"Is God the source of Morality?"

[Dr.Physics]

"Is an action good and just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good and just?" this is known as the Euthyphro dilemma.

so what does this show us? lets take a look: (to see conclusion of the argument, go to end of post)

Explanation of the dilemma

The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is commanded by God because it is right) goes under a variety of names: intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and/or objectivism. Roughly, it is the view that there are independent moral standards: some actions are right or wrong in themselves, independently of God's commands.

Problems
This horn of the dilemma faces several problems:

Sovereignty: If there are moral standards independent of God's will, then "[t]here is something over which God is not sovereign. God is bound by the laws of morality instead of being their establisher. Moreover, God depends for his goodness on the extent to which he conforms to an independent moral standard. Thus, God is not absolutely independent." 18th-century philosopher Richard Price, who takes the first horn and thus sees morality as "necessary and immutable", sets out the objection as follows: "It may seem that this is setting up something distinct from God, which is independent of him, and equally eternal and necessary."
Omnipotence: These moral standards would limit God's power: not even God could oppose them by commanding what is evil and thereby making it good. As Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn "seems to place a restriction on God's power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory... [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong." This point was very influential in Islamic theology: "In relation to God, objective values appeared as a limiting factor to His power to do as He wills... Ash'ari got rid of the whole embarrassing problem by denying the existence of objective values which might act as a standard for God’s action." Similar concerns drove the medieval voluntarists Scotus and Ockham.
Freedom of the will: Moreover, these moral standards would limit God's freedom of will: God could not command anything opposed to them, and perhaps would have no choice but to command in accordance with them. As Mark Murphy puts the point, "if moral requirements existed prior to God's willing them, requirements that an impeccable God could not violate, God's liberty would be compromised."
Morality without God: If there are moral standards independent of God, then morality would retain its authority even if God did not exist. This conclusion was explicitly (and notoriously) drawn by early modern political theorist Hugo Grotius: "What we have been saying [about the natural law] would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God, or that the affairs of men are of no concern to him" On such a view, God is no longer a "law-giver" but at most a "law-transmitter" who plays no vital role in the foundations of morality. Nontheists have capitalized on this point, largely as a way of disarming moral arguments for God's existence: if morality does not depend on God in the first place, such arguments stumble at the starting gate.

The second horn
The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is right is right because it is commanded by God) is sometimes known as divine command theory or voluntarism. Roughly, it is the view that there are no moral standards other than God's will: without God's commands, nothing would be right or wrong.

Problems
This horn of the dilemma also faces several problems:

