Is God proud of His work?

[Greatest I Am]

Is God proud of His work?

You should know that I do not ever expect God to return at some end time because I see His judgment at the beginning of our birth in Genesis as the only judgment that he need’s render.

Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This very good included all that is, including sin, evil and the woes that were to afflict us, without which we could not develop our moral sense.

To have Him return, red faced, to fix a perfect world is beyond my definition of God. He gets things right the first time, every time.

I believe that when we left the garden we did so with God being proud of His perfect works and not ashamed that He had started us off on the wrong foot, so to speak, from the beginning of our journey.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I know that many think of Genesis as the fall of man. This is false.
Man came out of Genesis only after the development of the moral sense that comes from the knowledge of good and evil.

God wanted man to have a moral sense and insured that this would happen by making sure that the talking snake/Satan was there to draw Eve out of any lethargy or laziness of mind and would be lead in the right direction.

I take the advice of the Pope and read the Bible allegorically and see Genesis as a right of passage for all humans from a state of innocence in the home/garden to a search for moral values in the greater society/talking snake.

It is this same society, with it’s differing values that hone our moral sense. It also draws us to sin. As God wants.

Why does God want us to sin?

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

If we must all come to repentance then clearly we must all sin.
God makes this easy by creating us all with a sinning nature.

It is God’s will that all repent and none be lost and it must be so, if God’s will is supreme.

To think otherwise is to think that God’s will can be thwarted.
If it is then it is not God’s will at all.

So to those who await a second or third judgment from God, forget that silly notion.

He told us it was a good beginning and from good beginnings come good endings.
We are all to be saved which ends the notion of a hell. If you think about hell for just a moment, it is clear from a moral standpoint, that God would not ever invent or create such a place. It would be admitting that He has failed in saving all of us. This is against His will and must be a false interpretation of scripture.


Do you think that God is proud of His creations, or, do you think He will return in shame to -fix- His perfect works?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Let's work on bridging that gap, then.
It's always good to understand each other better.

Tried that with our discussion on Noah's genocide.

If I recall, I spoke of genocide and you took off on evolution and did not give a straight answer.

If you want to end that discussion then go post there and if you speak to the topic I will answer.

I recall giving you multiple answers, explaining why I felt that the God of the Bible does not support genocide. Perhaps you had a great reason for disagreeing, but you never let me know what that was.
I have no objection discussing that topic at all. I'm actually still waiting for a response to my last post there. I'd love it if you would follow that link, and explain your objections to my earlier explanation.

That, however, is that topic. For this topic, winning would require giving a response to this:

I see God's perfection and that of His works still here and now while you see His perfect works turning to imperfection.

That, I did claim.
The way I see it, if God wants things to be as they are, he wouldn't have spent half the Bible telling people to change how we're doing things.

If He wanted to change things all He would have to do is start creating sinless men. He does not. That says that He is pleased and that no change is required.

As to how quickly men change, more would listen if the tyrant did not say to all sinners, big and small, my way or burn forever.

one of the main and good parts of Secular law is that the larger the crime, the larger the penalty. To impose the same penalty to a thief as to a murderer would not be justice at all.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

If He wanted to change things all He would have to do is start creating sinless men. He does not. That says that He is pleased and that no change is required.

I thought that we were all sinless when we are born.
If so, then God is creating sinless people.

As to how quickly men change, more would listen if the tyrant did not say to all sinners, big and small, my way or burn forever.

I always thought that was certain Christians who said that, rather than God.
God seems to say "free tickets to heaven, but I won't force you to take one if you don't want it".

one of the main and good parts of Secular law is that the larger the crime, the larger the penalty. To impose the same penalty to a thief as to a murderer would not be justice at all.

I completely agree that the penalty should fit the crime. I've never seen that observation before, in fact. I'm glad you pointed it out.
Where I disagree is that I believe hell to be a place not for punishment, but for people who reject heaven. God seems to be saying that you can reject heaven, but that it is an infinitely bad idea.

[Cathar1950]

Usefulness is not to be identified with good and evil as good and evil are already implied.

Then are the terms good and evil already implied?

In Utilitarian theories of morality or ethics they would be implied as they advocate the greatest amount of good over evil.

I am trying to express the idea that good and evil are not religious or grounded in religion or God. Good and evil are something even we can see and experience.

This is a major reason why many have argued that all have had some sort of religious experience, whether by that name or not. To say that all have had this sense of an absolute moral law is similar to the religious idea that all know the divine law. I understand that you propose no concept of the divine, but without some alternative explanation (such as usefulness), I see no reason to reject a religious interpretation.

I see no problem with religious interpretation, religious can have many dimensions besides some feelings of guilt that need or created and then remedied.
I see no reason to bring the Divine into the question or morality or ethics unless you are advocating some Divine Command Theory. Of course you are going to have some religious interpretation as that is your base assumption but claims about some unspecified and elusive absolute or divine law seems unnecessary and I find it rather arbitrary and subject to interpretations which seem to go against any notions of absolute or divine which would require some objective standard that all could see..

Good and evil according to the myths are something the gods and ourselves experience or know. Knowing means experience such as when Adam knew Eve.

I'm not certain of the myths to which you refer. Speaking for the Bible, however, I see no claim that this is how God understands good and evil.

A closer reading of the myth seems to indicate that if the humans ate the fruit they would become like the gods as the humans have become like one of the gods. Now the humans or earthlings are like the gods and to prevent them from living forever like the gods they were removed from the garden so they didn’t eat the fruit and live forever.

God would do what is right because it is right and not do evil because it is evil and not because od his desires.

