How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[bahman]

I just see that you are stressing on the moral act. I am asking what is the fact. I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right. So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong? All I am seeing now is that adultery is wrong because it is wrong.

You mean something other than 'moral facts'.

No, I mean moral facts given the definition: A set of principles that one can derive rightness or wrongness of an action.

He gave you a perfectly good example of what is considered a moral fact or a purported moral fact. (iow someone might disagree) What you want is justification for why adultery is not good.

Yes, I want a justification.

But if you believe in God and this includes a belief in scripture or other sources of moral facts, then it can resolve moral conflict between those who believe in the same scripture. (though not always).

The scripture when it comes to morality is a set of commands. No justification is given for why an action is moral or immoral.

I think you've formulated the title of the thread wrong and also are not using moral facts correctly as a term. The issue is a good one underneath all that.

I don't think so given the definition of moral facts.

What if the theist uses a parent child analogy? That one should trust the parent, even if you can't see the justification. I mean, most parents will justify, except perhaps with the youngest children. But they are the experts, at least in theory. When you are 18 we can revisit this discussion and I think then you will be able to understand why I consider this bad. For now, it's off limits.

So you think that humans are immature and are not capable of understanding why an action is wrong or right given the reasons?

[Iwannaplato]

No, I mean moral facts given the definition: A set of principles that one can derive rightness or wrongness of an action.

I understood what yo are after, but you're not using the term correctly.

The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.” A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.

So you think that humans are immature and are not capable of understanding why an action is wrong or right given the reasons?

You really need an explanation for That shalt not commit adultery.? If someone gives you a justification for what a mature human can figure out, then you have another moral fact.

I mean, you may disagree with what someone is saying is a moral fact, but what do you not understand. And in any case, my main point is you ask for a moral fact and he gave you an example of one.

[bahman]

No, I mean moral facts given the definition: A set of principles that one can derive rightness or wrongness of an action.

I understood what yo are after, but you're not using the term correctly.

The ontological category “moral facts” includes both the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true of an individual, such as, “Sam is morally good,” and the descriptive moral judgment that is allegedly true for all individuals such as, “Lying for personal gain is wrong.” A signature of the latter type of moral fact is that it not only describes an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior.

If you understand what I am after, could we please stick to my definition of moral facts?

So you think that humans are immature and are not capable of understanding why an action is wrong or right given the reasons?

You really need an explanation for That shalt not commit adultery?

Yes, I need an explanation for why adultery is wrong. To me, adultery is just alight as far as the partners are honest with each other.

If someone gives you a justification for what a mature human can figure out, then you have another moral fact.

I mean, you may disagree with what someone is saying is a moral fact, but what do you not understand. And in any case, my main point is you ask for a moral fact and he gave you an example of one.

He gave me an immoral act, not a fact, reason, or justification.

[Iwannaplato]

If you understand what I am after, could we please stick to my definition of moral facts?

Well, you can hope everyone reads our exchange, but they may not.

Yes, I need an explanation for why adultery is wrong. To me, adultery is just alight as far as the partners are honest with each other.

YOu mean, you really don't understand what the objections are? You disagree, but you, as a mature person, understand what the objections are, I would guess.

He gave me an immoral act, not a fact, reason, or justification.

He gave you a moral fact. For many, if a deity says it, it's enough.

If it's not enough for you, then you don't need you personally are working with your intuition. Fine, I tend to agree. But believing in God can and often does resolve things.

Your title should be something like 'Believing in God does not resolve moral issues for me. Just because it doesn't resolve them for you does not mean it generally doesn't.

[Immanuel Can]

That is a moral act that is different from moral fact. Moral facts are a set of principles that rightness or wrongness an action can be derived from them.

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

I'm not seeing your problem, I guess.

I just see that you are stressing on the moral act.

No. I'm covering both.

I am asking what is the fact.

That's answered above.

I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right.

Yes, but don't expect them to be the same reasons you would have.

So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong?

Adultery is wrong because it is contrary to the character of God. That's the short answer.

To expand that somewhat, when one participates in infidelity, one is asserting one's prerogative not to act like God, and not to care what He is like. One is saying, "I don't care that God made me, that I owe him the respect in behaving the way He intended for me, and that He is faithful to those He loves; I will be other-than God." It's a form of blasphemy, in that sense, but also an act of rebellion, in addition to be a violation against the God given rights of one of his creatures (the husband, at the very least).

[bahman]

If you understand what I am after, could we please stick to my definition of moral facts?

Well, you can hope everyone reads our exchange, but they may not.

I will make this clear to them if they misunderstand. What other term would you use if you were in my place?

Yes, I need an explanation for why adultery is wrong. To me, adultery is just alight as far as the partners are honest with each other.

YOu mean, you really don't understand what the objections are? You disagree, but you, as a mature person, understand what the objections are, I would guess.

No, I don't get it.

He gave me an immoral act, not a fact, reason, or justification.

He gave you a moral fact. For many, if a deity says it, it's enough.

A diety asks you to kill the enemy while another one asks you to love your enemy. The conflicts between different religions are tremendous. So believing in God does not resolve moral conflicts between people.

If it's not enough for you, then you don't need you personally are working with your intuition. Fine, I tend to agree. But believing in God can and often does resolve things.

Your title should be something like 'Believing in God does not resolve moral issues for me. Just because it doesn't resolve them for you does not mean it generally doesn't.

So do you mean that the Omniscient God does not know moral facts or there are no moral facts? Everything is a matter of how He likes or dislikes things?

[bahman]

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

I'm not seeing your problem, I guess.

I just see that you are stressing on the moral act.

No. I'm covering both.

No, you didn't.

I am asking what is the fact.

That's answered above.

No, you didn't.

I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right.

Yes, but don't expect them to be the same reasons you would have.

What is His reason for adultery being wrong?

So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong?

Adultery is wrong because it is contrary to the character of God. That's the short answer.

So He has no reason. Just God's character?

To expand that somewhat, when one participates in infidelity, one is asserting one's prerogative not to act like God, and not to care what He is like. One is saying, "I don't care that God made me, that I owe him the respect in behaving the way He intended for me, and that He is faithful to those He loves; I will be other-than God." It's a form of blasphemy, in that sense, but also an act of rebellion, in addition to be a violation against the God given rights of one of his creatures (the husband, at the very least).

But different religion tells you different things. Love your enemy in Christianity and kill your enemy in Isalm. So believing in the words of God blindly is not getting us anywhere. To resolve the moral conflict between people one needs a reason and believing in God and following His words does not resolve the issue.

[Immanuel Can]

I just see that you are stressing on the moral act.

No. I'm covering both.

No, you didn't.

Yep, I did.

I wrote:

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

The first covers the "fact" and the second, the "action."

That's why I said, "I guess I'm not seeing the problem."

I guess you didn't even read the part you quoted.

I mean, if God is Omniscient then He must have a good reason/fact for why an action is wrong or right.

Yes, but don't expect them to be the same reasons you would have.

What is His reason for adultery being wrong?

I gave it below...at least three reasons, in fact.

I know, I know...you'll say, "No, you didn't."

You really should read the message, though.

So, what is the fact that makes adultery wrong?

Adultery is wrong because it is contrary to the character of God. That's the short answer.

So He has no reason. Just God's character?

I guess you'd better explain what sort of "reason" you think God would need to have, other than that the person in question is rebellious and insulting the the Supreme Being in the universe...

But different religion tells you different things.

Utterly irrelevant.

Truth is not an opinion poll. Truth doesn't change depending on the number of people who believe something. Truth is a function of reality.

Love your enemy in Christianity and kill your enemy in Isalm.

That tells you one thing for sure: one of them is right, and one of them is wrong. That's all that tells you.

