Can God be moral?

[firedragon]

I will mainly focus on my view of morality and why I think that it offers a better explanation than objective morality. Regardless of whether you support one view or the other, I think we can both agree that moral conflicts between humans exist, like "is it morally wrong to murder?" some think it is, while other don't, for whatever reason.

Conflicts exist. That will never ever mean an objective morality doesnt exist.

The problem occurs since both religions claim a different God to be the author of objective morality, which means that both of them can't be correct.

How would you deem that since two different people believe in two different deities, both don't exist?

 

[Nimos]

Conflicts exist. That will never ever mean an objective morality doesnt exist.

That is true, I simply state that to me, this is best explained by subjective morality. Again if you disagree and think that objective morality explains it better, I would be interesting in hearing it, but you don't really seem to offer any counter arguments, whenever I ask you for them. Rather you try to cast doubt on my position, which doesn't do anything for justifying your own views.

How would you deem that since two different people believe in two different deities, both don't exist?

Well, they could both exist, but only one of them be the author of objective morality and the other would have to submit to them as well. If both of them throw in what they believe to be morally right, then it would basically be subjective morality as its based on their opinion. Or they would need to have an extremely weird setup, where they agreed to split them between them, but I don't really think there is any reason to go there as a valid explanation.

But also, if these two groups claim different things, clearly both of them can't be correct, if some of these rules conflict with each other. One saying "Killing is wrong" the other "Killing is fine" even if there are two Gods, or no Gods, these statements are in conflict and therefore both of them can't be logically correct at the same time.

 

[firedragon]

That is true, I simply state that to me, this is best explained by subjective morality. Again if you disagree and think that objective morality explains it better, I would be interesting in hearing it, but you don't really seem to offer any counter arguments, whenever I ask you for them. Rather you try to cast doubt on my position, which doesn't do anything for justifying your own views.

Nimos. Thats because I am not here to prove objective morality, God, etc exist. The thread is making a methodological foundation of "God exists". If God exists, objective morality exists. Asking if its moral, is an issue of what you think is a moral conflict between God and yourself where you may think you are superior in morality than God.

Anyway, by questioning your evidences or proofs I am trying to show you that what ever concept of subjective morality you bring it fails. They are not logically coherent. This is since you asked.

But also, if these two groups claim different things, clearly both of them can't be correct

You are absolutely right. I cannot logically defy what you say there. What I do say is that, that doesnt mean anything. Two people or groups disagreeing what morality means does not mean a thing. It just means they disagree.

If you have an idea of moral fact or moral truths, then you should give evidence to them. Two other set of people disagreeing is not proof of your morality or that god doesnt have morality. Neither does it prove objective morality is nonexistent.

I hope you understand.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So basically I would obviously have to die as well, so you could argue, that I should probably support you in not getting rid of the rapists, murderers etc. as the atheists are ending up the same place as they are. But if God can make a place where there is no death, pain, crying etc. he would obviously have to make it impossible to rape and murder right

Not in a world where we have choice. This world is a test of who will trust him. If there's no other options, it's not a choice.

 

[Nimos]

Nimos. Thats because I am not here to prove objective morality, God, etc exist. The thread is making a methodological foundation of "God exists". If God exists, objective morality exists. Asking if its moral, is an issue of what you think is a moral conflict between God and yourself where you may think you are superior in morality than God.

Anyway, by questioning your evidences or proofs I am trying to show you that what ever concept of subjective morality you bring it fails. They are not logically coherent. This is since you asked.

Lets for the sake of argument say that God exists, that wouldn't mean that objective morality natural follows, in fact a lot of Christians for instance, will argue that the law doesn't apply anymore, or that it only apply to the Jews. Which means that God doesn't objectively think that these laws applies to everyone, some to the Jews and some for everyone else. Which would mean that God, changes these based on what he think is best for a given group of people, which in theory would make him supporting a subjective moral system, otherwise you would expect the same rules to apply to everyone.

So you would still have to demonstrate that God is in support of objective morality and how that best explains what we see in the world, even if I give you God for free.

But you haven't presented any argument against what I wrote, you simply concluded that it was wrong, which in itself is fine, but completely useless when having a chat about it.

