assume it's just a delusion, then there is no conflict in the first place.

I find the post I quoted very ironic, especially since it was typed by someone who believes that might makes right as long as you are a moderator.

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by winstonjen
I'm not Doctor X, but I'll try.

3. Either genocide is good if it is commanded by god but bad if commanded by humans, or genocide is universally bad.
4. Either morality depends on the act itself or who does/commands the act.
5. If morality depends on who gives the order, anything can be justified without another reason. What if the theist says, "I believe that there is an objective system of morality that is not dependent on God's command, that God simply knows this system because of his omniscience, and that God has never ordered genocide"? Whence the conclusion that this God does not exist?

Perhaps this should be entitled "The Argument Against Divine Command Theory" and not "The Moral Argument Against God's Existence."

best,
Peter Kirby

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
What if the theist says, "I believe that there is an objective system of morality that is not dependent on God's command, that God simply knows this system because of his omniscience, and that God has never ordered genocide"? Whence the conclusion that this God does not exist?


First, several helpings of :banghead: , followed by:

"How do you know what you 'know' is true?"

[Peter Kirby]

Originally posted by winstonjen
First, several helpings of :banghead: , followed by:

"How do you know what you 'know' is true?" Why do you say that the existence of God implies divine command theory? Theism is not knowledge but belief. I think you can make an argument that it is false, but I don't see the OP as having done that--only that a certain theistic idea of what it means for something to be moral is false.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Normal]

Originally posted by winstonjen
So the choices aren't exhaustive? What option do you suggest?

That I follow my own sense of morality irrespective of what everyone else in the world thinks.

Kant said it best:

Act only on a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law.

[Grive]

Originally posted by Normal
I interpret the question as being simply ridiculous.

Hah.

You could, that's true. Under many a person's viewpoint, it is. And I tend to agree with your assertion. However, under such a ridiculous question there is an underlying, very relevant conundrum. The idea is to focus on that dilemma while taking the question as a overly simplified example of it. Focus too much on the question without taking into account that answering it is just a step in the stairway to reach the actual problem, and indeed, this whole thread might seem ridiculous.


Originally posted by winstonjen
I find the post I quoted very ironic, especially since it was typed by someone who believes that might makes right as long as you are a moderator

I find the post I quoted very moronic, especially since I don't believe that might makes right and I'm not a moderator. Oh, you mean in another forum where I don't believe that, either? Well, then I ask you to leave that alone, since it seems that in my second post I've already read the rules and policies, including the preference to leave other forums behind. But if you want to continue to throw your pathetic venom while bogging down the thread with lifeless replies, I'm not the one to shut you up. I'll just continue giving arguments based on my ideology (good or bad, but mine) that are actually relevant to the actual topic at hand and be happy ignoring any further posts like that one. I don't wish to destroy an interesting thread.

However, I guess in between your intelligent contributions to this interesting thread in the form of random attacks and useless comments about other forums, you (unexpectedly) introduce the "might makes right" ideology into it - which would make any action carried by the mighty one moral. Don't worry, I'll try to actually develop a point to save the ideology from the darkest corners of inane posts, a place where no idea should be left.

If we were to consider that might, indeed, made right: Who says that God has the Might? God is ordering you to do something, but isnt' forcing you. You still have the choice to disobey God, and thus, you have the power in this case. If God physically forces you (as in, use His heavenly powers of heavenly kickass to move your body against your will), then you're not guilty at all, and there is no dilemma at all. But since we do have the option of sending Him to hell... Ariel Sharon is the one with the power, and thus, might makes right when he decides not to do God's bidding. If he decided to submit to God's wishes, then he essentially transferred his might to God, and again, might makes right. The "might makes right" side of the argument is irrelevant, since it just adds another possible course of action that wouldn't be any different from Him commiting genocide himself, and doesn't affect the conclusion reached.

[Normal]

It doesn't present a problem if the question is simply viewed as absurd.

Substitute in a rock.

What if a rock ordered the command of genocide? Are we to assume a rock has superior moral authority? Or is the question simply useless?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Grive
I find the post I quoted very moronic, especially since I don't believe that might makes right and I'm not a moderator. Oh, you mean in another forum where I don't believe that, either? Well, then I ask you to leave that alone, since it seems that in my second post I've already read the rules and policies, including the preference to leave other forums behind. But if you want to continue to throw your pathetic venom while bogging down the thread with lifeless replies, I'm not the one to shut you up. I'll just continue giving arguments based on my ideology (good or bad, but mine) that are actually relevant to the actual topic at hand and be happy ignoring any further posts like that one. I don't wish to destroy an interesting thread.

Surprising, as you quite enjoyed doing that on those other forums. I made an observation of your behaviour there, and I came to a conclusion based on that. What's wrong with what I did? Can't take the heat? Who gave you the right to decide which posts are lifeless? Then again, as your sense of humour is non-existent, I suppose you would know.

May I reiterate what you said? Who cares - I'll do so anyway - "a moderator has the right to do whatever he wants as long as he has the access, every user agreed to that upon joining the forum.” From the user agreement on your site.

Anyway, a non-interventionist, Deist-type god does not get off the hook regarding the existence of evil. Is he/she unable to stop evil, or unaware of the evil? Then the god is incompetent. Is the god unwilling to prevent evil? Then the god is EVIL. Is the god both willing, and able? Then where does evil come from? There is no possible god that deserves worship.

However, I guess in between your intelligent contributions to this interesting thread in the form of random attacks and useless comments about other forums, you (unexpectedly) introduce the "might makes right" ideology into it - which would make any action carried by the mighty one moral. Don't worry, I'll try to actually develop a point to save the ideology from the darkest corners of inane posts, a place where no idea should be left.

We'll be waiting in our rocking chairs for that.

If we were to consider that might, indeed, made right: Who says that God has the Might? God is ordering you to do something, but isnt' forcing you. You still have the choice to disobey God, and thus, you have the power in this case. If God physically forces you (as in, use His heavenly powers of heavenly kickass to move your body against your will), then you're not guilty at all, and there is no dilemma at all.

Except that he could force us to do so, by changing our neural structure, or some such. And he could call us guilty if might did make right.

But since we do have the option of sending Him to hell... Ariel Sharon is the one with the power, and thus, might makes right when he decides not to do God's bidding. If he decided to submit to God's wishes, then he essentially transferred his might to God, and again, might makes right. The "might makes right" side of the argument is irrelevant, since it just adds another possible course of action that wouldn't be any different from Him commiting genocide himself, and doesn't affect the conclusion reached.

What's your point? If god did exist, surely he would have more power than a few rogue nuclear missiles.

[Jinto]

Originally posted by Normal
It doesn't present a problem if the question is simply viewed as absurd.

Substitute in a rock.

What if a rock ordered the command of genocide? Are we to assume a rock has superior moral authority? Or is the question simply useless?

If a rock ordered people to commit genocide, two things would be true:

1. It would still be just as immoral as if the rock had never commanded it, regardless of any might the rock may have.

2. We would be in posession of a very unusual rock.

So, how exactly is this question too absurd to be answered?

[Philosoft]

Gentlemen, and/or ladies,

Please confine your arguments to the topics at hand. Fair warning: Further character attacks will be deleted.

Regards,
Philo

[Grive]

Originally posted by Normal
It doesn't present a problem if the question is simply viewed as absurd.

Substitute in a rock.

What if a rock ordered the command of genocide? Are we to assume a rock has superior moral authority? Or is the question simply useless?

Wow, I want that rock.