No reasons for morality: If there is no moral standard other than God's will, then God's commands are arbitrary (i.e., based on pure whimsy or caprice). This would mean that morality is ultimately not based on reasons: "if theological voluntarism is true, then God's commands/intentions must be arbitrary; [but] it cannot be that morality could wholly depend on something arbitrary... [for] when we say that some moral state of affairs obtains, we take it that there is a reason for that moral state of affairs obtaining rather than another." And as Michael J. Murray and Michael Rea put it, this would also "cas[t] doubt on the notion that morality is genuinely objective."
No reasons for God: This arbitrariness would also jeopardize God's status as a wise and rational being, one who always acts on good reasons only. As Leibniz writes: "Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act."
Anything goes: This arbitrariness would also mean that anything could become good, and anything could become bad, merely upon God's command. Thus if God commanded us "to gratuitously inflict pain on each other" or to engage in "cruelty for its own sake" or to hold an "annual sacrifice of randomly selected ten-year-olds in a particularly gruesome ritual that involves excruciating and prolonged suffering for its victims", then we would be morally obligated to do so. As 17th-century philosopher Ralph Cudworth put it: "nothing can be imagined so grossly wicked, or so foully unjust or dishonest, but if it were supposed to be commanded by this omnipotent Deity, must needs upon that hypothesis forthwith become holy, just, and righteous."
Moral contingency: If morality depends on the perfectly free will of God, morality would lose its necessity: "If nothing prevents God from loving things that are different from what God actually loves, then goodness can change from world to world or time to time. This is obviously objectionable to those who believe that claims about morality are, if true, necessarily true."In other words, no action has its moral status necessarily: any right action could have easily been wrong, if God had so decided, and an action which is right today could easily become wrong tomorrow, if God so decides. Indeed, some have argued that divine command theory is incompatible with ordinary conceptions of moral supervenience.
Why do God's commands obligate?: Mere commands do not create obligations unless the commander has some commanding authority. But this commanding authority cannot itself be based on those very commands (i.e., a command to obey one's own commands), otherwise a vicious circle results. So, in order for God's commands to obligate us, he must derive commanding authority from some source other than his own will. As Cudworth put it: "For it was never heard of, that any one founded all his authority of commanding others, and others (sic) obligation or duty to obey his commands, in a law of his own making, that men should be required, obliged, or bound to obey him. Wherefore since the thing willed in all laws is not that men should be bound or obliged to obey; this thing cannot be the product of the meer (sic) will of the commander, but it must proceed from something else; namely, the right or authority of the commander". To avoid the circle, one might say our obligation comes from gratitude to God for creating us. But this presupposes some sort of independent moral standard obligating us to be grateful to our benefactors. As 18th-century philosopher Francis Hutcheson writes: "Is the Reason exciting to concur with the Deity this, 'The Deity is our Benefactor?' Then what Reason excites to concur with Benefactors?"Or finally, one might resort to Hobbes's view: "The right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them (as if he required obedience, as of gratitude for his benefits), but from his irresistible power."In other words, might makes right.
God's goodness: If all goodness is a matter of God's will, then what shall become of God's goodness? Thus William P. Alston writes, "since the standards of moral goodness are set by divine commands, to say that God is morally good is just to say that he obeys his own commands... that God practises what he preaches, whatever that might be", and Hutcheson deems such a view "an insignificant Tautology, amounting to no more than this, 'That God wills what he wills.'"Alternatively, as Leibniz puts it, divine command theorists "deprive God of the designation good: for what cause could one have to praise him for what he does, if in doing something quite different he would have done equally well?". A related point is raised by C. S. Lewis: "if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the 'righteous Lord.'"Or again Leibniz: "this opinion would hardly distinguish God from the devil."That is, since divine command theory trivializes God's goodness, it is incapable of explaining the difference between God and an all-powerful demon.
The is-ought problem and the naturalistic fallacy: According to David Hume, it is hard to see how moral propositions featuring the relation ought could ever be deduced from ordinary is propositions, such as "the being of a God".Divine command theory is thus guilty of deducing moral oughts from ordinary ises about God's commands.In a similar vein, G. E. Moore argued (with his open question argument) that the notion good is indefinable, and any attempts to analyze it in naturalistic or metaphysical terms are guilty of the so-called "naturalistic fallacy".This would block any theory which analyzes morality in terms of God's will: and indeed, in a later discussion of divine command theory, Moore concluded that "when we assert any action to be right or wrong, we are not merely making an assertion about the attitude of mind towards it of any being or set of beings whatever".
No morality without God: If all morality is a matter of God's will, then if God does not exist, there is no morality. This is the thought captured in the slogan (often attributed to Dostoevsky) "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." Divine command theorists disagree over whether this is a problem for their view or a virtue of their view. Many would argue that morality does indeed require God's existence, and that this is in fact a problem for atheism. But divine command theorist Robert Merrihew Adams contends that this idea ("that no actions would be ethically wrong if there were not a loving God") is one that "will seem (at least initially) implausible to many", and that his theory must "dispel [an] air of paradox."

conclusion: god can not be the originator of morality, in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Dr.Physics]

Notice that I do not say that God did not create that higher morality, even though He is now responsible to it as we all are. I believe that God created the world to be logical too, and now He is just as surely bound to that logic. He can't create a square circle, either.

if god created the higher morality, it is not above him... thats the point.. if god created it:

1) he is omnipotent and can destroy/disobey it at will
2) what is moral is moral because he created it as so... so it is still "good cuz he said so"... you just re-phrased it.

it still stands, if i may humbley say

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

so, you admit "God is responsible to a moral code higher than himself"... this is you admiting that god is not the source of morality.

if god is responsible to a moral code outside himself, he could not be the author of it, thus, he is not the source...

i dont think you know you are saying that, but you are.. read it again.. and maybe try reading my post more than 3 lines in?

No, he went on to explain it a few posts later:

I think God created "the Good," and it is therefore not "higher" than He; but He is now bound to that standard as we are. Otherwise, the passage I cited makes no sense.

[Dr.Physics]

No, he went on to explain it a few posts later:

I think God created "the Good," and it is therefore not "higher" than He; but He is now bound to that standard as we are. Otherwise, the passage I cited makes no sense.

so then god is BOUND to that standard, and he did not create morality... so you are admiting god is NOT the source.. okay thankyou

[cnorman18]

God intends us to think for ourselves

Certainly God wants us to think for ourselves.

How is it that you know the intents and desires of God?

I don't, but I think it's a reasonable inference.

God gave us legs capable of upright locomotion. Therefore I think it reasonable to infer that He intended for us to walk.

God gave us functioning brains capable of independent thought. Therefore....

My problem has always been with those who claim to know WHAT God intended for us to think, not those who claim that God intended us to think at all.

