[Aesaar]

Meanwhile, I'm very interested to hear about whether you believe strongly enough in your Objective Morality to wish I were dead, as your Objective Morality decrees.

I believe this:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Good job avoiding the question.

Explain to me why God's objective moral standard, which endorses slavery and urges people to kill the gays, is superior to my subjective one.

"Regulate" does not imply "endorse".  God regulates divorce as well despite the fact that he expressly hates it.  And "urging" is most certainly not what those verses are about.

And this, right here, in an entirely subjective interpretation.  In the 1800s, people happily used the Bible to justify the institution of slavery.  People now still happily use the Bible's words on homosexuality to justify homophobia.  Even if God did provide an objective moral standard (which he doesn't), it wouldn't matter because there's no objective way of knowing what that standard is.

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

Although there are more answers, "God says so" is entirely sufficient.  A creator can impose any order he wishes on the creation.

I completely disagree.  No amount of authority automatically makes you correct.  If you can't defend an opinion, that opinion is utterly worthless.  "God says so" is just appeal to authority and a completely fallacious argument.

This is especially true considering the fact that there's no evidence God said anything at all or that he actually even created the universe like the Bible claims.

I'm not trying to prove anything.  I certainly haven't been able to persuade anyone, based on the evidence in this thread.  But that doesn't matter, because the truth isn't dependent on the opinion of you or me or anyone else.

It's the existence of this "truth" that we're debating.

That's a convenient way to not say anything.

Perhaps.  It's not my answer.  It's the answer I was given to give to you.

Scotty didn't ask for the Bible's answer, he asked for yours.  Are you capable of thinking for yourself, or is spouting Bible passages the limit of your thoughts on this matter?

[AdmiralRalwood]

That's a convenient way to not say anything.

Perhaps.  It's not my answer.  It's the answer I was given to give to you.

What the actual ****?

[Scotty]

Indeed.  I don't think it's unfair to ask whether you think the world would be better off, from a position of objective morality, if I were killed for being gay.

[karajorma]

My original point was that the greatest trick God ever played was to convince people that he was good. 

The funny thing is that Goober's dogmatic view does more to prove my point than anything else since he is basically saying that God can actually be evil but since He created the universe it is up to Him to decide what is evil and what is good based on His standards. 

Of course that is exactly what someone who fell for the trick would say since the whole "God is the objective source of morality" is an important part of the trick. 



And that's before we get into the fact that the argument falls apart completely if God didn't create the universe and is merely taking the credit for someone else's work.

[Bobboau]

I still don't see how God's opinion == objective. what is objective about it? what is meant by objective? was my last post on this invisible?

[X3N0-Life-Form]

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

Although there are more answers, "God says so" is entirely sufficient.  A creator can impose any order he wishes on the creation.

Not if that creation has free will, that is at the very least the ability to make up its own mind and make its own decisions. Obeying an arbitrary order without any question or evaluation of that order amounts to slavery.

[Lorric]

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

Although there are more answers, "God says so" is entirely sufficient.  A creator can impose any order he wishes on the creation.

Not if that creation has free will, that is at the very least the ability to make up its own mind and make its own decisions. Obeying an arbitrary order without any question or evaluation of that order amounts to slavery.

You know, this makes me think of things. What would we look like to a God? We may one day create machines to serve us, and perhaps they might come to view themselves as sentient and as slaves and turn on their masters, while we would view them as malfunctioning machines.

What must we look like to a God? To a God, we might be something like what cattle or a pet dog or a caged lion are. And when such creatures turn on their masters, they are put down. Perhaps a God would deal with us in the same way with the same mentality. To us, we'd be sentient life, but to them, we might not be sentient. We might be just a creation, built to serve, like a machine would be our creation. The ones which willingly serve are kept, while the ones which don't are defective and cast aside.

[SypheDMar]

The funny thing is that Goober's dogmatic view does more to prove my point than anything else since he is basically saying that God can actually be evil but since He created the universe it is up to Him to decide what is evil and what is good based on His standards.