Anyway, the substitute isn't eligible, as a rock, it hold no superior moral authority whatsoever. However, God DOES have a superior moral authority inside someone's religion - Well, inside many a religion. Unless there is a religion that worships an almighty rock with both the ability to give moral teachings to its followers and the ability to command them, the rock is a bad example.

Again, the question IS useless if you don't take it for what it is, and just see it as a shallow question without any ulterior intent.

[Grive]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Anyway, a non-interventionist, Deist-type god does not get off the hook regarding the existence of evil. Is he/she unable to stop evil, or unaware of the evil? Then the god is incompetent. Is the god unwilling to prevent evil? Then the god is EVIL. Is the god both willing, and able? Then where does evil come from? There is no possible god that deserves worship.


A non-interventionist God does not ask for worship, so he deserves all the worship he asks for... zero.

He is aware of Evil as something humanity made for itself. He is aware that he gave us the most precious gift any living form can recieve, and that's Free Will. Is God incompetent? No. It's not that he is unwilling to prevent evil, but He knows that whatever we brought upon ourselves is deserved, and that the world isn't made to make us all happy regardless of our actions - we choose our happiness or sadness.

Then again, the God I believe in is basically nature (someone/something that is what caused existence and who defined the laws said existence abides by). I tend to believe that forcing fate upon someone (or a group of individuals) is evil as opposed to giving said person (or group) a choice without restrictions. You basically want a God that will force his will upon us in order to make us live in an artificially happy world where we aren't allowed to think of anything but cherub angels and harp melodies? That's a pretty good definition of hell, if you ask me.



Originally posted by winstonjen
Except that he could force us to do so, by changing our neural structure, or some such. And he could call us guilty if might did make right.

Then, why would he ask us in the first place? If might does make right, and God's will were forced upon someone (Ariel Sharon in the example), then said person would no longer be accountable for his actions: Whatever actions carried by Ariel Sharon's body would be God's actions, not Ariels. You're blaming the gun instead of the gunner.

Originally posted by winstonjen
What's your point? If god did exist, surely he would have more power than a few rogue nuclear missiles.

Excuse me while I laugh my head off.

There.

Your whole point here is just a variation of Normal's answer: you're attacking the question's literal interpretation, while (intentionally, I hope) missing out the real conundrum presented by it. Continue attacking the example instead of the theory, and you'll get nowhere.

So, as you seem to be uncapable of inferential or interpretative thinking, let's put it this way: "If God commanded you to do something that is completely against your basic moral beliefs and the law you abide to, both of which were defined by His word and common sense, would you think that God's request overrides everything else?"



[edit] Screwed up the quote vBcode, fixed that.

[winstonjen]

Grive, do you or do you not know what guilt by omission is?

May I give you an example from a thread in GRD, entitled "It's all god's fault."

Would not man, woman, child, and tree all just be mere possibilities?

Besides, if God were truly an omniGod, he knew they would catch said diseases, or suffer said pain. Whether or not it was him that sent the Anthrax in the mail or put the nail in the chair, he sat and watched it happen.

Say you are sitting beside a pool, just watching people swim. If an infant crawls past you towards the edge, falls in, then drowns soon after, all the while you sitting there watching it, you may as well have drowned the baby yourself. You didn't throw the baby in, or keep its head underwater, but you did absolutely nothing to prevent its death. In essence, that baby's life was in your hands. To say that you were not responsible (at least to some extent) at all for its death is absurd. This is the same for God. And this is assuming you didn't already know it would happen, like God knows who will catch what diseases, or suffer pain.

[Just_An_Atheist]

I'm just browsing, and thought I'd comment on this guy's blurb about the free will theodicy being the entire solution to the problem of evil


"He is aware of Evil as something humanity made for itself."

What about natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and all that. That is evil that isn't the result of anyones free will. Already the free will theodicy is incomplete. Or better yet, think of the Ebola virus down in Africa. They say that people get just by being bitten by a certain animal. And when one get's the virus, you start bleeding from every pore until you die. This is the result of free will?

"He is aware that he gave us the most precious gift any living form can recieve, and that's Free Will."

Why do you think that we have free will, and why do you think it's so important so as to risk nuclear war? Some clarification is needed. Furthermore, it would seem that intervention would be justified under some circumstances. For instance, if a person were stuck in house that's on fire, then one (I hope) would be justified in going to get the firedepartment in order to rescue her, even if it's her fault, say, if we left the stove on. In a similar way, imagine if a man were to rape a 3 year old girl, and interestingly enough, inhibit the girls freedom by killing her. Would God value his freedom to molest childeren, or the freedom of an innocent 3 year old girl?

" Is God incompetent? No."

Giving the analysis above, I'd give a resounding YES!

[Stephen T-B]

I voted 2 on the grounds that if I were a Christian, I should believe that god could not require me to do anything which was immoral.

This response, however, ignores the evolution of Christian morality as has occurred in Western European cultures.
Medieval Christian morality could not have accompanied either the Enlightenment or the Industrial Revolution or any of the great social, economic or philosophical changes which came in their wake and which have shaped the Modern Christian world.

That an unchanging God could have changed so much is a question few Christians are prepared to face.

What we see in Fundamentalism, both Christian and Islamic, is a desire to retain the primitive moralities which were shaped by primitive peoples, and which they ascribed to their primitive gods. The evolution of God and his morality to fit the requirements of a continually evolving society is anathema to them.

I think they have logic on their side - even if it makes them loathesome

[Stephen T-B]

An after-thought:
Man makes god in his image.
Socierties shape religions in theirs.

[Grive]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Grive, do you or do you not know what guilt by omission is?

May I give you an example from a thread in GRD, entitled "It's all god's fault."

Yes, I know what guilty by omission is. And I don't agree with it when applying it to God. In that example, it was the kid's fault. I would have personally saved him, and would be angry if I saw someone who could save him stay stoic, but that doesn't make him a murderer. I'm a firm believer in free choice, and accepting whatever consequences that carries.

However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous: So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip? Should God magically take control of my car if I drink and drive? Should God stop the bullet if I decide to murder someone? Should God give me a superhuman metabolism if I decide to ingest acid? Are you asking for such a god? someone who will just make sure that all your mistakes will amount to nothing, and who will assure you happiness if you are unable to find it for yourself? If such a God ruled this world, I would want no part of it. But wait, I would be forced to, he wouldn't be able to sit idly by when I try to slit my throat.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"He is aware of Evil as something humanity made for itself."

What about natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and all that. That is evil that isn't the result of anyones free will. Already the free will theodicy is incomplete. Or better yet, think of the Ebola virus down in Africa. They say that people get just by being bitten by a certain animal. And when one get's the virus, you start bleeding from every pore until you die. This is the result of free will?

Natural phenomena is not evil, simple as that. The Ebola virus isn't evil.

so, would you call a lion evil because it kills others in order to survive? Would you call yourself evil because you need to kill cows (or lettuce, if you're a veggie) to subsist? Can you say fire is evil because it can damage people? volcanoes are evil? Of course not.

If you regard evil as anything that prevents the total happiness of everyone, then everything is inherently evil. If you define evil as anything harmful, then most everything is evil. If you have a family, you're evil, because you're harming animals to feed them.

Evil is a characteristic that I have never seen present anywhere outside of humanity. We can't (at least atheists can't) blame an event triggered by the very laws of the universe that coincidentally happens to cause harm to humans.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"He is aware that he gave us the most precious gift any living form can recieve, and that's Free Will."

