Can God be moral?

[Heyo]

Subjective theory in moral psychology.

Do you have a link to that theory? Duckduckgo was of no help.
And before I make myself acquainted with that theory, can it be that the result will be the same, that I find that you have confused objective for absolute?

 

[firedragon]

Do you have a link to that theory? Duckduckgo was of no help.
And before I make myself acquainted with that theory, can it be that the result will be the same, that I find that you have confused objective for absolute?

Of course I will ignore cheap ad hominem so hope you dont mind. If you do mind me ignoring cheap ad hominem, that cannot be helped.

Nevertheless, no, I dont have "links".

Maybe try searching on the internet like you did earlier, for something like "satisfaction theory" which is a "subjective theory". Maybe you will try to understand.

 

[halbhh]

I agree, I wouldn't like to live in such world. But assuming that there is only one explanation for why we don't constantly in massive numbers just randomly murder each other, I think is to jump the fence so to speak.

To me and why we don't randomly kill each other is much better explained using natural explanations than to say that a God commanded it.

The final stand that religious people have and what they basically all use as a defence, is free will. You remove that and everything falls apart. Yet accepting the free will excuse, have huge problems for the being of God, especially because it can be argued that we don't really have free will. But that God find free will so important that he accept that humans murder each other, tells quite a lot about the nature of such God and how he view human lifes.

The excuse religious people have, that this is required for free will is absolutely bullocks, if we asked every single person currently living and that is dead. How many % of them do you think have lived a life without murdering anyone while still having the exact same feeling of free will?

Being able to murder, rape and childmolest is not a requirement for free will. It is evidently so!! Its a poor excuse, that religious people use to explain evil and objective morality. It is simply an illusion.

Furthermore there is enough atheists currently living on Earth that we can conclude, that we do not run around and randomly kill anymore than anyone else, in fact you could argue that religious people have far more reasons and justifications for doing so, because this life is only temporarily and **** compared to what is promised.

So as a question to you, how do you explain that God allows murder, rapes, child molestations etc. if free will is not a valid explanation? How would you explain God's lack of intervention?

"Do not murder" it's an absolute, objective moral Good regardless/independent of God existing.

Why?

Because it has objective outcomes nearly 100% of humans value, in any time period.

_-------
Re The separate topic of "free will": actually, I think we have freedom (that is unpredictability) based on modern physics experiments. Though this isn't yet 100% proven, it's looking very likely in my view. Einstein's idea of hidden local variables is looking likely non physical. (Not real)

 

[halbhh]

How can something based upon a purely subjective concept be absolute?

The outcome is the objective (absolute) aspect.

The rule when followed has an objective outcome.

 

[Nimos]

So since earlier some cultures made human sacrifice including children, are you saying killing a 3 and a half year old baby is not morally wrong since they did it?

Im saying that it depends on who you ask and what their conviction or belief is about what is best for them. If they are convinced that sacrifice children will please their gods and make everything better, or by not sacrificing them will cause great disasters to hit their society. Then it might have been immoral from their perspective to not please their God and do what is best for their society.

We today can look back at what they did with our knowledge, technology and methods and conclude that sacrificing children will not cause rain to fall from the sky, or whatever reason they might have had for doing these things. And therefore it is immoral to do such thing. But if you lived in such society and "knowing" that if you pissed off the Gods it would end very bad for you, then you would see that as the moral right thing to do.

 

[Nimos]

First point, there's no such thing as objective morality. "Good" means beneficial for me and mine and the causes I support; and "bad" means detrimental to those.

Those that support it obviously would disagree, I agree with you that no such thing exist. I do believe that Sam harris is the one that have made the best or at least the most noticeable attempt in support of objective morality. But in my opinion it doesn't really work. But its worth looking at him if you are interested in hearing the other side of the argument.

 

[Nimos]

Yes you did.

In what I wrote, where did I say that it was in the Quran?

But you can of course retract it and make a new position. No problem.

These people call themselves Muslims, I don't have the authority to say that they are not. They believe that the Quran support their views. I didn't even remotely suggested that the Quran actually supports it. Only that they believe it does, if they didn't why on Earth would they call themselves Muslims and follow the Quran?

 

[Nimos]

Of course. Various people will have various ideas. But saying "these people say that, the other people say this" is not a response to what I asked, nor is it an argument.

Sure it is, if they identify themselves as Muslims using the same book as you, who am I to decide whether they have the right to call themselves Muslims, if they believe that they can justify it, which they do.

Which is why I asked you, if you have the authority to decide who is and who isn't a Muslim? What are the rules?

Anyway, so since you speak about atheists and their argument about where morality originates from, can you explain where morality originates from and what is your argument for it?

I support the idea of subjective morality and that it is best explained through a natural explanation. I have no issue going into details with it, but Im still very interested in hearing your argument for objective morality without using scriptures, because it is a topic that interests me, and I know that other atheists struggle with it as well.