 

[firedragon]

Lets for the sake of argument say that God exists, that wouldn't mean that objective morality natural follows, in fact a lot of Christians for instance, will argue that the law doesn't apply anymore, or that it only apply to the Jews. Which means that God doesn't objectively think that these laws applies to everyone, some to the Jews and some for everyone else. Which would mean that God, changes these based on what he think is best for a given group of people, which in theory would make him supporting a subjective moral system, otherwise you would expect the same rules to apply to everyone.

So you would still have to demonstrate that God is in support of objective morality and how that best explains what we see in the world, even if I give you God for free.

But you haven't presented any argument against what I wrote, you simply concluded that it was wrong, which in itself is fine, but completely useless when having a chat about it.

Im sorry Nimos. I dont mean to not answer you. I cannot remember which post you are speaking of.

Anyway, please let me show you that you have a fundamental flaw in your analogy about Christians and Jews above.

Its not that I agree with the Christians. Of course you know that. But in response to your statement about the Torah being negated by Christians as their yardstick since Paul, and saying that it applies only for the Jews, though I disagree with you on that lets say you are absolutely correct. Yet, an objective morality does not negate itself due to that. Lets say the Christians think that two sets of people have two different laws, still Gods law remains the same. Either the Jews or the Christians have misunderstood their position. One of them have misunderstood God (no disrespect intended). With that I am not intending to engage in a theological debate.

Gods law stands, and it applies to everyone. That is at a fundamental level. But I as a Jew or a Christian can defy it. That is my doing, not that Gods morality has two different injunctions.

 

[Nimos]

Not in a world where we have choice. This world is a test of who will trust him. If there's no other options, it's not a choice.

I pointed out the issue of free will to someone else in this thread as well, can't remember who. But I will use the same argument here, if you asked all the people in the world and if possible all the ones that are now dead, how many of them have murdered and raped someone, I think you will find that the vast majority haven't done any of these things, yet do you think that they feel like they have/had no free will, compared to those that did? Because if free will is so important, clearly rapists and murderers are the one benefitting from this, because they are the ones experiencing what true free will is. I have never killed, raped or molested a child yet, I don't get the impression that im more restricted than they are.

So would you say that raping, murdering and molesting children is a requirement for free will? Because in that case, as I said, they are the only ones with true free will, because to me these things are not options, regardless of whether im free to do them or not.

 

[Nimos]

Im sorry Nimos. I dont mean to not answer you. I cannot remember which post you are speaking of.

That's fine, I miss stuff as well and forget things, so no problem.

Where im starting from is what you wrote here:
Discussing objective morality and an ontological argument has to be by default done independent of a specific religious text. It should be purely a philosophical discussion. I think I already told you this. Thats the ground up approach. The reason is because the morality of a necessary being stemming from the ontological argument has no baggage and is purely philosophical. If you go from the Biblical point of view and then question the ontology of the being, it is a retracting approach which means you are gonna carry all the baggage into the discussion.

If you wish to take scripture, it should be done after establishing the validity of objective morality. It will never ever work otherwise, and never has.

I already told you this.

To which I answered:
Ok, lets give that a try then, how would you establish the validity of objective morality?

I think this is an interesting topic and therefore asked you how you would do it, obviously because I support the opposite view, and you said that it should be done without using scriptures, which only makes it more interesting in my opinion, because as I told you earlier, a lot of atheists have issues with this as well.

Its not that I agree with the Christians. Of course you know that. But in response to your statement about the Torah being negated by Christians as their yardstick since Paul, and saying that it applies only for the Jews, though I disagree with you on that lets say you are absolutely correct.

Just to be a 100% clear, because you seem to read things into some of the things I say, that is not correct. And the reason I point it out, is because, I actually agree with you here, I don't think Paul is correct when he argue that they shouldn't follow the law, I have my reasons for that, which is not important. But can also see why the Christians can make a case for it.
But you read, what I wrote as if it was my believe. But if you read it again... "in fact a lot of Christians for instance, will argue that the law doesn't apply anymore, or that it only apply to the Jews." I didn't say that I agreed with it, simply that some Christians (probably all) will make one of these two arguments. So it's fair that you disagree with them, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe it, if you know what I mean?
You and me, can take that chat, probably wouldn't be all that interesting since we agree but it's completely irrelevant whether you or I believe they are correct about this or not.

Im sorry to take so much time on this, but its simply to avoid confusion later on and having to spend a lot of time clarifying things and trying to explain what is and isn't my personal view. If I write "I think", "in my opinion" etc. then that is a personal view.