Why do you think that we have free will, and why do you think it's so important so as to risk nuclear war? Some clarification is needed. Furthermore, it would seem that intervention would be justified under some circumstances. For instance, if a person were stuck in house that's on fire, then one (I hope) would be justified in going to get the firedepartment in order to rescue her, even if it's her fault, say, if we left the stove on. In a similar way, imagine if a man were to rape a 3 year old girl, and interestingly enough, inhibit the girls freedom by killing her. Would God value his freedom to molest childeren, or the freedom of an innocent 3 year old girl?

Nothing stops you from intervening for the sake of others. Actually, I would encourage you to do so. However, God's (again, I use the term loosely, as whatever it was that started the universe and set the laws for it) role ends in the creation.

It's an interesting argument, when does someone's freedom end? Technically, where his/her body's freedom ends. However, humanity has noticed that such a limit only carries distress and evil, and thus, has chosen to put limits to itself: You can rape a third year old girl, but you shouldn't, as your society (and hopefully, own moral code) limits your freedom to do so. If you choose to still do so, then you're also effectively choosing that you don't want to be part of society: Now, you have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, but society no longer has to limit itself to give you your own freedom. This would be a very rough, basic definition of one of the ideas of most justice systems in effect today: Steal, society no longer respects your free will to be free, kill, and Dubya no longer needs to respect your will to live.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
" Is God incompetent? No."

Giving the analysis above, I'd give a resounding YES!

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Grive
Yes, I know what guilty by omission is. And I don't agree with it when applying it to God.

SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY!! Let's give him a hand! He IS learning something!

In that example, it was the kid's fault. I would have personally saved him, and would be angry if I saw someone who could save him stay stoic, but that doesn't make him a murderer.

What's the difference? I suggest you read James Rachels' take on the matter.

I'm a firm believer in free choice, and accepting whatever consequences that carries.

You believe in preserving the free choice of a RAPIST over the free choice of their VICTIM? :boohoo:

However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous: So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip? Should God magically take control of my car if I drink and drive? Should God stop the bullet if I decide to murder someone? Should God give me a superhuman metabolism if I decide to ingest acid? Are you asking for such a god? someone who will just make sure that all your mistakes will amount to nothing, and who will assure you happiness if you are unable to find it for yourself? If such a God ruled this world, I would want no part of it. But wait, I would be forced to, he wouldn't be able to sit idly by when I try to slit my throat.

So you reject the idea of most heavens.

Natural phenomena is not evil, simple as that. The Ebola virus isn't evil.

But their effects ARE evil. And the designer of such things would be evil, if he existed.

If you regard evil as anything that prevents the total happiness of everyone, then everything is inherently evil.

No, just people like you who try to rationalise a non-interventionist god, when what you are doing is rationalising your own actions and beliefs.



Of course, because it's a human construct.

We can't (at least atheists can't) blame an event riggered by the very laws of the universe that coincidentally happens to cause harm to humans.

No, but we could blame the designer of such laws, if one existed.

Nothing stops you from intervening for the sake of others. Actually, I would encourage you to do so. However, God's (again, I use the term loosely, as whatever it was that started the universe and set the laws for it) role ends in the creation.

Love 'em and leave 'em, eh? Why bother creating everything, then?

It's an interesting argument, when does someone's freedom end? Technically, where his/her body's freedom ends. However, humanity has noticed that such a limit only carries distress and evil, and thus, has chosen to put limits to itself: You can rape a third year old girl, but you shouldn't, as your society (and hopefully, own moral code) limits your freedom to do so. If you choose to still do so, then you're also effectively choosing that you don't want to be part of society: Now, you have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, but society no longer has to limit itself to give you your own freedom. This would be a very rough, basic definition of one of the ideas of most justice systems in effect today: Steal, society no longer respects your free will to be free, kill, and Dubya no longer needs to respect your will to live.

Of course. Restricting someone's physical ability means having to imprison them.

It was fun replying to one of Grive's posts that is actually civil. Doesn't happen in more than 1 out of 1000 posts or PMs.

[Just_An_Atheist]

"However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous:"

Neither I, nor anyone else was suggesting that God *always* save people, only when saving someone, such as a little child who is being subject to rape, wouldn't produce consequences that are even worse. It would seem that preventing this rape, (and many other just like it) wouldn't have made this a worse off world.

"So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip?"

This is a strawman, I'm reffering to the outright atrocites, such as the rape and murder of a three year old girl, not some mystical force who pushes a cushion anywhere I happen to trip.

"Should God magically take control of my car if I drink and drive?"

No, but maybe he could have given any friend that you may have been with at the time the ability to hand over the keys. Or maybe make you pass out in the car. Again, your still making a strawman.

The rest of your comments are just like that.

And as for natural "evil", it does produce evil, although the laws or virus's themselves are amoral. Once again, I think that the harmful effects that ebola produce are pretty evil, and God would have been justified in not creating the virus at all. Many of the evils that exist in our world are probably gratuitous, and that makes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being very unlikely.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Grive
However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous:

Then it's ridiculous for Christians to claim god is omnibenevolent. They could avoid the ridiculousness by saying instead that he is, "sometimes nice."



So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip? Should God magically take control of my car if I drink and drive? Should God stop the bullet if I decide to murder someone? Should God give me a superhuman metabolism if I decide to ingest acid? Are you asking for such a god?

The Christians say we have one already. Then they resort to obscurantism when we ask why he doesn't perform as advertised. If you're a deist, you don't claim god is omnibenevolent, so the issue shouldn't come up.



Natural phenomena is not evil, simple as that. The Ebola virus isn't evil.

Perhaps you mean they aren't sinful. Evils are the sources of human unhappiness. In traditional Christian theology, evil is the punishment for sin. Confusion results from the fact that sins can themselves be evils (gluttony, for instance, can be both the disobedience of god and a source of unhappiness). But the fact that ebola is not sinful does not mean it is not evil.




If you regard evil as anything that prevents the total happiness of everyone,

If words have meaning, yes.

crc

[Angrillori]

"However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous:"

Neither I, nor anyone else was suggesting that God *always* save people, only when saving someone, such as a little child who is being subject to rape, wouldn't produce consequences that are even worse. It would seem that preventing this rape, (and many other just like it) wouldn't have made this a worse off world.

"So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip?"

Why not?

God's supposedly omnipotent, right? It shouldn't trifle him to produce an infinite number of magical dissappearing-when-they're-used-so-they're-not-litter cushions even if EVERYONE on earth ALL fell at exactly the same time. AND simultaneously stopping every rapist from violating every victim's free will to not get raped at the same time shouldn't be tough either, right?

So, WHY NOT?

Yeah, has anyone ever asked what is wrong with this?

Why wouldn't I want a God that protects me like a good parent? Don't we child-proof our house when we have kids?

If I fall, dadgummit, I want a cushion to appear IF God is in fact omnipotent. And, so would my real parents. You could say the pain of falling 'teaches' me something that I wouldn't learn if a cushion appeared, but if a cushion always appeared, is that a lesson I would need to learn?

I don't think so.

[Grive]

Originally posted by winstonjen
SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY!! Let's give him a hand! He IS learning something!



What's the difference? I suggest you read James Rachels' take on the matter.


And I'm the uncivil one. The differene lies in that I do believe in helping others, but if someone else doesn't, is not reason to blame him for everything that happens - he is just a stoic bastard. It's each person's decision, and the consequences of such an action (or omission) will have been chosen by the person who didn't do anything - that include moral or legal punishmens inflicted on him by a society and law he chose to abide to, if applicable.