I did not claim that the religious concept of good and evil are based on God's desires. Rather, I think they are based on God's nature.
Beyond that "do what is right because it is right" is another tautalogy.

When I tell someone or my children something is bad I should be able to offer a reason why it is bad not some statement like “I don’t want you to.�. We can’t help but use metaphors.

I agree that a statement of opinion is not helpful. Rather, parents usually appeal to the child's sense of ethics: "It's not good to make other people to feel bad" and the like. I agree with this, but it doesn't establish ethics; it relies on the idea that the children already have some sense of wanting to be good.
With respect to God, I'd only reiterate that I make no claim that this is a matter of God's preference.

Children like to mimic or imitate their parents; we can see it even in the animal world where the offspring copy the behavior of the parent. There is no reason fore being good when you want to be like your parents. Usually we find the parent will say something like: “How would you like that if it were done to you�? They appeal to their experiences as good and bad are shown by example. How is not making others feeling bad good anyway?

But what should I understand your position on the logical root of ethics to be?

I am going to get to this later but ethics doesn’t need logical roots; it need to be reasonable.

Granted not everything is useful but then even beauty has its uses and something just go along for the ride.
If I were to think about ethics I would include social bonding, justice, beneficence, universality and of course reason.

These are all things I support very strongly. I would argue, however, that I see no logical imperative that these are the source of ethical behavior - that there is some universal "should" attached to them outside of human opinion, or a concept of God.

I argue that they are based on human bonds and relationships and concepts of God or gods at this point are rather premature. Universal is a quality we place upon our ethics as ethics deals with how we should live with others. William K.Frankenena in his book “Ethics� says morality was made for man not man for morality. He also quotes Wiiliam James; “Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, however weak, may make, Ought it not, for its own sake, to be satisfied?

If I wanted to defend utilitarianism I would but I am familiar with many of the agreements and there are reasons to reject it. You seem to be flying off the handle because I tend to think usefulness is important but hardly center.

I cut a bit, but let me at least correct that. I honestly thought that you were arguing that utilitarianism was center.
That said, what would you say is center?

Why do you think it needs some center? I would suggest that there are principles that go into the formation of ethics or a moral theory and not some center you want or imagine.

I see not need to run down utilitarianism so you can toss in vague notions of God as the center of your ethical methods which see rather arbitrary and with a god outside of time and space where many Christian seem to place him is hardly even relevant to ethics.

Whether or not it is relevant to ethics is being debated. More immediately, however, would you mind not making comments on my personal motivations? I assure you that you are a bit off, and don't consider it to be terribly polite in any case.

Maybe you shouldn’t be so obvious with your motives, biases and assumptions?

It isn’t making you ethics of god look better because you found a straw man to attack.

This is also uncalled for. Simply state your actual position on ethics, that we might discuss that instead.

I have not seen yours yet. So far all I have seen is some notion of God being the bases for your ethics with little reasons except you want to obey God what ever that might be as you interpret God and everything that you believe follows. In other words I am not seeing you ethics as much as what you think God’s ethics are and that you want them to be absolute.

I'm not arguing what people believe is right and wrong, I'm arguing that such beliefs about right and wrong cannot be logically established within a secular paradigm. This does not, however, prevent secular people from having ethics. I find that they are every bit as ethical as religious individuals.

Yet they do as you state non-theists and secularists can be and are ethical.

I completely agree.
Beyond that, what of the earlier part of my comment? Do you believe that there is a secular way to logically establish belief in ethics as true?

I am sure there is but I am looking for a reasonable human way that is grounded in our experiences and how we live with others. It is not so much that we need to establish some truth to ethics as we are trying to develop an ethics. Is a building true?.

On what logical grounds do we claim that the average person is right and the sociopath is wrong, however? "Our experience tells us it's wrong" is an argument from authority, a logical fallacy. "Everyone knows it's wrong" is a variation on the same. "It works better" depends entirely on the purpose for which we think something ought to work. A gun works wonderfully for killing innocents and robbing banks, but it's utilitarian value does not make it inherently ethical.

I am not arguing that and it is straw man as you try to make your god ethical.

Then please let me know what you are arguing.
Do you believe that the average person is right, and the sociopath is wrong? Why or why not?

I find it hard to believe you need God to tell you that there is something wrong with a sociopath. After all we are social animals. If a male Bonobo starts to beat up on a female and all the females put an end to it I doubt any of them need to tell him why his behavor is wrong.
But if God does something, or someone claims God did something, then by definition if God did it then it was right which hardly seem like a good reason.
How is God a good role model for humans?

I suggest we can see things are wrong by simply reflecting other the pain and suffering of others

This can be a great guideline, but it is not a proof. This can tell us a great deal about how to avoid hurting others, as well as give us an emotional motivation to do so. What it does not do, however, is logically establish it as imperative.

Is this math? Given all the claims about God that are not provable I find it rather odd you need some proof here. We don’t need proof, we need reasons. I don’t see the demand for a logical imperative. How do you logically establish a need for an imperative as ethics is about how one should act or live and has its own necessity or essence?
I think we have enough to deal with without asking for some absolute universal rules that applied to everything even if there are no humans or other animals that bond involved.

Tell us what has intrinsic value and what logical ground do you have besides a book says God said….? How is that not arbitrary?

If God exists, then reality does have any ethics within it that he chose to create and follows himself. These are actually quite utilitarian, but with a goal that is established as part of reality: the formation of loving relationships (aka social bonds).

I think it is more along the idea that others exist and not dependent upon your notions of God. How does God know what to do and who does God follow?
I see no reason for ethics to be part of the world apart from humans, it is a human thing.
We humans are interdependent with the rest of humanity and other life forms as well as the universe. I see the use of God as a way humans circumvent what we learn by living with others for what they think God wants. Obeying is not necessarily ethics as much as it is obedience and there seems to be little need for ethics when you got God.

