Despite me believing in God, Simply theorising if this statement were true. . . Would I believe everything is permissible? And would I be able to do anything? The answer to this, In my opinion, Would be yes. I do not care about laws, Or morals, Or ethics. Those are made by humans. An animal's survival instinct is killing each other for itself to prosper, Survival of the fittest, Lying, Fighting, And many other things. As a result, If God did not exist, I'd want to make the best of my life, And BE the best, And be the strongest, The most attractive, The smartest, THE MOST POWERFUL. Because all these things would be all that matter in the world. I mean, Assuming that God did not exist, There would be no reason to believe in an Afterlife then, And so there would be no reason to act just towards others and such.
To start my argument, I must first dispel the most common argument on the disagreeing side. Most would start their argument with the idea of goodness. However, This overlooks the idea that in a world that has no prior higher definition of what goodness actually is, Good and evil are subjectively defined and in real life we generally group them together as a society (vaguely touching on the social contract). There is no absolute evil and there is no absolute good. Naturally, We commonly define good and evil as things that others in our community would consent to, Good being that which is accepted because it is beneficial for the person and evil being that which is not beneficial to the victim, Acceptability is key. We do not steal in the trust that we will not get stolen from is the common principle. However, This is not always the case, As thievery still occurs by those who have nothing to lose from it. Murder and cannibalism in most cultures is a taboo, But this does not mean that it spreads across all cultures as seen in Fiji and the early Mesoamericans. For a quick everyday example, People debating on abortion. In the case of a common moral absolutism among men, There wouldn't be an argument because it would be seen as either morally acceptable or forbidden by all. But because there are two sides and two viewpoints, We cannot tell that there is a real, Correct answer without some kind of higher guidance. Atheists and the religious alike base themselves on creed and society and thus we have a gray area. Without something to define where to draw the line on cases of morality, There will always be a gray area even if it isn't readily seen. So everything is permissible, Yes, But everything is just as equally punishable.
In Islam as far as I know you need to acknowledge Allah and Mohammed. Muslims will childishly cry that Allah is the one true God although many of his characteristics does not match with the abstract yet absolutely true reality of God. Muslims will also say that other God concepts are false.
Once you acknowledge Allah they will say that you are rightly guided. No need to apply brains then.
You cannot decide what is good or bad your own for this is the reason for God does existence divides everything to be permissible and unpermissable
As a society, We will still have laws that govern the countries to enforce good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. So in that context, Certain things will still be allowed or not allowed.
Now under the morality, Since many people will religious affiliations attribute their morality to their religion, We can still have moral boundaries from a secular point of view. One example can be on the topic of abortion. Now many people who don't believe in a god/s will believe that abortion is either good or bad. Whatever side they're on, They don't use God as an example. Some would argue that abortion should be permitted in certain circumstances and others would say that it should be outright banned.
Another example could be stealing. I assume that the majority would agree that stealing should not be condoned. Even without the divine judgement telling us what to do, Society would still condemn stealing since it's taking ownership of an item that is not belonged to the thief.
My point is that even without God, Society will still have things in place that will either be permitted or condemned, Because otherwise, The world will become chaotic.
Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found out that God does not exist and no Heaven or Hell after you die, Would you still be motivated to behave morally? On a personal level, I would. Then again, Easier said than done. Dostoevsky's claim has two possible interpretations: first it can mean that without God there is no motivation to be ethical. Unless we had divine judgment or approbation to motivate us, We would not care about being ethical because we would not face ultimate justice. If God is needed for ethical motivation, That claim appears to be false, For some people; many atheists believe it's important to be ethical, And theists have motivations beyond divine punishment or approval. The second possible meaning is God is the source of our ethical obligation. Without God, There are no ethical obligations. This claim also appears false on the surface; the most prominent modern ethical theories: utilitarianism and Kantian ethics assert we must be ethical without an explicit appeal to God. Is happiness and reason enough to compel us? Both utilitarian and Kantian ethics look elsewhere for the origin of ought. Can we get a moral law without a lawgiver?
I hope this was someone just trying to see what people would say and not someone who actually thinks this.
Being a good person shouldn't depend on you being watched over by some omnipotent being. You should do the right thing even when no one is watching. If you are only a good person because of threats of everlasting pain, Then you need to do some reflection. Maybe take up a hobby like whittling and lose the anger you have bottled up.
Permissible's definition is that it is allowable or permitted by society. Society's laws still function without a God. Groups of people can get together and agree on any set of laws they want and anything that violates those laws will not be permissible. To say yes to this resolution is to fail to understand the definition of Permissible.
THERE WERE RULES ABOUT NOT DOING stuff before Chritianity or judiasm even before zoroastrianism the birth place of the monotheistic idea. Man made gods and he created morality, We invented the idea that there is a god, We have no idea if god exists or not no ida, There fore all law all morality evolved from man kind humankind whatever, We invented the idea of god and if we destroy him, Or her and which god are you even talking about, With out any god there will still be rules and morality morality pre dates religion
Countries of all religions and ones with no religion still have rules. These are rules determined and written by mankind and not by their god. Fact is, The religious scriptures themselves were written by mankind. Religions claim that the people that wrote the scriptures were only doing so under the guidance of their god but lets look at the laws their god has dictated to them. Laws that justify the death sentence for a child striking or cursing their parent. Laws that justify slavery. A god that justifies genocide. A god that places worship in him as top priority to all rules. Either this god is self centered to the extreme or the people who wrote the scriptures wanted to assure their power and influence by proclaiming their authority as god's word.
The real funny thing is, According to the Bible, There is one document that was actually written in god's own hand. The ten commandments. It was written in stone so it would not rot or fade, It was placed in a protective cover (ark) weatherized with gold so that wind nor rain could erode it. Moving it without god's permission means certain death (Uzzah) so it could not be stolen by non-believers. This means that it must still exist and that some people within the Judaeo-Christian faith know of it's whereabouts. By all means let us see it so that it can be checked for authenticity. Being written in god's own hand would mean that no method of man could have inscribed it so would not have things like chisels or other man made markings. Thing is, Even attempting to touch it should mean instant death for non-believers yet I am willing to go first. If I live through it then that should be proof enough that it is a fake like that silly shroud.
The primary prerequisite for morality is empathy. The ability to know what you would not like to have done to yourself, Realising that other people probably wouldn't want these things done either and acting accordingly. This is the golden rule, And it exists across thousands of cultures and religions, Suggesting it transcends religion. Empathy guides your intuition of what is right and what is wrong, Empathy isn't God ordained.
Besides, Which God do we use as our overlord in the moral sphere? Is Allah the dictator of morality? Is it Yahweh? How about Zeus? And Thor?
In order to pick which one you think should be the arbiter of morality you must make reference to your own internal intuition of what is right and what is wrong and pick the God that most suits your moral framework. Basically, How do you conclude that a God is moral? By appealing to your own sense of empathy. If God did not exist, You'd just be cutting out the middleman.
To put it clearly, We decide what is permissible and attribute these opinions to a God. God is not the source of morality, She is just the middleman.
Everything is permissible ethically and morally, For we view or morale's to be based upon our views upon God. But then we must realize, We as a diverse society do not govern ourselves purely upon the "lord's" judgements but as the opinions of our fellow human beings. We built ourselves as a siciet based on what we view as "good" or "bad", Which, Sure is driven by God, But does play a part in our humane beings upon our judgement as a human.
From the definition above we know that isn't the case when we talk about societal law, The non-existence of God, In this case, Would change very little (murder would still be an illegal offence). What we do know is however that the existence of God makes certain things less permissible depending on your God (sex before marriage) and such this we know as religious law. So in this scenario, A great wealth of things would become permissible given that god no longer exists. However, You would still be expected to confide to societal law in any case.