That's what I got from what he said as well.

I think God can be good. But the idea that God is good because God made the universe is ironic; and if that's what God believes, then God is an asshole, and my sympathies goes to the literary Lucifer.

[Bobboau]

Goober's view sounds an awful lot like Divine Command theory. which I hope is just him simplifying things.

[Mr. Vega]

Uh, that is Divine Command theory in its purest form. And it's an inescapable conclusion if you take the standard idea of god seriously.

[Goober5000]

"God says so" is just appeal to authority and a completely fallacious argument.

Actually, "argument from authority" is only fallacious because the authority is usually human and humans are fallible.  Given the existence of an infallible God, an appeal to that authority is entirely valid.

My original point was that the greatest trick God ever played was to convince people that he was good.

The funny thing is that Goober's dogmatic view does more to prove my point than anything else since he is basically saying that God can actually be evil but since He created the universe it is up to Him to decide what is evil and what is good based on His standards.

Of course that is exactly what someone who fell for the trick would say since the whole "God is the objective source of morality" is an important part of the trick.

I actually don't have a problem with this line of reasoning.  In an alternate hypothetical universe created by Molech, no doubt child sacrifice would be considered the highest of virtues.

However, we can be persuaded of God's goodness based on what has been created, especially that which has been unspoiled by human corruption.  Even atheists recognize the goodness of creation, though they don't ascribe it to God.  Listen to Carl Sagan talking about the Pale Blue Dot -- he sounds poetic, and even almost reverent.

I still don't see how God's opinion == objective. what is objective about it? what is meant by objective? was my last post on this invisible?

This is what is meant:

objective (əbˈdʒɛktɪv)
adj
1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?.

God's morality is objective because it is independent of any human perceptions or human conceptions.

Now one could argue that in a multiverse of universes, each ruled by their own creator god, each god's morality is subjective within the pantheon.  But the Bible's God informs us that there is no other like him.

In regards to your previous post:

What is the 'object' from which you are getting the properties for your standard? God? Most of the morals from the bible come in the form of commandments. How is the proclamation of an authority not subjective? and when those rules come in conflict with basic human decency how do you resolve the conflict? By God's omniscience? if God is all knowing could it not come up with a better solution that does not involve a conflict? Further if God is also omnipotent (I know I'm making all sorts of assumptions here but I think I'm safe in making them) could it not have set up the universe so that no 'bad' action would happen? Free will? how would this have violated our free will any more than what has transpired? God cannot escape from it's omniscience, it knew the effect of the placement of every atom in the cosmos and every trait of humanity as it was placing them, so we were set up for our current situation just as much as if God would have set up the universe for peace and prosperity. If God does not do this for free will reasons then why did God on so many occasions in the Bible violate people's free will? (like hardening pharaoh's heart, seemingly just to give himself a pretext to murder every firstborn in Egypt)

That is venturing pretty heavily into philosophy.  A lot of what God does is a mystery.  Even many Christians have wondered why God allowed sin to happen in the first place.

That's what I got from what he said as well.

I think God can be good. But the idea that God is good because God made the universe is ironic

You've got the cause and effect reversed.  God is good because it is his nature to be good.  And one of the reasons he created the universe was to demonstrate his nature.

[Bobboau]

God's morality is objective because it is independent of any human perceptions or human conceptions.

ok, but your definition there does not say independent from human perception, but any 'individual'. I don't see why God's uniqueness has any bearing on it's exclusion from the group of things called 'individuals'. I think drawing a line in the sand that God is a special case results in an incoherent and misleading definition. Much like I made an inclusive definition of 'people' I think a definition that includes God's personhood would make more sense. If not then we are talking about two very different things when we say "objective".

[Aesaar]

"God says so" is just appeal to authority and a completely fallacious argument.

Actually, "argument from authority" is only fallacious because the authority is usually human and humans are fallible.  Given the existence of an infallible God, an appeal to that authority is entirely valid.

And God is infallible based on what evidence?

