Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How did you determine that your god is moral?

Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As it is written,

"Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations" "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which all concern things which perish with the using"according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh."
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.

Your god committed and ordered acts of genocide. In no sense can that be considered moral. The ability to destroy on a global level does not equate to the right to destroy with impunity and for no reason other than personal pique or to benefit a favored group of people over all others. That is not an act of love in any shape, way, form, or fashion.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 7:02:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.

Why is "Truth the highest good?" How did you make that determination?
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 7:24:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:58:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.

Your god committed and ordered acts of genocide. In no sense can that be considered moral. The ability to destroy on a global level does not equate to the right to destroy with impunity and for no reason other than personal pique or to benefit a favored group of people over all others. That is not an act of love in any shape, way, form, or fashion.

Scripture documents a relationship with God. The human element will always be there.

That said, trying to dispute reality is an awfully silly thing to do. God creates and destroys as God wills. God's will is done whether or not you accept this. Certainly, God has determined all lifespans.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 7:26:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:02:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.

Why is "Truth the highest good?" How did you make that determination?

God is good.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 7:43:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:24:58 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:58:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.

Your god committed and ordered acts of genocide. In no sense can that be considered moral. The ability to destroy on a global level does not equate to the right to destroy with impunity and for no reason other than personal pique or to benefit a favored group of people over all others. That is not an act of love in any shape, way, form, or fashion.

Scripture documents a relationship with God. The human element will always be there.

That said, trying to dispute reality is an awfully silly thing to do. God creates and destroys as God wills. God's will is done whether or not you accept this. Certainly, God has determined all lifespans.

So, might makes right. Got it. I can create and destroy at will for any reason or no reason at all and it's good and moral because I'm God.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 7:47:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Somewhat circular arguments are required when proving or disproving that God is the source of morals. Because we either point to God, or away from God in our explinations
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:26:18 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:02:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.

Why is "Truth the highest good?" How did you make that determination?

God is good.

I believe it would be impossible for us to judge the morality of something that created and exists beyond our reality. Our concepts/definitions of good and evil are founded upon the reality that we can perceive. We can only make comparative moral judgments within the limits that such a creator placed upon reality. We cannot perceive the infinite number of evil and good possibilities that such a creator omitted, which is necessarily by intent.

Say, for instance, an evil creator formed a world with only "pain" and "more pain" (which is evil by our standards). Since the concept of "no pain" may be beyond those creatures' perception because its not possible and perhaps not even conceivable, then "pain" will be perceived as good compared to "more pain", which would be "evil". Thus, the concepts of good and evil will exist even in a world created by an evil deity.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 9:02:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:26:18 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:02:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.

Why is "Truth the highest good?" How did you make that determination?

God is good.

Did you miss the part in the OP where I was asking for a non-circular justification?
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 9:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:47:21 PM, Alpha3141 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Somewhat circular arguments are required when proving or disproving that God is the source of morals. Because we either point to God, or away from God in our explinations

I'm not asking you to prove anything about your god being the source of your morals. If you say it's so, that's enough for me as far as this thread goes. I'm asking how you could possibly determine that your god is moral in the first place if you are unable to make moral judgments without him.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 6:49:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

I've never heard a non-circular argument for that. I'm interested in seeing how others respond to this.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 7:07:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

Feel free to elaborate.


I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).

If he defines morality, then morality isn't objective. Your argument gets less coherent with each post.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 7:30:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

God beyond moral needs, He doesn't need it rather we the one do.

Islam
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 7:39:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 7:30:47 AM, uncung wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?


God beyond moral needs, He doesn't need it rather we the one do.


Islam

That doesn't answer the question.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 9:30:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 7:07:35 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

Feel free to elaborate.


Your question is about instincts.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).

If he defines morality, then morality isn't objective. Your argument gets less coherent with each post.

Yes it is. It's the only way objective standards can exist. They require an ultimate authority
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 1:27:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 9:30:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 7:07:35 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

Feel free to elaborate.


Your question is about instincts.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).

If he defines morality, then morality isn't objective. Your argument gets less coherent with each post.

Yes it is. It's the only way objective standards can exist. They require an ultimate authority

Then they are not objective, rather subjective to that authority. You're still saying the same thing. God is moral because God decides what is moral. That's about as circular as you can get.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:05:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 7:43:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:24:58 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:58:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.

Your god committed and ordered acts of genocide. In no sense can that be considered moral. The ability to destroy on a global level does not equate to the right to destroy with impunity and for no reason other than personal pique or to benefit a favored group of people over all others. That is not an act of love in any shape, way, form, or fashion.

Scripture documents a relationship with God. The human element will always be there.

That said, trying to dispute reality is an awfully silly thing to do. God creates and destroys as God wills. God's will is done whether or not you accept this. Certainly, God has determined all lifespans.

So, might makes right. Got it. I can create and destroy at will for any reason or no reason at all and it's good and moral because I'm God.

It might not be good for you, but it is what it is. Are you going to dispute the laws of physics because you don't like them?
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:06:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 1:27:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:30:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 7:07:35 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

Feel free to elaborate.


Your question is about instincts.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).

If he defines morality, then morality isn't objective. Your argument gets less coherent with each post.

Yes it is. It's the only way objective standards can exist. They require an ultimate authority

Then they are not objective, rather subjective to that authority. You're still saying the same thing. God is moral because God decides what is moral. That's about as circular as you can get.

Then what is your definition of objective. How does something become objectively true? I maintain my claims are in touch with reality and are true. Objective truths cannot be reliant on opinion, but have to come from the creator of truth.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:07:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 8:05:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:26:18 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:02:25 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:34:14 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
God represents the Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

Morality as people understand it tends to be a relativistic construct. However, it can be made objective from a relative sense. How are you measuring morality? Theologians and philosophers have debated this for centuries.

