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?

[Cathar1950]

The objective purpose of human life is the propagation of the species. All other purposes are subjective based on one's culture, religion, personal bias, etc.

I would call this an objective function, rather than an objective purpose. The difference being that I am here using function to describe what human beings, in fact do, and purpose to describe what human beings ought to do. Essentially, I do not consider those who fail at having large numbers of offspring to be leading inherently less meaningful lives than those who do.

I also do not understand why the existence of a deity logically provides an objective moral standard. Even if we grant God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has to be consistent. He is by definition not subject to any morality not self-imposed. What if his nature is whimsical, irrational, inconsistent, etc.? What if he is completely amoral? If this was the case, how would God have provided an objective moral standard?

This is true, and has been mentioned before. I should clarify, then, to "God as defined by Christianity" (though other definitions would accomplish the same thing).
That being the case, those other possibilities you mention would not apply.

According to some Christians the Christian God has been defined by the Jews in the Hebrew writings and the Christian Old Testament. The crazy idea of the Trinity came from the Christians insisting that Jesus was both god and that he was fully human and fully divine and one with the OT God.
If we look at the stories in the OT it is hard to tell if the god they depict is a demon or spirit and sometimes a man like messenger.
When your god tells you to kill every man woman and child it is hard to qualify it as moral or moral behavior of a god or human but that is partly because of our modern sensibilities. The world is slowly maturing.
What if a demon protects his followers? Is it any different?
How do we know if the demon is a god or evil spirit? Do we grab some ancient writings we want to call evidence and check out things that can't be checked or do we discern the spirits with some other method?

I hardly think the survival of the species is an objective end but it is a practical one in if your offspring don't survive the can't reproduce. But that hardly makes them useless or meaningless. Even animals that lose out in the breeding selection because of their social order preform a function. They help protect the heard and offer back-up.
But we are suppose to believe that because we don't pass on our genes our life is somehow meaningless especially when we humans are good at creating meaning. as well as discovering it.

[Metatron]

The objective purpose of human life is the propagation of the species. All other purposes are subjective based on one's culture, religion, personal bias, etc.

I would call this an objective function, rather than an objective purpose. The difference being that I am here using function to describe what human beings, in fact do, and purpose to describe what human beings ought to do. Essentially, I do not consider those who fail at having large numbers of offspring to be leading inherently less meaningful lives than those who do.

I would contend that the propagation of the species is an objective purpose of man as a species or even of significantly smaller sub-divisions (i.e.. a group purpose). This purpose may very well be over ruled on the individual level by one's own subjective purposes.

I also do not understand why the existence of a deity logically provides an objective moral standard. Even if we grant God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has to be consistent. He is by definition not subject to any morality not self-imposed. What if his nature is whimsical, irrational, inconsistent, etc.? What if he is completely amoral? If this was the case, how would God have provided an objective moral standard?

This is true, and has been mentioned before. I should clarify, then, to "God as defined by Christianity" (though other definitions would accomplish the same thing).
That being the case, those other possibilities you mention would not apply.

I fail to see how adding "as defined by Christianity" helps your case. If I were to make the claim that the Christian God was irrational and inconsistent, what would you use as evidence to counter me? I don't see how the Bible would be of much help since it has a number of stories where God exhibits capricious if not violent behavior and where God appears to be content with the eternal torment of most of mankind. If the Bible is not literally true then one has to pick and choose which parts actually reflects God's true nature. That makes Christian morality subjective based on the teachings of each of the various Christian sects or one's own individual analysis.

[Jester]

According to some Christians the Christian God has been defined by the Jews in the Hebrew writings and the Christian Old Testament. The crazy idea of the Trinity came from the Christians insisting that Jesus was both god and that he was fully human and fully divine and one with the OT God.

I don't yet see how this is relevant to the issue Metatron raises.

If we look at the stories in the OT it is hard to tell if the god they depict is a demon or spirit and sometimes a man like messenger.
When your god tells you to kill every man woman and child it is hard to qualify it as moral or moral behavior of a god or human but that is partly because of our modern sensibilities. The world is slowly maturing.

