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
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 #51

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #50]

I notice the Christians have abandoned this topic.

I guess they don’t like the ideas it conjures up:

That the drowning of every child in the flood was an act of God’s personal opinion about morality, one that, according to the myth, we were given the ability to judge.

They now must ask themselves, would they do the same thing, or, maybe just nip it at the garden.

Anyway, it’s rather amusing that avoiding the topic is how theists address it.

Usually that is a sign to the rational that their beliefs are internally inconsistent.

Anyway, thank you for your patience in this topic. You certainly redeemed yourself, in my eyes.

Like my opinion matters…

Kind regards,

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #52

Post by Purple Knight »

Willum wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:33 pm That the drowning of every child in the flood was an act of God’s personal opinion about morality, one that, according to the myth, we were given the ability to judge.

They now must ask themselves, would they do the same thing, or, maybe just nip it at the garden.

Anyway, it’s rather amusing that avoiding the topic is how theists address it.

Usually that is a sign to the rational that their beliefs are internally inconsistent.
Well, I'm giving them the best credit I can, while admitting that this particular cosmology of morality does fall apart for me too.

Ultimately a worshiper does have to trust that God knows best, and that God understands the process, but he (the worshiper) does not, so God's judgment is ultimately better, even if the worshiper can't see that right now. Where this falls apart for me is that once you require trust, how do you know you're trusting the right person? This is especially considering that according to the myth itself, there are some very powerful, but very evil beings, like Lucifer. So then, how do we know the Devil isn't a sock-puppet and God isn't actually the Devil? To me, the answer is, we can't know that. And if you're happy with guessing, fine, but I don't want morality to be a gameshow. Pick door #2, get rewarded? Nah. That's not morality. That's the status quo when the status quo is a gameshow.

We do, however, have to contend seriously with the idea that we were created, and we're livestock - we're property - because the higher morality, the law of the land, is simply, you make it, you own it, it ought to bow to you.
Willum wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:33 pmLike my opinion matters…
Of course it does.

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 #53

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

In high school, they teach us “nothing is ever created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another.”

No creation, no creator.

QED

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #54

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Purple Knight wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 12:45 am
Willum wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:33 pm That the drowning of every child in the flood was an act of God’s personal opinion about morality, one that, according to the myth, we were given the ability to judge.

They now must ask themselves, would they do the same thing, or, maybe just nip it at the garden.

Anyway, it’s rather amusing that avoiding the topic is how theists address it.

Usually that is a sign to the rational that their beliefs are internally inconsistent.
Well, I'm giving them the best credit I can, while admitting that this particular cosmology of morality does fall apart for me too.

Ultimately a worshiper does have to trust that God knows best, and that God understands the process, but he (the worshiper) does not, so God's judgment is ultimately better, even if the worshiper can't see that right now. Where this falls apart for me is that once you require trust, how do you know you're trusting the right person? This is especially considering that according to the myth itself, there are some very powerful, but very evil beings, like Lucifer. So then, how do we know the Devil isn't a sock-puppet and God isn't actually the Devil? To me, the answer is, we can't know that. And if you're happy with guessing, fine, but I don't want morality to be a gameshow. Pick door #2, get rewarded? Nah. That's not morality. That's the status quo when the status quo is a gameshow.

We do, however, have to contend seriously with the idea that we were created, and we're livestock - we're property - because the higher morality, the law of the land, is simply, you make it, you own it, it ought to bow to you.
Willum wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 11:33 pmLike my opinion matters…
Of course it does.
Yes. It's a apologetics refuge that I've come across in various forms "God knows best" which means that we abrogate every ermpathic, logical and moral concept at need and trust that God knows best. I detest it. I also argue that 'Good' is supposed to be God's nature. And we are supposed to be made in God's image - naturally good without having to think about it, until we became aware of evil (potentially) and lost our natural innocence. Which (wearing my theist hat which prevents me ever wearing my Plague mask) would be the most sense I could make of the Eden scenario.

Oddly it means that if atheists did fornicate in the streets, that would be what Adam and his offpring would have done if they'd not listened to the serpent, and Christian morality with keeping sex out of sight and never talking about it is actually the knowledge of evil that so miffed God. Go figure. A natural and easy approach to sex is more Eden than the red -faced 'it's not nice' approach of 'religious (it has to be said) decency.

However, the point is that humans partaking of God's nature should have the same morality as God, yes? So what is immoral to us ought to be immoral to God. Yet he makes evil, does evil, orders it or approves it. Thus 'God knows best' is actually against the logic and reason or morality as based on the Bible. It is known that this 'Problem of Evil' is one of the biggest deconverters (according to the stories) and only Faith -based, fingers in the ears denial will see 'God knows best' as a valid apologetic. It is just an excuse to not listen, abrogate reason and flee into Faithbased denial.

As always, it does not win the argument but it does perhaps enable the Believer to cling to faith at the cost of all reason, evidence and their own humanity.

From the pulpit of the United Church of Atheistic Sciencism and Darwinism; free parking and Wi -Fi;, Sermon on a Sunday.
Willum wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:54 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

In high school, they teach us “nothing is ever created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another.”

No creation, no creator.

