Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Assuming God Exists, Why Should We Care?

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.

And since morality is a standard of many - entire societies - no single opinion on the matter is objective, or even significant.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If god exists, then he is a far superior being. It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say. That is why young children (generally) take guidance from their parents. We are conditioned by evolution to respect and obey authority figures. It aids survival.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:47:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 6:34:08 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Because our telos is orientated towards her.

I tried to take this sentence seriously, but I still can't find an argument.

P1. Our telos is oriented towards God
P2. ???
C. We ought to act according to God

Presumably the missing premise is:

P2. We ought to act according to what our telos is oriented

Or something of the like.

Assuming P1 to be true, why should we accept P2?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 9:51:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
If god exists, then he is a far superior being.

In which ways, and how is that relevant?

It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say.

That is irrelevant, since we are considering value judgements. God has set a bunch if morals, and the argument is why we should value them.

Let's assume that God is all powerful and knowing, and his nature was destructive. He would still be 'god' by definition, since he is his own nature, Gos doesn't necessarily care about human values, and hence could just decree destructive tendencies as 'moral'.

Why the heck should we value it? If the answer is 'we shouldn't' then you implicitly concede there is no intrinsic reason why we should regard zgod's moral standard as some sort of independant ultimate standard, it's just a separate standard which is meaningless on it's own,

That is why young children (generally) take guidance from their parents. We are conditioned by evolution to respect and obey authority figures. It aids survival.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:19:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:51:15 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
If god exists, then he is a far superior being.

In which ways, and how is that relevant?

I'm going on the attributes you listed. Omnipotence, omniscience, and so on. The usual conception of god. As to relevance, you had to keep reading.

It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say.

That is irrelevant, since we are considering value judgements. God has set a bunch if morals, and the argument is why we should value them.

For the reason I gave. It behoves a lesser being to pay careful attention to the wishes and desires of a superior being on the basis that the latter knows more than they do. That should be self-evident.

Let's assume that God is all powerful and knowing, and his nature was destructive. He would still be 'god' by definition, since he is his own nature, Gos doesn't necessarily care about human values, and hence could just decree destructive tendencies as 'moral'.

You are just creating scenarios to suit your agenda. If god revealed himself in any way, then we could deduce whether he had a destructive nature or not. However, god doesn't reveal himself so we have to go on one of his other alleged attributes - omni-benevolence. That's the god I thought you were referencing.

Why the heck should we value it? If the answer is 'we shouldn't' then you implicitly concede there is no intrinsic reason why we should regard zgod's moral standard as some sort of independant ultimate standard, it's just a separate standard which is meaningless on it's own,

As I said, coming from a superior being, you would hope and trust that there was good reason for whatever that being decreed just by virtue of their vastly greater intellect.

That is why young children (generally) take guidance from their parents. We are conditioned by evolution to respect and obey authority figures. It aids survival.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:21:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.

The underlying point is that declaring someone to have the 'correct' values is simply an absurd statement, and no less absurd than saying my preference for ice cream over pancakes is a 'wrong' preference. There is no aparent 'objective' preference, and even if there was an objective preference for pancakes over ice cream, I would be hard pressed to see how that matters, or is relevant to society and how we choose which actions to do or not to do.

For example, if a God really did decree gays an abomination and we should stone them, and we knew this for a fact, then why should we care what he says, if that's just God's opinion? Much less how does that in any way affect the value judgement of what WE should do regarding gays.

And since morality is a standard of many - entire societies - no single opinion on the matter is objective, or even significant.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:22:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say.

No matter how often we point that out to theists, they still don't seem to listen to atheists. ;)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:24:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

There are two common arguments for this, neither of which I believe.

1. God gave us life and blessed us with good fortune, so we owe him infinitely. Being generous, all he requires is compliance with his moral code.

2. If we don't comply, he will subject us to eternal torture and pain.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:26:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:21:38 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.

