Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[1robin]

Not all theists think like this, I certainly don't.

I would likewise say you are confusing what humans say is true with what is actually true - essence of revealed religions.

Human morality is rooted in the nature of humanity. Common sense after a little bit of observation and experience teaches us that we are more likely to be happy and alive by being kind and cooperative. Teamwork, family, tribes, communities, etc. Golden Rule or any other basic teaching/principle doesn't need any divine mind to ring true and useful.

I do not think I was making a point about individual theist but what is true of theism in general. Theism officially claims that a God exists that influences society through moral mandates, etc... You may disagree but that was not my point and I do not see how you can call that theism. I have not even been discussing what humans say about morality. That is moral epistemology and I have said that is not what I am discussing a dozen times. I am discussing moral ontology or foundations not apprehension or application. Our natures are corrupt so any morality derived from it would be also. In 5000 years of recorded history we have had 300 of peace. I would hope we are not the foundation of morality. I was also speaking of foundational comparisons. Theisms foundations versus non-theistic foundations. I have not made any sweeping claims about humanity as a whole because there are none that are universal (or almost none).

Now if you wish to discuss the vast problems with moral ontology without a God that will be fine. You can start.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Murder is Biblically the unjustifiable taking of human life by another human with intent.

Unjustified according to whom?

If I say Jack took a life unjustifiabley while you claim that he took the life justifiably, did Jack commit murder or did he not?

 

[1robin]

Unjustified according to whom?

If I say Jack took a life unjustifiabley while you claim that he took the life justifiably, did Jack commit murder or did he not?

It is not up to you. God is who we are accountable to. He will judge whether an act is justified or not. We can make certain predictions concerning that using our God given conscience and revelation but the final judgment will be his. However my moral points have been about moral ontology and most of the replies have been about epistemology. I am discussing foundation not apprehension or application. You are discussing the opposite.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is not up to you. God is who we are accountable to. He will judge whether an act is justified or not. We can make certain predictions concerning that using our God given conscience and revelation but the final judgment will be his.

I see. So there's no way to know, down here on earth, whether our killings are murder or non-murder.

OK. I wonder then why God even mentioned that we shouldn't murder?

 

[Sees]

I do not think I was making a point about individual theist but what is true of theism in general. Theism officially claims that a God exists that influences society through moral mandates, etc... You may disagree but that was not my point and I do not see how you can call that theism. I have not even been discussing what humans say about morality. That is moral epistemology and I have said that is not what I am discussing a dozen times. I am discussing moral ontology or foundations not apprehension or application. Our natures are corrupt so any morality derived from it would be also. In 5000 years of recorded history we have had 300 of peace. I would hope we are not the foundation of morality. I was also speaking of foundational comparisons. Theisms foundations versus non-theistic foundations. I have not made any sweeping claims about humanity as a whole because there are none that are universal (or almost none).

Now if you wish to discuss the vast problems with moral ontology without a God that will be fine. You can start.

You are looking at it through a Christian lens still. If you discuss morality with god or without god is the Christian lens necessary?

Look at humanity for what it is and not as corrupt or sinful or else you never leave the starting block in being objective. Of course our laws, codes, principles, etc. are imperfect and always evolving - same as we are.

There is no evidence for any divine mind giving us superior moral or ethical laws and precepts by which to live and govern by. Only man who in his best interest tries to establish large groups and rules which make the group happy and successful (not always so happy or successful).

You could say give me a perfect moral absolute or else there must be a God who can do it but.... What does it got to do with real life?

Either divine perfect moral law never got spelled out and sent or it got lost on the way. Not likely for the divine to have faulty delivery service?

The theism which believes in revelation of divine law and commandments that must be obeyed is a drop in the bucket historically... people are unlearning it again.

 

[1robin]

You are looking at it through a Christian lens still. If you discuss morality with god or without god is the Christian lens necessary?

My comments were what is true of theism as traditionally defined.

Look at humanity for what it is and not as corrupt or sinful or else you never leave the starting block in being objective. Of course our laws, codes, principles, etc. are imperfect and always evolving - same as we are.