I am not arguing the world is an illusion but how we perceive it is or has been a useful illusion.

To begin, I do not consider any illusion useful for my purposes. If you consider them to be useful for yours, this is your choice, but I do not personally think that looking to an illusion as a tool is either wise or ethical.

It isn’t my argument. Even intrinsic value needs to be perceived if we are going to value it. You seem to be implying that things have value even if there is no one to value it. What gives something intrinsic value?

God.
If you believe that things have intrinsic value, what would you say gives it this value?

We give it its value. We learn what and how to value.
Of course there are some valuable things and needs we have inherited from our animal natures. Food is valuable and needed. We need air to breath. Because we are social animals we have evolved with the need to belong.

Maybe creative symbols or metaphorical images is better then illusion. Words are not the things the represent but that doesn’t mean there are no things. My poor choice of words is not a good reason to go on about God being the only grounds for good and evil.

I would have had the same response to those words, actually. There is no value in creative symbols or metaphorical images unless they reference something that does have intrinsic value. Otherwise, we are back to arguing utilitarianism.
In that case, what do you believe gives things intrinsic value?

Our uses, needs and desires. I doubt there is any value unless something exists to value it.

The myth seems to indicate good and evil are something the gods recognize as they experience it.

Which myth? I'm currently assuming you're referring to be Bible. (If so, I would love it if you would refrain from using an inflammatory and needlessly vague term like myth). If that is the case, how does it make this claim?
If not, which myth is it - and how does this relate to the discussion?

The myth of the garden story, I am not being inflammatory or needlessly vague.
I mean myth as it is used in academics not popular slag.

Why wouldn’t there be some intrinsic value?

This strikes me as logically identical as asking the question "why wouldn't God exist". I do not mean to demand absolute proof, but would some sort of evidence to support the idea before reaching it as a conclusion.

I am asking for you reasons something is valued. What is an intrinsic value and how is it unrelated to the one valuing?

At the risk of redundancy, God weaving intrinsic value for things into reality.
Now, getting back to my question, is there any reason to believe that there is intrinsic value outside of this?

That is an awfully big if there followed by a big can.
How does reality reflect God’s nature? Can God really be called a He from what we see in nature?
If ethics is real and grounded in reality, even our reality, then God would have no need to establish ethics. How is ethics real? It seem to be a human construct.

I agree, but we are not discussing the existence of God at the moment. I am merely suggesting that we subject the concept of ethics to the same logical tests as we subject God. Is there a reason to conclude that they are intrinsic, or are they simply common opinions.

I suggest reason rather then logical tests as it seem logical tests of God have not proven God nor proven God doesn’t exist. Are you suggesting there are some “normal� people out there that don’t value?

No, I suggest no such thing. I merely point out that I believe people can be logically shown to have value via God. As you reject this idea, I was asking you why you believe people to have value.
Beyond that, what is the difference between reason and logic as you use them here?

I don’t reject the idea of God or that the concepts of God have value. What I reject is the insistence that God is the only bases for value. How does God show you that you have value?

I hold humans in high regards with or without God. I believe you hold humans in high regard and therefore think God does too. Sometimes God is a reflection of what we think is the best in us. I find it hard to believe the only reason to have a high regards for humans is because God does. I suggest they are valuable and so we assume God does too.

This is an interesting idea, but seems to be outside the point we are discussing. God, as defined in the Bible, has a high regard for humans. If you wish to discuss some other concept of God, let's open another topic.
Also, I am aware that you hold humans in high regard (and appreciate that fact). I am not suggesting that one can't do that without belief in God. Many do as much. I am suggesting that one can't logically do it without belief in God. It is to this that I was hoping for a response.
According to the stories in the Bible and the suggesting of some of the writers humans seem to have little value except as it relates to God’s purposes. It seems God suffers from the same problems as utilitarianism. God regrets creating humans and kills all but 8 according to one myth which seem to show what little intrinsic value they actually had.
Of course I don’t believe for a moment God caused a flood or that everyone died but 8 people God managed to save with a ark the humans had to build.
One passage in the Bible claims God created for Hs own good pleasure making God rather hedonistic. Is this the role model we should be following? I think Whitehead had a point when he said Western civilization seems to have taken the worse attitudes of Cesar and given them to God. I find your ethic much of the same.

So we might get people that think if God orders them to kill their child it is good and the person doing it might even be considered righteous and believe they are doing a good think even when their guts tell them it isn’t.

I completely agree that this is wrong because of the fact that this is the opposite of what the God of the Bible claims.
On what logical basis, however, do you believe that this was wrong? If it got this person to their goal of being more fanatically religious, is that an inferior goal to yours? Why?

Who would you rather have as a neighbor me or someone that believes God wants them to kill all the men, women and children (and their animals) that don’t believe or follow their God. It doesn’t look like you have read your Bible all that well (of course you may just suffer from selective reading and interpretation) if you think my depiction of God it is really the opposite of what the Bible says.

Is that worse then God doesn’t like it or is God doesn’t like it better?

Given that God can weave ethics into reality, I would say that there is a qualitative difference there.

How has God woven ethics into reality?
If it is woven into reality then there doesn’t seem to be a need to appeal to God.
I think you are assuming a given here that isn’t warranted and have not shown any qualitative difference at all.
.

I suspect that we attribute what we see as right and wrong as being from God where it is developed and learned in our lives and attributed to God.