Originally posted by winstonjen
You believe in preserving the free choice of a RAPIST over the free choice of their VICTIM? :boohoo:


I believe in that there is, in society, a consequence for raping the three-year old. Respect (a new term for you, I'm sure) is the base for coexistence, and whenever someone decides to stop respecting, he no longer deserves respect. Which free will is more important? The victims would be. However, the crux of the matter is that the rapist forcefully prevented the victim from exerting her free will, and thus must suffer the consequences - as in, the punishment from the law or society - he agreed upon when deciding to live where he lives, in the society he lives.

Originally posted by winstonjen
So you reject the idea of most heavens.


Bingo! you could have saved yourself some time by noticing that the notion of a otherworldy heaven is against my most basic beliefs.

Originally posted by winstonjen
But their effects ARE evil. And the designer of such things would be evil, if he existed.


Humans brought the effects of such phenomena upon themselves. Ignorance of the causes and effects of natural hazards does not make them evil, it just makes people ignorant. So, they decided to settle in the middle of a huge crack in the underground? Gee, whose fault is that, the huge crack's, or the humans'?

Originally posted by winstonjen
No, just people like you who try to rationalise a non-interventionist god, when what you are doing is rationalising your own actions and beliefs.


Of course, as a rational being I tend to do so. You do, too, minus the noninterventionist god. So, I'm evil and wrong because I have thought about my own actions and decided that any negative actions I've done were of my own, and that only I should bear the burden instead of trying to throw it on a gargantuan, bearded voyeurist? Sure, paint a couple horns in me and call me satan.

What's your basic belief on evil? as an atheist, who are you asking to bear the burden of your own evil?

Originally posted by winstonjen
Of course, because it's a human construct.


So, you're inherently evil, as well. Your basic belief seems to be that existence itself is evil... that's quite a cynical and sad proposition.

Originally posted by winstonjen
No, but we could blame the designer of such laws, if one existed.

Sure, blame him/her/it. If that gives you peace of mind, go ahead. I'll keep being thankful to whatever it was that started everything because it ultimately created me, and I can't help but be happy about this simple fact.

Originally posted by winstonjen
Love 'em and leave 'em, eh? Why bother creating everything, then?

You're assuming that whatever created everything has feelings of love or even conscience. I'm not - as I've stated several times, my notion of whatever "God" means is "whatever triggered the existence of this". Even if that's just nature.

Originally posted by winstonjen
Of course. Restricting someone's physical ability means having to imprison them.

Marvelous, Sherlock. Under our current will, we assume that no one has evil intentions until they occur, because distrusting everyone ends with pure, utter chaos. It is sad that we cannot create a flawless system where we have unrestricted free will without interfering with each other, but it's the best compromise... though sometimes it seems otherwise, with all the crime and sin.

Originally posted by winstonjen
It was fun replying to one of Grive's posts that is actually civil. Doesn't happen in more than 1 out of 1000 posts or PMs.

Yes, thank you for that.:boohoo:




Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous:"

Neither I, nor anyone else was suggesting that God *always* save people, only when saving someone, such as a little child who is being subject to rape, wouldn't produce consequences that are even worse. It would seem that preventing this rape, (and many other just like it) wouldn't have made this a worse off world.


When should you put the line between where god should intervene and where god shouldn't?

If I remember correctly, the example that brought up the idea was of a kid who fell in a pool. The wording of the example given specifically mentions that if the possibility to save a life (for any reason) is in your hands, but you don't do anything, then you essentially are guilty of murder. Following this train of thought, God should save everyone from death.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip?"

This is a strawman, I'm reffering to the outright atrocites, such as the rape and murder of a three year old girl, not some mystical force who pushes a cushion anywhere I happen to trip.

"Should God magically take control of my car if I drink and drive?"

No, but maybe he could have given any friend that you may have been with at the time the ability to hand over the keys. Or maybe make you pass out in the car. Again, your still making a strawman.

The rest of your comments are just like that.


What's the big difference between making me pass out in my car and magically directing me? If I ever choose to drink and drive, I will have to bear with the consequences, I don't need nor want a God to save me. Same happens in any example: Why should God intervene in humanity's self-created sin and evil? I am sad for the victim in any crime, and the monster who did it must bear consequences, but I still see no reason why must we be weak-willed and ask for a deity's pity and support.

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
And as for natural "evil", it does produce evil, although the laws or virus's themselves are amoral. Once again, I think that the harmful effects that ebola produce are pretty evil, and God would have been justified in not creating the virus at all. Many of the evils that exist in our world are probably gratuitous, and that makes the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being very unlikely.

I still fail to see how a virus is evil if it's only doing what it is supposed to do: replicate. You're looking at things from a humanist perspective, which isn't bad per se. However, what about the Virus? why is it that humans are more important than the Ebola virus, than cows, or lions, or lettuce? I do not consider survival evil - every being tries to survive, and most also search for pleasure. These are basic needs, and fulfilling them is not evil - it cannot be morally reprehensible, as it is the base of existence. The Ebola virus exists through "hunting" on humans, just as we do by eating cows.








Originally posted by wiploc
Then it's ridiculous for Christians to claim god is omnibenevolent. They could avoid the ridiculousness by saying instead that he is, "sometimes nice."


I do agree. I do not believe in an omniscient, omnibenevolent God :D
I believe in that something had to make everything - even if that just ends up being nature - and define a set of rules for it.


Originally posted by wiploc
The Christians say we have one already. Then they resort to obscurantism when we ask why he doesn't perform as advertised. If you're a deist, you don't claim god is omnibenevolent, so the issue shouldn't come up.


I have never been a supporter of most christian beliefs regarding God, so as you mentioned, there is no issue ;)


Originally posted by wiploc
Perhaps you mean they aren't sinful. Evils are the sources of human unhappiness. In traditional Christian theology, evil is the punishment for sin. Confusion results from the fact that sins can themselves be evils (gluttony, for instance, can be both the disobedience of god and a source of unhappiness). But the fact that ebola is not sinful does not mean it is not evil.


If evil is the punishment for sin, then earthquakes, tornados and the ilk are not evil: They are not punishment for our sins, but basic natural phenomena that occurs whether humanity exists or not (as proven by the fact that such natural happenings occur in planets without lifeforms). Ebola is not sinful, nor do I believe it's a punishment for our sins, thus it's not evil, according to the definition of "evil" you presented.



Originally posted by Angrillori
"However by arguing that a God should always save people, it just gets ridiculous:"

Neither I, nor anyone else was suggesting that God *always* save people, only when saving someone, such as a little child who is being subject to rape, wouldn't produce consequences that are even worse. It would seem that preventing this rape, (and many other just like it) wouldn't have made this a worse off world.

"So, should god make a cushion appear in front of me whenever I trip?"

Why not?

God's supposedly omnipotent, right? It shouldn't trifle him to produce an infinite number of magical dissappearing-when-they're-used-so-they're-not-litter cushions even if EVERYONE on earth ALL fell at exactly the same time. AND simultaneously stopping every rapist from violating every victim's free will to not get raped at the same time shouldn't be tough either, right?

So, WHY NOT?

Yeah, has anyone ever asked what is wrong with this?

Why wouldn't I want a God that protects me like a good parent? Don't we child-proof our house when we have kids?

If I fall, dadgummit, I want a cushion to appear IF God is in fact omnipotent. And, so would my real parents. You could say the pain of falling 'teaches' me something that I wouldn't learn if a cushion appeared, but if a cushion always appeared, is that a lesson I would need to learn?

I don't think so.

Hah.

Well, you could say there is nothing wrong with that, beyond the fact that it would lead to a careless, plain existence. It is most probably a basic difference in beliefs: I fully believe that free will is the best thing one can have, that, like any other thing, has it's pros and cons, and I'm willing to accept and bear the effects of such cons. I've always believed that this imperfection is what gives spice to life, and anyone is welcome to disagree.