No, we have legs capable of upright locomotion. I don't know that those legs are a gift from the god or came about some other way. We have functioning brains, but I don't know the any deity had a part in providing the gray matter. I really don't think that we can infer God's intent from our physiology, do you?

I think what you are saying is that we cannot infer God's existence from our physiology, and I would agree with that; but if one does believe in a Creator-God, my inferences are quite logical within that context.

Once again, "Prove there is a God" is a meaningless board game that I decline to play. I happily admit that God is not provable, but I also note that God's nonexistence is equally unprovable. I didn't that that was what we were debating.

[cnorman18]

so, you admit "God is responsible to a moral code higher than himself"... this is you admiting that god is not the source of morality.

if god is responsible to a moral code outside himself, he could not be the author of it, thus, he is not the source...

I don't see how either of those follow logically.

Even a human legislator may be the "source" of a law that he is himself obligated to follow (though our own Congress does exempt itself from many laws, e.g. against discrimination in employment). Can God not choose to obligate Himself to whatever He wishes, including to those laws (not only morality, but logic and scientific laws come to mind) which He has created? The term "Covenant" comes to mind as well. What is a covenant if not an obligation to which one has voluntarily agreed?

A couple of other notes:

1) he is omnipotent and can destroy/disobey it at will
2) what is moral is moral because he created it as so... so it is still "good cuz he said so"... you just re-phrased it.

1) Where have you ever seen me say that God is omnipotent? I don't know that.
2) Perhaps God's creation of morality was limited by the nature of reality itself; perhaps, like a square circle, cruelty that is moral (e.g.) may be a logical impossibility that is beyond even the capability of God to create.

And

3) Perhaps the creative capabilities of God ended after the Creation and God can no longer alter what He has made.
4) Perhaps He only chooses not to.
5) Perhaps all this depends on concepts and conditions of which we have never conceived.

In my humble opinion, all this is speculation; no one knows the mind or nature of God, and no one has any warrant to make pronouncements on these subjects that must be accepted as unquestionably true, including the authors of the Biblical documents. I can't conceive of a morality wherein the things that we consider immoral beyond doubt might be moral (the unprovoked murder of an innocent stranger, e.g.). That doesn't mean it might not exist, of course; or it might indeed be impossible in the nature of reality itself - the essentials of which no one knows or understands, either.

Human thought is all we have - but we don't know everything, and thought itself is not without flaw or the possibility of error. It can never become so, either; wholly consistent systems of human thought do not exist. Even mathematics and logic (and physics, hello) have holes in them that cannot be closed (Goedel). Einstein tried to reconcile Newton, relativity and quantum mechanics. Did he ever succeed? Have you?

Virtually everything that is said here is based on unprovable assumptions, e.g. the omnipotence of God. Often, in discussions like this, my own goal is to demonstrate that our thinking about God is far too limited by such assumptions. Begin with the idea that no one knows if God is actually what we call an "entity" or "being" in the first place, or if He was constrained by any considerations at all in the Creation (however that took place - no one knows that, either), or that His mode of "existence" is even analogous to what we call "objective reality."

Most of the "contradictions" and absurdities that one finds in religious thought exist only in religious thought that is limited by dogmatism and absurd, contradictory "doctrines." It's hard to find logical absurdities in the nature of God when you admit you can't define Him or limit the possibilities of that nature to the human scale and understanding.

Of COURSE, there may be no God; but we don't KNOW that, either.

[Dr.Physics]

]

so, you admit "God is responsible to a moral code higher than himself"... this is you admiting that god is not the source of morality.

if god is responsible to a moral code outside himself, he could not be the author of it, thus, he is not the source...

I don't see how either of those follow logically.

Even a human legislator may be the "source" of a law that he is himself obligated to follow

does god HAVE to follow these? or does he choose? if they are "above" him, then he HAS to follow them, and couldnt be the source BECAUSE if he was the source, he could always take them away again because of his omnipotence. so yes it does logically follow that "god cant create morality if it is independent and "above" him IF he is omnipotent."

1) he is omnipotent and can destroy/disobey it at will
2) what is moral is moral because he created it as so... so it is still "good cuz he said so"... you just re-phrased it.

[1) Where have you ever seen me say that God is omnipotent? I don't know that.
2) Perhaps God's creation of morality was limited by the nature of reality itself; perhaps, like a square circle, cruelty that is moral (e.g.) may be a logical impossibility that is beyond even the capability of God to create.

And

3) Perhaps the creative capabilities of God ended after the Creation and God can no longer alter what He has made.
4) Perhaps He only chooses not to.
5) Perhaps all this depends on concepts and conditions of which we have never conceived.