Many have suggested this, but I don't see that it is really part of the discussion - it doesn't provide any secular reason to establish ethics logically.

I am not looking for a secular reason I am looking at human reasons. I think human reasons are enough. I am not sure what you mean by “to establish ethics logically�, as it is more like we desire to give explanations for our ethics which is what makes it reasonable.

Why don’t we kill our children? Do you think it is because of a law?

It is because ethics and the value of people were established as a part of reality during it's creation by God.

It is more likely we developed our ethics and values from our natures as social and cultural animals that bond and need care as well as time to learn and developed

In ethics, however, we aren't talking about experiences, but about reactions to experiences. A reporter tells us what happened, but we decide whether that was good or bad. The event, apart from personal opinion, is neither good or bad from a purely utilitarian point of view. It is only productive or harmful for a given use a person happens to have.

What?

Sorry about that.
You have maintained that what causes good is good. That seemed to me to be the position that that which has results that we perceive as being good are good. The decision over something being good or bad, in this view, is not in the event, but in how we react to the event. It centers around whether we view it as good or bad.
This seems to me to be a concept of ethics that is based in the viewers goals and emotions. That is, desires. What a person desires will determine whether he or she perceives something as good or bad. This strikes me as a position having all the same problems as the utilitarian view.

And as I said before your notion of God being the bases for ethics thas all the problems
of the utilitarian theories but without the thought or grounds. Ethics is not about experiences or “reactions to experience� but about how we should live or behave towards others. It isn’t grounded in the universe it is grounded in our relationships with others in the universe. I don’t know what you are trying to say here but I was talking about how ethics come about or how it is developed through our experiences. We learn them.

Ethics by definition includes others and how we should live with others. You man with a gun story isn’t relevant.

My man with a gun story was meant to raise the question: "why are ethics, as you have defined them, not arbitrary?"

They are grounded in our relationships. What makes your view arbitrary is the fact that it is grounded in you conception of God and that could and does mean anything and everything. If God told you to kill your son you should do it because God said to do it.

We can offer a utilitarian explanation and we often do.
I think you analogy fails because we are not talking about instructions; we are talking about valuing. I mention useful and you decided it is the only point and attack it as if I was claiming only usefulness is what counts. As I mentioned before it is the means that justifies the ends. Good in something or something good is the goal and means.

Fair enough, but this still tells us nothing about which goals are good, and which are evil. Nor does it tell us anything about which values we have are good, and which are evil. What is the process by which we decide these things, and how do we logically establish that as valid?

I don’t start by reading what the Bible says. We learn them. But you seem to desire some book you believe is from God and think you can read all about it.
What do you mean by good? Do you live the good life or do you live a good life or are you good?
What makes a movie a good movie or a dish a good dish?

I don’t know why you got on this tangent of usefulness.
I make a small rather insignificant comment and you pretend it is my main point.
Utilitarianisms assumes good and evil and such things like Act Utilitarianism desires acts to produce the greatest good to the greatest number or a balance of good over evil. Good and evil are implied already and to argue that it doesn’t have a purpose or goal is to not understand the theory or understand it as a reaction to deontological and egotistical ethics. When I mention usefulness purpose and value already assumed or understood. All I was saying was our rules need to also be useful.

The fact that you aren't supporting usefulness as the support behind ethics is noted. Please let me know what you consider the logical proof of ethics to be. .

Why do you insist on logical proof of ethics?
Granted our ethics should be reasonable and justified but that isn’t the same as proof.
When you catch a ball or toss it do you need logical proof?
I think you are asking the wrong kinds of questions because you need the answer to be God.

I am guessing that you are trying to advocate God at the expense of some secular notions of ethics. You also seem to have some problem defining good or value.

“One good turn deserves another�:. Here “good� is an adjective.
A turn could mean a desirable, wanted or needed act but if I am being sarcastic because someone just did something bad to me so I d o something bad back. Is it good?
My friends might even be rather supportive and say: “Good job!� if I did god or even be sarcastic if I do a poor job.

[Jester]

I see no problem with religious interpretation, religious can have many dimensions besides some feelings of guilt that need or created and then remedied. I see no reason to bring the Divine into the question or morality or ethics unless you are advocating some Divine Command Theory.

Fair enough.
To that, I would merely add that my own understanding of religion is not centered around feelings of guilt, as well as the fact that I am advocating something akin to a divine command theory.

Of course you are going to have some religious interpretation as that is your base assumption but claims about some unspecified and elusive absolute or divine law seems unnecessary and I find it rather arbitrary and subject to interpretations which seem to go against any notions of absolute or divine which would require some objective standard that all could see.

In my opinion, the general agreement on so many ethics throughout cultures shows that such a law is not nearly so elusive as this comment seems to imply.

A closer reading of the myth seems to indicate that if the humans ate the fruit they would become like the gods as the humans have become like one of the gods. Now the humans or earthlings are like the gods and to prevent them from living forever like the gods they were removed from the garden so they didn’t eat the fruit and live forever.

Again, I'd request you refrain from a needlessly vague term like "the myth". I recognize that you consider the Biblical narrative as such - with that admission, could you just use the term Bible, or Genesis "the myth" doesn't tell me whether you are referring simply to Genesis 3 or the entirely of the collection. Nor does using the words "Bible" and "Genesis" indicate agreement with the claims therein.
That said, I would also say that you have misread the text. The serpent claims that humans would become like gods after eating the fruit - but this analysis does not address the idea that it was simply lying. As for the concept of eternal life, unlike in Grecian legends, that was granted quite apart from the eating of the fruit. As such, I am not yet convinced of either or these conclusions.

