God’s derivation of morals

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

God’s derivation of morals

Post #1

Post by Willum »

This is actually an ancient dilemma, that seems to be glossed over, sometimes bloodily, throughout history.

If the modern god, named God (as contrasted against Osiris and other deities), is the source of morality, then how can morality be other than an inappropriate opinion for wee humans, who are not omnipotent or omniscient, etc.?

If morals are not this god’s opinion, then where does this absolute morality come from?

If you claim God has the monopoly on morality because it created life, then you fail in several ways.
Men create things without dictating their morality. With no capacity to dictate morality.
Men create children with different opinions then their parents.
Further, parents should be able to, under the same constraints of this God perform morally. Such things as drown their children should they be ruled “wicked in the eyes of God.”
Finally, the ultimate absolute of: if God created morality, how is there morality, and not status quo? Is God incompetent?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #21

Post by Tcg »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:25 pm Interestingly, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was conceived, religious "moral" played a major role.
There's nothing surprising about that, assuming it is true. Humans invented then developed religions, their numerous gods (including YHWH), and their morals. Thankfully we have refined them over the years. There is much refinement left, but it's a start.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #22

Post by Eloi »

Tcg wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:33 pm
Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:25 pm Interestingly, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was conceived, religious "moral" played a major role.
There's nothing surprising about that, assuming it is true. Humans invented then developed religions, their numerous gods (including YHWH), and their morals. Thankfully we have refined them over the years. There is much refinement left, but it's a start.


Tcg
I didn't say it was "surprising" but "interesting", that human leaders at that time consider religious principles the base for human rights.

Now that religion seems to be an enemy of some influential people in the world, human behavior is not very promising. The Bible had already said:

2 Tim. 3:1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.

Is it not surprising to you?
Last edited by Eloi on Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #23

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Goat in post #19]

Are we going to discuss every stale worn out tangent regarding freewill and morality?
Is your goal to dismiss this topic by diluting it with tangential nonsense that hasn't been resolved the millions of other times it's been discussed?
Perhaps you would like to, but you really should start another topic if you wish to show the world how good you are at creating strawmen using worn out arguments.

The point of a rational discussion is not to invoke discussion and logical paths that lead nowhere, and always have, but to explore new ones that can reach conclusions.

You should try it.

Thanks!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #24

Post by Goat »

Willum wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:38 pm [Replying to Goat in post #19]

Are we going to discuss every stale worn out tangent regarding freewill and morality?
Is your goal to dismiss this topic by diluting it with tangential nonsense that hasn't been resolved the millions of other times it's been discussed?
Perhaps you would like to, but you really should start another topic if you wish to show the world how good you are at creating strawmen using worn out arguments.

The point of a rational discussion is not to invoke discussion and logical paths that lead nowhere, and always have, but to explore new ones that can reach conclusions.

You should try it.

Thanks!
part of a rational discussant is being able to demonstrate your claims are true. In this case, your premise 'absolute morality' that you are basing the rest of your argument on is not a true statement. As soon as you used that word 'absolute' in that context, it became a leading question, and not based on anything more than presumptions.

There is no such thing as 'absolute morality' that can be shown to be true, and that is what your entire argument is based on. Until such time as you can demonstrate there is absolute morality, your op is just a leading question that is trying to guide people to what you think is a predetermined end point, but your start point is not rational or provable.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #25

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Willum in post #23]

Well, were that what you asserted, fine.
But you kept asserting stale, worn-out, tangential arguments to the topic.
That is ingenuous, as is your continued insistence that you have the right not to discuss the topic.

It is certainly your right.
But I don't care.

Feel free to discuss whatever you like, sans me.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #26

Post by Eloi »

The concept of "moral" or "morality" is relative when it comes to different cultures. However, long ago human leaders have been making human conventions to decide what should be "moral" or "legal."

In matters related to religion, the morality that is decided by human leaders is not determinative. A Jehovah's Witness, for example, must obey human law wherever he is, because the Scripture says that the Christian must obey the secular authorities of the country where he is. The exception is when some human law try to force the Christian to disobey some biblical principle; in that case, God must be obeyed before man.

In any case, human beings have a notion of what is moral or not, because we know what hurts us, and we understand that as it hurts us, it can also hurt another person. From this came the principle of treating others as oneself. Human beings were created in the image of God, and that includes our conscience, which supports us or judges us when we do something. It's a natural thing, and it happens almost universally.

In other aspects, when a person benefits from his own actions, and in the short or long term the consequences negatively affect that person (even if they do not accept it) or others, or the planet, etc, then their decision would be immoral in a broad sense of the word if that is the case. God's laws and principles have much to do with that; He can see the consequences on a much broader level than we can. The Bible says that His commands are for our own good.

In any case, humans, even if they have a notion of what is moral or not, cannot reach "universal" decisions for many reasons. For example, different cultures, or local conventions, or traditions, etc. Jehovah's Witnesses from all over the earth have the same moral principles; that does not happen with the different peoples of the world, no matter how hard the world's leaders try to agree.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #27

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Eloi in post #26]

and yet the topic is called, "God’s derivation of morals."

Almost as if I didn't care about relative morality or man's perspective of them.
I wonder why I would have posted what I did, if I didn't want to talk about relativism or humanity?

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #28

Post by Eloi »

Willum wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:11 pm [Replying to Eloi in post #26]

and yet the topic is called, "God’s derivation of morals."

Almost as if I didn't care about relative morality or man's perspective of them.
I wonder why I would have posted what I did, if I didn't want to talk about relativism or humanity?
I don't even understand what you call "God’s derivation of morals". AND it is true that you are using the expression "absolute morality" without explaining what you mean with that.

"Moral" can be relative, can be absolute, can be personal or whatever, depending on what you are trying to talk about. You opened the topic; so explain better what you mean. It is not a tangential issue, it is the issue in the topic.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #29

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Eloi in post #28]

And yet you felt the need to comment expansively on something you don't, by your own words, understand.

Lord have mercy!
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.

You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #30

Post by Eloi »

Willum wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:20 pm [Replying to Eloi in post #28]

And yet you felt the need to comment expansively on something you don't, by your own words, understand.

Lord have mercy!
I was talking about diferent aspects of morality.
Biblically, even non-believers can have acceptable morals, since human beings were created with a conscience that develops from an early age. So where would that non-believer's morality come from? From God when our first parents were created? Or from the human's own conscience? Would it be that innate "conscience" of man, some part of what you call "absolute morality"?

Rom. 2:14 For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.

Post Reply