And no, argument from authority isn't fallacious because humans are fallible, it's fallacious because authority doesn't absolve you from needing to defend you opinions with actual facts.  Authority does not automatically make you right.  That goes for God as surely as it goes for humans.  He's a god.  Shouldn't be difficult for him to defend himself with something more than "because I say so".

The value of any position, no matter what it is or whose it is, is based on how well that position is defended.  If you can't or won't do that, then it's worthless.

I think God can be good. But the idea that God is good because God made the universe is ironic

You've got the cause and effect reversed.  God is good because it is his nature to be good.  And one of the reasons he created the universe was to demonstrate his nature.

So he made a cold, uncaring universe to demonstrate his cold and uncaring nature.  That... actually fits.


Also, you still haven't responded to this:

And this, right here, in an entirely subjective interpretation.  In the 1800s, people happily used the Bible to justify the institution of slavery.  People now still happily use the Bible's words on homosexuality to justify homophobia.  Even if God did provide an objective moral standard (which he doesn't), it wouldn't matter because there's no objective way of knowing what that standard is.

Or this:

That's a convenient way to not say anything.

Perhaps.  It's not my answer.  It's the answer I was given to give to you.

Scotty didn't ask for the Bible's answer, he asked for yours.  Are you capable of thinking for yourself, or is spouting Bible passages the limit of your thoughts on this matter?

[karajorma]

I actually don't have a problem with this line of reasoning.  In an alternate hypothetical universe created by Molech, no doubt child sacrifice would be considered the highest of virtues.

However, we can be persuaded of God's goodness based on what has been created, especially that which has been unspoiled by human corruption.  Even atheists recognize the goodness of creation, though they don't ascribe it to God.  Listen to Carl Sagan talking about the Pale Blue Dot -- he sounds poetic, and even almost reverent.

Sorry but I have to disagree there. I don't think there is any fundamental goodness to creation. The universe IS. Whatever goodness exists in the universe is down to us to create. It's not inherent in  the system. 

And I disagree that you can see God's goodness in the universe that isn't sullied by humanity. If God really is so good, why did Satan fall? For a deity to **** up so badly that his creations turn against him not just once but twice suggests that  he really doesn't know what he doing. 

In the end you're basically justifying your circular reasoning. God is good because he tells you he is good. He can't be lying about that because he told you he never lies. And you can see that he is good because you can see the good in the universe (but only if you squint and ignore all the bad). 

It's a massive house of cards that falls apart once you consider that God might be lying. 

Now one could argue that in a multiverse of universes, each ruled by their own creator god, each god's morality is subjective within the pantheon.  But the Bible's God informs us that there is no other like him.

And how would he know? I've always suspected that if there is a god he's actually being fooled into thinking he's omnipotent by an even higher deity and creation is a test. Probably one that he is ****ing up.

[Bobboau]

It's a massive house of cards that falls apart once you consider that God might be lying.

or the person(s) who told you what god said might be lying/mistaken.

I've always suspected that if there is a god he's actually being fooled into thinking he's omnipotent by an even higher deity and creation is a test. Probably one that he is ****ing up.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA5PlJiqOnk

[Goober5000]

God's morality is objective because it is independent of any human perceptions or human conceptions.

ok, but your definition there does not say independent from human perception, but any 'individual'. I don't see why God's uniqueness has any bearing on it's exclusion from the group of things called 'individuals'. I think drawing a line in the sand that God is a special case results in an incoherent and misleading definition. Much like I made an inclusive definition of 'people' I think a definition that includes God's personhood would make more sense. If not then we are talking about two very different things when we say "objective".

I see where you're coming from but I think God's uniqueness has very much bearing on it.  At the very least, I think you'll agree that the creator is greater than the creation or anything in it.  In that sense the creator is an objective standard from the point of view of the creation.  Now you may argue that God's standard is subjective from the point of view of himself, but if there is no pantheon of gods to compare one standard against another, is there any difference between subjective and objective?