We are discussing the idea that secular "modern sensibilities" are logically baseless. I feel that the idea that they automatically trump the God concept is an assumption.
As to any ethical issue one might take with things written in the Bible, it is often difficult to sort out some of these issues, particularly with cursory glances and reading outside of cultural context. Judging God in passing, then, does not seem to me to be at all logical.

What if a demon protects his followers? Is it any different?
How do we know if the demon is a god or evil spirit?

This is outside what I was arguing. I said nothing of protection, but of the ability to create reality and ethics at will.

Do we grab some ancient writings we want to call evidence and check out things that can't be checked or do we discern the spirits with some other method?

The fact that these things are very difficult to check is beside the point of this discussion. It neither refutes my point about God as being able to establish ethics, nor does it provide us with a logical reason to accept secular ethics.

I hardly think the survival of the species is an objective end but it is a practical one in if your offspring don't survive the can't reproduce. But that hardly makes them useless or meaningless. Even animals that lose out in the breeding selection because of their social order preform a function. They help protect the heard and offer back-up.

This is back to arguing utilitarianism.

But we are suppose to believe that because we don't pass on our genes our life is somehow meaningless especially when we humans are good at creating meaning. as well as discovering it.

I don't argue that passing on genes is the source of meaning. I was specifically arguing against that.
Also, I don't know what you mean by create meaning. Is there any reason to believe that something is meaningful simply because someone says it is? That seems to me to be an unsupported opinion.
As to discovering meaning, could you explain how we do that, as well as how we check to see whether that meaning is real or wishful thinking?

[Jester]

The objective purpose of human life is the propagation of the species. All other purposes are subjective based on one's culture, religion, personal bias, etc.

I would call this an objective function, rather than an objective purpose. The difference being that I am here using function to describe what human beings, in fact do, and purpose to describe what human beings ought to do. Essentially, I do not consider those who fail at having large numbers of offspring to be leading inherently less meaningful lives than those who do.

I would contend that the propagation of the species is an objective purpose of man as a species or even of significantly smaller sub-divisions (i.e.. a group purpose). This purpose may very well be over ruled on the individual level by one's own subjective purposes.

On what logical grounds would you base this contention? What makes the survival of the species objectively good, as opposed to something the members of a species subjectively want?

I also do not understand why the existence of a deity logically provides an objective moral standard. Even if we grant God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has to be consistent. He is by definition not subject to any morality not self-imposed. What if his nature is whimsical, irrational, inconsistent, etc.? What if he is completely amoral? If this was the case, how would God have provided an objective moral standard?

This is true, and has been mentioned before. I should clarify, then, to "God as defined by Christianity" (though other definitions would accomplish the same thing).
That being the case, those other possibilities you mention would not apply.

I fail to see how adding "as defined by Christianity" helps your case. If I were to make the claim that the Christian God was irrational and inconsistent, what would you use as evidence to counter me?

I would point out that we are not discussing the irrationality of God (and think it would derail us to get into that), but of the ability to create the universe for a purpose, thereby lending objective weight to the utilitarian perspective Cathar and I discussed. You may not agree with the Bible's claims, but I don't see that it is rational at all to say that this is not one of them.

I don't see how the Bible would be of much help since it has a number of stories where God exhibits capricious if not violent behavior and where God appears to be content with the eternal torment of most of mankind.

Most scholars would agree that such a reaction to violence is more telling of our cultural moment than the Bible. We may be uncomfortable with the idea that God supports war at times, but it seems telling to me that this attitude is pervasive only in well-defended countries.
As to "eternal torment", hell is not God's torture chamber. It is the natural consequence of trying to exist without God. The only way that he could prevent it is by forcing people to be with him when they want other things. As such, I don't see that his willingness to let them go, after a warning that such is a bad idea, is unethical at all.

If the Bible is not literally true then one has to pick and choose which parts actually reflects God's true nature.

One has to interpret, agreed. But this is true of all things, and interpretation is quite a different thing than "pick and choose". A literal interpretation focuses on physical events. To focus on spiritual messages instead is more realistic, and does not have to involve any throwing out of sections.

That makes Christian morality subjective based on the teachings of each of the various Christian sects or one's own individual analysis.

One's subjective nature can certainly influence one's conclusions. This is true in all areas of life. This does not mean that we have shown the logical basis of this idea to be subjective. Ethics are still created objectively by God in this scenario. The fact that people may guess somewhat wrong about them due to subjective bias does not really address the point.

[Metatron]

I would contend that the propagation of the species is an objective purpose of man as a species or even of significantly smaller sub-divisions (i.e.. a group purpose). This purpose may very well be over ruled on the individual level by one's own subjective purposes.

On what logical grounds would you base this contention? What makes the survival of the species objectively good, as opposed to something the members of a species subjectively want?

Propagation of the species in an instinctual drive not only of man but all life. It is woven into the fabric of our very being. Whether we acknowledge it on an individual basis, it is hard not to acknowledge it as an objective driving purpose of our species.

I fail to see how adding "as defined by Christianity" helps your case. If I were to make the claim that the Christian God was irrational and inconsistent, what would you use as evidence to counter me?

I would point out that we are not discussing the irrationality of God (and think it would derail us to get into that), but of the ability to create the universe for a purpose, thereby lending objective weight to the utilitarian perspective Cathar and I discussed. You may not agree with the Bible's claims, but I don't see that it is rational at all to say that this is not one of them.

And I would point out that the discussion of whether God is rational IS germane to the discussion of whether or not God's existence provides a logical proof of an objective standard of ethics. If God is irrational or amoral, then morality is subjective even from God's point of view much less man's. A subjectively moral God cannot be the source of an objective moral standard.

I don't see how the Bible would be of much help since it has a number of stories where God exhibits capricious if not violent behavior and where God appears to be content with the eternal torment of most of mankind.

Most scholars would agree that such a reaction to violence is more telling of our cultural moment than the Bible. We may be uncomfortable with the idea that God supports war at times, but it seems telling to me that this attitude is pervasive only in well-defended countries.
As to "eternal torment", hell is not God's torture chamber. It is the natural consequence of trying to exist without God. The only way that he could prevent it is by forcing people to be with him when they want other things. As such, I don't see that his willingness to let them go, after a warning that such is a bad idea, is unethical at all.

Not really getting the point of our culture's reaction to violence having much to do with Bible stories depicting God ordering massacres of people or killing thousands of Israelites because of David's census. The stories evoke an irrational god with the emotional maturity of a small child.

As for eternal torment, I'm afraid a substantial number of Christians appear to disagree with you as is evidenced by several active threads on this site. Truth be known, I don't personally believe that the concept of eternal damnation even of the "separation from God" variety is rational for an allegedly benevolent deity except in the extreme case of a fully informed person choosing this separation of his own free will. By fully informed I mean a person who knows God exists, understands God's plan for him, and knows of the consequences of choosing separation from God. In other words, an informed decision not the take on faith decision mankind is stuck with now.

If the Bible is not literally true then one has to pick and choose which parts actually reflects God's true nature.

One has to interpret, agreed. But this is true of all things, and interpretation is quite a different thing than "pick and choose". A literal interpretation focuses on physical events. To focus on spiritual messages instead is more realistic, and does not have to involve any throwing out of sections.

The problem is that this interpretation is entirely subjective which is the reason why there are a zillion different Christian splinter groups. The Jesters of the world do not interpret the Bible the same as the Easyriders, etc. One group looks at the Bible and sees a loving, turn the other cheek Jesus and others see a fire and brimstone deity capable of tormenting most of mankind for eternity. Which is the true interpretation and how do we choose?

That makes Christian morality subjective based on the teachings of each of the various Christian sects or one's own individual analysis.

One's subjective nature can certainly influence one's conclusions. This is true in all areas of life. This does not mean that we have shown the logical basis of this idea to be subjective. Ethics are still created objectively by God in this scenario. The fact that people may guess somewhat wrong about them due to subjective bias does not really address the point.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that God himself has an objective moral standard, what does it truly matter if we are all trying to perceive this alleged objective moral standard through our own subjective moral lens? Without knowing God's mind we have no means of perceiving this standard and must fall back to "interpreting" it from the pages of the Bible through our own subjective perceptions.

[Scotracer]

How can one answer the question "What if God disappeared?" when he never appeared in the first place? I would say...nothing would change at all. If he exists he certainly isn't doing much. Maybe after the 7th day rest he just kept his feet up...

[Metatron]

How can one answer the question "What if God disappeared?" when he never appeared in the first place? I would say...nothing would change at all. If he exists he certainly isn't doing much. Maybe after the 7th day rest he just kept his feet up...

Yes, it would appear that if God exists that he had his abracadabra moment about 15 billion years ago or so at the Big Bang and has been kicking back ever since letting the universe play itself out.

[Confused]

]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.

That is the beauty of the human body. God gave us a brain and we have evolved enough to use it. All the resources we require to learn morality are already present. However, not all of us have the capacity to learn morality in terms of what todays predominate societies consider "moral". The nature vs. nurture debate is one that will likely never end. There are some genetic/neurochemical anomalies that will always prevent some from attaining what we deem "moral". But God doesn't need to play a role in teaching morality. Nor is He responsible for demonstrating morality IMO. Scripture is riddled with contradictions about what is moral. Ultimately, we do the best we can and at the end of the day, we hope it is enough.

[scourge99]

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 does your belief in God create a premise for morality for you that, for example, an atheist who believes in the objective truth of the categorical imperative, doesn't for him?

If one accepts a categorical imperative as a premise, then that would indeed be a premise that supports morality. I have yet to meet an atheist who argues that he/she simply accepts that as a premise (or, in religious terms, on faith),

All beliefs are based on premises. Unless you would argue that most atheists are nihilists. Otherwise atheists must be accepting some type of premises for their world view. And those premises, like your belief in God, is often the basis for their morality.

[Jester]

I would contend that the propagation of the species is an objective purpose of man as a species or even of significantly smaller sub-divisions (i.e.. a group purpose). This purpose may very well be over ruled on the individual level by one's own subjective purposes.

On what logical grounds would you base this contention? What makes the survival of the species objectively good, as opposed to something the members of a species subjectively want?

Propagation of the species in an instinctual drive not only of man but all life. It is woven into the fabric of our very being. Whether we acknowledge it on an individual basis, it is hard not to acknowledge it as an objective driving purpose of our species.

I'm not convinced that instincts or drives are objective at all, but merely shared subjective feelings. That life is driven to survive is an objective fact that is, indeed, woven into our being. That life should survive, is a widely held opinion.
I would call this a commonly agreed upon subjective purpose.

I fail to see how adding "as defined by Christianity" helps your case. If I were to make the claim that the Christian God was irrational and inconsistent, what would you use as evidence to counter me?

I would point out that we are not discussing the irrationality of God (and think it would derail us to get into that), but of the ability to create the universe for a purpose, thereby lending objective weight to the utilitarian perspective Cathar and I discussed. You may not agree with the Bible's claims, but I don't see that it is rational at all to say that this is not one of them.

And I would point out that the discussion of whether God is rational IS germane to the discussion of whether or not God's existence provides a logical proof of an objective standard of ethics. If God is irrational or amoral, then morality is subjective even from God's point of view much less man's.

Very well, my position is that God is rational and moral, according to the Bible. Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

A subjectively moral God cannot be the source of an objective moral standard.

God, as he is defined in the Bible, has the ability to make objective reality at will. This would counter the idea that his positions are subjective.

Most scholars would agree that such a reaction to violence is more telling of our cultural moment than the Bible. We may be uncomfortable with the idea that God supports war at times, but it seems telling to me that this attitude is pervasive only in well-defended countries.
As to "eternal torment", hell is not God's torture chamber. It is the natural consequence of trying to exist without God. The only way that he could prevent it is by forcing people to be with him when they want other things. As such, I don't see that his willingness to let them go, after a warning that such is a bad idea, is unethical at all.

Not really getting the point of our culture's reaction to violence having much to do with Bible stories depicting God ordering massacres of people or killing thousands of Israelites because of David's census. The stories evoke an irrational god with the emotional maturity of a small child.

This is a sweeping judgment of God taken out of any context and ignoring the fact that this same God sustains the existence of people beyond death (making any action a far cry from what is usually considered a murderous intent).
Beyond that, this is not really to the point. It seems to be an attempt to argue against the idea that God, as he is defined in the Bible, could create objective ethics at will by claiming that he is himself immoral. This idea of immorality seems to stem from something which has not been shown to be objective, but rather a collective opinion. I think it makes more sense to say either this is a misunderstanding of God or ethics, or that neither exist at all.

As for eternal torment, I'm afraid a substantial number of Christians appear to disagree with you as is evidenced by several active threads on this site.

I completely agree that there are many Christians who disagree with me on this point. My position is that they are wrong.

Truth be known, I don't personally believe that the concept of eternal damnation even of the "separation from God" variety is rational for an allegedly benevolent deity except in the extreme case of a fully informed person choosing this separation of his own free will.

That is what I described, save of course, for this:

By fully informed I mean a person who knows God exists, understands God's plan for him, and knows of the consequences of choosing separation from God.

I don't myself feel that people lack the essential understanding. We may not know for sure that God exists, but, upon realizing that he does (in death) we have a choice to either say "you're what I've been looking for" or "get away from me, I hate you". As for consequences and plan, those have been outlined pretty clearly.

In other words, an informed decision not the take on faith decision mankind is stuck with now.

I'll agree that all decisions we make require a little faith, as we are never really certain of anything.
The problem here is, then, that we can't be fully informed about anything. I don't see a reason to demand it in this instance.

If the Bible is not literally true then one has to pick and choose which parts actually reflects God's true nature.

One has to interpret, agreed. But this is true of all things, and interpretation is quite a different thing than "pick and choose". A literal interpretation focuses on physical events. To focus on spiritual messages instead is more realistic, and does not have to involve any throwing out of sections.

The problem is that this interpretation is entirely subjective which is the reason why there are a zillion different Christian splinter groups.

Is this untrue of any other code of conduct? People argue about anything that interests us. I know that this is extremely frustrating (it is for me, particularly when I meet certain types of Christians). The trouble is that we can't reject an idea on the grounds that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. There are shades of meaning in all statements that must be interpreted.

The Jesters of the world do not interpret the Bible the same as the Easyriders, etc. One group looks at the Bible and sees a loving, turn the other cheek Jesus and others see a fire and brimstone deity capable of tormenting most of mankind for eternity. Which is the true interpretation and how do we choose?

You know which I would say. Mostly, I'd argue that the latter type gets their interpretation by ignoring context as well as the fact that every summary (and, therefore, clue to overall interparative stance) of the Bible's message comes back to love. It seems to me that the Bible itself is sending the message that the loving take is right, and the hateful take is wrong.

One's subjective nature can certainly influence one's conclusions. This is true in all areas of life. This does not mean that we have shown the logical basis of this idea to be subjective. Ethics are still created objectively by God in this scenario. The fact that people may guess somewhat wrong about them due to subjective bias does not really address the point.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that God himself has an objective moral standard, what does it truly matter if we are all trying to perceive this alleged objective moral standard through our own subjective moral lens?

This is how we perceive everything. If we counted this as a reason to abandon all hope of finding meaning, then the sciences, and all other fields of study, should be abandoned as well.

Without knowing God's mind we have no means of perceiving this standard and must fall back to "interpreting" it from the pages of the Bible through our own subjective perceptions.

I agree, but there are definitely more accurate interpretations. Those that ignore cultural context and the commentary that the Bible itself gives are not among them.