Virtually everything that is said here is based on unprovable assumptions, e.g. the omnipotence of God. Often, in discussions like this, my own goal is to demonstrate that our thinking about God is far too limited by such assumptions. Begin with the idea that no one knows if God is actually what we call an "entity" or "being" in the first place, or if He was constrained by any considerations at all in the Creation (however that took place - no one knows that, either), or that His mode of "existence" is even analogous to what we call "objective reality."

Of COURSE, there may be no God; but we don't KNOW that, either.

if you say that god is NOT omnipotent, you are believing in a different god than i am arguing against.. a potent god could get out of this argument... but would it be a god? is your god still perfectly just? omnipresent? you see where im going with this? i can only debate the commonly defined god.. please tell me what you personally believe the cause of the universe to be, or claim ignorance (as i do). i personally reserve judgement, but i dont think that this cause, whatever it is, cares and intervenes in my personal life, or that it is conscious or has wants... what makes you think it does, and what is it like? reason for thinking so?

[cnorman18]

so, you admit "God is responsible to a moral code higher than himself"... this is you admiting that god is not the source of morality.

if god is responsible to a moral code outside himself, he could not be the author of it, thus, he is not the source...

I don't see how either of those follow logically.

Even a human legislator may be the "source" of a law that he is himself obligated to follow

does god HAVE to follow these? or does he choose? if they are "above" him, then he HAS to follow them, and couldnt be the source BECAUSE if he was the source, he could always take them away again because of his omnipotence. so yes it does logically follow that "god cant create morality if it is independent and "above" him IF he is omnipotent."

1) he is omnipotent and can destroy/disobey it at will
2) what is moral is moral because he created it as so... so it is still "good cuz he said so"... you just re-phrased it.

[1) Where have you ever seen me say that God is omnipotent? I don't know that.
2) Perhaps God's creation of morality was limited by the nature of reality itself; perhaps, like a square circle, cruelty that is moral (e.g.) may be a logical impossibility that is beyond even the capability of God to create.

And

3) Perhaps the creative capabilities of God ended after the Creation and God can no longer alter what He has made.
4) Perhaps He only chooses not to.
5) Perhaps all this depends on concepts and conditions of which we have never conceived.

Virtually everything that is said here is based on unprovable assumptions, e.g. the omnipotence of God. Often, in discussions like this, my own goal is to demonstrate that our thinking about God is far too limited by such assumptions. Begin with the idea that no one knows if God is actually what we call an "entity" or "being" in the first place, or if He was constrained by any considerations at all in the Creation (however that took place - no one knows that, either), or that His mode of "existence" is even analogous to what we call "objective reality."

Of COURSE, there may be no God; but we don't KNOW that, either.

if you say that god is NOT omnipotent, you are believing in a different god than i am arguing against.. a potent god could get out of this argument... but would it be a god? is your god still perfectly just? omnipresent? you see where im going with this? i can only debate the commonly defined god.. please tell me what you personally believe the cause of the universe to be, or claim ignorance (as i do). i personally reserve judgement, but i dont think that this cause, whatever it is, cares and intervenes in my personal life, or that it is conscious or has wants... what makes you think it does, and what is it like? reason for thinking so?

I don't say that God is NOT omnipotent, either; I don't profess to know. I don't claim to know whether or not God is "conscious," has wants, intervenes in human affairs, or any of that. I don't think it's possible for any human to know those things. It may surprise you to know that I don't think them particularly important, either.

Perhaps you'd care to read some of my other posts, beginning with "What Judaism Is; One Jew's View,", "The Bible As It Is", and "What the Bible DOESN'T Say.". The focus of modern Judaism, which I identify as my own faith, is not the nature of God or theological speculations of any kind. All that is acknowledged to be exactly what it indubitably is; speculation, not doctrine, not dogma, not even "information." In those areas, there is no "information." Jews may believe what they like, across a very wide spectrum of ideas; some hold to a literalistic and supernaturalistic view of God and the Bible; there are indeed Jewish "fundamentalists," and not all of them are Orthodox. Some practicing, observant Jews do not believe in a personal God, and some do not believe in God at all.

The focus of modern Judaism is ethical behavior; it is a very practical religion, concerned with the concrete more than the abstract. Jewish ritual and practice relates to heritage, history, tradition, and ethics more than theoretical and theological dicta that are wholly unevidenced, unprovable, and moot. Those considerations are of secondary importance, or less.

It takes only a moment's reflection to understand why: Suppose that God is indeed the Author of morality, and that the Good is indeed Good because God says so. Tell me; in what way would I (or you) live differently if that were definitely known to be true? What if it were determined with absolute certainty that that is NOT the case? How would THAT be of practical importance?

