Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It means just what I said, not whatever motivations you assume are behind what I said.
I'm not going to answer until we address the booby traps in your question. If you don't like this approach, then stop asking booby-trapped questions.
So... you're operating from the assumption that someone who knew the full moral implications of the act could come to the realization that killing everyone might actually good. If that's part of your premises, then any argument that killing everyone is wrong - whether we assume God or not - is going to be logically contradictory.
What do you mean by "actually wrong"? What do you think makes right or wrong "actual"?
You tell me. Morality is concerned with the well-being of sentient beings. Would killing every form of life in the universe help or hurt the overall well-being of sentient beings?
What I pursue was not the issue. My claim was what the nature of morality MUST be if what I purse is true or if it is not. I am not arguing for whether it is true or not. As to whether it is just another philosophy or not I will others answer that.
Right and wrong in this context are objective by nature. Without God right and wrong as categories of actual moral facts do not exist. Without God morality is ethical preference and not in any way related to a non existent right or wring fact. I did not make that very clear but when I mean actual moral right and wrong. I mean objectively true right and wrong. Man has no power to make anything right or wrong. We can only make them legal or illegal.
To say something causes harm to an arbitrary life form does nothing to show it is actually wrong. You must first show why harming something is actually wrong, hen why harming humanity is wrong, in which cases it isn't and why. Harm does not equate to wrong. In fact harming other sis at times considered morally good.
You have only restated my question. Why is harming communities wrong or destabilizing nature immoral? Without God humans are nothing but biological anomalies and to harm them is no more wrong than harming rocks.
How is it in anyway proof that anything is wrong? Without God no matter how you dress it up whatever basis you have for morality (or claim to) is equal to opinion and preference. No preference or opinion can actually make anything wrong or right. Without God your left without anything to fill the void where the foundation of moral fact is supposed to be. You just keep shoving arbitrary terms in there and claiming that makes things wrong but it doesn't. It's a semanticshell game which cannot even begin to perform the function.
That is absurd. It does not follow from anything I have said. In fact in 10,000 posts you can't quote a single thing I said that does lead to that conclusion. I have never said atheist are by default immoral. I have insisted they can act just as morally as any cultural group. The point I made is that no grounds for objective morality can be found in atheism not that an atheist cannot act morally. There is not a single sentence in your post that even comes close to following from anything I have said.
Even if true that does not mean I have any idea what it means.
My position has no necessity of booby traps and the tactic never crossed my mind. I have no idea to what you refer but will clarify whatever is confusing you. First please quote what I said you think is a trap. I re-read what I posted and cannot find anything that I think could have been mistaken for a trick.
Do you deny that killing a completely evil population could be morally justified? Why? If the purpose of the universe is for humanity to come to a knowledge of God and it has instead perverted it's self to the point it will only produce oppression, slavery, violence, and misery for every single generation to come it evil to allow it to do so. Also this was not an attempt to suggest killing all life is good or evil. It was an attempt to distinguish between what an infinite mind can justifiably do with what a finite mind could.
Wrong is any act contrary to God's nature and our duties under him. Being objectively true is what makes a thing good or evil.
Morality is not based on the well being of sentient beings. With God it is based on his nature. Without it is not even true but the false morality we have invented is not based on sentient well fare either. It may be said that much of morality is based on speciesm to the detriment of all other sentient well being (Which is worse than racism and actually immoral) or a thousand other things. What it is not based on is the welfare of all sentient beings. I used to work in federal court rooms. I spent many hours reading their law books. The vast proportion of laws do not have anything to do with the well being of sentient beings of any kind. \
It means that you should base your interpretation of what I said on what I actually say, not what you assume that I mean but haven't said.
Two that come to mind:
Then there's your answer: assuming all that, I suppose it is not necessarily evil to kill an entire population.
But you cited God's "infinite knowledge" as the way that he would know that it's okay to kill all life. This means that it is good, and a sufficiently wise being would be able to figure this out.
What makes it wrong to "act contrary to God's nature"?
I can't even tell what you mean by this sentence.
If you're going to reject the basis of morality, then any further discussion is going to be pointless.
Morality is about the well-being of sentient beings by definition, similar to how nutrition is about things that are ingested by living things as food. It's a category error to talk about the morality of non-sentient things, just as it would be to talk about the health of a rock or the height of a colour.
You've tried to define morality in terms of God's will and said that "wrong is any act contrary to God's nature and our duties under him." Do you not consider faith in God to be part of our duty... maybe the most important part?
Again what you said DOES NOT follow from what I did. Let me make this simplistic.OK. So that proves that morality doesn't rely on God. What puzzles me is why you are spending all this time and energy trying to prove the opposite.
An interpretation is necessary not literally what you or anyone says. An interpretation is what a person thinks another means by what they say. I only saw one rational interpretation of to what you said. Instead of debating what interpretation means why don't you either clarify what you meant or drop this point entirely.
My answer has no bearing on this conclusion. You seem to be over intimidated by my claims. Let me make it easier. Prove any act what so ever is objectively wrong without God:
It means it could be theoretically good. Your position is that it is wrong or potentially so without God. I asked you to show that is true.
Because it is against a duty we inherent actually have. What in the world is your position here? Morality does exist without God but can't exist if he does?
Being objectively true is to say that is it's actual nature regardless of what anyone thinks. It is like saying that at this moment the sun actually exists as an objective fact even if no one agreed.
I am the only one with a world view that includes an actual basis of morality. You at best have a basis for ethical opinions. That is just the fact, if that means you no longer want to discuss it that is up to you.
That is like saying you believe morality is defined as whatever is good for you and you have no interest in any other definition. Let me give the official definitions of morality: There are two different kinds but I am not discussing one of them. I have always pointed out I am talking about morality that is objective in nature not that is contrived by humanity.
You want out then quit. Constant threats are not necessary. BTW I never defined morality in terms of God. I founded objective moral truth as based in God.
It is not, it is not in theory nor is it in practice. Some laws are based on a completely invented and false (if God does not exist) sliding scale of intelligent creatures that has no basis in fact but I can think of non that are based solely on it.
I do not think so. Please quote where I have said morality is defined in terms of God's will. I said Morality is determined by God's nature. His will or commands are merely reflections of his nature.
That is irrelevant. The necessary processional fact remains whether you accept it or not. If you deny that gravity is related to mass you are still going to fall if you jump off a cliff. However it does make a discussion impossible to have. Debates take place on the common ground of either propositional deductions, objective facts, or true premise and logical conclusions. If you deny them no debate can be had but that won't change the factual nature of my claims. Substituting a more convenient false reality for a logically necessary reality is not an argument it is a tactic.