I agree that a statement of opinion is not helpful. Rather, parents usually appeal to the child's sense of ethics: "It's not good to make other people to feel bad" and the like. I agree with this, but it doesn't establish ethics; it relies on the idea that the children already have some sense of wanting to be good. With respect to God, I'd only reiterate that I make no claim that this is a matter of God's preference.

Children like to mimic or imitate their parents; we can see it even in the animal world where the offspring copy the behavior of the parent. There is no reason fore being good when you want to be like your parents. Usually we find the parent will say something like: “How would you like that if it were done to you�? They appeal to their experiences as good and bad are shown by example.

Again, this does not establish ethics. It seems to be the claim that children develop ethics out of a desire to imitate their parents. This not only seems to pre-assume the rise of ethics in humanity without explanation, but does nothing to establish them as fact.
Yes, parents use the experiences of their children to try to motivate them to be ethical. This does not, however, provide logical evidence of the truth of ethics. It simply provides the child with an emotional motivation for being ethical.

But what should I understand your position on the logical root of ethics to be?

I am going to get to this later but ethics doesn’t need logical roots; it need to be reasonable.

Could you explain the difference between logical roots and reasonable here?

I argue that they are based on human bonds and relationships and concepts of God or gods at this point are rather premature. Universal is a quality we place upon our ethics as ethics deals with how we should live with others. William K.Frankenena in his book “Ethics� says morality was made for man not man for morality.

This seems to be the claim that there is no logical way to establish ethics within a secular paradigm, and that they are merely a matter of collective opinion.
This is remarkably similar to my position, actually. I would merely argue that, if we are looking for a logical way to establish ethics, we should consider a God concept. If this is an agreement that there is none outside a divine command theory, I don't see how it is premature at all.

He also quotes Wiiliam James; “Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, however weak, may make, Ought it not, for its own sake, to be satisfied?"

If I answered "no", would there be a logical reason to argue with my position?
In fact, I certainly wouldn't answer "yes" without a very long list of stipulations - probably to the point of altering the basic meaning of the question. This sounds more than a bit like hedonism.

I honestly thought that you were arguing that utilitarianism was center. That said, what would you say is center?

Why do you think it needs some center? I would suggest that there are principles that go into the formation of ethics or a moral theory and not some center you want or imagine.

Explain these principals, then.
In the meantime, I would like to point out that lacking a central guiding principal means that there is no way to choose between the collection of principals we embrace in those situations in which they contradict one another.

More immediately, however, would you mind not making comments on my personal motivations? I assure you that you are a bit off, and don't consider it to be terribly polite in any case.

Maybe you shouldn’t be so obvious with your motives, biases and assumptions?

This, too is a bit impolite. Let me say again that you have misunderstood my motivations. If I miscommunicated, apologies. Please do not presume to make insights into my psyche. I do not throw such accusations at others, and would like that they return the favor. Rule 1 would apply.

Simply state your actual position on ethics, that we might discuss that instead.

I have not seen yours yet. So far all I have seen is some notion of God being the bases for your ethics with little reasons except you want to obey God

I believe that I mentioned God's ability to weave ethics into reality, as well as the idea that divine creation would mean that the universe was meant for a purpose (which would fill the gap in the utilitarian perspective).
Also, this is not stating your position, but merely a request that I state mine. That is acceptable, but ought to be coupled with your own statement of position.

In other words I am not seeing you ethics as much as what you think God’s ethics are and that you want them to be absolute.

As my theory of ethics is based on the existence of God, it will naturally flow from God as a source. For me to argue a divine command theory, then base my ethics purely on some secular concept, is deeply inconsistent.

I completely agree. Beyond that, what of the earlier part of my comment? Do you believe that there is a secular way to logically establish belief in ethics as true?

I am sure there is but I am looking for a reasonable human way that is grounded in our experiences and how we live with others. It is not so much that we need to establish some truth to ethics as we are trying to develop an ethics. Is a building true?

It seems to me that we are discussing the logical roots of ethics. If we do not have a working theory of their source, how can we progress to developing them?
Also, a building exists, provided one accepts the physical universe as a premise. I don't know if you are using "true" synonymously with "existing" here, but don't see the parallel to ethics. I am arguing if the idea that some things are morally expected of us cannot be logically established within a secular paradigm. I don't really see the analogy to a building unless you simply meant to use it as an example of something that is assumed to exist without proof.

[P]lease let me know what you are arguing. Do you believe that the average person is right, and the sociopath is wrong? Why or why not?

I find it hard to believe you need God to tell you that there is something wrong with a sociopath.

This discussion is not about what I would or wouldn't believe ethically were I an atheist. I'm not claiming that I would side with the sociopath if I were. I was claiming that you have not provided a logical reason why that person is wrong. As I do not tend to side with sociopaths, this motivates me to consider the God concept as a means of offering such an explanation.
So, in short, do you believe that there is any logical reason to claim that such a sociopath is wrong?

After all we are social animals. If a male Bonobo starts to beat up on a female and all the females put an end to it I doubt any of them need to tell him why his behavor is wrong.

The fact that they may not question it is not evidence.

But if God does something, or someone claims God did something, then by definition if God did it then it was right which hardly seem like a good reason. How is God a good role model for humans?

If God exists, then he can and does create ethics, lends a purpose to the universe, and human life. If God says "you exist for the sake of love", he is in a position to grand objective weight to that statement. I could then say that there is a logical reason why we are expected to love one another.

I suggest we can see things are wrong by simply reflecting other the pain and suffering of others

This can be a great guideline, but it is not a proof. This can tell us a great deal about how to avoid hurting others, as well as give us an emotional motivation to do so. What it does not do, however, is logically establish it as imperative.