There is nothing more obvious in the world than humanities fallibility. We have something very wrong with our behavior. That is not a Christian view point. That is simple reality. As usual it is perfectly consistent and explained most sufficient by Christianity but does not derive from my Christian faith. It is simple fact. We are not evolving morally. Instead of killing each other in costly wars we are killing each other in the womb on an industrial scale and defending it as a sacred "right". Nietzsche said because philosophers killed God in the 19th century the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history and a general madness will prevail. It was more bloody than all the centuries previously added together and he went insane himself. Hitler and Stalin alone killed more people than all the religious wars and persecutions in Christian history by orders of magnitude. What progress? The united states for instance has increased in almost all moral statistics for failure since secularism took hold in the 60's. In some categories by thousands of percent's. That is de-evolution.

There is no evidence for any divine mind giving us superior moral or ethical laws and precepts by which to live and govern by. Only man who in his best interest tries to establish large groups and rules which make the group happy and successful (not always so happy or successful).

Is that why even the most moral nation in history claimed God is the only foundation for rights and morals? Is that why the Christian/conservative demographic is the most generous on earth? Is that why Christian nations are always the first on the scene in international crisis? BTW most moral codes are not based on happiness. That would be a horrible foundation of morality. Narcotics produce happiness, are they moral?

You are not grounding morality. You are suggesting the only option left when morality has no objective foundations is the only option.

Either divine perfect moral law never got spelled out and sent or it got lost on the way. Not likely for the divine to have faulty delivery service?

This is epistemology again. I am talking about foundations not apprehension or application. I can but am not doing so. If anything is actually objectively wrong a transcendent standard MUST exist. That requires a transcendent standard creator. Non-theist scholars do not even debate this generally. Let me give you a few quotes.

“Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate (so that human genes survive). . . . Furthermore, the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”
Ruse, "The philosopher of science"
Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: The Freiburg Workshop (5): Ruse on Darwin's "Terrifying" Liberal Theory of Morality

Richard Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.
Dawkins
Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler - Conservapedia

For once Dawkins is perfectly correct. Without God you get some sort of contrived ethics which have no relationship to actual moral truth what ever.

The theism which believes in revelation of divine law and commandments that must be obeyed is a drop in the bucket historically... people are unlearning it again.

What? It is the most populous theological group in history. However that is irrelevant. I stated what is true of classic theism no matter how many theists there are.

BTW I have extensively provided statistics by the hundreds that illustrate the effects of our unlearning Christian morality. They make evident an abject failure that has no counter argument possible. If you search for those posts you will more information and stats than you will ever read.


The best illustration of this is a question I never have had answered adequately. Can you PROVE anything (even killing all life in existence) is ACTUALLY wrong without God?

BTW what are you? Theistic, deistic, atheist, magician, nihilist, Bohemian, etc...? I need some context.

 

[1robin]

I see. So there's no way to know, down here on earth, whether our killings are murder or non-murder.

OK. I wonder then why God even mentioned that we shouldn't murder?

I did not say that. I said the final arbiter is God. I spelled out perfectly that I am discussing foundations not application. I can discuss apprehension and application but that is not the subject, no matter how hard you try and defer it to that. We can know, but that is a different and much longer discussion.

 

[adi2d]

Come on everybody let's do the twist. Let's twist again like we did last year

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is nothing more obvious in the world than humanities fallibility. We have something very wrong with our behavior. That is not a Christian view point. That is simple reality. As usual it is perfectly consistent and explained most sufficient by Christianity but does not derive from my Christian faith. It is simple fact. We are not evolving morally. Instead of killing each other in costly wars we are killing each other in the womb on an industrial scale and defending it as a sacred "right". Nietzsche said because philosophers killed God in the 19th century the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history and a general madness will prevail. It was more bloody than all the centuries previously added together and he went insane himself. Hitler and Stalin alone killed more people than all the religious wars and persecutions in Christian history by orders of magnitude. What progress? The united states for instance has increased in almost all moral statistics for failure since secularism took hold in the 60's. In some categories by thousands of percent's. That is de-evolution.

You know, I see you say this stuff all the time. Can you actually back it up with actual numbers?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that why even the most moral nation in history claimed God is the only foundation for rights and morals? Is that why the Christian/conservative demographic is the most generous on earth? Is that why Christian nations are always the first on the scene in international crisis? BTW most moral codes are not based on happiness. That would be a horrible foundation of morality. Narcotics produce happiness, are they moral?

And this too. The most moral nation in history? Who's that supposed to be? And how are you making such a determination?

Most moral codes are based on ideas of harm and living together harmoniously and safely with other people. Something is usually considered immoral if it causes harm to another individual or group of individuals. We come up with such things because human beings share a lot of common values and desires. That is about as obvious and plain as the nose on your face.

I wouldn't say that narcotics are immoral unless they cause the person taking them to engage in harmful behavior.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not up to you. God is who we are accountable to. He will judge whether an act is justified or not. We can make certain predictions concerning that using our God given conscience and revelation but the final judgment will be his. However my moral points have been about moral ontology and most of the replies have been about epistemology. I am discussing foundation not apprehension or application. You are discussing the opposite.

And this is where we differ. I say we're accountable to each other.

We know other people exist, and we don't know that your god exists.

 

[Sees]

My comments were what is true of theism as traditionally defined.

There is nothing more obvious in the world than humanities fallibility. We have something very wrong with our behavior. That is not a Christian view point. That is simple reality. As usual it is perfectly consistent and explained most sufficient by Christianity but does not derive from my Christian faith. It is simple fact. We are not evolving morally. Instead of killing each other in costly wars we are killing each other in the womb on an industrial scale and defending it as a sacred "right". Nietzsche said because philosophers killed God in the 19th century the 20th century will be the bloodiest in history and a general madness will prevail. It was more bloody than all the centuries previously added together and he went insane himself. Hitler and Stalin alone killed more people than all the religious wars and persecutions in Christian history by orders of magnitude. What progress? The united states for instance has increased in almost all moral statistics for failure since secularism took hold in the 60's. In some categories by thousands of percent's. That is de-evolution.

Is that why even the most moral nation in history claimed God is the only foundation for rights and morals? Is that why the Christian/conservative demographic is the most generous on earth? Is that why Christian nations are always the first on the scene in international crisis?

BTW what are you? Theistic, deistic, atheist, magician, nihilist, Bohemian, etc...? I need some context.

The more secular and religiously diverse America became the more we started being humanitarian and being so generous....should we link that?

I can only do quick responses and posts during day time, but will try to give some nice posts addressing other points later. I hate doing short, chaotic drive-by posts but love to participate

I am an old school theist like our ancestors. Most of the time I discuss things though I don't let that lead me by the nose. I try to look at it from all perspectives possible.

 

[1robin]

And this is where we differ. I say we're accountable to each other.

We know other people exist, and we don't know that your god exists.

I would agree that we are accountable to each other but our ultimate moral judgment can't be determined by a fellow human without a transcendent standard. No one can make me actually guilty of anything. Once again only God can make this true. I have no duty, no equality, and no moral obligation towards anyone without God. You can claim I do or should have but you could never make that true. If I killed my neighbor I may be claimed to be unjustified but no one could possibly actually know that except God. Whether you accept it or agree do you not see the inherent problems with a human based moral code? It is completely independent of moral truth by necessity. You may not like what I say but I cannot see how anyone could not grasp the inevitability of it if God exists.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I did not say that. I said the final arbiter is God. I spelled out perfectly that I am discussing foundations not application. I can discuss apprehension and application but that is not the subject, no matter how hard you try and defer it to that. We can know, but that is a different and much longer discussion.

Scaredy cat.

 

[1robin]

The more secular and religiously diverse America became the more we started being humanitarian and being so generous....should we link that?

That is the most contrary to the evidence claim you could have made. As I said I have already provided links to hundreds of stats that prove the exact opposite of what you claim. The only objection I ever got of any type to any of them was to claim that some ended in the 90's, or that some showed a improvement since the 90's. However all of them ended much worse than they began when Christianity was replaced by secularism in the 60's in politics. Just one example is the systematic destruction of human life in the womb by an increase on the scale of orders of magnitude for the sake of convenience. How is that progress? No matter how many artificial heart valves (which are made for money as much as benevolence) are produced it will never compensate for a fraction of just that one stat. You cannot save the old for huge profits and kill the young and claim it is progress. We saved the entire world from tyranny before 1960, we cannot seem to cough up the moral fortitude to even save our own children since then. Just one more stat. The number of children living with 1 or fewer parents has increased by between 300% and 400%. Well maybe one more ( I am too lazy to stop) gambling debts per capita have increased by more than 4000%. Please search for those links in these threads. It took forever to dig them all up and I do not have time to do it again.

I can only do quick responses and posts during day time, but will try to give some nice posts addressing other points later. I hate doing short, chaotic drive-by posts but love to participate

I agree with that but I am reduced to only posting when I have time. You do what you wish and I will do the best I can to respond as your claims merit.

I am an old school theist like our ancestors. Most of the time I discuss things though I don't let that lead me by the nose. I try to look at it from all perspectives possible.

Theism is differentiated from deism (and most of everything else) by the fact it includes a God who mandates morality and interacts with humanity. How can you be a theist and not adopt what makes theism unique?

 

[Sees]

That is the most contrary to the evidence claim you could have made. As I said I have already provided links to hundreds of stats that prove the exact opposite of what you claim. The only objection I ever got of any type to any of them was to claim that some ended in the 90's, or that some showed a improvement since the 90's. However all of them ended much worse than they began when Christianity was replaced by secularism in the 60's in politics. Just one example is the systematic destruction of human life in the womb by an increase on the scale of orders of magnitude for the sake of convenience. How is that progress? No matter how many artificial heart valves (which are made for money as much as benevolence) are produced it will never compensate for a fraction of just that one stat. You cannot save the old for huge profits and kill the young and claim it is progress. We saved the entire world from tyranny before 1960, we cannot seem to cough up the moral fortitude to even save our own children since then. Just one more stat. The number of children living with 1 or fewer parents has increased by between 300% and 400%. Well maybe one more ( I am too lazy to stop) gambling debts per capita have increased by more than 4000%. Please search for those links in these threads. It took forever to dig them all up and I do not have time to do it again.

I agree with that but I am reduced to only posting when I have time. You do what you wish and I will do the best I can to respond as your claims merit.

Theism is differentiated from deism (and most of everything else) by the fact it includes a God who mandates morality and interacts with humanity. How can you be a theist and not adopt what makes theism unique?

Brother we are looking at different time periods for one...when secularism and skepticism continued to grow and judeo-christian ideals, views, beliefs go on the decline in Europe and colonies what happens?

The opposite of give Caesar what Caesar is do...the opposite of being meek, poor sheep who just followed along and prayed for Gods will on earth.

Generosity that travels along with religious imperialism isn't very generous...

Everything you love about America or the West has nothing to do with Christianity in my opinion - basic morality and generosity is taught by all religious/philosophical traditions. It has to do with people deciding to act and to change things. Not letting theology and supernatural mandates divide and dominate people.

Edit: As far as theism - I only see a couple definitions that hint at divine mandating of morality in other terms, but most (5-7)don't say this. Belief in one or more gods, or more specifically gods which interact/ed with people, yes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would agree that we are accountable to each other but our ultimate moral judgment can't be determined by a fellow human without a transcendent standard. No one can make me actually guilty of anything. Once again only God can make this true. I have no duty, no equality, and no moral obligation towards anyone without God. You can claim I do or should have but you could never make that true. If I killed my neighbor I may be claimed to be unjustified but no one could possibly actually know that except God. Whether you accept it or agree do you not see the inherent problems with a human based moral code? It is completely independent of moral truth by necessity. You may not like what I say but I cannot see how anyone could not grasp the inevitability of it if God exists.

What you're saying is, without someone around to tell us what to do, we can't know what to do. To me, that is an amoral system, because morality isn't actually being exercised.

Our ultimate moral judgment comes from ourselves, and from others. I don't see how it doesn't.
When you talk about transcendence, you're talking about something that you think exists beyond physical human experience, which doesn't make much sense to me because morality itself is the sum of all human experience. Hence the reason morality hasn't remained static throughout human history. When we learn new things, we adjust our morality accordingly. Wait a minute, there are no such things as witches? Maybe we should stop taking peoples lives for practicing witchcraft then. Whereas, if we stuck with Biblical morality, we'd still be carrying out such nonsense because god clearly thinks it's moral to kill witches.

I can see, hear, touch, etc. other human beings. I know they are here. I know to some extent, how they feel, what they value, etc. From that, I can draw some conclusions. I can't do this with a being I can't see, hear, touch, or even know exists at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is the most contrary to the evidence claim you could have made. As I said I have already provided links to hundreds of stats that prove the exact opposite of what you claim. The only objection I ever got of any type to any of them was to claim that some ended in the 90's, or that some showed a improvement since the 90's. However all of them ended much worse than they began when Christianity was replaced by secularism in the 60's in politics. Just one example is the systematic destruction of human life in the womb by an increase on the scale of orders of magnitude for the sake of convenience. How is that progress? No matter how many artificial heart valves (which are made for money as much as benevolence) are produced it will never compensate for a fraction of just that one stat. You cannot save the old for huge profits and kill the young and claim it is progress. We saved the entire world from tyranny before 1960, we cannot seem to cough up the moral fortitude to even save our own children since then. Just one more stat. The number of children living with 1 or fewer parents has increased by between 300% and 400%. Well maybe one more ( I am too lazy to stop) gambling debts per capita have increased by more than 4000%. Please search for those links in these threads. It took forever to dig them all up and I do not have time to do it again.

You got a hell of a lot more objections than that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Brother we are looking at different time periods for one...when secularism and skepticism continued to grow and judeo-christian ideals, views, beliefs go on the decline in Europe and colonies what happens?

The opposite of give Caesar what Caesar is do...the opposite of being meek, poor sheep who just followed along and prayed for Gods will on earth.

Generosity that travels along with religious imperialism isn't very generous...

Everything you love about America or the West has nothing to do with Christianity in my opinion - basic morality and generosity is taught by all religious/philosophical traditions. It has to do with people deciding to act and to change things. Not letting theology and supernatural mandates divide and dominate people.

Edit: As far as theism - I only see a couple definitions that hint at divine mandating of morality in other terms, but most (5-7)don't say this. Belief in one or more gods, or more specifically gods which interact/ed with people, yes.

How does western Europe compare to the US on these stats you keep citing? (I ask because that is a more secular region of the globe.)

 

[CG Didymus]

...Most moral codes are based on ideas of harm and living together harmoniously and safely with other people. Something is usually considered immoral if it causes harm to another individual or group of individuals. We come up with such things because human beings share a lot of common values and desires. That is about as obvious and plain as the nose on your face.

I wonder which ancient culture didn't have a law and moral code? And I wouldn't doubt that all of them claimed that some kind of "god" gave them the laws. So if in those laws are mixed in some "objective" moral standards then that must mean that their deity is real? Or, there are no "objective" laws and morals. They change and get re-defined by different people and in different times and places.

Ooh, do you ever wonder what fundy Christians do with moral codes about sex? Their God wrote it in stone that his people should not commit adultery, and if they do they should be stoned to death. Why doesn't God still require stoning? Did he change his mind? Or, did society change?

What's worse is that Jesus made it even more strict. He doesn't want people to even think about sex with someone other than their spouse. Is that even possible to follow? If not, then what good is it? Other than messing with poor believer's minds and turning them into sexually repressed basket cases? It is almost evil and cruel to make sex so enjoyable and seem so very much a natural thing to do, what with all the hormones that are tied to it, and then say not to do it? And not even to think it? I wonder, if that is one of God's "objective" moral codes?