Yet, an objective morality does not negate itself due to that. Lets say the Christians think that two sets of people have two different laws, still Gods law remains the same. Either the Jews or the Christians have misunderstood their position. One of them have misunderstood God (no disrespect intended). With that I am not intending to engage in a theological debate.

This is where I disagree with you, because none of them can demonstrate that this is actually what God want, they interpret the scriptures differently and draw subjective conclusions of what they think is correct and then they throw objectivity on it. Similar to for instance saying that Jesus is the Messiah and son of God, and the other saying that he is not. People have argued for centuries about this and yet we are not any closer to figuring it out, we have the scriptures and people interpret them completely differently.

I have my own opinion about what I think, you have your opinion, the Christians have theirs and the Jews theirs. And even within the same religion you find different opinion, like we talked about with how to interpret the word "innocent" earlier.

I don't claim to have the authority to say who is and who isn't correct. All I can conclude from this, is that apparently no one has and that we simply don't have enough information about God to figure out who is correct. Obviously everyone can't be right, either Jesus is the Messiah and the son of God or he isn't. Each group obviously claim that they are correct and the others are wrong. It naturally follows from a contradiction.
We can't simply assuming that one religion is more correct than the others, we have to demonstrate it. And since I personally don't think that is going to happen, given that people have tried for such a long time. So for me, I think it is fair to draw the conclusion, that each of these group believes that they are correct from their own perspective, but given that they can't demonstrate that they are right, it is also impossible for them to demonstrate that these objective morals that they claim exist from their particular God, in fact are correct, even if they ultimately aim to believe in the same God.
Because none of them are going to give, the Christians won't accept Muhammad, just as the Jews won't accept the NT.

Therefore each religion, would have to demonstrate that objective morality comes from their "version" of God. That as I see it is simply the first problem. Next as I mentioned in the last post, even if we say that Islam got the right one, you still have to demonstrate that God actually support objective morality to begin with. Because as I said earlier is that people strongly disagree with what is morally right and wrong. Even though we can also find a lot of similarities. But I already think I explained this in the last post about why I think subjective morality offers the best explanation through natural causes, so wont echo it here again.

Gods law stands, and it applies to everyone. That is at a fundamental level.

That is simply a statement, not a reasonable argument for why anyone ought to believe it. So it has not meaning. You wouldn't accept it, if I said "God doesn't exist, so everything you believe is wrong" you ought to demand a demonstration if I made such statement, and if can't then why should you believe me?

 

[firedragon]

That's fine, I miss stuff as well and forget things, so no problem.

Where im starting from is what you wrote here:
Discussing objective morality and an ontological argument has to be by default done independent of a specific religious text. It should be purely a philosophical discussion. I think I already told you this. Thats the ground up approach. The reason is because the morality of a necessary being stemming from the ontological argument has no baggage and is purely philosophical. If you go from the Biblical point of view and then question the ontology of the being, it is a retracting approach which means you are gonna carry all the baggage into the discussion.

If you wish to take scripture, it should be done after establishing the validity of objective morality. It will never ever work otherwise, and never has.

I already told you this.


To which I answered:
Ok, lets give that a try then, how would you establish the validity of objective morality?

I think this is an interesting topic and therefore asked you how you would do it, obviously because I support the opposite view, and you said that it should be done without using scriptures, which only makes it more interesting in my opinion, because as I told you earlier, a lot of atheists have issues with this as well.

Nimos. In my worldview, no other option works or has a logical grounding. Thats what I have been trying to show you that it is only logical to eliminate all other models of moral concepts.

Just to be a 100% clear, because you seem to read things into some of the things I say, that is not correct. And the reason I point it out, is because, I actually agree with you here, I don't think Paul is correct when he argue that they shouldn't follow the law, I have my reasons for that, which is not important. But can also see why the Christians can make a case for it.
But you read, what I wrote as if it was my believe. But if you read it again... "in fact a lot of Christians for instance, will argue that the law doesn't apply anymore, or that it only apply to the Jews." I didn't say that I agreed with it, simply that some Christians (probably all) will make one of these two arguments. So it's fair that you disagree with them, but it doesn't change the fact that they believe, if you know what I mean? You and me, can take that chat, probably wouldn't be all that interesting since we agree but it's completely irrelevant whether you or I believe if they are correct about this or not.

Im sorry to take so much time on this, but its simply to avoid confusion later on and having to spend a lot of time clarifying things and trying to explain what is and isn't my personal view. If I write "I think", "in my opinion" etc. then that is a personal view.

No no. I didnt mean to say you agreed with this dump the law philosophy of Paul. Thats not what I meant. Maybe I was not clear. See, even if Christians have their own justifications, and they are absolutely wrong, it is not the injunction of God to give two different moral absolutes to two different sets of people. It was the people who did that distinction.

So Gods moral injunctions are absolute. People make their own quarrels for their own reasons. That does not negate objective morality.

This is where I disagree with you, because none of them can demonstrate that this is actually what God want,

No problem. Even if everyone in the whole world cannot demonstrate what God wants. Even if every single person in the whole world is absolutely wrong or doesnt have a clue, Gods morals are still absolute. That does not negate objective morality.

See. Let me give you an example. Do you believe evolution is a fact? Even if you dont, take a methodological credulity for the sake of argument.

Now lets say Darwinian evolution is one of the mechanisms, and there are four other mechanisms others have put forward. They all argue their own mechanism is right. Darwins mechanism is the most accepted, but there are many who oppose Darwins mechanism so there are different schools of thought. Lets say 5 different schools of thought exist. And lets even go further by saying all four of the other mechanisms have proven darwinian theory false.

THIS CANNOT AND DOES NOT MAKE EVOLUTION FALSE. IT IS STILL A FACT.

That is simply a statement, not a reasonable argument for why anyone ought to believe it.

I never tried to proselytise Nimos.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It is often stated by religious people that objective morality comes from God (Biblical), but is it really possible for him to be moral under his own rules?

Simply using the Bible as example, but as far as I know it is the same for Islam in this case.

Im going to use this text as basis for this (If they are wrong, let me know and explain why they are):

The Ten Commandments

Moses received the Ten Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai, written on two stone tablets. They assert the uniqueness of God, and forbid such things as theft, adultery, murder and lying. The Ten Commandments are equally important in Jewish and Christian traditions and appear in the Old Testament in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

Various Christian and Jewish traditions have different wordings for the Ten Commandments. They can be numbered differently. They appear in various forms in the Bible. This is a Christian version:

• I am the Lord thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day
• Honour thy father and thy mother
• Thou shalt not kill
• Thou shalt not commit adultery
• Thou shalt not steal
• Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
• Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods

The Qur'an does not list the Ten Commandments explicitly, but their substance appears in various places.

God is often referred to as being all good, all knowing etc. and obviously also the author of morality, more specifically objective morality.

Often there is some misunderstandings regarding what is meant by objective morality, so to quickly explain it, it simply means that morality apply regardless of humans being here or not. So when God say that killing is morally wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether not we we were here. Said in another way, in this context it means that God decides what is right and wrong.

My question or issue is whether a person or God in this case can be said to be moral consistent, unless they themself can uphold their own moral rules.

If I tell you that it is morally wrong to steal and I punish you for doing so, but then decide to steal something myself, would you consider me to be morally justified since I made the rule?

Same can be asked about God, "Thou shalt not kill" yet we know that God kills and orders the killing of many people in favour of the Jews. So does God's objective moralities applies to him as well, as they do to me in the above example or not?

Despite him being the creator of everything, objective morality is rules decided by God to be true and therefore arguably part of his nature. But is it possible for someone, God or human to be moral, if they can't uphold their own moral standards?

I want you to take into consideration that, simply because you create or is seen as the caretaker of something, does that mean that you are not morally responsible for said creation? By caretaker I mean, let's imagine you own a dog and it have puppies, and you are morally against killing puppies, are you then not morally obligated to treat all puppies according to your own moral rules, if you want to stay morally coherent, under the concept of objective morality?

If not, God must obviously follow subjective moral ideas and therefore objective morality is likely to be an illusion applied to us by God as if they were, and therefore seen more as divine laws, which God himself apparently doesn't seem a need to uphold himself. Wouldn't that make God immoral, under the general human understanding of morality?

Because I would argue, that a person can't be morally consistent, if they can't uphold their own moral standards. For instant most people will agree that under most circumstances stealing is wrong, yet most people have probably stolen something at some point that they weren't legally entitled to. (Doesn't have to be anything major) But still this would be considered morally inconsistent in my opinion, if we claim that stealing is objectively wrong.

So can God be moral? And if so why?

I think God *could* be moral but that we as humans haven't evolved enough yet in our understandings to grasp him. I actually think the one thing in particular holding us back in this evolution is following the Bible too closely, perhaps beyond what the original authors might have intended.

So if there is a God, it could be moral. But either we have to go with the Abrahamic God, who you've tried to show isn't, or we have to reshape our understanding - and for some of us, it could very well take an awakening, an epiphany that hasn't happened, or many generations, to do so.

In my personal opinion.

 

[Nimos]

Nimos. In my worldview, no other option works or has a logical grounding. Thats what I have been trying to show you that it is only logical to eliminate all other models of moral concepts.

But this is flawed reasoning, you must be aware of that?

If I said to you "subjective morality is the only solution and I don't care what you or anyone else say or do!!" wouldn't you be correct in saying that "I am not interesting in the truth or even attempting to figuring it out and therefore it would be pointless to even talk to me"? Because no matter what evidence, proves, ideas or thought you throw at me, I will just throw them off as being wrong, doesn't matter what they are.

To me and don't misunderstand it as a personal attack, but to me that is to go intellectual bankrupt to such an extreme that one doesn't even need to justify one's own believe to oneself, simply go with whatever one like.

I personally have no issue with you taking such position, I obviously think it is a very weak one and useless. But also I see no reason to keep on discussing morality with you. Because im not convinced that you have actually cared enough about what you believe that you can actually defend why you believe it.

Again, I don't mean any disrespect, but I would expect you to react exactly the same way towards me, if I said something like that to you. Its completely pointless of us sharing views on this. First all because I don't represent all views, so thinking that if you just eliminate all others then your must be right, that is a fallacy. You still have to demonstrate your own position, because you don't know if all known options have been discovered.

So Gods moral injunctions are absolute. People make their own quarrels for their own reasons. That does not negate objective morality.

No, but as I pointed out, it doesn't demonstrate them, you have to make a case for why your view better explain what we see in the world or you have no alternative. Because I can easily accept that my view on morality might be wrong, I think its correct, but should you prove me wrong, I wouldn't jump to objective morality as if that was then correct, because you still haven't given me any reasons for why it explain things better.

See. Let me give you an example. Do you believe evolution is a fact? Even if you dont, take a methodological credulity for the sake of argument.

Yes, I believe that evolution is the best explanation of how life evolved here on Earth that we currently have, but im open for other theories if they can provide good evidence.

To be 100% clear and to avoid confusion, this is what I mean by fact:
A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. ... In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

I also believe that evolution is a scientific theory which means that we can explain why it is a fact.

Now lets say Darwinian evolution is one of the mechanisms, and there are four other mechanisms others have put forward. They all argue their own mechanism is right. Darwins mechanism is the most accepted, but there are many who oppose Darwins mechanism so there are different schools of thought. Lets say 5 different schools of thought exist. And lets even go further by saying all four of the other mechanisms have proven darwinian theory false.

THIS CANNOT AND DOES NOT MAKE EVOLUTION FALSE. IT IS STILL A FACT.

I agree, in fact I do believe I have heard that Darwin was proven wrong about some of the things he said, when we learned about DNA (might be wrong), given that he didn't have all the technology that we have now. But we have fine tuned and made it more precise by keep testing and confirming it and by discovering new stuff about it. So I have no issue with what you say.

And again, if people have a better explanation, they can put it forward and demonstrate it and will be tested over and over again, and if its better excellent, we improved our knowledge. But it just haven't happened yet, because evolution seem to explain things just fine.

 

[firedragon]

But this is flawed reasoning, you must be aware of that?

If I said to you "subjective morality is the only solution and I don't care what you or anyone else say or do!!" wouldn't you be correct in saying that "I am not interesting in the truth or even attempting to figuring it out and therefore it would be pointless to even talk to me"? Because no matter what evidence, proves, ideas or thought you throw at me, I will just throw them off as being wrong, doesn't matter what they are.

To me and don't misunderstand it as a personal attack, but to me that is to go intellectual bankrupt to such an extreme that one doesn't even need to justify one's own believe to oneself, simply go with whatever one like.

I personally have no issue with you taking such position, I obviously think it is a very weak one and useless. But also I see no reason to keep on discussing morality with you. Because im not convinced that you have actually cared enough about what you believe that you can actually defend why you believe it.

Again, I don't mean any disrespect, but I would expect you to react exactly the same way towards me, if I said something like that to you. Its completely pointless of us sharing views on this. First all because I don't represent all views, so thinking that if you just eliminate all others then your must be right, that is a fallacy. You still have to demonstrate your own position, because you don't know if all known options have been discovered.