If someone thinks otherwise, then I guess everyone has his preferences.

[Just_An_Atheist]

"I believe in that there is, in society, a consequence for raping the three-year old. Respect (a new term for you, I'm sure) is the base for coexistence, and whenever someone decides to stop respecting, he no longer deserves respect. "

That's wonderful, but why would God value the freedom of a rapist over the freedom of a three-year-old girl? This seems like a red herring.

And even if the rapist chose to abide by these rules, it doesn't mean that God isn't exempt from helping a three year old girl.


"Humans brought the effects of such phenomena upon themselves. Ignorance of the causes and effects of natural hazards does not make them evil, it just makes people ignorant."

And does their ingnorance justify God (presuming he exists) in allowing them to bleed from every pore. Call it what you like, if their is a God and He created this disease knowing that people would be ignorant of the causes and effects of this extremly painful and deadly disease, then that would make him evil in my book.


"What's your basic belief on evil? as an atheist, who are you asking to bear the burden of your own evil? "

No one, this is about whether an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient being would be disconfirmed by the evil we find in the world.

"When should you put the line between where god should intervene and where god shouldn't?"

I don't need to, all I've got to do is point out that there is just too much. There are billions of evils out there, and it seems feasable that God could prevent a great number of them without sacrificing a greater good, or bringing on a worse evil. The fact that I cannot point out exactly where that line ought to be drawn is irrelevant.

"If I remember correctly, the example that brought up the idea was of a kid who fell in a pool. The wording of the example given specifically mentions that if the possibility to save a life (for any reason) is in your hands, but you don't do anything, then you essentially are guilty of murder. Following this train of thought, God should save everyone from death. "

Yes, as long as these "hero" acts don't prevent the occurrence of a greater good, or bring about the occurrence of a greater evil.

"What's the big difference between making me pass out in my car and magically directing me? If I ever choose to drink and drive, I will have to bear with the consequences, I don't need nor want a God to save me."

This would be rational if you were the only one who would bear the consequences of your actions, but you might run over innocent people, and that is why God might need to intervene, not to protect your (hypothetical "your") dumb ass.

"I still fail to see how a virus is evil if it's only doing what it is supposed to do: replicate. "

It does more than just replicate, as you well know. But anyway, God could have created this virus so as not to have such dire consequences for human beings (who seem to suffer from this disease) and still allow it to replicate as much as it pleases. Furthermore, because the virus works so fast, it burns itself out quickly. If God (presuming He exists) designed the virus to replicate, then He would have done well to make it less deadly.

[Angrillori]

Originally posted by Grive
When should you put the line between where god should intervene and where god shouldn't?

If I remember correctly, the example that brought up the idea was of a kid who fell in a pool. The wording of the example given specifically mentions that if the possibility to save a life (for any reason) is in your hands, but you don't do anything, then you essentially are guilty of murder. Following this train of thought, God should save everyone from death.


And, uhmm....why shouldn't he?
How is it different? Us watching a 3 year old crawl into a pool and doing nothing, and God watching us die and doing nothing? Omnipotent, remember, no limits to his abilities...it can't be too hard for him...or is it?


Hah.

Well, you could say there is nothing wrong with that, beyond the fact that it would lead to a careless, plain existence. It is most probably a basic difference in beliefs: I fully believe that free will is the best thing one can have, that, like any other thing, has it's pros and cons, and I'm willing to accept and bear the effects of such cons. I've always believed that this imperfection is what gives spice to life, and anyone is welcome to disagree.


Of course, you'll have to show why having a cushion appear when I fall is any more infringing on my free will than when I round a corner of my table so a toddler won't brain itself when it runs into it. What's wrong with daddy protecting his child? AND HOW DOES THAT INFRINGE ON FREEWILL???

How is it my freewill to slip on a banana peel and fall on my face, breaking my nose and possibly suffering permanent disfigurement?

How in the world does Superman infringe on the freewill of the people of metropolis?

And, I can certainly imagine a yet-exciting world of new discovery and thought and intelligence and wonder, even with magical cushions appearing to protect us from suffering. I can't be the only one can I?

Will you child-proof your house when (if? I don't know your family situation) you have children? Even if it intrudes on the childrens' free will? Will it lead to a plain boring life for the child?

[winstonjen]

Grive, don't you believe that "Prevention is Better than Cure?"

That's all I have to say to your non-sequitor drivel.

[rainbow walking]

It would be moral to disobey such a command. The fact that this god has issued just this command long after declaring killing to be a sin demonstrates the non-absolute status of morality even with a god. When you couple that with the prejudicial nature in which this god allegedly reveals his mind to specific individuals, rather than all individuals in every generation, and end up with conflicting religions that often conflict and end up shedding blood, you have a picture of a being whose interests are clearly not for humanity. When you stack on top of that the teaching that everyone is born with intrinsic wrongness, and teach this to untold millions down thru history, it can actually become a paradigm through which many unknowingly operate thus further exacerbating the problem.

And before someone pipes in with violating freewill should such a god reveal his mind to all men, let me remind you of Jonah.

Excellent contribution Bill. I voted #1 without much ado.

[winstonjen]

Grive, here's another example of why people should be punished for guilt by omission.

Say you are being murdered. I am not the assailant, but I see the whole thing. I then laugh at you and eat popcorn. I throw money to the criminal. Am I any better than the criminal? Inaction indicates tacit approval.

You seriously need to read the Tale of Twelve Officers (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html)

For if free will is so important, why prevent crimes?

[Stephen T-B]

The difficulty with Grive’s argument for a non-interventionist god is that the reason the vast majority of Believers do believe is because their gods are reckoned to be interventionist. Providing a cushion is exactly what most peop[e's gods are for. Isn’t every prayer a request for intervention?

A god which is an out-of-time, out-of-space, other-dimensional “Thing” which devised the Unifying Principle and then triggered the start of creation, doesn’t have much in common with the Semitic gods or those invented by any other group of people. The whole point of gods, after all, is that they do intervene and make life better for their worshippers.
Which they singularly fail to do. “God helps those who help themselves,” is an unintentional admission on the part of Believers that their god is useless.

Belief itself does sometimes enable the believer to endure adversity with patience; it even enables some people to welcome adversity, but this merely supports the idea that gods exist inside our heads as psychological props.
The fact is, resenting hardship and discomfort greatly increases their deleterious effects; accepting them with stoicism lessens those effects, and making stoics of us it something belief and prayer are occasionally able to do.

[Jobar]

Winstonjen, Grive- manners, gentlemen. Whatever disputes you have outside this forum, leave them outside. Jobar, mod.

[7thangel]

Bill,

I could recall you even told me that there is no such thing as good and evil. So what is the point then that you insist as if man should "totally" avoid genocide? Which would mean then that there is an absolute good.

My point really is too simple. Why don't you try to explain to me that there is no such thing as good or evil in genocide? With your explanations, we can perhaps draw a fair conclusion regarding genocide.

[Jobar]

7thangel, and all- obviously this topic walks very close to the line between EoG and Moral Foundations. I would say that 7th's question goes in to MF&P territory; it's certainly a valid question, and deserves an answer, but discuss it there and link back to this thread, please.