The underlying point is that declaring someone to have the 'correct' values is simply an absurd statement, and no less absurd than saying my preference for ice cream over pancakes is a 'wrong' preference. There is no aparent 'objective' preference, and even if there was an objective preference for pancakes over ice cream, I would be hard pressed to see how that matters, or is relevant to society and how we choose which actions to do or not to do.

For example, if a God really did decree gays an abomination and we should stone them, and we knew this for a fact, then why should we care what he says, if that's just God's opinion? Much less how does that in any way affect the value judgement of what WE should do regarding gays.

And since morality is a standard of many - entire societies - no single opinion on the matter is objective, or even significant.

And I still don't see a difference between what you're saying (in greater detail), and the basic observation that God's opinion would still just be a subjective opinion, and therefore, would not offer objective morality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:33:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:24:10 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

There are two common arguments for this, neither of which I believe.

1. God gave us life and blessed us with good fortune, so we owe him infinitely. Being generous, all he requires is compliance with his moral code.

This implies "we ought to act in accordance IF we value fairness (from 'oweing'), which is necessarily subjective....

2. If we don't comply, he will subject us to eternal torture and pain.

This implies 'we ought to act in accordance if we value not being in pain/suffering'

Which is also necessarily subjective.... The main point I am trying to argue is that a 'bare ought' is simply non-cognitive, and as such objective morals (which necessarily divorce morals from conditional values) are themselves non-cognitive.

Ergo, even if God decreed we ought to life in a 'fair, just, happy society', it remains an empty statement, and makes just as much sense if he decreed we ought to live in a destructive society. As it would be just as arbitrary, and god would still be 'good' either way (since God is defined as good).
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:35:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:33:57 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:24:10 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

There are two common arguments for this, neither of which I believe.

1. God gave us life and blessed us with good fortune, so we owe him infinitely. Being generous, all he requires is compliance with his moral code.

This implies "we ought to act in accordance IF we value fairness (from 'oweing'), which is necessarily subjective....

2. If we don't comply, he will subject us to eternal torture and pain.

This implies 'we ought to act in accordance if we value not being in pain/suffering'

Which is also necessarily subjective.... The main point I am trying to argue is that a 'bare ought' is simply non-cognitive, and as such objective morals (which necessarily divorce morals from conditional values) are themselves non-cognitive.

Ergo, even if God decreed we ought to life in a 'fair, just, happy society', it remains an empty statement, and makes just as much sense if he decreed we ought to live in a destructive society. As it would be just as arbitrary, and god would still be 'good' either way (since God is defined as good).

In short, the only thing that one can say objectively "ought" to be done is whatever one wants?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

Well, if the universe is a projection of God's mind, then I suppose his own moral code would naturally govern everything within that mental world, just as your own personal moral code and sense of 'conscience' governs all your own thoughts. ... I think.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:43:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're forgetting the third part of the O3 God which is omnibenevolence. Since God is all good and all knowing, what He decrees to be moral facts must be so as He knows (or decides) what is objectively wrong, and has no incentive to mislead us as He's all good. Thus, if we knew God existed when acting within His code, what we are caring about is not acting in accordance with God in and of itself but rather acting in accordance with what is moral. And I think the vast majority of us care about acting morally.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 10:51:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:


So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

"You ought to do Y, full stop" simply means there's only one real interpretation of what one ought to value. I.e., that there's only one interpretation of morality which has a basis in objective reality (namely reality's syntax).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:02:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:


I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.


And yet, since God is omnipresent, that "subjective opinion" everywhere applies, which mean's it cannot be relativized to a partial context within reality at large.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:14:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:02:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:


I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.


And yet, since God is omnipresent, that "subjective opinion" everywhere applies, which mean's it cannot be relativized to a partial context within reality at large.

That's not a logical association. Even if God did exist, and existed everywhere at all times, it doesn't make his subjective opinions anything more than his subjective opinions. And since we can see cultures in the Bible who openly promoted slavery, yet see that slavery is not accepted as a moral practice anywhere in the world today, quite obviously, the morals of God - as presented in the Bible - do not fit with the morals of societies today.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:22:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say.