If Truth is the highest good, then it naturally follows that God, representing Highest Truth naturally embodies what is moral. God's will is done whether anyone likes it or not. God made creation, and said it was good.

The fall of man happened after humanity ate from the tree of "knowledge of Good and Evil". Basically, as soon as we started to consider ourselves judges of what is good and what is evil, we messed up. God is the only rightful judge of this. Human beings don't make good judges, as we don't tend to have all the information to exercise righteous discernment. Human beings tend to be incredibly bias when making moral judgement.

Why is "Truth the highest good?" How did you make that determination?

God is good.

I believe it would be impossible for us to judge the morality of something that created and exists beyond our reality. Our concepts/definitions of good and evil are founded upon the reality that we can perceive. We can only make comparative moral judgments within the limits that such a creator placed upon reality. We cannot perceive the infinite number of evil and good possibilities that such a creator omitted, which is necessarily by intent.

Say, for instance, an evil creator formed a world with only "pain" and "more pain" (which is evil by our standards). Since the concept of "no pain" may be beyond those creatures' perception because its not possible and perhaps not even conceivable, then "pain" will be perceived as good compared to "more pain", which would be "evil". Thus, the concepts of good and evil will exist even in a world created by an evil deity.

Humans are bias. Are you going to say that reality is evil because you don't like it? It's like complaining about the temperature that water freezes because you'd rather it freeze at a different temperature.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:05:59 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:43:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 7:24:58 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:58:10 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:54:12 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:40:30 PM, dhardage wrote:
There has never been a completely moral god in all of history. Every deity has committed acts of violence or even murder in their holy writings. There is no proof of any effective morality coming from divine sources, only arbitrary rules usually produced by the priesthood.

This is what I mean by human bias. Violence is a part of nature, and to hate God for it is to just deny reality. How are you judging the effectiveness of morality?

Certainly, priests attempt to formulate these things, but they are not arbitrary. Observation and intent has a great deal to do with how these things are formulated.

It has to do with gaming the nature of causality. Human beings are not perfect observers of causality, as there will always be a chaotic element that can't be avoided.

The Christian understanding of this is that it is impossible for a human being to be entirely moral. We all sin, or fall short of perfection. Understanding this, we are forgiven and expected to forgive others in kind. We are tasked with doing our best to emulate God's Salvation, not relying on the letter of the law, which kills, but the spirit of the law, which is love.

Your god committed and ordered acts of genocide. In no sense can that be considered moral. The ability to destroy on a global level does not equate to the right to destroy with impunity and for no reason other than personal pique or to benefit a favored group of people over all others. That is not an act of love in any shape, way, form, or fashion.

Scripture documents a relationship with God. The human element will always be there.

That said, trying to dispute reality is an awfully silly thing to do. God creates and destroys as God wills. God's will is done whether or not you accept this. Certainly, God has determined all lifespans.

So, might makes right. Got it. I can create and destroy at will for any reason or no reason at all and it's good and moral because I'm God.

It might not be good for you, but it is what it is. Are you going to dispute the laws of physics because you don't like them?

The laws of physics don't get angry and destroy entire worlds. That's a poor analogy at best and does not address the issue. What you're saying is that no matter what your god does it's moral because he is the source of your morality. He ordered murder women and children, non combatants. He slaughtered, according to your holy book, everyone in the world except his favorite drunk and family. If that's moral according to you, well, I fear for you and anyone you have anything to do with.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 2:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 2:06:08 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:27:12 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/25/2015 9:30:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 7:07:35 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 3:23:44 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:58:51 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 2:17:41 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2015 1:31:36 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 8/25/2015 12:32:40 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2015 6:22:52 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Most theists cite their god as the source of their morals. But how do you know that your god is moral in the first place if you've already ceded your moral judgment to him? I've asked this question elsewhere and been told that "he wrote his morality on our hearts." But does that mean you'd think the devil is moral if he had gotten to your heart first?

Does anyone have a non-circular argument for determining that their god is moral?

Because I instinctively know objective morality exists, and that it cannot exist without God. Therefore everything He does has to be moral, since that's all He is capable of doing.

Why should anyone, including yourself, accept your instinct as correct? Furthermore, I specifically asked for a non-circular argument. Do you have one?

If you want to stay alive, you should follow your instinct that tells you your hungry.

Plenty of people die because they follow their instinct to eat to excess, until they develop any number of maladies that kill them at an early age. And I don't see what that has to do with your god.

It has to do with your question.

Feel free to elaborate.


Your question is about instincts.

I gave you an answer that's not circular. I challenge you to show me otherwise.

God provides an objective moral standard.
The objective moral standard indicates that god is moral.

You think your god is moral because he's the basis for the standard you use to determine what is and isn't moral. It doesn't get any more circular than that.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said he decided what is moral, therefore, he can't possibly be immoral (since He defines it).

If he defines morality, then morality isn't objective. Your argument gets less coherent with each post.

Yes it is. It's the only way objective standards can exist. They require an ultimate authority

Then they are not objective, rather subjective to that authority. You're still saying the same thing. God is moral because God decides what is moral. That's about as circular as you can get.

Then what is your definition of objective. How does something become objectively true? I maintain my claims are in touch with reality and are true. Objective truths cannot be reliant on opinion, but have to come from the creator of truth.

Objective is defined as not affected by personal feelings or bias. It is objectively true if it remains true when examined by anyone regardless of their desire for it to be true or false. You can claim anything you wish but that does not make it true. I agree that objective truths cannot be reliant on opinion, but if there is a 'creator' of a truth then it is subjective to him and therefore not truly objective.

Do you consider the slaughter of the women and children, even the beasts of the farm, that God ordered to be moral?