[Stephen T-B]

I was brought up in the bosom of a religious movement whose followers (it didn’t have members, as such) had daily Guidance from God, which they wrote down in small loose-leaf notebooks and then “shared” with their family or “team” members.
The idea of sharing Guidance was to ensure that the thoughts written down really did “come from the mind of God to the mind of Man” (as the movements founder, Dr Frank Buchman put it). And as a further check, they were supposed to be compatible with the Four Absolute Moral Standards of Absolute Honesty, Absolute Purity, Absolute Love and Absolute Unselfishness.
These checks were intended to answer criticisms sometimes made that a person thinking his actions were validated by God could do anything; a psychopath, for instance, might claim he had had Guidance from God to poison Communists (it was a very anti-Communist movement) or do something which anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that an entirely moral God wouldn’t command, like stealing, having sex with members of the same sex and so on. “Guidance” tended, therefore, to be fairly circumspect and well within the bounds of socially-acceptable behaviour.
It was the case, however, that team members were capable of God-validated activities which an outsider might consider to be neither honest nor loving and which were undertaken in order to “change” people so that the movement might achieve its stated aim of “changing the World.”
Thus God’s morality was not absolute but relative - relative to the circumstances which might arise in pursuit of this objective.
So three Team members who had an appointment with a labour leader during the petrol rationing which we had in the UK as a result of the Suez War drove to within quarter of a mile of his house, parked and walked the rest of the way because they thought it would give the wrong impression if they turned up in a car. (Unfortunately, he watched the entire charade.) They were certain that they were doing what God wanted them to because they were certain God wanted them to change the chap they had gone to see - and never mind that they were not being absolutely honest.
On another occasion I heard of, Team members in India actually kidnapped a young Indian woman whose family did not want her to fall into the Movement’s clutches, and they kept her a prisoner for several days. Absolute Love? Certainly, for were they not bringing her into Fellowship with God’s own followers?

In times gone by, every member of the Inquisition undoubtedly believed he was obeying God’s will as he tortured and burned the heretics. Bloody Mary (half-sister of Queen Elizabeth 1, and her predecessor on the English throne) undoubtedly believed she was acting in accordance with God’s will when she burned Protestants.

God’s morality is what it is conceived to be by those who worship him - and how they conceive it varies from age to age and culture to culture. And if that weren’t condemnation enough, any whacko can claim to be obeying God’s will as he puts a bullet through your head or beats to death some unfortunate person who he believes is possessed by the devil (and that is by no means a rarity.)
God’s morality permits any behaviour - whether burning Protestants, blowing up abortionists, shooting gays or hijacking an airliner and flying it into a skyscraper - because, being predicated upon an ultimate “other world” reality, it is dislocated from the “here-and-now” which is the basis of socially-constructed morality of the sort atheists tend to recognise.

[Bill]

Originally posted by 7thangel
Bill,

I could recall you even told me that there is no such thing as good and evil. So what is the point then that you insist as if man should "totally" avoid genocide? Which would mean then that there is an absolute good.

My point really is too simple. Why don't you try to explain to me that there is no such thing as good or evil in genocide? With your explanations, we can perhaps draw a fair conclusion regarding genocide. I don't recall telling you "that there is no such thing as good and evil." Of course, context is everything, and I suppose that I might have said it in some particular context or another (for instance, playing devil's advocate for some point of view or another).

What this overall situation proves to me is that: Mankind determines its own moral standards (thus, the agreements that have evolved out of World War II). If there is anything that resembles a base standard for morality, it is driven by the laws of evolution (i.e., the base of human morality is that humans are driven to survive; morality serves human survival; thus, the base principle for human morality is human survival.) With human survival as a base principle, it is quite easy to get to a moral pronouncement such as "thou shalt not kill (unnecessarily)." Killing humans promotes human survival only when done in self defense (or defense of one's own community of humans, however one wishes to define "community"). Other common moral principles also seem to evolve as memes with selection biased according to just how well each meme (or memeplex) helps to promote human survival (thus, Christianity is more pro-survival than either Islam or Judaism because each of those other "God of Abraham" religions leads to larger amounts of killing of innocent humans than does Christianity). Anyway, as the whole question of morality only seems to have relevanct to humans, I'm not the least bit certain that this can in fact be justified as any sort of an "absolute moral standard." Any such "absolute moral standard" ought to exist independant of humanity, and clearly, no moral standard we currently recognize obeys that principle. And if the base moral principle is human survival, then that surely seems like a (humanly) subjective standard to me. But, as these moral principles are deemed (by agreement, anyway) to apply to all of humanity, it would surely seem to me to be the case that this is not any sort of a "to each his own" morality. Thus, the moral standards that most humans recognize as limitations on the behavior of all humans seem to be not really objective or subjective, but to actually lie somewhere in between (although more over towards the "objective" side, in my own humble opinion).

== Bill

[Stephen T-B]

The whole point of a morality derived from god, I would have thought, is that it should be “absolute” and not relative.
Yet it is quite clearly relative, and this fact strongly suggests that it is an invention of Man.
The “Thou Shalt Not Kill” moral law exactly illustrates the truth of this.
God forbids us to kill - but not our enemies; thus he exhorted the Children of Israel to slaughter their enemies, and his followers have never had any trouble justifying subsequent slaughters. An enemy, it seems is fair game.

The definition of an “enemy” which God allows to be killed is, of course, in the hands of rulers, popes and bishops. Which is as it should be, because nations and Churches need to be defended.

But the moment killing certain human being is allowed, the entire moral edifice which stands on the principle of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” becomes corrupted by the exigencies of necessity. And in the end, it is always a necessity of one sort or another which leads one human being to kill another human being.

[7thangel]

Thanks for the response, Bill.

Originally posted by Bill
I don't recall telling you "that there is no such thing as good and evil." Of course, context is everything, and I suppose that I might have said it in some particular context or another (for instance, playing devil's advocate for some point of view or another).

I think we are talking about the "existence" of good and evil specifically at that time. But anyways, your notion of telling me that there is no good and evil still very much fit this discussion.

What this overall situation proves to me is that: Mankind determines its own moral standards (thus, the agreements that have evolved out of World War II). If there is anything that resembles a base standard for morality, it is driven by the laws of evolution (i.e., the base of human morality is that humans are driven to survive; morality serves human survival; thus, the base principle for human morality is human survival.) With human survival as a base principle, it is quite easy to get to a moral pronouncement such as "thou shalt not kill (unnecessarily)." Killing humans promotes human survival only when done in self defense (or defense of one's own community of humans, however one wishes to define "community"). Other common moral principles also seem to evolve as memes with selection biased according to just how well each meme (or memeplex) helps to promote human survival (thus, Christianity is more pro-survival than either Islam or Judaism because each of those other "God of Abraham" religions leads to larger amounts of killing of innocent humans than does Christianity).

#1 on your list is actually a fallacy. For in reality, man has no free will, and thus he does not have the power to make determinations. If we ramify your conclusion that there is no good and evil in this world, adding the thought that humanity's being are mere product of evolution, we can strongly conclude that man has no such free will from which we draw our power to predetermine, or make choices. So mankind does not determine his moral standard.

In your #2 list, there is a conflict on the concept of the affect of evolution on us to our power to make choices, or choosing moral standard. Do we have power against evolution? If no, then we do not have power to make our moral standard. The point is that, in reality, it will be non sensical that we think, and plan, and then chose the moral standard. Although we are being decieved as if we really have such power.

In your list #3 justifies all acts of killing. Whether it be done by Christians, Muslims, and Judaist, or pagans. It would not matter if it is genocide, or suicide. Because the meme's and memeplex are not actually determined by the group, rather is part of the evolution process, or plainly say that all things are just part of the evolution process.

Anyway, as the whole question of morality only seems to have relevanct to humans, I'm not the least bit certain that this can in fact be justified as any sort of an "absolute moral standard." Any such "absolute moral standard" ought to exist independant of humanity, and clearly, no moral standard we currently recognize obeys that principle. And if the base moral principle is human survival, then that surely seems like a (humanly) subjective standard to me. But, as these moral principles are deemed (by agreement, anyway) to apply to all of humanity, it would surely seem to me to be the case that this is not any sort of a "to each his own" morality. Thus, the moral standards that most humans recognize as limitations on the behavior of all humans seem to be not really objective or subjective, but to actually lie somewhere in between (although more over towards the "objective" side, in my own humble opinion).

== Bill

The faultiness of your arriving of whether moral standard as subjective or objective, as I can see in your further explanation, is that you have the notion or man having a free will; but your presentation of man, being subject to the laws of evolution, or even on it's nature, is that it has no free will. A huge confusion you need to sort out. It is important where you stand regarding this matter for me to have a better response on the subject.

Now, as you mention that the base of morality is human survival, I doubt, if you have a choice, that you would not choose eternal life. Having that conscience I do not think that you really have no heart about the truth God's existence.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Bill
The poll, above, is with respect to the following situation: One of the atheistic arguments in which I have taken a personal interest is the Moral Argument Against God's Existence (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/moral.html). The crux of this argument is to assert that morality exists independant of God's commandments (in other words, humans have moral values which derive from some other source besides what any God commands humans to do or refrain from doing). If this is the case, then those human moral standards can be used to evaluate God's behavior. My complete argument is given in my Secular Web essay Is God a Criminal? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god.html)

Here is how I personally feel about each of the answers I have included in the poll, above: This is my personal choice, and I feel that most who are not followers of the Judeo-Christian God ought to choose this option. Those who pick the second option choose obedience over morality. Unfortunately for them, this was a central issue in the Nuremburg trials, and the world stood up and declared, with a single voice, that morality must override obedience. Those who pick this option have the blood of the victims of a genocidal God on their hands. This is William Lane Craig's own answer (in the Craig-Washington debate), although he also hints that, if God did issue such a command, he would go with option 2, above, and obey God. However, people who choose this option are essentially denying the truth of the Holy Bible. In the Appendix to my essay, above (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/criminal-god-A.html) I quote at length from the Bible to clearly demonstrate that, not only did the Jewish God issue just such commands to the Jews, but the Jews obeyed those commands, and committed acts of unspeakable genocide upon the orders of the Jewish God. Any Christians who pick this option have renounced the truth of the Bible and you need to pick a new religion which is neither Jewish nor Christian. People who pick this option clearly see the moral quandry presented by this state of affairs. Only they are refusing to pick the correct moral choice (option 1, above) because they know that to do so would cause them to disobey God, and that would be sinful too. Christians who pick this option are potential future atheists. Ditto, basically. After the Nuremburg trials, there is only one internationally acceptable answer: 1, above. Without regard to the predominant religious beliefs of any given nation, most of the world's nations have signed onto the idea (by way of UN-sponsored international treaties) that genocide can never be justified by anything whatsoever. In fact, a religious justification for genocide just seems to make the genocide all that worse because it is genocide predicated upon some sort of religious bigotry.

Of course, once you admit that objective standards of morality supercede and are greater than the commandments of a Judeo-Christian God, then you have essentially admited that this God does not exist. So, any of you Christians out there who picked option 1, I have your newly-minted II T-Shirt right over here.... ;)

== Bill

Well, what a load of question begging!

humans have moral values which derive from some other source besides what any God commands humans to do or refrain from doing

Here's the challenge, Bill: How do moral values of any kind derive from a purely material universe and why should anyone, except those who advocate them, be bound by them.
Now I know you're going to try to weasle out of this by saying that all atheists are not materialists, but you've never answered my repeated requests for declaring the non-materialist basis on which you operate.
If you are simply making an observation that "not all atheists are materialists," then you haven't met the challenge.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by theophilus
Here's the challenge, Bill: How do moral values of any kind derive from a purely material universe and why should anyone, except those who advocate them, be bound by them.

Well put. And here's my challenge to you: How do moral values
of any kind derive from god, and why should anyone be bound by them?



Now I know you're going to try to weasle out of this by saying that all atheists are not materialists, but you've never answered my repeated requests for declaring the non-materialist basis on which you operate.

Now I know you're going to try to weasle out of this, probably by just ignoring it, but no Christian has ever answered my repeated requests for a theistic basis for morality.

crc

[Stephen T-B]

Was there no morality before the Jewish god issued the Ten Commandments?
Is there no morality in pagan communities today?

I would like, please, to hear the views of 7thangel and theophilus in this regard.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by wiploc
Well put. And here's my challenge to you: How do moral values
of any kind derive from god, and why should anyone be bound by them?

Moral values derive from God because, as the creator, he has complete authority over his creation. Failure to obey his commands result in punishment.

It is just this faliure to understand the Creator/creature distinction that results in the confusion exhibited by this type of discussion.

Now I know you're going to try to weasle out of this, probably by just ignoring it, but no Christian has ever answered my repeated requests for a theistic basis for morality.

I just did, so you can never (honestly) say that again.

Now, it's your turn to try to answer my challenge - if you thought this response was an answer, you're mistaken.
Further, even if I couldn't demonstrate that morality derives from God, that doesn't establish non-thesitic morality.

crc [/B]

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Was there no morality before the Jewish god issued the Ten Commandments?
Is there no morality in pagan communities today?

I would like, please, to hear the views of 7thangel and theophilus in this regard.

Yes, to both questions.

Morality is a feature of the "image of God" in man. The reason this is evidence of the God of scripture is that the existence of this moral "sense" has no materialistic explanation.

[theophilus]

Well, this discussion seems to have come to a screeching halt just when I get involved.

Bill, I'm waiting for an answer.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theophilus

Here's the challenge, Bill: How do moral values of any kind derive from a purely material universe and why should anyone, except those who advocate them, be bound by them.


How do moral values of any kind derive from a spiritual existence of anything, and why should anyone be bound by them (other than God says so, and he can send you to Hell if you don't obey him?)


How can ectoplasm have a moral value?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theophilus


Moral values derive from God because, as the creator, he has complete authority over his creation. Failure to obey his commands result in punishment.

It is just this faliure to understand the Creator/creature distinction that results in the confusion exhibited by this type of discussion.




Please explain how God has complete authority over his creation, using a non-materialist explanation, or any other kind of explanation if you can't manage a non-material one. (Hint. 'Because God says so' is question-begging)

Please explain how an ability to inflict punishment means that anything you say is morally correct.


As for your claim that human values cannot be derived by humans, and that humans are not bound by human values, this is as illogical as saying that we cannot feel pain.

Do yoiu have no conscience? Is your conscience never hurt when you do wrong? Do you think that humans will avoid the pain that they inflict upon themselves when they do something that hurts their conscience?

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by theophilus
Moral values derive from God because, as the creator, he has complete authority over his creation. Failure to obey his commands result in punishment.

Hmmm....

With respect theophilus, I don't see that you've really answered the question at all.

As Steven Carr points out, the question really is "by what principle does your god claim authority over us?" By the fact that he created us? By the fact that he possesses the power to punish us? What is the morally relevant fact about your god that conveys moral authority?

If creation, do I possess absolute power over any beings I might create? If I could create a sentient robot, one that functions as a moral agent, do I possess the right to destroy it on a whim?

If the power to punish, do I possess absolute power over my children and pets? I certainly have the power to punish them.

After you've answered that, perhaps you could address the Steven's other point (G.E. Moore's famous "open question"). Why should we care? How do you get from "is" to "ought"?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Please explain how God has complete authority over his creation, using a non-materialist explanation, or any other kind of explanation if you can't manage a non-material one. (Hint. 'Because God says so' is question-begging)

It is only question begging if believe that creator and creature share some ontological unity; that they share a common nature.

It is just because God is creator that he can dictate the rules.

This is not really that hard.

Please explain how an ability to inflict punishment means that anything you say is morally correct.

As for your claim that human values cannot be derived by humans, and that humans are not bound by human values, this is as illogical as saying that we cannot feel pain.

It is only illogical if the nature or morality and sensory experience are identical. They clearly are not.

Please explain how a an immaterial entity, morality, can derive from material substance. Until you can do that, your demands for an explanation of theistic morality is baseless.

Do yoiu have no conscience? Is your conscience never hurt when you do wrong? Do you think that humans will avoid the pain that they inflict upon themselves when they do something that hurts their conscience?

On your view, a conscience is just a biological/chemical reaction in your brain. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk of my doing "wrong." Whatever I do just "is." The fact that it may cause me discomfort has no moral significance.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Hmmm....

With respect theophilus, I don't see that you've really answered the question at all.

As Steven Carr points out, the question really is "by what principle does your god claim authority over us?" By the fact that he created us? By the fact that he possesses the power to punish us? What is the morally relevant fact about your god that conveys moral authority?

If creation, do I possess absolute power over any beings I might create? If I could create a sentient robot, one that functions as a moral agent, do I possess the right to destroy it on a whim?

If the power to punish, do I possess absolute power over my children and pets? I certainly have the power to punish them.

After you've answered that, perhaps you could address the Steven's other point (G.E. Moore's famous "open question"). Why should we care? How do you get from "is" to "ought"?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

My ability to answer or not answer does not establish your contention that there is a material basis for morality.
You are still ducking my challenge and, so, I'm not inclined to answer further.

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by theophilus
My ability to answer or not answer does not establish your contention that there is a material basis for morality.
You are still ducking my challenge and, so, I'm not inclined to answer further.

But....but.....you did answer! I quoted your answer in my original post. I'm merely asking you to support the answer you gave.

If you can't provide a reasonable theistic basis for morality, why should you expect anyone to provide a non-theistic one?

Your answer to Steven is simply a repetition of what you originally said. You still haven't answered the "why?" Why does God's position of creator give him the right to tell me what to do? If position or status confer moral authority, why don't we have kings anymore?

BTW, just a thought. Assuming that your characterization of reductive physicalism is true, and that consciousness is a material process (the "biological/chemical reaction" in the brain), the materialist has no problem answering your "dilemma". As a subjective phenomenon, "morality" becomes a material entity, just like consciousness (a biological/chemical reaction in the brain).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[wiploc]

Originally posted by wiploc
Well put. And here's my challenge to you: How do moral values
of any kind derive from god, and why should anyone be bound by them?


Originally posted by theophilus
Moral values derive from God because, as the creator, he has complete authority over his creation. Failure to obey his commands result in punishment..

no Christian has ever answered my repeated requests for a theistic basis for morality.



I just did [explain how moral values derive from god], so you can never (honestly) say that again


wiploc:
You call that an explanation? Would you call it an explanation if I said, "Moral values derive from man because, as the created, he has complete authority over the creator." If you wouldn't accept that as an explanation, then I shouldn't accept what you said as an explanation. My version has exactly as much explanitory power as yours: none.

Your explanation would only satisfy people who believe we would be morally obligated to obey the devil if the devil had created the world. Do you believe that? Do you believe that in all possible worlds, the creators have moral authority over the created, regardless of the creators' charactors, and regardless of the moral rules "derived" from them?

I leave out the bit about punishment --- or do you really think that moral purity consists of knuckling under to coersion?




It is just this faliure to understand the Creator/creature distinction that results in the confusion exhibited by this type of discussion.

Well I confess that I don't understand how morality is derived from a creator/creature distinction. (And I also don't see how it can be derived from a punisher/punished distinction.) But you have my full attention if you want to explain it.




Now, it's your turn to try to answer my challenge - if you thought this response was an answer, you're mistaken.


No, no, I didn't answer your question, no more than you answered mine. But you tried; I'll grant you that, though you have a ways to go before you have a real answer.

So I'll try too. But note that I never claimed to understand morality. You did, implicitly, claim that Christians can explain morality better than atheists can. And you have not lived up to that, have not justified that claim. If I said nothing, I would have as good an explanation as your unsupported claim that, "X always has moral authority over Y."

Ahem. (This is going to be embarrassing.) Okay. Uh. Mothers tell their children, "No no!" and children learn that some things are no-nos. Later, as the children learn more, they learn that there is a huge overlap between things that are actually bad (harmful) and things that are no-nos. As we grow older yet, we learn to claim things are bad ourselves, to try to get other people not to do them. Our opinions of what is bad change. Our opinions of what is forbidden change. Our opinions of who can legitimately forbid things changes. But always we keep the handy language of morality (the conflation of that which is forbidden with that which is bad) as an ever-so-handy tool for social interaction.

Okay, I could probably shoot holes in that myself. Remember, I never claimed to understand morality. (And this is not false modesty talking.) I do like most of what Alonzo writes. (Maybe everthing he writes, within the limits of my understanding.) One reservation I have about his theory is that I entertain the notion that our moral language is a hodge podge of ideas, which sometimes contradict each other. We don't always see the contradictions because moral language is so vague. Alonzo writes as if people's moral claims were actually sensible. (And perhaps, because of people like him. they one day will be.)

I do think some behaviors are better than others. But in order for something to be better than another, it has to be better for something. To the extent that moral claims are valid, they have to be grounded in what is better for people. Call it utilitarianism. Or call it Alonzoism, if that is different.

That's about as sophisticated as my moral understanding gets.

Let's have an example to illustrate where I think we stand now:
You say rape is wrong because god forbids it; and I say it is wrong because people don't like to be raped. You say there is no way to establish [yes, I'm putting words in your mouth, but I hope I'm doing it right. That is, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.] that people ought to avoid doing things that people don't don't like; and I say there is no way to establish that people ought to do what god says.

So, as far as the logic of our positions goes, I think we are exactly equal. Except for one thing: You have implicitly claimed that the Christian position has better logic than the atheist position. This you have failed to demonstrate.

crc

[Bill Snedden]

Originally posted by theophilus
You are still ducking my challenge and, so, I'm not inclined to answer further.

I just re-read this part and realized that you may be confusing me with the Bill who started this thread. Two different Bills...

"Bill by any other name..."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[Stephen T-B]

I gather from theophilus’s answer to my question on the previous page that if people have a sense of moral values, whether they acknowledge his god or not, it comes from his god.

He has stated a belief which one might go along with or refute, but which cannot be proved or disproved.

Common sense tells me there are rational explanations for human beings having a sense of moral values. Belief tells him we have a god to thank for it.

Frankly, there is no more to be said.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
I gather from theophilus’s answer to my question on the previous page that if people have a sense of moral values, whether they acknowledge his god or not, it comes from his god.

He has stated a belief which one might go along with or refute, but which cannot be proved or disproved.

Common sense tells me there are rational explanations for human beings having a sense of moral values. Belief tells him we have a god to thank for it.

Frankly, there is no more to be said.

Well, now that you've settled that, I guess we can move on to other things.

Before we do, however, would you mind explaining to me "why" you believe there are "rational explanations" for having a sense of moral values. Not "what" those explanations might be, but "why" you believe that.

Oh, and while you're at it, would you mind explaining how rationality serves as a basis for moral values? Morals is, after all, not about what is but what ought to be.

Thanks.