Is Creating Life a Moral Carte Blanche?

[PureX]

Why should any of us assume that God is bound in any way by our ideas of morality? Which are based on our very limited view and understanding of existence. We have no idea why or how existence, exists. We know even less about whatever "God" might have caused existence to happen. So how can we possibly even try to assess the moral relationship between creator and creation? We don't even know what those words actually mean beyond a few implied questions that we have no answers for.

This is why these kinds of conceptual exercises gain us no real understanding. They are essentially a blind "what if" proposition that goes nowhere and only serves to confuse people.

What if God says to us, "you do as I say, while I do whatever I please". OK, so what if God says that? Where are we going with this?

 

[Left Coast]

I answered that already, in the conversation we were having on the subject. For some reason, you stopped responding... after getting the answer... a second time.
I don't know why.

Not that I recall, no you didnt. But you can point me to the post you're referring to if I forgot or overlooked it.

A body-less person. ...but I don't think you would be alive though.

If I wouldn't be alive, then it seems to me that having a body is a basic prerequisite for being a living person, right? And my having this body is what makes me different from you in your body, right?

When I say millions of people, I am not making a point about numbers.
Please try in future to remember that.

Then please don't waste time bringing them up. Since you know they're irrelevant.

So let me be sure I understand what you are saying.
You are saying, what the creator does affects others, so the creator should_________?

Not do any conceivable thing to them, if she wants to rationally be considered moral.

We been through that.

We have, and it hasnt gone well for you.

Slavery, in your view, is not slavery in my view.
We already established, that a slave is not the black and white ones you paint.

So, until you can make up your mind what slavery you are referring to, that quip is just a cowardly attack.... like a wild swing at the head.
Something you are famous for, but you missed.

Let's not mischaracterize what's happened. I've explained to you what I'm talking about when I speak of slavery, and you've conceded that that type of slavery is condoned in the Bible. That slavery is, by any reasonable metric, wildly immoral. You have no rational reply to this, as of yet. And your excuses for even the "less bad" types of slavery, like indentured servanthood, have been painfully weak anyway. The verses you've cited didn't say what you claimed about slave treatment, and you made absurd comparisons to modern employment despite me logically walking you through how they're obviously different.

So please, don't accuse me of cowardly swings when you have no reasonable replies to my points. Just make the reasonable replies, if you have them.

 

[nPeace]

Not that I recall, no you didnt. But you can point me to the post you're referring to if I forgot or overlooked it.

Since RF's search engine is so terribly broken, you'll have to give me some time.
Before, I could find it in a minute.

If I wouldn't be alive, then it seems to me that having a body is a basic prerequisite for being a living person, right?

Right.

And my having this body is what makes me different from you in your body, right?

Not exactly.
Your personality - the person you are - makes you different to me.

Then please don't waste time bringing them up. Since you know they're irrelevant.

I'm not wasting time.
You are... by latching on to every word as though you have to.

I'll continue to use the words I use.
I told you what to expect.

When you read an article saying "Millions of people were without electricity due to a blackout today"
Do you think the article is about numbers?
Do you write them and tell them stop wasting time writing millions. Just say there was a blackout all over the State?

Not do any conceivable thing to them, if she wants to rationally be considered moral.

In other words, just don't be a King, Judge, Lord...
Give that lob to you, and everyone else.

We have, and it hasnt gone well for you.

So you say. Your opinion again. What of it?

Let's not mischaracterize what's happened. I've explained to you what I'm talking about when I speak of slavery, and you've conceded that that type of slavery is condoned in the Bible. That slavery is, by any reasonable metric, wildly immoral. You have no rational reply to this, as of yet. And your excuses for even the "less bad" types of slavery, like indentured servanthood, have been painfully weak anyway. The verses you've cited didn't say what you claimed about slave treatment, and you made absurd comparisons to modern employment despite me logically walking you through how they're obviously different.

So please, don't accuse me of cowardly swings when you have no reasonable replies to my points. Just make the reasonable replies, if you have them.

I don't think I need to repeat myself.
Ever try forcing a cow to drink?
I'm not here to convince you of anything. You admitted it's your opinion, so what are you trying to play here.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Non-believers often object to things allegedly done by gods, particularly the Abrahamic God as that's the dominant view of God these days. Theists then reply that God may do whatever they please in regard to their creation because they created it.

Does that reasoning hold water? If I create a life, is it morally acceptable for me to do whatever I please with that life? Kill it, torture it, starve it, punish it for no good reason?

In my view it isn't acceptable, if morality is to be a meaningful concept. A moral creator would recognize that there are things one cannot do to the life they've created if one wants to be considered moral.