Is this math? Given all the claims about God that are not provable I find it rather odd you need some proof here. We don’t need proof, we need reasons. I don’t see the demand for a logical imperative.

I would say that we need both, myself. The fact that you don't personally feel a need to have a logical reason for your beliefs in this matter does not mean that all share your sentiment.
In fact, as the comparison has been drawn, I don't see how one can make this claim and also take issue with a person who says "I don't see a need for a logical reason to believe in God". The argument seems to me to be the same.

How do you logically establish a need for an imperative as ethics is about how one should act or live and has its own necessity or essence?

This is rather like asking how one logically establishes the need for an imperative reason to believe in God. I believe that the common answer is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of belief. If one says "God exists" or "ethics are valid", there must be some evidence given to support that claim in debate.
Now, life is not a debate, I know. We have to make our best guesses, and are often required to trust in things blindly, due to our limited view of the universe. I do not mean to criticize the person who never asks for a reason to believe in ethics or God either one. I merely point out that it is not a point in debate.

I think we have enough to deal with without asking for some absolute universal rules that applied to everything even if there are no humans or other animals that bond involved.

Wouldn't a universal standard be easier to understand and more efficient than a series of incongruent ideas?

Tell us what has intrinsic value and what logical ground do you have besides a book says God said….? How is that not arbitrary?

If God exists, then reality does have any ethics within it that he chose to create and follows himself. These are actually quite utilitarian, but with a goal that is established as part of reality: the formation of loving relationships (aka social bonds).

I think it is more along the idea that others exist and not dependent upon your notions of God. How does God know what to do and who does God follow?

Omniscience.
Or, one might say, he created them based on his own nature.
Either way, all God needs to do in this scenario is create a goal/purpose for the universe and follow the utilitarian model based on that goal.

I see no reason for ethics to be part of the world apart from humans, it is a human thing. We humans are interdependent with the rest of humanity and other life forms as well as the universe. I see the use of God as a way humans circumvent what we learn by living with others for what they think God wants.

This is a series of claims without support.

Obeying is not necessarily ethics as much as it is obedience and there seems to be little need for ethics when you got God.

Obeying a boss is obedience.
Obeying the law is obedience.
Obeying your inner conviction that the divine weaved the idea that you ought to love others into the universe is an ethic.

It's a question of motivation, I think. In the first two, it's fear. Certainly, there are those who obey God purely out of fear, and I would not call their obedience ethical. There are others who obey out of gratitude, love, and/or the deep belief that the principal of loving God and others is the right thing to do. These individuals, I would call ethical.

God. If you believe that things have intrinsic value, what would you say gives it this value?

We give it its value. We learn what and how to value.

If we give things value, is that value not subjective, rather than intrinsic?
Also, if we give things value, why should we have to learn how? Are we not the final word on the matter?

There is no value in creative symbols or metaphorical images unless they reference something that does have intrinsic value. Otherwise, we are back to arguing utilitarianism. In that case, what do you believe gives things intrinsic value?

Our uses, needs and desires. I doubt there is any value unless something exists to value it.

This last seems to be the claim that nothing has intrinsic value.
The previous sentence strikes me as something in need of support. Why should uses, needs, and desires be the foundations of value? I would argue that they do not have intrinsic value either.

Which myth? I'm currently assuming you're referring to be Bible. (If so, I would love it if you would refrain from using an inflammatory and needlessly vague term like myth).

The myth of the garden story, I am not being inflammatory or needlessly vague. I mean myth as it is used in academics not popular slag.

Can we at least agree that there are a lot of myths out there? Please use "the Garden story", if have an emotional aversion to "Genesis 2-3".

God weaving intrinsic value for things into reality. Now, getting back to my question, is there any reason to believe that there is intrinsic value outside of this?

That is an awfully big if there followed by a big can.

This is a big debate I agree. It is also off topic, however. In terms of the question, I'd say that my comment is internally consistent, regardless or our respective opinions about the likelihood of God's existence.

How does reality reflect God’s nature?

All creations reflect the creator. This is a very old truism of art circles.

Can God really be called a He from what we see in nature?

I'd say definitely not in the biological sense, but don't know what this has to do with the discussion.

If ethics is real and grounded in reality, even our reality, then God would have no need to establish ethics.

One could say that ethics existed in God apart from reality. But, if they are grounded in reality, then I would say it is very logical to claim that the creator of this reality established them.

I don’t reject the idea of God or that the concepts of God have value. What I reject is the insistence that God is the only bases for value.

Thus far, we have presented no other logical basis.

I am not suggesting that one can't do that without belief in God. Many do as much. I am suggesting that one can't logically do it without belief in God. It is to this that I was hoping for a response.

According to the stories in the Bible and the suggesting of some of the writers humans seem to have little value except as it relates to God’s purposes.

Neither this, nor the paragraph with which you followed it addressed my point.
It seems, rather to be the accusation that God is unethical and does not value humanity. To that, I have two responses:

First, I have a very different understanding of the Bible than you. It is not really on topic to get into it, but can we at least agree that not all see it in the way that you describe?

Second, it is not logical to argue that God is unethical without any logical basis for ethics.

I completely agree that this is wrong because of the fact that this is the opposite of what the God of the Bible claims. On what logical basis, however, do you believe that this was wrong? If it got this person to their goal of being more fanatically religious, is that an inferior goal to yours? Why?

Who would you rather have as a neighbor me or someone that believes God wants them to kill all the men, women and children (and their animals) that don’t believe or follow their God.

I would rather have you there, to be certain.
On the other hand, this appears to the appeal to consequences fallacy. I am not asking about what I would rather, but for logical reasons.