It's like a thought experiment I heard the other day.  If there was only one object in the universe, would it have any velocity?  Velocity can only be measured relative to two distinct objects, so if there is only one object, velocity becomes meaningless.  So then you can ask, well, will that object have mass?  Since mass varies as a function of velocity, then you can argue that mass becomes meaningless as well.  Well then, will it have any gravity?  Gravity becomes meaningless too, since it depends on mass.  You end up with a big NAN cascading through the laws of physics and generally confounding all your expectations.

And no, argument from authority isn't fallacious because humans are fallible, it's fallacious because authority doesn't absolve you from needing to defend you opinions with actual facts.  Authority does not automatically make you right.  That goes for God as surely as it goes for humans.  He's a god.  Shouldn't be difficult for him to defend himself with something more than "because I say so".

The value of any position, no matter what it is or whose it is, is based on how well that position is defended.  If you can't or won't do that, then it's worthless.

I was speaking more in the sense that when the creator imposes rules on the creation, the ultimate justification for the correctness of those rules lies in the creator.  To use the most basic example, if you asked me to defend the proposition that 2+2=4, I could fall back on set theory or induction, but those are just transformations of the original question.  Ultimately the only answer is "that's the way the universe works".

That's from a theoretical perspective.  Now if you're looking for examples and facts and tangible evidence from a practical perspective, I would refer to my previous point that God's creation demonstrates his nature.

Also, you still haven't responded to this:

I haven't exhaustively responded to every point in this thread.

Sorry but I have to disagree there. I don't think there is any fundamental goodness to creation. The universe IS. Whatever goodness exists in the universe is down to us to create. It's not inherent in  the system.

And I disagree that you can see God's goodness in the universe that isn't sullied by humanity.

So when you look at images from the Hubble Space Telescope, you don't feel any wonder or awe or appreciation of beauty?

If God really is so good, why did Satan fall? For a deity to **** up so badly that his creations turn against him not just once but twice suggests that  he really doesn't know what he doing.

Actually, he must know what he's doing.  He created a being with free will, and that will was so free that it took an action that was a) entirely unprecedented, and b) contrary to the will of the one who created it.

But if you're going to put it to a vote, two-thirds of the angels did not follow Satan into rebellion.

In the end you're basically justifying your circular reasoning. God is good because he tells you he is good. He can't be lying about that because he told you he never lies. And you can see that he is good because you can see the good in the universe (but only if you squint and ignore all the bad).

At the end, it comes down to faith.  Faith is a postulate for life just like Euclid's statements are postulates for mathematics.

Actually though, at the end of the end, all things will be revealed and God will show his cards.

[Scotty]

I haven't exhaustively responded to every point in this thread.

You haven't responded to perhaps the most important point in this thread.  I'll lay it out in very plain terms, because it is very, very important.

Do you or do you not believe that God's objective morality is true?

This comes with it some very important baggage.  Namely:

• You must believe that homosexuals should be killed
• You must not wear clothing that is of mixed thread
• You must not eat shellfish
• You must not eat pig

I know that there are damn near a thousand other things that you must believe in order to believe that God's objective morality is true.

Put as bluntly as I can: It is impossible to disagree with these things and adhere to God's objective morality.

[Goober5000]

You haven't responded to perhaps the most important point in this thread.  I'll lay it out in very plain terms, because it is very, very important.

Do you or do you not believe that God's objective morality is true?

I do.

Put as bluntly as I can: It is impossible to disagree with these things and adhere to God's objective morality.

Well, I'm glad you're not the arbiter of God's objective morality then.  Because I disagree with (and by your standards have "failed to adhere to") all four items on that list.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You haven't responded to perhaps the most important point in this thread.  I'll lay it out in very plain terms, because it is very, very important.

Do you or do you not believe that God's objective morality is true?

I do.

Put as bluntly as I can: It is impossible to disagree with these things and adhere to God's objective morality.

Well, I'm glad you're not the arbiter of God's objective morality then.  Because I disagree with (and by your standards have "failed to adhere to") all four items on that list.

"Because pbbbbbbbbbbbbbt."

 

[Goober5000]

No, because the Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament.