Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"God" exists, but is he morally indifferent?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:31:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous"indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."

Richard Dawkins
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 7:34:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

This world has been created so;
bad-good, cruel- kind, beauty-ugly... are mixed.
Becuse everything is able to understood if there is its antipole.
That is a creation law and doesn't mean that God is indifference or bad!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:22:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I prefer to think of 'good' as doing God's will. And 'bad' is the lack of good.

God is all-good, becuase God always wants to accomplish his will.

I know that seems unfair, but when you are god of your own universe you kind of get that perk.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:33:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

"Good" and "bad" mean "good or bad in relation to the standard that is set and to the end goal you have in mind". Even if God rolled the dice without any particular world in mind to be created because he didn't care about particulars, that doesn't mean that he was indifferent in general - he would have considered not caring to be morally correct, and, as such, the world produced from not caring would be morally perfect.

Anyone who does anything does so to achieve an end. If you want to achieve an end, you consider the actions you take towards it to be morally good. If God did anything towards any end (which he did, if you think he created the universe), he considered those actions to be morally good, and, as such, he is not "morally indifferent".

The problem you're having is that you're presupposing that certain things are morally right and certain things are morally wrong, and using those judgements to say that it would be "simpler" if God didn't actually intend for them to be morally evaluated. If God exists, then whatever he wills is absolute - you have to throw out your preconceptions of what is right and wrong and accept his fully. As such, there is no reason to find God having a moral compass to be "too complicated" because then you would have to justify why so-called tragedies are morally good - there's no difficulty in doing so if it can be shown that God created the world.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have. Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments? Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc). He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2015 9:05:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious.

Why would that "seem dubious"? To believe in God is primarily to believe in the objectivity of value and purpose that is less can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience. In practice, morality is a matter of living in a world in which we are engaged as involved agents and the resulting moral responsibility is not so much a decision as a response to the discernment of objective values.

I don't understand the "logic" of the presupposed randomness that makes a common morality "seem dubious", can you explain? How is it that "what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us" but it isn't a good explanation for the values we discern in our experience of that "world we see around us".

If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care.

How exactly does that make "more sense"? By what logic is indifference more sensible?

It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story).

That's THE Christian explanation, really? Is it the official one? Did they have a vote on it or something?

I never got a ballot.

The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

Why believe that indifference "surpasses" benevolence?

The OP makes a lot of presuppositions that make no sense, what am I missing?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 9:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have.

Perhaps they are the side-effect of the real goal. Just as how resin on the lungs is a side-effect of the goal of getting high off of smoking a joint. There is no reason to think that if God exists, he would share the same views as us with regards to rape and murder just because he gave us those views. Why not believe he just surpasses the whole concept and isn't bound by it. Wouldn't he more great to not be bound by morality?

Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments?

Perhaps.

Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc).

It doesn't seem like he wants us to think he does share those beliefs at all, if what I am saying is true then the opposite is the case. The fact that God doesn't prevent good things from happening when he can, or bad things from happening when he can, indicates that he just doesn't care. I can fall in love tomorrow, or get tortured by some crazy people, if God exists he is just hanging out not doing anything. A God who cared either way would probably make himself more evident in our affairs.

He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

How does he make people believe that he cares about him? I hear the preacher teach it but no evidence from God himself that he cares about us.

Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.

Not at all. If this sense of morality is just a side-effect of a larger goal then he obviously didn't create it for any evil purpose, anymore than dust collected is the purpose of my DVD player staying in the same place for year. It happens as a side-effect, but it isn't the object of the goal.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2015 11:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 9:10:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have.

Perhaps they are the side-effect of the real goal. Just as how resin on the lungs is a side-effect of the goal of getting high off of smoking a joint. There is no reason to think that if God exists, he would share the same views as us with regards to rape and murder just because he gave us those views. Why not believe he just surpasses the whole concept and isn't bound by it. Wouldn't he more great to not be bound by morality?


Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments?

Perhaps.


Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc).

It doesn't seem like he wants us to think he does share those beliefs at all, if what I am saying is true then the opposite is the case. The fact that God doesn't prevent good things from happening when he can, or bad things from happening when he can, indicates that he just doesn't care. I can fall in love tomorrow, or get tortured by some crazy people, if God exists he is just hanging out not doing anything. A God who cared either way would probably make himself more evident in our affairs.

He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

How does he make people believe that he cares about him? I hear the preacher teach it but no evidence from God himself that he cares about us.

"Religion doesn't like the smart, with all their constant questioning" Jim Jefferies

https://www.youtube.com...


Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.

Not at all. If this sense of morality is just a side-effect of a larger goal then he obviously didn't create it for any evil purpose, anymore than dust collected is the purpose of my DVD player staying in the same place for year. It happens as a side-effect, but it isn't the object of the goal.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 7:01:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/25/2015 9:10:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have.

Perhaps they are the side-effect of the real goal. Just as how resin on the lungs is a side-effect of the goal of getting high off of smoking a joint. There is no reason to think that if God exists, he would share the same views as us with regards to rape and murder just because he gave us those views.

Not just that he gave us those views but that we think it's GOOD to posses those views.

And what would the real goal be?

Why not believe he just surpasses the whole concept and isn't bound by it. Wouldn't he more great to not be bound by morality?


More great in what sense?


Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments?

Perhaps.


Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc).

It doesn't seem like he wants us to think he does share those beliefs at all, if what I am saying is true then the opposite is the case. The fact that God doesn't prevent good things from happening when he can, or bad things from happening when he can, indicates that he just doesn't care. I can fall in love tomorrow, or get tortured by some crazy people, if God exists he is just hanging out not doing anything. A God who cared either way would probably make himself more evident in our affairs.


The fact is the vast majority of humans do think love is good and rape is bad (etc) and that love is an embodiment of the divine is good reason to suppose that many, many humans have thought God, at the very least, shares SOME of our moral beliefs.

He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

How does he make people believe that he cares about him? I hear the preacher teach it but no evidence from God himself that he cares about us.


Look at the history of religion. Nearly all of them concern themselves with God(s) who ostensibly value justice and don't want innocents to suffer if they can help it. And that's the point. People believe it.

Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.

Not at all. If this sense of morality is just a side-effect of a larger goal then he obviously didn't create it for any evil purpose, anymore than dust collected is the purpose of my DVD player staying in the same place for year. It happens as a side-effect, but it isn't the object of the goal.

What would the larger goal be?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
madera
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 8:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have. Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments? Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc). He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.

If we choose evil, we bring suffering upon ourselves.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 3:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

Sadly, I strongly agree with this position. God is not a God that cares about any of us, certainly not as a father loves his children at least. I would argue that God does have an interest in having us around, but just for the strange pleasure he gets from this company--but it certainly isn't an all-loving, devoted passion for humankind. That view is horrendously wrong in my perspective.

However, I also do not believe God is the source of human morality, so we don't really need God to form that for us. Also, just because God is a devil of sorts, doesn't mean the messages of inspirational philosophers is wrong. We can still find value in the words of Jesus even if the real God of this universe is a monster--which he most definitely is!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 4:13:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

Also, it simply not be possible to be a world with intelligent life where everybody can simultaneously and equally enjoy the experience. This is actually the position I take. So God is probably motivated into being a monster out of the realization that since life can't be perfectly kind for a number of people, it might as well not be perfectly kind for everyone. It's kind of like God is finding the least common denominator of happiness for intelligent life. He's trying to make it fair, but because of his natural limitations and his own imperfections, he has to make it fair in an unsatisfying way. This is a belief I subscribe to.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 4:14:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 4:13:06 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

Also, it simply not be possible to be a world with intelligent life where everybody can simultaneously and equally enjoy the experience. This is actually the position I take. So God is probably motivated into being a monster out of the realization that since life can't be perfectly kind for a number of people, it might as well not be perfectly kind for everyone. It's kind of like God is finding the least common denominator of happiness for intelligent life. He's trying to make it fair, but because of his natural limitations and his own imperfections, he has to make it fair in an unsatisfying way. This is a belief I subscribe to.

Also, it simply may not be possible to make a world with intelligent life where everybody can simultaneously and equally enjoy the experience. This is actually the position I take. So God is probably motivated into being a monster out of the realization that since life can't be perfectly kind for a number of people, it might as well not be perfectly kind for everyone. It's kind of like God is finding the least common denominator of happiness for intelligent life. He's trying to make it fair, but because of his natural limitations and his own imperfections, he has to make it fair in an unsatisfying way. This is a belief I subscribe to.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 4:18:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My above response actually makes sense when you consider how unfair it is that God should be God and the rest of us should not be God. The fact that there is a being more intelligent and more powerful than us kind of reveals the natural, unavoidable unfairness that were all forced into through the experience of life.

So there you have it: Life can't be fair and equal, but I suspect, even though God knows this, he's trying to make it fair, even though he knows he's bound to fail.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

This is one of the toughest questions facing anybody who believes a grand mind or God exists, If God exists, how can He watch and allow the infliction of so much misery in the world? It doesn't make sense to think that an omnipotent and loving personal God could allow such things. therefore God cannot be personal and all loving.

Unless, We are not able to see Gods plan.

Which in a sense, makes sense, as we can not expect to know the level of intelligence God has. On the other hand, if we can conclude that God did create the universe with all it's mathematical properties obeying his command, we can imagine this being, having an extremely high, ( the highest ) level of intelligence. To which we are unable to comprehend or fathom in it's totality. This shows two things.

God is extremely intelligent
And intelligence shows a mind which can be personal,

Also, I think, it's no fluke that love plays an important role in the make up of the story of life, it's a very powerful and potent ingredient which is one of the guiding forces for the better development of our race, which if adhered to, would solve the vast majority of suffering on earth and for our species progression onto bigger and better things,

The suffering which takes place, whereby no means do I pretend to understand why it takes place, I do know that all suffering is temporary, no matter how long. All states are transient, meaning nobody remains in that state eternally, at least that shows some compassion, and if we are somehow renewed from that state into a better state whereby the previous state is no longer anything but what seems to be a dream, then in actual fact, it should not deemed the ultimate reality.

In other words, maybe this is all illusion and our only duty is to seek out the reality behind the manifestation.

I don't know just a wild guess.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:31:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:31:16 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous"indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose."

Richard Dawkins

"I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. But those who worship me with love live in me, and I come to life in them."

Bhagavad Gita
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:35:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:22:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I prefer to think of 'good' as doing God's will. And 'bad' is the lack of good.

God is all-good, becuase God always wants to accomplish his will.

I know that seems unfair, but when you are god of your own universe you kind of get that perk.

I prefer to think of 'good' as doing God's will. And 'bad' is the lack of good.

And ^^This
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:36:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 4:18:11 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
My above response actually makes sense when you consider how unfair it is that God should be God and the rest of us should not be God. The fact that there is a being more intelligent and more powerful than us kind of reveals the natural, unavoidable unfairness that were all forced into through the experience of life.

That's just called envy

So there you have it: Life can't be fair and equal, but I suspect, even though God knows this, he's trying to make it fair, even though he knows he's bound to fail.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 5:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

There is a philosophical truism: you cannot give what you do not have.

Thus if we have a sense of justice, God has a greater sense of justice. Ultimately you find that our deepest desire ends up being love. Thus it is logical to conclude that God must love more than any of us. A God who loves more cannot be impersonal and indifferent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:40:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 7:01:06 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/25/2015 9:10:40 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/23/2015 10:07:58 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
This ony works if one is a moral realist but

Assuming that there is a God that is indifferent to our moral values and judgements wholesale - we have to ask why God would creature us with the sort of moral sensibilities we do have.

Perhaps they are the side-effect of the real goal. Just as how resin on the lungs is a side-effect of the goal of getting high off of smoking a joint. There is no reason to think that if God exists, he would share the same views as us with regards to rape and murder just because he gave us those views.

Not just that he gave us those views but that we think it's GOOD to posses those views.

Most of us think it's good to posses those views. I'm not sure how you jump from that truth to the idea that God doesn't want me to kill my neighbor. Why would God feel the same way as us? He gave us arms, does that mean he has arms? No. So just because he gave us a sense of "right" and "wrong" doesn't mean he has the same sense.

And what would the real goal be?

No clue, but the jump from "we have a sense of morality" to "God has this sense of morality" is yet to be justified.


Why not believe he just surpasses the whole concept and isn't bound by it. Wouldn't he more great to not be bound by morality?


More great in what sense?

More boundless.


Maybe he did so because he finds it amusing or there's some sort of value (not moral value; aesthetic value?) in expressing our moral sentiments?

Perhaps.


Perhaps he even made us so as think think that - on some level - he actually shares our moral beliefs (things like love is good, rape is bad, etc).

It doesn't seem like he wants us to think he does share those beliefs at all, if what I am saying is true then the opposite is the case. The fact that God doesn't prevent good things from happening when he can, or bad things from happening when he can, indicates that he just doesn't care. I can fall in love tomorrow, or get tortured by some crazy people, if God exists he is just hanging out not doing anything. A God who cared either way would probably make himself more evident in our affairs.


The fact is the vast majority of humans do think love is good and rape is bad (etc) and that love is an embodiment of the divine is good reason to suppose that many, many humans have thought God, at the very least, shares SOME of our moral beliefs.

God may be the source and cause of love but that doesn't mean that he himself loves.


He made it so that we believe that he values justice and doesn't want innocents to suffer if he couldn't help it. But...in reality he doesn't care about justice and is amused by our misery.

How does he make people believe that he cares about him? I hear the preacher teach it but no evidence from God himself that he cares about us.


Look at the history of religion. Nearly all of them concern themselves with God(s) who ostensibly value justice and don't want innocents to suffer if they can help it.

Of course they do, it is a control tool. Humans don't want other humans acting up so we say God doesn't want it either so even when no human is looking, there is still deterrence. There is still no reason, at least in my mind, to think God doesn't want me to stab a child dead in the street.

And that's the point. People believe it.

People believe a lot of things...I started this thread with the knowledge that it flies in the face of conventional religious views. People can believe whatever they want, that doesn't make it true.


Give n that picture, that doesn't seem something an amoral God would do. That seems more like something an EVIL God would do. So, no, I'm not inclined to believed in an amoral God.

Not at all. If this sense of morality is just a side-effect of a larger goal then he obviously didn't create it for any evil purpose, anymore than dust collected is the purpose of my DVD player staying in the same place for year. It happens as a side-effect, but it isn't the object of the goal.

What would the larger goal be?

Only God would know that. The point is that looking at the world around it, it is evident that if there is a God he doesn't give a sh*t. He isn't evil, as he doesn't stop good things from happening (we still have wonderful experiences), but he isn't good either as he doesn't stop bad things. Of course, one could say that he allows evil for some greater good, but another could say he allows good for some greater evil. It is simpler to say he just doesn't care either way, that is certainly what it seems like!!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:42:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 5:27:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

There is a philosophical truism: you cannot give what you do not have.

So because God gave me a penis that means God has a penis? So that means that because he gave Ted Bundy the urge to rape and kill innocent girls that God has the urge to rape and kill innocent girls? Come on man, that "truism" is rubbish.


Thus if we have a sense of justice, God has a greater sense of justice.

I have hair, so God has hair? Lol

Ultimately you find that our deepest desire ends up being love. Thus it is logical to conclude that God must love more than any of us.

No it really isn't logical at all, as I have explained with some examples.

A God who loves more cannot be impersonal and indifferent.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I believe that God must be morally perfect if morality is objective. Do you believe that morality is objective?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 8:51:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:48:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I believe that God must be morally perfect if morality is objective.

Why is that?

Do you believe that morality is objective?

How do you define "objective"?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:11:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 8:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:48:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I believe that God must be morally perfect if morality is objective.

Why is that?

(1) because if morality is objective, a perfect mode of morality must exist in order to measure varying degrees of "moral-ness" in any type of moral behavior. Love is better than indifference and indifference is better than cruelty, for example.

(2) something "morally good" is really only referencing (A) the disposition or (B) will of a mind. Kindness, braveness, humbleness, respectfulness, etc., are all objectively morally good but they're just dispositions of the mind. Feeding the homeless is morally good because your will is to contribute a good disposition (kindness, for example). This also explains why intent plays such a large role in morality.

So in order to have these objectively morally good traits there must be an objectively good mind because anything "morally good" doesn't exist apart from the mind.

Do you believe that morality is objective?

How do you define "objective"?

Something that is true independent of our assessments about it.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:28:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Wow the level of intellectual discourse goes down on here every day... very well.

At 4/7/2015 8:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 5:27:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

There is a philosophical truism: you cannot give what you do not have.

So because God gave me a penis that means God has a penis?

We are discussing attributes - I cannot give something that is beyond. God could not create justice or even the sense of justice if he was not just. Just like a ball on a billiard table cannot impart momentum to another billiard ball unless it first possesses momentum.

Since you are being pedantic, yes God has a penis - Jesus was male and was God.

So that means that because he gave Ted Bundy the urge to rape and kill innocent girls that God has the urge to rape and kill innocent girls?

God has free will and so we have free will. Ted Bundy's urges were a rejection and twisting of the good attributes given by God.

Come on man, that "truism" is rubbish.

Nope, simple logic.


Thus if we have a sense of justice, God has a greater sense of justice.

I have hair, so God has hair? Lol

Still ridiculous. This is about the lowest level of discourse I've seen outside of the religion forum.

Ultimately you find that our deepest desire ends up being love. Thus it is logical to conclude that God must love more than any of us.

No it really isn't logical at all, as I have explained with some examples.

All of which were easily refuted.

A God who loves more cannot be impersonal and indifferent.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:29:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:11:46 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:51:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 8:48:12 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

I believe that God must be morally perfect if morality is objective.

Why is that?

(1) because if morality is objective, a perfect mode of morality must exist in order to measure varying degrees of "moral-ness" in any type of moral behavior. Love is better than indifference and indifference is better than cruelty, for example.

That's like saying that if height is objective, a perfect mode of height must exist in order to measure varying degrees of "height". Would you say that a perfectly high object must exist simply because height is objective?


(2) something "morally good" is really only referencing (A) the disposition or (B) will of a mind. Kindness, braveness, humbleness, respectfulness, etc., are all objectively morally good but they're just dispositions of the mind. Feeding the homeless is morally good because your will is to contribute a good disposition (kindness, for example). This also explains why intent plays such a large role in morality.

So in order to have these objectively morally good traits there must be an objectively good mind because anything "morally good" doesn't exist apart from the mind.

Maybe we are the minds that have these traits, doesn't mean God's mind has them.


Do you believe that morality is objective?

How do you define "objective"?

Something that is true independent of our assessments about it.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:22:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I prefer to think of 'good' as doing God's will. And 'bad' is the lack of good.

God is all-good, becuase God always wants to accomplish his will.

I know that seems unfair, but when you are god of your own universe you kind of get that perk.

Wow what a cop out. "I know this is circular logic but my imaginary friend God can do that stuff, cause he's God."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 9:48:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:28:58 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Wow the level of intellectual discourse goes down on here every day... very well.


At 4/7/2015 8:42:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/7/2015 5:27:42 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 3/19/2015 10:23:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I think what we call a creator, or some kind of universal intellect is a good explanation for the world we see around us. However the idea that this being would share the same morality as us (with raping children and murdering innocent people being wrong) seems dubious. If God exists then it makes more sense to think he doesn't want us to be the best we can, or the worse we can, he just doesn't care. It makes more sense to believe disease, birth defects, and natural disasters are side effects of a world created with moral indifference, then to believe these horrible things exist as part of a plan that we would view as benevolent if we only knew what it was completely (which is the Christian explanation; we have ignorance to the greater story). The latter is a bad explanation, because one can say that things like love, butterflies, and rainbows exist as part of a plan that we would view as menevolent if we only knew the plan. There is a conflict there which complicates things unnecessarily. The simplest explanation is that horrible things happen to people, and good things happen to people because of a morally indifferent being. We wouldn't expect God to not want tornado's and diseases in his world if he was morally indifferent, because why would he care if people get hurt? With a "good" god you need an ad hoc explanation for that. We wouldn't expect him to stop love and pleasure, because why would want us to feel bad? He's not evil, so stopping us from feeling good isn't needed. What we call good things and bad things are probably just side-effects of God's project, not products of his benevolent or malevolent intentions. Why not believe God surpasses benevolence and manevolence?

There is a philosophical truism: you cannot give what you do not have.

So because God gave me a penis that means God has a penis?

We are discussing attributes - I cannot give something that is beyond. God could not create justice or even the sense of justice if he was not just.

Then according to this logic, God is evil, as he couldn't create evil unless he was evil himself. If you say man created evil, then you are just pushing the question back a step because in order for God to have created men who have the attribute of evil, he would have to have evil in him according to this logic.

Just like a ball on a billiard table cannot impart momentum to another billiard ball unless it first possesses momentum.

A wall can give a match stick a flame even though the wall didn't have a flame to begin with. Sometimes causes can exist that don't have a certain attribute, and that attribute will pop up.


Since you are being pedantic, yes God has a penis - Jesus was male and was God.

What about the state of affairs in which God exists pre-material world? How could God have created a world of atoms and gravity if he did not have atoms and gravity within him? According to your logic, the material must have always existed, but doesn't that contradict your view?


So that means that because he gave Ted Bundy the urge to rape and kill innocent girls that God has the urge to rape and kill innocent girls?

God has free will and so we have free will. Ted Bundy's urges were a rejection and twisting of the good attributes given by God.

Ted Bundy still had these urges top rape women. Ergo, according to your logic, these urges must exist in God as well or else you are special pleading. If humans have the attribute of "not only willing to rape the innocent, but act upon it as well" then according to your logic, God should have that attribute as well.

Come on man, that "truism" is rubbish.

Nope, simple logic.

Simple logical fallacies you mean.



Thus if we have a sense of justice, God has a greater sense of justice.

I have hair, so God has hair? Lol

Still ridiculous. This is about the lowest level of discourse I've seen outside of the religion forum.

Fallacy of ridicule.


Ultimately you find that our deepest desire ends up being love. Thus it is logical to conclude that God must love more than any of us.

No it really isn't logical at all, as I have explained with some examples.

All of which were easily refuted.

Not really.


A God who loves more cannot be impersonal and indifferent.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:53:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 9:43:56 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:22:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

I prefer to think of 'good' as doing God's will. And 'bad' is the lack of good.

God is all-good, becuase God always wants to accomplish his will.

I know that seems unfair, but when you are god of your own universe you kind of get that perk.

Wow what a cop out. "I know this is circular logic but my imaginary friend God can do that stuff, cause he's God."

What is circular about it?

This is a discussion beginning with the assumption god exists. Nothing I said is to affirm that. Just what a god like perspective of his creation might be like.

See to a person like you who is poisoned in the brain and incapable of logical thought, atheist mindset must pervade and seep into every mental schema you have. So to you god is made in man's image. And we imagine god to be just like us but maybe better.

You are the one being little minded and narrow like a dope. We are talking about a real God that created the universe. Even assuming such a being did take an interest in mankind why do you think so pathetically that such a being would bend over back ward to give you all the desires you have?

That is stupid and to paint God as such is stupid. BUT I suggest a reasonable explanation to God's interaction with mankind, that God cares about his will over our desires and you think I am being silly? You are ridiculous sir, God is bigger than your small imagination and stronger than your idle brain.