It doesn’t look like you have read your Bible all that well (of course you may just suffer from selective reading and interpretation) if you think my depiction of God it is really the opposite of what the Bible says.

I know that I said I wouldn't get into this subject, but I'd like to at least touch on the idea that the interpretation I hold is legitimate. Not only have I studied carefully, but there are a great many scholars who agree with me on the point. It really is arbitrary to say that we have to interpret the Bible as the angry legalists do. As bad as they are at convincing people that they're right, they seem to be excellent and convincing people that they have the perfect interpretation. I've never understood that.

How has God woven ethics into reality? If it is woven into reality then there doesn’t seem to be a need to appeal to God. I think you are assuming a given here that isn’t warranted and have not shown any qualitative difference at all.

The power of God is not a difference?
I don't claim to know how God did such a thing, but my best guess is that this would mean that reality, and humanity, has a purpose. This would mean that ethics would be based in that purpose.
That would need an appeal to God because, without God, then there is no objective purpose to reality.
This strikes me a little like claiming that a building has no need for an appeal to the idea that the physical universe isn't illusory to exist. That is to say that it is a claim to the effect of "well, if it's there, it's there. You don't need to bring in the idea that would establish it as more than an illusion".

Many have suggested this, but I don't see that it is really part of the discussion - it doesn't provide any secular reason to establish ethics logically.

I am not looking for a secular reason I am looking at human reasons. I think human reasons are enough.

This seems not to be the claim that ethics are logically established, but the claim that you don't care whether they are or not.
You are certainly allowed that position, but this seems to be an article of faith, rather than something we can debate.

I am not sure what you mean by “to establish ethics logically�, as it is more like we desire to give explanations for our ethics which is what makes it reasonable.

Could you define "reasonable" here? The concept is tied into logic for me.
Other than that, I do desire an explanation very much. Specifically, I want a logical one. It is okay if you don't, we all have to simply trust in something illogical at some point. I certainly, and grudgingly, do myself in some places.

Why don’t we kill our children? Do you think it is because of a law?

It is because ethics and the value of people were established as a part of reality during it's creation by God.

It is more likely we developed our ethics and values from our natures as social and cultural animals that bond and need care as well as time to learn and developed

This is an assertion, not an argument.
Also, If you believe that we need no logic to conclude in favor of ethics, why insist in debate that I accept your model about the origin of ethics?

Ethics is not about experiences or “reactions to experience� but about how we should live or behave towards others.

In post 26, you wrote:

How do we decide what things are for except by deciding that some goals are good and others are evil?
By experience or knowing the results.

This is where I got the idea that you believed the issue was founded on experiences.

On the other hand, there is this claim:

It isn’t grounded in the universe it is grounded in our relationships with others in the universe.

This is closer to my position, though I still have to ask the question:
What support/evidence do we have of this?

I don’t know what you are trying to say here but I was talking about how ethics come about or how it is developed through our experiences. We learn them.

Pardon, then. I had thought that this was a claim of the logical basis for ethics.
I have no disagreement with the idea that we learn them. My claims are about why we can trust that they have intrinsic value, not about learning.

My man with a gun story was meant to raise the question: "why are ethics, as you have defined them, not arbitrary?"

They are grounded in our relationships.

To address your point, however, I meant the selection of relationships as the basis of ethics is an arbitrary choice, based on your explanations. You have offered no reason why this should be the case.

What makes your view arbitrary is the fact that it is grounded in you conception of God and that could and does mean anything and everything. If God told you to kill your son you should do it because God said to do it.

This seems to me to be speculation about a concept of God in which I do not believe. Perhaps this means I should clarify my position:
I consider the fact that people have some continuity of ethics to be a reflection of God's design, and purpose for which he created humanity. That is to say that we were created for the sake of love, and do not believe that killing our children is at all acceptable as a result.
To say, then "if God told you to kill your son" is to suggest a completely different sort of God than the one I propose. It is qualitatively no different then saying, "if Zeus demanded a sacrifice". The very fact that we know that killing children is wrong is because if God, in my view.

Fair enough, but this still tells us nothing about which goals are good, and which are evil. Nor does it tell us anything about which values we have are good, and which are evil. What is the process by which we decide these things, and how do we logically establish that as valid?

I don’t start by reading what the Bible says. We learn them. But you seem to desire some book you believe is from God and think you can read all about it.

I didn't ask you where you don't start, or what theory you don't support. Supporting you position would mean offering a means by which this could be done within the framework you have established.

The fact that you aren't supporting usefulness as the support behind ethics is noted. Please let me know what you consider the logical proof of ethics to be.

Why do you insist on logical proof of ethics?

If you do not, do you insist on logical reasons to believe in other things?
How does one draw the line between that which needs to be logically established, and that which does not?

Granted our ethics should be reasonable and justified but that isn’t the same as proof.

Please explain the difference.

When you catch a ball or toss it do you need logical proof?

If someone makes the claim "the physical universe is not illusory", I generally ask for evidence to support the claim.
No, I don't need evidence to believe that it is. Nor does one need evidence to believe in anything. Due to that fact, I believe that a line of reasoning that seems to rest on "it doesn't take proof to believe in them" is not convincing.

I think you are asking the wrong kinds of questions because you need the answer to be God.

Allow me to state my own opinions. One could just as easily argue that this question is the source of my interest in God as a cause of it. Frankly, that would be closer to the truth.
In any case, I don't think it is unreasonable at all to ask for logical evidence in support of a claim. If you have some reason why that is the wrong question, please explain why.

I am guessing that you are trying to advocate God at the expense of some secular notions of ethics.

I don't see that as an expense. I have no evidence to support their validity whatsoever.

You also seem to have some problem defining good or value.

If you define the term differently that I do, state your definition.
I don't think this automatically means that my definition is incorrect, however.

“One good turn deserves another�:. Here “good� is an adjective. A turn could mean a desirable, wanted or needed act but if I am being sarcastic because someone just did something bad to me so I d o something bad back. Is it good? My friends might even be rather supportive and say: “Good job!� if I did god or even be sarcastic if I do a poor job.

I don't see what this claims except that sarcasm inverts the definition of the key word in a sentence. I agree to that, but don't see that this alters any point made on this topic thus far.

[upallnite]

I completely agree that the penalty should fit the crime. I've never seen that observation before, in fact. I'm glad you pointed it out.
Where I disagree is that I believe hell to be a place not for punishment, but for people who reject heaven. God seems to be saying that you can reject heaven, but that it is an infinitely bad idea.

If god wanted free people he would let us come and go on our own choosing. Not some one time take it or leave it trick. And if the places are equivalent with the exception of God being in one then why keep people that want to hang out with god away from people that don't want to hang out with god? Is it like scientology where they don't want the skeptic from pointing out gods flaws to his fans? What if I die a Christian the decide I don't like Jesus after a few billion years? This separate but equal afterlife sounds strange and a rather unethical method of dealing with humans.

For every question Christianity attempts to answer many more are created that it has not answered.


[/quote]

[Greatest I Am]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

[Cathar1950]

If we want to walk through how we should develop a moral theory that would be find but don't ask me to build one for you because you claim some objective notion you can't present or explain.
Basically it sounds like you don't need a moral theory because you got God and want to know what mine is and what I base it on. I suggest your ideas of God are from, the same sources of morality; your cultures and relationships and there is nothing objective about them, nor should an objective morality be desired as we are not finished.

I see no problem with religious interpretation, religious can have many dimensions besides some feelings of guilt that need or created and then remedied. I see no reason to bring the Divine into the question or morality or ethics unless you are advocating some Divine Command Theory.

Fair enough.
To that, I would merely add that my own understanding of religion is not centered around feelings of guilt, as well as the fact that I am advocating something akin to a divine command theory.

What makes your view arbitrary is the fact that it is grounded in you conception of God and that could and does mean anything and everything. If God told you to kill your son you should do it because God said to do it.

This seems to me to be speculation about a concept of God in which I do not believe. Perhaps this means I should clarify my position:
I consider the fact that people have some continuity of ethics to be a reflection of God's design, and purpose for which he created humanity. That is to say that we were created for the sake of love, and do not believe that killing our children is at all acceptable as a result.
To say, then "if God told you to kill your son" is to suggest a completely different sort of God than the one I propose. It is qualitatively no different then saying, "if Zeus demanded a sacrifice". The very fact that we know that killing children is wrong is because if God, in my view.

From another a concept also used here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 207#255207

Variations of the 'Golden Rule' exist in all major religions and philosophies. Some way before the NT.

So it looks like BibleGod was not needed in order to recognize the value of, for example, this moral command. It simply helped the survival of the group, the community, the clan.

I was not arguing that the concept of ethics originates with the Bible, I was arguing that accepting a concept of a deity as a premise is the only grounds for a logical proof of the objective validity of ethics.

The objective part of morality is that it is part of the culture and people and was there before you were born and it will be there when you are gone. It is largely learned and shared by those you relate to.
It is fluid as it like a glacier slowly moving with the culture and situations as well as the humans as they create new purpose and meaning. Is there an objective art or objective music? You seem t be mistaken objective for idealism.
You claim there is not objective morality without God which by all accounts is a subjective experience not agreed upon by members of the same family that alone an objective universal reality shared objectively. Now you want to further remove any grounds by claiming there should be some objective morality. Only God could have an objective morality as only God, depending how God is being conceived subjectively or agreed upon and ignoring the possibility that there is no God as you perceive God or even could perceive God, could have an objective morality and you are not God so there is no objective morality for you. There would only be one for God so any nonsense you might want to be objective morality is nonexistent as far as you can know.

So with no objective bases for God how can you have an objective bases for morality based upon something that is not objective? Granted I have read that the only true objective thing is something that doesn’t exist and can be perfectly defined.

You seem to desire some top down objective morality that can only be experienced fro the bottom up subjectively and call it objective. It may be an admirable goal or purpose but it is hardly persuasive.

Our morality is going to be grounded in our evolution, cultures and experienced; the are also fluid and they are learned and always being shaped by new circumstances and relationships; some of which are novel and have never been dealt with before. An objective morality would soon find itself useless and end up serving special interest and power as history as shown us over and over with some, of the most objective rules and laws mustered subjectively.

Our morality is going to be grounded in our relationships as cultural animals as are our values.

[Cathar1950]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

[ilovereligionlots]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

I disagree somewhat, i think everything IS gods will. god controls all we do usually.

[Greatest I Am]

If there is a hell then this scripture is 100% false.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God's will is supreme then there is no hell required because it is His will that all be saved.

To think that His will can be thwarted is to say that man's will is stronger than God's.

Regards
DL

Unless wills are desires.
Is everything as God wills?

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


New Jerusalem
9 The Lord is not being slow in carrying out his promises, as some people think he is; rather is he being patient with you, wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance.

If you will something, is it not your desire? I would say yes.

Is all as God wills or desires.
If God has any claim to perfection then, yes.
If not then the initial perfection of His systems have back slid and scripture says that God does not back slide.
His creations are not allowed to either. It is foolish to think that our wills can thwart God's.

Regards
DL