Am I More Moral Than God?

[DeadVegas]

Since I am an atheist, the following comments are hypothetical.

This morning I rescued a creepy-crawley bug (It had way to many legs to be classified as an insect) on the carpet of my apartment. Instead of killing it, I managed to get it to crawl onto a paper towel and released it out on my balcony. I cared enough about that bug to save its life. Did God care about it at all? I doubt it. Does God care about any of the creatures he allegedly created? I doubt it.

Many people consider atheists to be immoral people. I know that isn't true.

My question is: Am I more moral than God?

I fail to see how you saved it in the first place. All you did was not kill it. Also, I see no evidence as to how God didn't care.

 

[retrorich]

I fail to see how you saved it in the first place. All you did was not kill it. Also, I see no evidence as to how God didn't care.

Well, if it had remained on my apartment carpet, it would very likely have been stepped on. It was in a high-traffic area. And I see no evidence that God did care. Of course, as I stated in my opening post, the whole discussion is hypothetical to me.

 

[Orleander]

Have you ever asked anyone to sacrifice their child? Have you ever wiped out the planet in a flood? Have you ever expected your children to procreate through incest?
I think you are definately more moral than God.

 

[SoyLeche]

I think we need to get a definition of "moral"

 

[SoyLeche]

To help me understand, please answer the following quetion.

There is a mosquito that you know has an especially deadly version of West Nile Virus. You also know that this mosquito will transmit this virus to 5 people during the remaining course of its life, and each of these 5 people will die with 100% certainty. Which is the more "moral" choice?

1: Allow the mosquito to live because you value all life and refuse to kill anything.

2: Squish the mosquito, knowing full well that you just extened the lives of 5 people by doing so.

 

[Aqualung]

I think we need to get a definition of "moral"

Indeed we do. People are trying to define "moral" as what people in this day and age deem acceptable and not acceptable. If you define it thusly, of course God isn't going to be "moral" because he's working from a completely different frame of reference. Your definitions of moral seem to be very one-sighted and short-termed, and God doesn't work from that frame-of-reference, either.

 

[Mister Emu]

I posed a definition(dictionary), or 3, of moral in post #9, they have yet to be challenged... so it could be safe to conclude that they are accepted... maybe not though...

 

[Aqualung]

Did God agree to them?

 

[Mister Emu]

Did God agree to them?

I don't know, I didn't ask...

I do however, beleive they are reasonable, and that the Lord would not object...

 

[Aqualung]

Well, now comes the question, what is "goodness" and who gets to decided the relative goodness of an action?

 

[SoyLeche]

Thanks. I'll admint - I didn't read the whole thread.

Second question: Is there a standard that we can measure morality against? What is it? If not, whether or not one thing is more "moral" than another is imposible to determine.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, now comes the question, what is "goodness" and who gets to decided the relative goodness of an action?

Well me, being a universal moral absolutist, I believe that there is an objective absolute moral guideline for everyone... I would define goodness as "closeness to the desires of God" and the measurer, of course, would be the Lord Himself

 

[Aqualung]

Well me, being a universal moral absolutist, I believe that there is an objective absolute moral guideline for everyone... I would define goodness as "closeness to the desires of God" and the measurer, of course, would be the Lord Himself

Well, then, that kind of ends the discussion. Nobody can be more moral than God, since God is the ultimate example of goodness, and therefore the ultimate example of morality. What does the OP have to say about the "standardisation" of morality and goodness for the sake of the argument?

 

[retrorich]

Well, now comes the question, what is "goodness" and who gets to decided the relative goodness of an action?

"Goodness has nothing to do with it." Mae West

 

[Aqualung]

"Goodness has nothing to do with it." Mae West

Well, then Mr. Emu's deffinition of "morality" is moot. Can you come up with a better one, considering that you are the OP? I mean, seriously, how can we decide who is more moral unless you give a deffinition of morality (and it better not have the word "good" in it).

 

[sojourner]

Morality is a human invention. Therefore, we cannot use it as a yardstick for God. Morality involves a human choice to either participate in the life of God, or not. God is God. Therefore, God does not choose to particpate outside of God's self. For God, morality is a moot point.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Morality is a human invention. Therefore, we cannot use it as a yardstick for God. Morality involves a human choice to either participate in the life of God, or not. God is God. Therefore, God does not choose to particpate outside of God's self. For God, morality is a moot point.

Interesting view. My understanding of the NT is that God will judge humanity and reward everyone on the basis of their good and evil works. I cannot imagine how you can define morality as something other than a system of good and evil and then absolve the Judge Godself as having no measurement. As a believer, I assume that God is Gods own judge, perhaps condemning Godself on the Cross in Christ for God's neglect for humanity - perhaps resurrected to a new life for all of us - giving us all complete redemption.

 

[finalfrogo]

atheists refute the existence of a divine power. yet there is not enough evidence either to prove or deny that a divine power exists, so the hard rejection of it is quite stubborn in my opinion

and, the bible

So you're saying people should neither reject nor accept ideas that haven't been neither proven or refuted? I couldn't help but notice that there is an infinity of ideas that matches these conditions, such as an invisible flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove to me that it doesn't exist, but I can't prove to you that it does exist. We shouldn't reject this absurd Idea? :fsm: Hm, I'm hungry.

 

[finalfrogo]

Nature itself is amoral, Rich. So, in one sense, we are all more moral than nature to the extent that we are moral at all. If deity created nature, why wouldn't nature reflect the morals of deity? Or, more precisely, the lack of any morals of deity? Just a thought.

I never thought of that. Brilliant.

 

[finalfrogo]

God made us in his image. So we get to go through the same emotional rollercoaster God does.

How can God be subject to emotions when he created every object and idea in the universe, including the idea of emotion?