No matter how often we point that out to theists, they still don't seem to listen to atheists. ;)

I have learned that when someone has to tell people they're smarter it usually turns out that they just want them to think they're smarter so that they'll accept their words for truth ;) thus I don't believe a word anyone says. How's that run on sentence?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:23:06 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:22:52 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:36:57 PM, dee-em wrote:
It is prudent to take heed of what wiser, more experienced beings have to say.

No matter how often we point that out to theists, they still don't seem to listen to atheists. ;)

I have learned that when someone has to tell people they're smarter it usually turns out that they just want them to think they're smarter so that they'll accept their words for truth
That's how atheists do it. Theists insist it's the "word of God".

;) thus I don't believe a word anyone says. How's that run on sentence?
I've done better without even trying!

... sadly.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:32:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:14:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:02:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:


I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.


And yet, since God is omnipresent, that "subjective opinion" everywhere applies, which mean's it cannot be relativized to a partial context within reality at large.

That's not a logical association. Even if God did exist, and existed everywhere at all times, it doesn't make his subjective opinions anything more than his subjective opinions.

God's opinion and truth have something in common: they both apply to everything which exists. Insofar as something "subjective" applies for the subject, and insofar as the subject in this case is reality itself, "subjective" becomes "objective".
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2014 11:37:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 11:32:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:14:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 11:02:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/28/2014 9:35:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:


I'll offer my apology ahead of time in case I'm wrong; but what I think I see you saying here is essentially; so what if God exists and established a code? That doesn't make it objective. It's still just the subjective opinion of a single being.


And yet, since God is omnipresent, that "subjective opinion" everywhere applies, which mean's it cannot be relativized to a partial context within reality at large.

That's not a logical association. Even if God did exist, and existed everywhere at all times, it doesn't make his subjective opinions anything more than his subjective opinions.

God's opinion and truth have something in common: they both apply to everything which exists.
Assuming that the Bible actually offers God's word (and therefore, his opinions) - and ignoring for the moment that it obviously doesn't; your statement is simply untrue. Do you think slavery is moral? I don't. No nation on Earth does. And yet, the Bible tells us that God has no problem with slavery. In fact, it claims that God has no problem with a slave owner beating a slave to death, as long as the slave doesn't die fora day or two, because the slave was the owner's property. Do you agree with that? Or does it perhaps not apply to you... part of "everything which exists"?

Insofar as something "subjective" applies for the subject, and insofar as the subject in this case is reality itself, "subjective" becomes "objective".
Nice try. Sorry.
"Objective" and "subjective" are already quite well defined, and are not the same thing. The subject in this case isn't reality itself. It's the supposed singular opinion of a "non-physical mind" (which itself is a contradiction).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 12:09:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

God is the author of all life and all creation. All life exists because of Him. As God is, by all definitions, perfect in every sense, morality is not a decision on God's part, but is what is in accordance with his perfect will and perfect nature. What we call morality is simply our adherence to the truth because God is truth.

I would argue that whether you are a theist, atheist or other, that which is true must ultimately be the basis of any morality.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 12:17:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 12:09:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

God is the author of all life and all creation.
An assertion for which you have not a shred of reason, evidence, or logic to support.

All life exists because of Him.
Once again, not only can you not support that logically, science has evidence which is strictly to the contrary. You're offering nothing but fables from a collection of old superstitions.

As God is, by all definitions, perfect in every sense, morality is not a decision on God's part, but is what is in accordance with his perfect will and perfect nature.
But according to this same collection of ancient fables, God promotes slavery, rape, infanticide... even genocide, bigotry and barbarity. So his nature is anything but perfect. It's quite imperfect. Even "his book" is quite imperfect, containing fables, forgeries and a plethora of false claims.

What we call morality is simply our adherence to the truth because God is truth.
No, based on the disparity between the Bible and reality - and the assertion that the Bible is "God's word" and contains his moral laws, he's quite distant from truth.