QED
Not that it's the topic, but this is only how it works on earth. The first (reasonable) idea that nobody could live on the underside of the earth (Aquinus, as I recall) was related to conditions on earth and a wider understanding showed that there was no up and down in space and already discovering Australia showed that Aquinus was wrong in his reasonable but limited conclusion.

Similarly, Relativity, nuclear physics and Quantum mechanics changed perceptions about reality and matter; and while things still worked on earth as they always had (Newtonian physics still applies), you can't use a mantra about physics on earth to apply to a cosmos that doesn't work according to earth - related physics.

That said, of course there is the question of whether (aside from chemistry and physics) matter/energy can be destroyed or created. It seems that matter and anti matter can destroy each other but (famously as is antimatter engines in Sci fi) it produces something else - power. or energy. The question is whether energy in a basic form can exist without something creating it? I've said it before - it seems counter -intuitive, but the idea of a huge invisible human being there to do it with no explanation of where that being came from seems even more counter -intuitive, or at least illogical, primitive and intellectually childish.

So to sum up this digression into cosmic origins, while I can't convincingly explain the origins of cosmic matter, A huge invisible human is not the answer. Even before someone asks: "Which god are we talking about, again?"

We can agree to differ over a cosmic mind. I can even grope towards an ordered pre -matter uncaused cause and I'm ok with that. :) It seems that we agree on religious beliefs after all.

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 #55

Post by Willum »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #54]

True, it is not on topic, but antimatter paired with matter is necessary for its creation.

Thus the total is alway the same.

If a positron is created, an electron is also.

That is unavailable, and thus, nothing is ever created nor destroyed, but TRANSFORMATION is allowed.

With no creation, a creator is superfluous.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #56

Post by Purple Knight »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:42 am However, the point is that humans partaking of God's nature should have the same morality as God, yes? So what is immoral to us ought to be immoral to God.
If this is not the case, then God has limited use for us in understanding morality. And what use is a god beyond helping us achieve what is right? Well, imo, none.

It might be that morality is just something lesser beings are best off doing because we don't understand everything. So be it, but then God is useless. Maybe he can tell me, kill that guy, but not this one, and maybe that results in the best outcome. But that's not really me understanding anything and it's morally worthless. It has the same moral value to me as simply saying Bender Bending Rodriguez knows best and listening to him. Get it? Because it makes me a robot, not a moral agent.

What I'm complaining about is being given the right answer on a math test. That defeats the point of the test. Once in college, I noticed someone who was rather nasty to me copying off my test, so I wrote down all the wrong answers and then sat for a bit, pretending I was just finishing my water, and as soon as the copycat turned in his paper, I changed my answers to the correct ones. I've actually since decided that it was cruel, but the point is, the fellow who copies is not better if he happens to get the right answer. He's the same as the fellow who I intentionally caused to get a big fat zero.
Willum wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 7:54 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

In high school, they teach us “nothing is ever created nor destroyed, only transformed from one state to another.”

No creation, no creator.

QED
Here is what a Libertarian will tell you.

They will say that whoever "mixes his labour" with unrefined resources creates property. They will also say that animals don't count as refiners of resources, as creators of property, even though beavers for example do exactly this they do not own their dams, and that animals are mere property themselves because animals are lesser beings.

Rights of animals:
https://mises.org/library/rights-animals

So if God shows up, and is a greater being than humans, Libertarians have a problem, because God can now say, I am a greater being, you own jack squat and I own you, and the Libertarians won't be able to object because they did the same to animals on the same basis.

This is actually a problem for all of us who consent to our laws and governments so much as our current Western system derives itself from a Libertarian one. Our societies are largely based in ownership of private property, as are our laws.

If God says to me, why did you follow those laws? Did you believe in them? I will say no, I did not, but there wasn't much I could do about it except say so, which I did. I've said I think that legal structure is hateful but I haven't acted directly against it so maybe that will count as passive consent and I'll be hoisted from what is considered to be my own petard: I don't have rights because some greater being claims I'm not advanced enough to have them. I'm just property. Just an animal.

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 #57

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #56]

Libritarian?

How about a Lilliputian? County Rock Star?

You were just presented with actionable information and you obfuscated.

Unusual behavior. Huh

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #58

Post by Purple Knight »

Willum wrote: Mon May 02, 2022 7:54 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #56]

Libritarian?

How about a Lilliputian? County Rock Star?

You were just presented with actionable information and you obfuscated.

Unusual behavior. Huh
I should have also included that you're right about nothing being created or destroyed.

However, the laws most of us live by have a Libertarian basis in which the original appropriation of property, the initial creation of property, is by transformation rather than creation. Cut down a tree and make a house, it's yours. Domesticate red jungle fowl into chickens, they're yours. So God might say we belong to him and there's not a lot we can say against it.

I should not have rambled. This is why people think I obfuscate. I don't, but it's justified to think so because sometimes I ramble and I'm not clear.

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 #59

Post by Willum »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #58]

Until the chickens run away, the wood catches on fire, the dog turns on you, or the man rebels.

Hmm… how about that?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: God’s derivation of morals

Post #60

Post by Bust Nak »

Willum wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:54 pm The only thing lost are the tears of theists who can't face reality.
Moderator Comment

Please do not make personal remarks about a whole group of people.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply