What if God disappeared?

[Celsus]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

[Jester]

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.

[Jester]

Secular reasoning would point towards genetics. Morality is not an innate characteristic. As has been shown multiple times on this forum, as I am sure you recall, we see all sorts of disorders in both children and adults that would be considered amoral and have found very real medical/genetic causation for them.

I really have no argument with this, and don't feel that it contradicts my basic claim. If it appeared that I was claiming that morality was innate to all humans, I apologize. I meant only to say that ethics can only logically be established if we accept a God concept as a premise.

If we are to contend that the presence of God is an indicator of morality, then we must question His morality when He brings forth children who are in fact, amoral.

That is an excellent point. I agree that morality is not inborn. I believe that this is an excellent argument against the idea that all humans possess ethics. Rather, I would say that a principal of ethics that rests on a logical proof, such as I suggest, would not exclude such children in the way that the idea that ethics are based in genetics would.
As to God's ethics, I can't claim to know as much about such situation as you. Perhaps it is all I can do to say that I believe that such a child is loved by God, and that love is at the heart of my understanding of ethics.

Sometimes we don't catch it early enough and we end up with ASPD sociopaths.

I don't think any system of morality likes to address this point.
Personally, I feel a strong empathy for such people. I've always felt that I have just enough of that streak to be very scared that I'll become that way if I'm not careful.
I can't claim to be an expert in that particular field, but the best argument I have against that side of me is the idea that ethics are logically constructed things based on a divine law of love, rather than something genetic that others seem to feel more strongly than I. I have been told, many times, that I should just quit asking for logic to this end and just accept that morals are true because I know that. The trouble is that I don't "just know that". I'm trying to teach myself, as you mention, and need the logic to support the idea.

I don't look to God to cure the ailments of man. I look to medicine, and not always to cure, but to prevent.

I wanted to add that I'm a big fan of modern medicine as well.

If one believes God can cure it, certainly He can prevent it. He has opted out. Therefore, it is for man to guide our children and lead them towards morality and to help those who must learn morality.

It's not that I can't empathize with your position here, but this thought leaves me with a sense of hopelessness. Specifically, it leaves me feeling that I have no rational reason to do so.

[Metatron]

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.

How so? Through out history man has had a wide variety of interpretations of deity with dramatic differences in the ethics of the societies in which they participate. Even the ethical standards promulgated by most modern religions show a shift to follow the evolving moral standards of society. How is deity proof of objective ethical standards when those standards appear to be moving targets?

[Celsus]

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.

How so? Through out history man has had a wide variety of interpretations of deity with dramatic differences in the ethics of the societies in which they participate. Even the ethical standards promulgated by most modern religions show a shift to follow the evolving moral standards of society. How is deity proof of objective ethical standards when those standards appear to be moving targets?

I agree. I would have asked the same now.

[Cathar1950]

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.

That makes no sense and it is an empty claim.
I wrote this for another thread where we are having the same problem.

Here goes: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.


.

[Celsus]

Has Jester fled the thread?

[Poverello]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

I'm fairly sure almost any theist would agree that if God didn't exist, nothing would exist at all. What the guy in the video ought to be asking is "what if belief in God disappeared".

Regardless, I don't see how anyone willing to reflect on the video's content could ever take it as anything more than either a joke or the defensive product of a very sad person indeed. Neither do I see what there may or may not be in it to agree with, as you've asked.

I'd also like to point out that Jester's argument to justifiable ground is a valid deduction. I've always had a hard time laying out deductive arguments geometrically, but I'll do my best to fully demonstrate Jester's conclusion tomorrow. The implications should be the real debate.

[Celsus]

Assuming God (and especially BibleGod) exists then what would happen if it disappeared? Would all morality vanish too?

Do you agree with this video?

I'm fairly sure almost any theist would agree that if God didn't exist, nothing would exist at all. What the guy in the video ought to be asking is "what if belief in God disappeared".

Regardless, I don't see how anyone willing to reflect on the video's content could ever take it as anything more than either a joke or the defensive product of a very sad person indeed. Neither do I see what there may or may not be in it to agree with, as you've asked.

I'd also like to point out that Jester's argument to justifiable ground is a valid deduction. I've always had a hard time laying out deductive arguments geometrically, but I'll do my best to fully demonstrate Jester's conclusion tomorrow. The implications should be the real debate.

Ok, then: what if the 'belief' in God (the one from the Bible in this case) disappeared?

[JoeyKnothead]

Has Jester fled the thread?

Naw, he don't do that. He'll show up. If not, just PM him a link to the thread and I'll bet he responds.

[Poverello]

Ok, then: what if the 'belief' in God (the one from the Bible in this case) disappeared?

As a general question, the only answers I'd be willing to give are obvious and irrelevant ones, like that this forum wouldn't exist (at least, not for the reasons it does now).

Belief in a God or gods is so fundamentally ingrained into our history, culture, and daily lives that everyone on earth experiences the consequences of it (if not directly then indirectly). To assert a non-deductive consequence of those beliefs not existing is entirely beyond the scope of anything I'm comfortable with; The variables are unfathomable to the point of negating any reasonable claim to probability. It is therefore an unanswerable question.

Or are you wondering what it would be like if everything was exactly as it is now, then suddenly everyone who held any sort of theistic position just didn't? I find that to also be beyond the scope of anything worthy of an answer.

It seems a common tactic in debates about God to create questions based on some speculation which appears plausible but is actually complete nonsense--a sophism, as it were. This tactic is a trap for the half-witted opposer who, when he attempts an answer, invariably ends up creating a straw man out of his own position which can then be beaten to a bloody pulp (since the question is nonsense, so must be the answer). The question posed in this thread is a perfect example of such a tactic; Quite ingenious, I suppose, but also quite useless except as a means to make oneself feel intelligent and correct without justification.

I'm happy to see that, so far, no one has taken the bait.

As for Jester's reply, I'll get to the demonstration in just a bit (I'm currently at work).

EDIT: For fairness I'd like to add that what I've described above may not be the intention of the person presenting the question.