The most common example of irrelevant theological navel-gazing has been, for centuries, the question of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" For Jews, ALL these theological, doctrinal, theoretical speculations about the nature of God are of precisely that level of importance, i.e., fun to think about and an interesting intellectual chess game, but no more than that. If there are still hungry, oppressed, unjustly persecuted, or otherwise hurting people in the world, why should we waste our time and energy arguing over things that no one can know?

I have said elsewhere that I don't even claim to know if the existence of God is a matter of literal, objective existence, as other things in this Universe exist. I tend to think not; "existence" is an attribute of the things of the Universe, and the only thing we know of God from the Bible is that God made the Universe, and is therefore not OF the Universe; and therefore, any attribute of this Universe and the things in it are not necessarily true of God.

Even using the Bible, those questions cannot be answered. What kind of Being is God? The Bible doesn't say. How, exactly did God make the Universe? The Bible doesn't say. And, other than satisfying human curiosity, what difference does any of that make? I can't see any.

As I have said many times: Believe what you like. The salient point of human existence, and of religious faith, in my opinion and that of very many Jews, is what you do. Belief is of importance only insofar as it affects human actions.

[Dr.Physics]

I don't say that God is NOT omnipotent, either; I don't profess to know. I don't claim to know whether or not God is "conscious," has wants, intervenes in human affairs, or any of that. I don't think it's possible for any human to know those things. It may surprise you to know that I don't think them particularly important, either.

well if you have no idea what god is, what he/she/it is like, or any other description of it, you have no grounds or reason to believe in its existence.. how can you believe in something that you dont know what it is??? or even argue FOR its "existence" (you seem to not like the word existence with god). let me show you what i mean:

if i told you that i believe in shiki-shiki (i made this up), and shiki-shiki is important to me, would you also believe in it? probably no, you would ask, what is shiki-shiki? what if i then said "shiki-shiki is beyond definition and description, undescribable and undefinable", would that help? would you see good reason to think this thing existed? saying something cant be described makes it nothing at all.

The focus of modern Judaism is ethical behavior; it is a very practical religion, concerned with the concrete more than the abstract.

well me too... i dont muddle around with the supernatural, the superstitious, or metaphysical... my ethics and morality are based soley on the principle of acting in ways which bring the most happiness and least harm to everyone around me, including animals.
this is why it is so important to know if god is the source of morality or not.. if there really is a god, who is all knowing, all just, and is the author of morality, and he says that sacrifice is moral, who are YOU to question it??? if god IS the author of morality, we would be in trouble... and people actually believe he is. (even if you dont)

It takes only a moment's reflection to understand why: Suppose that God is indeed the Author of morality, and that the Good is indeed Good because God says so. Tell me; in what way would I (or you) live differently if that were definitely known to be true? What if it were determined with absolute certainty that that is NOT the case? How would THAT be of practical importance?

like i said above, it would be of HUGE practical importance... if the authority of GOD, all powerful, knowing, just, and creator of morals told you that beating slaves was ok, who are YOU to question it? is your mind better than gods? do you know something that god doesn't? but thats the point, god ISN'T the author, so WE have to figure out what we need to do to live happily together.

I have said elsewhere that I don't even claim to know if the existence of God is a matter of literal, objective existence, as other things in this Universe exist. I tend to think not; "existence" is an attribute of the things of the Universe, and the only thing we know of God from the Bible is that God made the Universe, and is therefore not OF the Universe; and therefore, any attribute of this Universe and the things in it are not necessarily true of God.

Even using the Bible, those questions cannot be answered. What kind of Being is God? The Bible doesn't say. How, exactly did God make the Universe? The Bible doesn't say. And, other than satisfying human curiosity, what difference does any of that make? I can't see any.

like i said above, if you cant describe or define something, it is nothing at all. it makes no sense to think something exists that you have no idea what it is in the first place. re-read my example of the shiki-shiki to see what i mean. to say that god is undefinable, undescribable, and unknowable is to say nothing at all.

also, it makes a HUGE difference how i live my life..
if god exists: eternal afterlife, follow gods commands, miracles happen, prayer works ect ect...
if there is no god: short finite conscious existance, need to figure stuff like morality out on our own, ect ect...

even just by these differences, my life and actions are drastically different depending on which beleif system i have.. so ya, HUGE difference.

As I have said many times: Believe what you like. The salient point of human existence, and of religious faith, in my opinion and that of very many Jews, is what you do. Belief is of importance only insofar as it affects human actions.

i agree with that, but remember, what you believe will ALWAYS effect what you do.