I would argue that whether you are a theist, atheist or other, that which is true must ultimately be the basis of any morality.
But reality is the author of truth, not ancient primitive men dedicating their superstitions to textual representations. And reality disagrees quite blatantly with your old book of "God's morality".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 12:51:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 12:17:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/29/2014 12:09:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I am going to break my own rule this one time and actually reply to you. I realize that you are butt-hurt that I wouldn't engage you earlier. I have once and found you (like bulproof) to be rude and unreasonable. This is not about whether I win or lose the argument (I've done both plenty of times), it is about your demeanour.

I disagree with Envisage on most things theological. However, I respect him and even like him. I am willing to enter into a discussion with him. He is rarely an arse (no offence meant Envisage) and he is not abusive when we discuss things (even when we do so vigorously). You on the other hand are.

This post is an excellent case in point.

More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

God is the author of all life and all creation.
An assertion for which you have not a shred of reason, evidence, or logic to support.

1) This was not in reply to you. Not only did you butt in, but you did so in the rudest manner.

2) The author of the thread specifically stated (as quoted above): For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

Since you lack the basic ability to read and stay on topic there is no reason to discuss anything further with you.

This will be the last time that I respond to one of your posts. Thank-you and goodnight.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 1:13:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 12:51:02 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/29/2014 12:17:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/29/2014 12:09:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:

I am going to break my own rule this one time and actually reply to you. I realize that you are butt-hurt that I wouldn't engage you earlier. I have once and found you (like bulproof) to be rude and unreasonable. This is not about whether I win or lose the argument (I've done both plenty of times), it is about your demeanour.

I disagree with Envisage on most things theological. However, I respect him and even like him. I am willing to enter into a discussion with him. He is rarely an arse (no offence meant Envisage) and he is not abusive when we discuss things (even when we do so vigorously). You on the other hand are.

This post is an excellent case in point.

More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

God is the author of all life and all creation.
An assertion for which you have not a shred of reason, evidence, or logic to support.

1) This was not in reply to you. Not only did you butt in, but you did so in the rudest manner.

2) The author of the thread specifically stated (as quoted above): For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

Since you lack the basic ability to read and stay on topic there is no reason to discuss anything further with you.

This will be the last time that I respond to one of your posts. Thank-you and goodnight.

If you prefer not to respond to me, then don't. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. And while you may disagree, I'm likely to look to the fact that you simply have no means of refutation for what I have pointed out, and may well be taking this line of feigned offense, as your way to not admit that I was correct.

I find it interesting that so many people will duck, dodge, repeat a statement like an echo, fail continually to provide rational responses, and then suddenly become incensed when their opponent becomes agitated. A great number of the people who complain that they're being mistreated bring the treatment on themselves through numerous methods and blatant irrationality before anyone ever starts to slip a cog on their social mannerisms. If you're going to enter a debate site on an issue which is so dramatically emotional for you that you consider it "sacred", and yet do so without "skin", is it not your fault when you take offense to people who don't hold your beliefs as sacred?

This is really quite simple. The standards set in the O.P. are obviously too crippling to provide credibility to the discussion. It's like saying, "assuming that the Bible is the true word of God, are all atheists not evil?" In essence, it's a system of attempting to diffuse all logical refutations, not by showing them to be wrong or indefensible, but by simply drawing prohibitions against them in the O.P. And I don't find that to be an honest methodology. When that is the case, I will not be held to those rules.

Respond to whomever you like, and refrain from responding as you choose. And have a great night.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 5:15:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/28/2014 10:35:50 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:33:57 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 10/28/2014 10:24:10 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

There are two common arguments for this, neither of which I believe.

1. God gave us life and blessed us with good fortune, so we owe him infinitely. Being generous, all he requires is compliance with his moral code.

This implies "we ought to act in accordance IF we value fairness (from 'oweing'), which is necessarily subjective....

2. If we don't comply, he will subject us to eternal torture and pain.

This implies 'we ought to act in accordance if we value not being in pain/suffering'

Which is also necessarily subjective.... The main point I am trying to argue is that a 'bare ought' is simply non-cognitive, and as such objective morals (which necessarily divorce morals from conditional values) are themselves non-cognitive.

Ergo, even if God decreed we ought to life in a 'fair, just, happy society', it remains an empty statement, and makes just as much sense if he decreed we ought to live in a destructive society. As it would be just as arbitrary, and god would still be 'good' either way (since God is defined as good).


In short, the only thing that one can say objectively "ought" to be done is whatever one wants?

Pragmatically, that seems to be the case, as they all come back to values *you* hold.

You can have a plethora of ways of defining what is right and wrong (be it secular, or theological), but which you accept will necessarily depend on your own values. If you value God, then you would agree with God's moral code, if you value utility, then God's moral code wouldn't be directly relevant, even if it existed.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2014 5:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/29/2014 12:09:46 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 10/28/2014 5:15:32 PM, Envisage wrote:
More of an extension of my conversation with Dylan. For this thread we are assuming god exists, and that he has set a moral code.

... Why should we care what he thinks? If God decrees action X to be immoral, why should we accept God's definition if 'moral' and 'immoral' and conform?

This may seem prima facie absurd, but the reality is that it really is just God's opinion in the matter. It doesn't matter if God is omniscient, omnipotent, or created all of reality, the only basis by which one should intrinsically value what God values is if we value acting in accordance with God.

I.e. You ought to follow God's code if you value acting according to God's code/nature/etc.

Moreover, truth statements about the morality of certain actions become no more or less objective, as they are subjective of whose opinion it is. Hence 'according to God, action X is immoral', which is no more or less 'true' than 'according to me, action X is moral'.

Any 'ought' is necessarily conditional, and hence subjective, on desired outcomes. Religious Gods propose additional values, especially regarding afterlife, which essentially appeals to the values that one may hold (e.g. I value not burning in hell for eternity).

So, assuming God exists, why should we care? At most God can only appeal to our own values, and give 'best case' answers for each of our individual values. For example God could degree actions moral or immoral with perfection if he was responding to 'if you value X, then you ought to do Y'. A case for that can easily be made, but a statement such as 'You ought to do Y, full stop' is rather meaningless.

God is the author of all life and all creation. All life exists because of Him. As God is, by all definitions, perfect in every sense

Perfect is ai would argue, necessarily subjective, as that once again implies there is a way things 'ought' to be, which would essentially be saying there is a way God 'ought' to be. I run into this on some ontological arguments, and the word 'perfect' is simply non-cognitive without involving some sort of external standard of what would qualify as perfect. Note that an internal standard would just beg the question.

, morality is not a decision on God's part, but is what is in accordance with his perfect will and perfect nature. What we call morality is simply our adherence to the truth because God is truth.

You made a logical jump from God being perfect (a which I argued is currently non-cognitively to 'God is truth'). Unless you are a theist who believes God is not restricted by logic, then God could just degree 2+2=5 and it would be 'truth', despite it being logically contradictory.

Also it isn't clear which categorical claim you are making:

1. All truths are God
2. God is true

The former is some sort of logic-pantheism, and the latter is putting God in the category of truth. The former entails that God is subjective/contingent upon truth, and does not automatically make everything a god says as 'truth', because this would be a fallacy of composition.

The latter runs into non-cognitive problems as already discussed, as well as the 2+2=5 issue. Moreover just because a god himself is 'true', doesn't mean that what he says is 'truth'

I would argue that whether you are a theist, atheist or other, that which is true must ultimately be the basis of any morality.

I already argued that I do not accept that, and that morality statements are like stating that my preference for ice cream is objectively 'false', similarly my value for human well-being being objectively 'false'. The only true and false statements of ice cream preference are those subjective to the person, God disliking ice cream does nothing to undermine the fact that ice cream is delicious (to me). God being perfect, or z'true' etc does nothing to state what I 'ought' to prefer.