Agree? Disagree? Share your thoughts.

Where did you get this concept of morality from?
You, a mere created being, are judging the infinite?
Maybe should ask yourself how that makes any sense. It's like an ant who has never been out of the ant hill, trying to tell a human that nothing else exists but its reality.

 

[Left Coast]

Right.


Not exactly.
Your personality - the person you are - makes you different to me.

Show me a personality without a body it resides in. As you admitted, such a person wouldn't be alive. Do dead people have personalities?

I'm not wasting time.
You are... by latching on to every word as though you have to.

It's funny - when I let parts of your commentary pass by without addressing each and every one, you'll accuse me of evading or not answering you. Then when I do - I'm nitpicking your every word. Can't win with you, I guess.

I'll continue to use the words I use.
I told you what to expect.

And I will continue calling you out when you say things that are irrelevant as though they are, whenever I feel the need.

Glad we got that straightened out.

When you read an article saying "Millions of people were without electricity due to a blackout today"
Do you think the article is about numbers?
Do you write them and tell them stop wasting time writing millions. Just say there was a blackout all over the State?

Of course such a reference is about the numbers. Millions of people losing power is a major, newsworthy story precisely because it happens to so many people simultaneously, causing huge disruption. One person losing power is not a story worth any reporter's time.

In other words, just don't be a King, Judge, Lord...
Give that lob to you, and everyone else.

I have no clue what you mean here.

So you say. Your opinion again. What of it?

Again with the opinion thing. Do you think my argument is weakened because...it's mine? Do you think the views you're expressing aren't your opinions?

I don't think I need to repeat myself.
Ever try forcing a cow to drink?
I'm not here to convince you of anything. You admitted it's your opinion, so what are you trying to play here.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Left Coast]

Where did you get this concept of morality from?
You, a mere created being, are judging the infinite?
Maybe should ask yourself how that makes any sense. It's like an ant who has never been out of the ant hill, trying to tell a human that nothing else exists but its reality.

Ironically, you (and all Christians I've known) also judge God. You judge her to be morally good. We disagree about the conclusion and how we get there, but judgment is still happening. So perhaps reflect on your own methods for daring to determine whether "the infinite" is moral or not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ironically, you (and all Christians I've known) also judge God. You judge her to be morally good. We disagree about the conclusion and how we get there, but judgment is still happening. So perhaps reflect on your own methods for daring to determine whether "the infinite" is moral or not.

I don't judge her or him. ( an infinite being has no gender, BTW)
I experience his love so I know he's good. My judgement of his actions would mean I was trying to put my little brain above the infinite intellect.
What an exercise in futility that would be!

 

[Left Coast]

I don't judge her or him. ( an infinite being has no gender, BTW)

I'm glad you recognize the silliness of assigning gendered pronouns to such a deity.

I experience his love so I know he's good. My judgement of his actions would mean I was trying to put my little brain above the infinite intellect.
What an exercise in futility that would be!

By determining they're good, you already have judged their actions. Whether that process was conscious or not, it had to happen for you to declare this God good.

 

[blü 2]

My. I wonder why the problems aren't solved already. Surely there are billions trying harder than you are.

No doubt.

But clearly that God of yours isn't pulling [his] weight, nothing like it! Look at the world ─ what a disgraceful performance! Any executive head of an organization who had [his] track record would be sacked on the spot!

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm glad you recognize the silliness of assigning gendered pronouns to such a deity.



By determining they're good, you already have judged their actions. Whether that process was conscious or not, it had to happen for you to declare this God good.

Apparently you have your own definition of " judging".
The right to judge biblically implies authority over the one being judged.

 

[blü 2]

Why should any of us assume that God is bound in any way by our ideas of morality?

I think it's fair to say that gods reflect the culture of their origins. The Abrahamic God is Mesopotamian-Canaanite Semitic in origin, is later softened and more theologically sorted out as a result of exposed to a more sophisticated culture with the Babylonian captivity, and Hellenized first under Alexander's successors and then the Romans. The NT is entirely written in Greek, for example.

A god who doesn't connect with his, her or its followers won't be a god for long. If a god doesn't share our morality, why would we not condemn it? Amend it? Evolve it along the lines I mentioned above?

Which are based on our very limited view and understanding of existence. We have no idea why or how existence, exists.

Neither do our gods ─ or if they do, none of them is telling. I can't even find anyone who'll explain to me the process by which light came into being after God said "Let there be light!" ─ who actually did the work, and how, and with what.

What if God says to us, "you do as I say, while I do whatever I please". OK, so what if God says that? Where are we going with this?