[cnorman18]

I don't say that God is NOT omnipotent, either; I don't profess to know. I don't claim to know whether or not God is "conscious," has wants, intervenes in human affairs, or any of that. I don't think it's possible for any human to know those things. It may surprise you to know that I don't think them particularly important, either.

well if you have no idea what god is, what he/she/it is like, or any other description of it, you have no grounds or reason to believe in its existence..

You have a perfect right to make that decision and hold that standard for yourself; but you have no right at all to dictate to me upon what grounds or reasons I must have to believe anything. People are allowed to think in different ways. Sorry if you disagree, but that's kinda the way it is.

how can you believe in something that you dont know what it is???

That's not QUITE what I said. Judaism holds no dogmas about the nature of God. We are free to speculate, but not to make pronouncements on the subject. As I said, we have the freedom to conceive of God in any way that we choose, and no one says we're right or wrong. My own understanding is a bit more free-form than most, but God is not a total blank to me; I have certain beliefs about God's nature, but I don't claim that I know for certain that they are correct, and I absolutely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone else that I'm right. My own ideas change from day to day, and speculation continues as I read and learn. If you're not comfortable with that, it's no concern of mine. Many people need some kind of hard-and-fast definition of God and a detailed analysis of His nature, His mode of action, His mode of existence, and of what He thinks and feels.

I understand the impulse to know all that. My question would be - how can anyone know?

or even argue FOR its "existence" (you seem to not like the word existence with god).

Where did you get the impression I'm "arguing FOR" anything? I'm explaining the structure of my own belief and the approach of Judaism. Did you think I'm trying to make you a Jew?

let me show you what i mean:

if i told you that i believe in shiki-shiki (i made this up), and shiki-shiki is important to me, would you also believe in it? probably no, you would ask, what is shiki-shiki? what if i then said "shiki-shiki is beyond definition and description, undescribable and undefinable", would that help? would you see good reason to think this thing existed? saying something cant be described makes it nothing at all.

God is very often described, in Scripture and in Jewish tradition and literature. Some of those descriptions are contradictory. Do you have a way to determine which is correct?

You have your point of view, that anyone who believes in God is obligated to define and describe Him, and I'm okay with that. It isn't mine. Somehow or other, we Jews have managed to maintain our religion for 3,000 years or so without defining God. Works for us. If you don't see how that could be, it's of no concern to me (or the rest of us) at all. I don't have any reason whatever to justify my beliefs to you, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My intention here has NEVER been to proselytize for Judaism; we don't go there. My intention is only to describe and explain what Judaism IS.

Again, you might want to take a look at those posts I linked.

The focus of modern Judaism is ethical behavior; it is a very practical religion, concerned with the concrete more than the abstract.

well me too... i dont muddle around with the supernatural, the superstitious, or metaphysical... my ethics and morality are based soley on the principle of acting in ways which bring the most happiness and least harm to everyone around me, including animals.
this is why it is so important to know if god is the source of morality or not.. if there really is a god, who is all knowing, all just, and is the author of morality, and he says that sacrifice is moral, who are YOU to question it??? if god IS the author of morality, we would be in trouble... and people actually believe he is. (even if you dont)

Okay. So how do you propose to answer those questions?

See, I don't think I have to, so for me it's not a problem. Again, if you don't get that, it's okay with me.

It takes only a moment's reflection to understand why: Suppose that God is indeed the Author of morality, and that the Good is indeed Good because God says so. Tell me; in what way would I (or you) live differently if that were definitely known to be true? What if it were determined with absolute certainty that that is NOT the case? How would THAT be of practical importance?

like i said above, it would be of HUGE practical importance... if the authority of GOD, all powerful, knowing, just, and creator of morals told you that beating slaves was ok, who are YOU to question it?

And again; how do you propose to know that?

is your mind better than gods? do you know something that god doesn't? but thats the point, god ISN'T the author, so WE have to figure out what we need to do to live happily together.

See, we kind of cut to the chase; we think that it's our job to figure out what a moral life entails on our own steam anyway, while taking note of the thought of those considered wise by our ancestors. Since no one has the right to speak for God, we are left with human rationality, debate, and consensus. Do you have a better way?

Sorry, we don't think dogmatism or blind obedience to ANYTHING, including the tradition, is particularly wise or likely to lead to truth. The tradition is examined and debated in every generation, and it can change, and has changed, and was supposed to, over the centuries.

I have said elsewhere that I don't even claim to know if the existence of God is a matter of literal, objective existence, as other things in this Universe exist. I tend to think not; "existence" is an attribute of the things of the Universe, and the only thing we know of God from the Bible is that God made the Universe, and is therefore not OF the Universe; and therefore, any attribute of this Universe and the things in it are not necessarily true of God.

Even using the Bible, those questions cannot be answered. What kind of Being is God? The Bible doesn't say. How, exactly did God make the Universe? The Bible doesn't say. And, other than satisfying human curiosity, what difference does any of that make? I can't see any.

like i said above, if you cant describe or define something, it is nothing at all.

Define "Love." "Beauty." "Good."

Doesn't matter if you can. Feel free to define God; that's easy.

Now verify and prove your definition to be true. I would ask the same question you did from another direction: If you can't show that your definitions are accurate, what good are they?

We talk about God's attributes, but we are aware that we are dealing in speculation when we do, and not dogma.

it makes no sense to think something exists that you have no idea what it is in the first place. re-read my example of the shiki-shiki to see what i mean. to say that god is undefinable, undescribable, and unknowable is to say nothing at all.

also, it makes a HUGE difference how i live my life..
if god exists: eternal afterlife, follow gods commands, miracles happen, prayer works ect ect...

Does the existence of God entail an afterlife? Why? Does it imply that that God commands anything? Why? That miracles occur? Why? That prayer works? Why?

See, you're assuming that "God" can only the the Christian God, or some similar dogmatically defined deity, with all the usual trappings. Judaism has no official dogma about whether or not there is an afterlife, for instance. It isn't mentioned in the Torah at all, and though Jews speculate, no one claims to know for sure. We have no guarantees. For Jews, death is a journey into the dark. We have hopes, and we trust God - but we don't KNOW.

if there is no god: short finite conscious existance, need to figure stuff like morality out on our own, ect ect...

See, from the Jewish point of view, we need to figure stuff like morality out on our own anyway. That's the job God gave us.

even just by these differences, my life and actions are drastically different depending on which beleif system i have.. so ya, HUGE difference.

Okay. But once again - how will you know if you're right? Who's going to validate those answers for you?

How can these answers make a huge difference in your life if you can't verify that they're true?

As I have said many times: Believe what you like. The salient point of human existence, and of religious faith, in my opinion and that of very many Jews, is what you do. Belief is of importance only insofar as it affects human actions.

i agree with that, but remember, what you believe will ALWAYS effect what you do.

Are you prepared to prove that?

I don't believe that there are intelligent spiders on the moons of Mars. Please tell me how that belief affects my actions.

You did say "ALWAYS."

[Dr.Physics]

I don't say that God is NOT omnipotent, either; I don't profess to know. I don't claim to know whether or not God is "conscious," has wants, intervenes in human affairs, or any of that. I don't think it's possible for any human to know those things. It may surprise you to know that I don't think them particularly important, either.

well if you have no idea what god is, what he/she/it is like, or any other description of it, you have no grounds or reason to believe in its existence..

You have a perfect right to make that decision and hold that standard for yourself; but you have no right at all to dictate to me upon what grounds or reasons I must have to believe anything. People are allowed to think in different ways. Sorry if you disagree, but that's kinda the way it is.

how can you believe in something that you dont know what it is???

That's not QUITE what I said. Judaism holds no dogmas about the nature of God. We are free to speculate, but not to make pronouncements on the subject. As I said, we have the freedom to conceive of God in any way that we choose, and no one says we're right or wrong. My own understanding is a bit more free-form than most, but God is not a total blank to me; I have certain beliefs about God's nature, but I don't claim that I know for certain that they are correct, and I absolutely don't have any intention of trying to convince anyone else that I'm right. My own ideas change from day to day, and speculation continues as I read and learn. If you're not comfortable with that, it's no concern of mine. Many people need some kind of hard-and-fast definition of God and a detailed analysis of His nature, His mode of action, His mode of existence, and of what He thinks and feels.

I understand the impulse to know all that. My question would be - how can anyone know?

or even argue FOR its "existence" (you seem to not like the word existence with god).

Where did you get the impression I'm "arguing FOR" anything? I'm explaining the structure of my own belief and the approach of Judaism. Did you think I'm trying to make you a Jew?

let me show you what i mean:

if i told you that i believe in shiki-shiki (i made this up), and shiki-shiki is important to me, would you also believe in it? probably no, you would ask, what is shiki-shiki? what if i then said "shiki-shiki is beyond definition and description, undescribable and undefinable", would that help? would you see good reason to think this thing existed? saying something cant be described makes it nothing at all.

God is very often described, in Scripture and in Jewish tradition and literature. Some of those descriptions are contradictory. Do you have a way to determine which is correct?

You have your point of view, that anyone who believes in God is obligated to define and describe Him, and I'm okay with that. It isn't mine. Somehow or other, we Jews have managed to maintain our religion for 3,000 years or so without defining God. Works for us. If you don't see how that could be, it's of no concern to me (or the rest of us) at all. I don't have any reason whatever to justify my beliefs to you, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My intention here has NEVER been to proselytize for Judaism; we don't go there. My intention is only to describe and explain what Judaism IS.

Again, you might want to take a look at those posts I linked.

The focus of modern Judaism is ethical behavior; it is a very practical religion, concerned with the concrete more than the abstract.

well me too... i dont muddle around with the supernatural, the superstitious, or metaphysical... my ethics and morality are based soley on the principle of acting in ways which bring the most happiness and least harm to everyone around me, including animals.
this is why it is so important to know if god is the source of morality or not.. if there really is a god, who is all knowing, all just, and is the author of morality, and he says that sacrifice is moral, who are YOU to question it??? if god IS the author of morality, we would be in trouble... and people actually believe he is. (even if you dont)

Okay. So how do you propose to answer those questions?

See, I don't think I have to, so for me it's not a problem. Again, if you don't get that, it's okay with me.

It takes only a moment's reflection to understand why: Suppose that God is indeed the Author of morality, and that the Good is indeed Good because God says so. Tell me; in what way would I (or you) live differently if that were definitely known to be true? What if it were determined with absolute certainty that that is NOT the case? How would THAT be of practical importance?

like i said above, it would be of HUGE practical importance... if the authority of GOD, all powerful, knowing, just, and creator of morals told you that beating slaves was ok, who are YOU to question it?

And again; how do you propose to know that?

is your mind better than gods? do you know something that god doesn't? but thats the point, god ISN'T the author, so WE have to figure out what we need to do to live happily together.

See, we kind of cut to the chase; we think that it's our job to figure out what a moral life entails on our own steam anyway, while taking note of the thought of those considered wise by our ancestors. Since no one has the right to speak for God, we are left with human rationality, debate, and consensus. Do you have a better way?

Sorry, we don't think dogmatism or blind obedience to ANYTHING, including the tradition, is particularly wise or likely to lead to truth. The tradition is examined and debated in every generation, and it can change, and has changed, and was supposed to, over the centuries.

I have said elsewhere that I don't even claim to know if the existence of God is a matter of literal, objective existence, as other things in this Universe exist. I tend to think not; "existence" is an attribute of the things of the Universe, and the only thing we know of God from the Bible is that God made the Universe, and is therefore not OF the Universe; and therefore, any attribute of this Universe and the things in it are not necessarily true of God.

Even using the Bible, those questions cannot be answered. What kind of Being is God? The Bible doesn't say. How, exactly did God make the Universe? The Bible doesn't say. And, other than satisfying human curiosity, what difference does any of that make? I can't see any.

like i said above, if you cant describe or define something, it is nothing at all.

Define "Love." "Beauty." "Good."

Doesn't matter if you can. Feel free to define God; that's easy.

Now verify and prove your definition to be true. I would ask the same question you did from another direction: If you can't show that your definitions are accurate, what good are they?

We talk about God's attributes, but we are aware that we are dealing in speculation when we do, and not dogma.

it makes no sense to think something exists that you have no idea what it is in the first place. re-read my example of the shiki-shiki to see what i mean. to say that god is undefinable, undescribable, and unknowable is to say nothing at all.

also, it makes a HUGE difference how i live my life..
if god exists: eternal afterlife, follow gods commands, miracles happen, prayer works ect ect...

Does the existence of God entail an afterlife? Why? Does it imply that that God commands anything? Why? That miracles occur? Why? That prayer works? Why?

See, you're assuming that "God" can only the the Christian God, or some similar dogmatically defined deity, with all the usual trappings. Judaism has no official dogma about whether or not there is an afterlife, for instance. It isn't mentioned in the Torah at all, and though Jews speculate, no one claims to know for sure. We have no guarantees. For Jews, death is a journey into the dark. We have hopes, and we trust God - but we don't KNOW.

if there is no god: short finite conscious existance, need to figure stuff like morality out on our own, ect ect...

See, from the Jewish point of view, we need to figure stuff like morality out on our own anyway. That's the job God gave us.

even just by these differences, my life and actions are drastically different depending on which beleif system i have.. so ya, HUGE difference.

Okay. But once again - how will you know if you're right? Who's going to validate those answers for you?

How can these answers make a huge difference in your life if you can't verify that they're true?

As I have said many times: Believe what you like. The salient point of human existence, and of religious faith, in my opinion and that of very many Jews, is what you do. Belief is of importance only insofar as it affects human actions.

i agree with that, but remember, what you believe will ALWAYS effect what you do.

Are you prepared to prove that?

I don't believe that there are intelligent spiders on the moons of Mars. Please tell me how that belief affects my actions.

You did say "ALWAYS."

my reply to this is under the forum "science and religion" under the post "can god be defined"