And if you are capable of it, not only do you help these atheists, but you also make a case for why God is not required at all, when it comes to morality. Which again, I think would be very interesting to hear.

 

[Nimos]

"Do not murder" it's an absolute, objective moral Good regardless/independent of God existing.

Why?

Because it has objective outcomes nearly 100% of humans value, in any time period.

Yes, but it is not 100% is it? How many dictators etc through time have been murdered or would people not wish were murdered? Hitler? Stalin? or simply people that live under extreme abuse, murder might be the absolute best solution for them. So saying that murder is objectively wrong, I just don't agree with.

 

[Nimos]

So, allowing himself to be killed isn't taking responsibility? And humans didn't have to do what they did. They only had one rule to follow for goodness sake. So, what kind of parent doesn't make any rules? An irresponsible one who will raise irresponsible children. Instead, you want a sugar daddy who doesn't have any rules at all, apparently. Santa Clause in the sky who gives you everything while requiring nothing of you.

No, not at all. Im all for rules, that is part of raising children. And most parents, at least those I know, and myself included were raised with the idea that "you shouldn't hurt animals, but be kind to them", like kicking a cat or pulling its tail etc. Now parents are not the creators of everything with unlimited power.

So God could have said, "Thou shall not rape.. AT ALL!!!", but he didn't, right?

He instead decided that it would be much better, that if a girl is raped and she doesn't yell high enough, that the rapist should marry her. Do you think that is responsible parenting? Because I don't.
(This is not entirely correct, I got it wrong, because I mixed several laws together. So this is just to correct it.)

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 - “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29 - then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

And again, God have all the power and authority to do or tell people exactly how he want them to behave, and that was the best he could come up with? Im sorry, I don't buy your argument.

 

[Nimos]

I wouldn't have worded it that way. When God kills, i assume there must be a reason. Nadab and Abihu seemed abrupt. But God has the power of resurrection, i on the other hand, do not.

Ok, if God have a reason for killing or not prevent it, which might very well be the case, im not saying you are wrong. But if that is the case and God is all good, then we must also assume that the amount of people, that dies is the absolute best number of people there is, one more than this and God would not be all good, because there was no reason that more people had to die. If he saves one, then obviously he didn't make the perfect solution the first time, since he could have prevent one less from getting killed than he did.

So looking, at wars, exterminations, people that die from hunger, diseases etc. God doesn't prevent this, because it is the correct number of people that dies. If that is the case, then it doesn't matter what we do, there is no reason to help each other, because depending on God to be all good and him not allowing unnecessary suffering or death, would mean that it ultimately wouldn't matter what we do, and there is no reason to be upset if this is the best it can ever be. Because as far as I know, its not like people are getting resurrected by God left right and center.

 

[Dave Watchman]

Ok, if God have a reason for killing or not prevent it, which might very well be the case, im not saying you are wrong. But if that is the case and God is all good, then we must also assume that the amount of people, that dies is the absolute best number of people there is, one more than this and God would not be all good, because there was no reason that more people had to die. If he saves one, then obviously he didn't make the perfect solution the first time, since he could have prevent one less from getting killed than he did.

So looking, at wars, exterminations, people that die from hunger, diseases etc. God doesn't prevent this, because it is the correct number of people that dies.

I agree with what you write here, the correct number of people that has to die, assuming that God is holy holy holy and dwells in unapproachable light.

for killing or not prevent it

Unless you imply that God cannot be ALL good because there was no reason that more people had to die. In a perfect world. Unfortunately, we weren't born into a perfect world. God didn't start with a clean slate. There was already an issue going on with Lucifer before we got here. We got "caught up in the Devil's bargain". Even Joni Mitchell knew it.

Sometimes when I talk to an Atheist, they eventually shift into a mode where they state a hate, an outright despising of God. They'll start this thing like: "well if there is a God, I don't want anything to do with an invisible man in the sky who would kill all the innocent pregnant Antediluvian women during the flood. Or a God that would allow little kids to get cancer. If the Christian God were perfect, why would our world be so screwed up?

The answer is that God did not start with a clean slate in a sin free universe. We were born into a universe that already had a problem of rebellion against God of the highest magnitude, by the highest ranking members of His Kingdom. We are not THE primary problem, just a component of that original problem.

The bad things that have been occurring are being witnessed by the holy non-biological members still in good standing within God's Kingdom. They are being shown what happens, the result of sin metastasizing, when Satan is allowed to "do what thou wilt". And woe to the inhabitants of the earth, for he knows that his time is about up.

If that is the case, then it doesn't matter what we do, there is no reason to help each other, because depending on God to be all good and him not allowing unnecessary suffering or death, would mean that it ultimately wouldn't matter what we do, and there is no reason to be upset if this is the best it can ever be.

In a way, that's what it looks like to me too. Why work to do good? Why give the panhandler 10 bucks when all he's going to do is buy a box of beer? Why seek out and spend effort on relationships when in the end, the heavens and the earth are set to pass away with a loud noise and the elements burn with fervent heat?

But we still have to try. If this is the best it ever can be, we still have to do our best.

Because as far as I know, its not like people are getting resurrected by God left right and center.

Not yet.

We did have the First born of many brethren.

And He's the only One with the ability.

And it should be a very awesome day.

The greatest event in the history of mankind.

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.​

Think about that man. To be conformed to the very IMAGE of the Son of God.

Peaceful Sabbath.

 

[firedragon]

Im saying that it depends on who you ask and what their conviction or belief is about what is best for them. If they are convinced that sacrifice children will please their gods and make everything better, or by not sacrificing them will cause great disasters to hit their society. Then it might have been immoral from their perspective to not please their God and do what is best for their society.

Is it moral or not?

 

[firedragon]

Sure it is, if they identify themselves as Muslims using the same book as you,

Prove that they used the same book for murdering homosexuals.

I support the idea of subjective morality and that it is best explained through a natural explanation. I have no issue going into details with it, but Im still very interested in hearing your argument for objective morality without using scriptures, because it is a topic that interests me, and I know that other atheists struggle with it as well.

And if you are capable of it, not only do you help these atheists, but you also make a case for why God is not required at all, when it comes to morality. Which again, I think would be very interesting to hear.

Morality

 

[Nimos]

We were born into a universe that already had a problem of rebellion against God of the highest magnitude, by the highest ranking members of His Kingdom. We are not THE primary problem, just a component of that original problem.

Did God created these high ranking members you talk about? Because I think what me and most other atheists gets confused about is this abrupt change in God's capabilities that religious people assign to him. So at one point he is the creator of everything with unlimited power and abilities, but the next moment he is completely restricted or unable to do pretty much anything. Like the problems he is facing is of equal power as him and in your case, seemingly stronger than him, since he can't solve it.

In your opinion or guess, is God defenceless or incapable of dealing with these rebellions? Could he destroy them if he wanted?

But we still have to try. If this is the best it ever can be, we still have to do our best.

Why? We are already at the very best. It can't be any better or any worse, it is perfect.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, but it is not 100% is it? How many dictators etc through time have been murdered or would people not wish were murdered? Hitler? Stalin? or simply people that live under extreme abuse, murder might be the absolute best solution for them. So saying that murder is objectively wrong, I just don't agree with.

Well, the best human secular wisdom is that even for the worst tryants/murderers/etc., we want to try to bring them to a fair trial by jury, in a fair court, ruled by law.

Why? For several reasons, but not the least is that it's less likely to be a mob lynching world then...where any day you could be lynched for having the wrong skin color or religion or whatever. So, we want even the worst seeming criminals to be put on trial, fairly. We want Law to rule over human emotions like the impulse for angry revenge.

 

[Nimos]

Is it moral or not?

I already said that I support subjective morality and also answered that I don't think it is morally right based on my view, but I don't decide what is objective morally right, because im not God.
I do not support the idea of objective morality, which you said you would demonstrate without the use of scriptures. And simply gave you an example from history that humans have in fact sacrifice and killed children, because they thought it was the right thing to do. So you would either have to make an argument that this is objectively wrong, without the use of a God. Or demonstrate that these cultures, which are found all over the world, did these things well aware that they were morally wrong, but decide to do it anyway and then you would be a step closer to having a case. Because I would say that the default position is to assume that people try to act as close to what they think is morally right as possible.

Meaning if you think it is morally wrong to kill children, then your default position is to not kill children.

 

[firedragon]

I already said that I support subjective morality and also answered that I don't think it is morally right based on my view, but I don't decide what is objective morally right, because im not God.

Forget God.

Is it moral or not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, not at all. Im all for rules, that is part of raising children. And most parents, at least those I know, and myself included were raised with the idea that "you shouldn't hurt animals, but be kind to them", like kicking a cat or pulling its tail etc. Now parents are not the creators of everything with unlimited power.

So God could have said, "Thou shall not rape.. AT ALL!!!", but he didn't, right?

He instead decided that it would be much better, that if a girl is raped and she doesn't yell high enough, that the rapist should marry her. Do you think that is responsible parenting? Because I don't.
(This is not entirely correct, I got it wrong, because I mixed several laws together. So this is just to correct it.)

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 - “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29 - then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

And again, God have all the power and authority to do or tell people exactly how he want them to behave, and that was the best he could come up with? Im sorry, I don't buy your argument.

Um, obviously God doesn't accept rape. Jesus even said mere lust is a sin,let alone adultery, (which would include rape)
This was a rule made because men sin, not because it was ideal.
It's also an obselete rule. We aren't under those laws now.
We are held to a higher standard in some ways, but you would have to read the new testament to understand.

 

[Nimos]

Prove that they used the same book for murdering homosexuals.

Here is an article you can read:
Islamist views on LGBT: what Quran says, and what it doesn't

Morality

Ill answer this in that thread