History suggests we take a leaf out of God's book and do whatever we please. However, humans have evolved moral instincts, as I've mentioned in the past ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and an evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. Of course, these compete with needs, desires, appetites, obligations, coercion, so they don't run the show, but they can influence it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't judge her or him. ( an infinite being has no gender, BTW)
I experience his love so I know he's good. My judgement of his actions would mean I was trying to put my little brain above the infinite intellect.
What an exercise in futility that would be!

Then by that standard a person that experienced a god's hate would be justified in judging him to be evil. Your standards appear to be poorly defined and therefore self contradictory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This logic doesn't hold water because you cannot create life.

Which is why his hypothetical started with "IF I create..."

Actually everything we create with our hands, such as airplanes and skyscrapers, are created by God. God is who gives us the ideas and God is who makes us able to make them and who makes some things successful while others fail.

So nobody is responsible for anything - it's all god's doing?

That's a weird stance to take.
In any case, you failed to actually address the content of the OP.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think they commit to fallacious thinking probably every single time they deny God with any explanation.

Who denies gods without any explanation?
The vast majority (not to say all) I know about, can articulate very well why they don't believe in any gods.

You can't say something doesn't exist without defining it.

It's upto the person claiming X exists, to define it.
Those who disagree with that claim, don't. They just respond to the claim and the definition of the one making the claim.

So if you say God cannot exist because He would be cruel

I'm not aware of any atheist who doesn't believe in god for that reason.
I'm aware of people (atheists and theists alike) who object to certain specific versions of gods by pointing out self-contradictions in the definitions of that god in combination with things attributed to that god though... Like for example when people claim their god is morally perfect while their religion also says that that god is fine with slavery.

But that then is about the specific religion and the contents thereof.

In order for you to reject Allah, for instance - I mean, logically to make clear you deny His existence, specifically - you would first have to understand what He is before you can legitimately say you deny His existence.

I'll also add in here that very very few atheists actually say that gods don't exist, as a claim.
The vast majority merely doesn't accept the claim gods DO exist. Surely you understand the difference.

And that rejection of the claim that a god DOES exist, isn't any different from rejecting claims of alien abduction or bigfoot. It is based simply on the fact that it is an extra-ordinary claim with insufficient evidence in support of it. Meaning they lack rational justification to accept the claim. The result is that they don't accept the claim.

You reject plenty of unfalsified / unfalsifiable things for the exact same reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe a person can create life.

Have a trophy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See, if you create something, and you are God as understood by you yourself, you can logically do what ever you please with it.

Why?

You say "logically", so there is some reasoning underpinning this statement.
Please expand on that reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because its logically fallacious.

How so?

Name the fallacy used and explain how it applies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. It doesnt remove anything. Thats an imposition of what you wish upon an English word.

Transcended means it is beyond what you subject it to. Not removed from it or cloven from it. Thats a false understanding.

It's clear you want to have it both ways.

You want to say your god "transcends" morality, but at the same time you wish to also continue to say that your god is moral.

It's one or the other.

When you transcend something like morality, it means that morality simply doesn't apply to you. You've "transcended" it.

If that isn't what "transcending morality" means, then I have no idea what you mean by it.

Either morality applies to this agent or it doesn't.

 

[PureX]

I think it's fair to say that gods reflect the culture of their origins. The Abrahamic God is Mesopotamian-Canaanite Semitic in origin, is later softened and more theologically sorted out as a result of exposed to a more sophisticated culture with the Babylonian captivity, and Hellenized first under Alexander's successors and then the Romans. The NT is entirely written in Greek, for example.

A god who doesn't connect with his, her or its followers won't be a god for long. If a god doesn't share our morality, why would we not condemn it? Amend it? Evolve it along the lines I mentioned above?
Neither do our gods ─ or if they do, none of them is telling. I can't even find anyone who'll explain to me the process by which light came into being after God said "Let there be light!" ─ who actually did the work, and how, and with what.
History suggests we take a leaf out of God's book and do whatever we please. However, humans have evolved moral instincts, as I've mentioned in the past ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, a sense of self-worth through self-denial, and an evolved conscience and capacity for empathy. Of course, these compete with needs, desires, appetites, obligations, coercion, so they don't run the show, but they can influence it.

But you're making my point. There is no reason that any of us should be holding ourselves to some ancient sheep herder's idea of God. Nor that we should feel the need to 'entrap it' with modern sophistry.

 

[blü 2]

But you're making my point. There is no reason that any of us should be holding ourselves to some ancient sheep herder's idea of God. Nor that we should feel the need to 'entrap it' with modern sophistry.

I wasn't setting out to disagree with you, just to think my way through your question.

But doesn't your point of view lead to the conclusion that all gods are optional extras?