I dont think you understand this at all.

But this is flawed reasoning, you must be aware of that?

If I said to you "subjective morality is the only solution and I don't care what you or anyone else say or do!!" wouldn't you be correct in saying that "I am not interesting in the truth or even attempting to figuring it out and therefore it would be pointless to even talk to me"? Because no matter what evidence, proves, ideas or thought you throw at me, I will just throw them off as being wrong, doesn't matter what they are.

To me and don't misunderstand it as a personal attack, but to me that is to go intellectual bankrupt to such an extreme that one doesn't even need to justify one's own believe to oneself, simply go with whatever one like.

I personally have no issue with you taking such position, I obviously think it is a very weak one and useless. But also I see no reason to keep on discussing morality with you. Because im not convinced that you have actually cared enough about what you believe that you can actually defend why you believe it.

Again, I don't mean any disrespect, but I would expect you to react exactly the same way towards me, if I said something like that to you. Its completely pointless of us sharing views on this. First all because I don't represent all views, so thinking that if you just eliminate all others then your must be right, that is a fallacy. You still have to demonstrate your own position, because you don't know if all known options have been discovered.


No, but as I pointed out, it doesn't demonstrate them, you have to make a case for why your view better explain what we see in the world or you have alternative. Because I can easily accept that my view on morality might be wrong, I think its correct, but should you prove me wrong, I wouldn't jump to objective morality as if that was then correct, because you still haven't given me any reasons for why it explain things better.


Yes, I believe that evolution is the best explanation of how life evolved here on Earth that we currently have, but im open for other theories if they can provide good evidence.

To be 100% clear and to avoid confusion, this is what I mean by fact:
A scientific fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence. ... In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

I also believe that evolution is a scientific theory which means that we can explain why it is a fact.


I agree, in fact I do believe I have heard that Darwin was proven wrong about some of the things he said, when we learned about DNA (might be wrong), given that he didn't have all the technology that we have now. But we have fine tuned and made it more precise by keep testing and confirming it and by discovering new stuff about it. So I have no issue with what you say.

And again, if people have a better explanation, they can put it forward and demonstrate it and will be tested over and over again, and if its better excellent, we improved our knowledge. But it just haven't happened yet, because evolution seem to explain things just fine.

Thus, I shall withdraw from the conversation.

Peace.

 

[Nimos]

So if there is a God, it could be moral. But either we have to go with the Abrahamic God, who you've tried to show isn't, or we have to reshape our understanding - and for some of us, it could very well take an awakening, an epiphany that hasn't happened, or many generations, to do so.

Just to clarify, I cast doubt on the arguments that people put forward as explanations for God, I don't try to disprove him, I don't think that is possible And it is not my position either "that there is no God", simply that "I'm not convinced that there is one."

You could be right, I would however personally wonder, why God would be waiting, while we run around here like headless chickens suffering, killing each other, having absolutely no clue what we are doing here. And him just sitting and watching, I personally find that strange. Especially looking at all the people that came before us, that lived and died to never get an answer to this, obviously they might have in an afterlife, but nonetheless doesn't help us a lot, it doesn't strike me as a logically explanation, that a God shows so little interest and apparently seem much more interested in playing hide and seek with us.

 

[Nimos]

I dont think you understand this at all.



Thus, I shall withdraw from the conversation.

Peace.

Its fair, no problem, peace to you as well

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem occurs since both religions claim a different God to be the author of objective morality, which means that both of them can't be correct. In fact, if one religion is true could mean that the people of the other religion would be kill for breaking certain rules set by this God.

That is why we need one religion, not many religions. I would think that any logical person would understand the problems caused by having many religions, all of which disagree with each other. The world would be much better off if there was only one religion that everyone adhered to, but that probably won't happen for a long tine since people cling to the religion they were brought up with or the one they chose later. As a Baha'i I believe that eventually there will be only one religion because that is what God has ordained, and what God ordains has to pass eventually, in due time.

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

 

[Nimos]

That is why we need one religion, not many religions. I would think that any logical person would understand the problems caused by having many religions, all of which disagree with each other. The world would be much better off if there was only one religion that everyone adhered to, but that probably won't happen for a long tine since people cling to the religion they were brought up with or the one they chose later.

I completely agree, it might not be the smoking gun for God, but it would be a very hot one in my opinion

If there was only one religion that would be quite impressive to be honest, as I don't think we would expect to see that

 

[Trailblazer]

I completely agree, it might not be the smoking gun for God, but it would be a very hot one in my opinion

If there was only one religion that would be quite impressive to be honest, as I don't think we would expect to see that

I am glad you agree because I respect your opinion since I consider you to be very intelligent and a deep thinker.
I do believe that eventually there will be only one religion but we will not see it within our lifetimes.

Maybe it is because I have been a Baha'i all of my adult life that I think this way but it just makes sense to me that humanity would be better off with one religion that everyone could agree upon. Below is an excerpt from an interview of Baha’u’llah which took place in the vicinity of Haifa, Israel in April, 1890. The interviewer was a distinguished orientalist and Fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge, then at the outset of his brilliant academic career. Notice that Baha'u'llah said "We desire." He was referring to Himself and God becaue His desires were God's desires.

“We desire but the good of the world and the happiness of the nations; yet they deem Us a stirrer up of strife and sedition worthy of bondage and banishment…. That all nations should become one in faith and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and differences of race be annulled—what harm is there in this?… Yet so it shall be; these fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come…. Yet do We see your kings and rulers lavishing their treasures more freely on means for the destruction of the human race than on that which would conduce to the happiness of mankind…. These strifes and this bloodshed and discord must cease, and all men be as one kindred and one family…. Let not a man glory in this, that he loves his country; let him rather glory in this, that he loves his kind….” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. ix

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That is why we need one religion, not many religions. I would think that any logical person would understand the problems caused by having many religions, all of which disagree with each other. The world would be much better off if there was only one religion that everyone adhered to, but that probably won't happen for a long tine since people cling to the religion they were brought up with or the one they chose later. As a Baha'i I believe that eventually there will be only one religion because that is what God has ordained, and what God ordains has to pass eventually, in due time.

It's honestly pretty confusing to me. If God meant for one religion, it would then mean Krishna etc weren't manifestations of God. But don't some Baha'is believe he is?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's honestly pretty confusing to me. If God meant for one religion, it would then mean Krishna etc weren't manifestations of God. But don't some Baha'is believe he is?

It would not mean that. All the Manifestations of God and their missions on earth will always be valid, but they are in the past and those days are over. If we had one religion, all of humanity would come together and be united, all working towards the same goals.

 

[Nimos]

I am glad you agree because I respect your opinion since I consider you to be very intelligent and a deep thinker.

Thanks for that I do the best I can, that must be enough

It's always interesting hearing your views from the Bahai perspective, because as you know, I actually agree with a lot of the thoughts and goals that it promotes. Obviously as you know I take the humanistic view, which basically share a lot of the same ideas, but logically without a God as the driving force

Despite my limited knowledge of the Bahai faith and deep workings, at least to me it seems to have some noble goals.

I do believe that eventually there will be only one religion but we will not see it within our lifetimes.

Im probably leaning towards disagreeing with you on this one, because it doesn't seem to me, that religions are especially interested in this, but rather they care more about accepting each others views. Which is good. But for it to happen, I think we would need divine intervention. My guess is, that we will see a change towards more people simply referring to themselves as believers of some kind, whether that is in a creator of some sort, an afterlife, might be a God or simply that there is more to the Universe than meets the eye. So quite undefinable in that sense, but much more of a personal meaning with life or existences or what you want to call it.

Maybe it is because I have been a Baha'i all of my adult life that I think this way but it just makes sense to me that humanity would be better off with one religion that everyone could agree upon.

As you can probably guess, I don't really care if the world as such is better off or not in that sense, but rather if it's true or not. For me personally, and I probably told you this already in one of our countless chats, is that I aim towards believing as many true things as possible and try to be as honest towards the evidence as possible, and just see where it leads. Obviously a lot of mistakes is bound to happen, but those will have to be corrected along the way.

A completely different thing, which was a video I saw yesterday by another atheist, which in my opinion have some very good and sound arguments for his positions, while being very respectful at the same time. But when I saw it, as I didn't knew what it was about, I instantly thought about you, because it is something that I know you are struggling with a lot. But the video is about what he regards as the biggest problem facing Christianity, its not really aimed at Christianity, its more used as an example and aimed at religions claiming that God is all good and the issue with animal suffering.

So I thought you would find that interesting, so here it is if you want to see it.