Now, given you own natural sense of morality, which one of those two would you guess is more moral? (Of course, your guess won't determine that; but indulge me.)

Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?

[bahman]

No. I'm covering both.

No, you didn't.

Yep, I did.

I wrote:

The derivation is obvious: "It is wrong to take your neighbour's wife." You can derive from that, that if you take your neighbour's wife, you are doing something immoral.

The fact is that it's wrong.

The wrong action is adultery.

The first covers the "fact" and the second, the "action."

That's why I said, "I guess I'm not seeing the problem."

I guess you didn't even read the part you quoted.

"The fact is that it is wrong" is not a moral fact given the definition of moral fact. I already defined the moral fact for you. Do you want me to define it again?

Yes, but don't expect them to be the same reasons you would have.

What is His reason for adultery being wrong?

I gave it below...at least three reasons, in fact.

I know, I know...you'll say, "No, you didn't."

You really should read the message, though.

That is not a moral fact. I can attach that phrase to anything and say that anything is wrong given your logic.

Adultery is wrong because it is contrary to the character of God. That's the short answer.

So He has no reason. Just God's character?

I guess you'd better explain what sort of "reason" you think God would need to have, other than that the person in question is rebellious and insulting the the Supreme Being in the universe...

Your God is Omniscient yet you are not aware of a single moral fact that God knows and gives the command base on that?

But different religion tells you different things.

Utterly irrelevant.

It is very relevant indeed. Different people believe different things so there will be moral conflicts as far as no moral fact is provided by an authority such as God.

Truth is not an opinion poll. Truth doesn't change depending on the number of people who believe something. Truth is a function of reality.

True, but how could you justify that what you believe is true? You are not providing a single fact when it comes to morality. You need to prove that God exists and your God is the real one.

And the truth is a set of statements that describe reality.

Love your enemy in Christianity and kill your enemy in Isalm.

That tells you one thing for sure: one of them is right, and one of them is wrong. That's all that tells you.

Now, given you own natural sense of morality, which one of those two would you guess is more moral? (Of course, your guess won't determine that; but indulge me.)

My natural sense of morality is not important. I am looking for the moral fact that I can distinguish which God is correct. People also can hate or love. So again one moral fact is needed to justify that one behavior is wrong and another is right.

Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?

To me none.

[promethean75]

bro. that whole beef between judaism and islam is Gabriel's fault cuz he told Daniel one thing and then fucked around and told Muhammad another thing.

like why would you even do that? you know hundreds of millions of people are gonna needlessly die in religious wars for centuries to come because you did some shit like that.

[bahman]

bro. that whole beef between judaism and islam is Gabriel's fault cuz he told Daniel one thing and then fucked around and told Muhammad another thing.

like why would you even do that? you know hundreds of millions of people are gonna needlessly die in religious wars for centuries to come because you did some shit like that.

All conflicts between different religions including wars are justified in minds of people who believe blindly. Kill the enemy of God, you go to Heaven and the enemy goes to Hell. Deal? That is why I open this thread to question all parties.

[promethean75]

Oh my bad I forgot to include the quote about 'instruction' that got me thinkin about Gabriel's gaffe.

"Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?"

[bahman]

Oh my bad I forgot to include the quote about 'instruction' that got me thinkin about Gabriel's gaffe.

"Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?"

None. Good and evil are both fundamental. Doing good or evil is in fact a matter of situation. If someone wants to torture me to death then I do whatever I can to prevent him from doing so. I might first instruct him/her in a good manner that I don't like to be tortured. I might first kill him if I know that my instruction is not going to work.

[Immanuel Can]

I already defined the moral fact for you. Do you want me to define it again?

Yep. Go right ahead.

So He has no reason. Just God's character?

I guess you'd better explain what sort of "reason" you think God would need to have, other than that the person in question is rebellious and insulting the the Supreme Being in the universe...

Your God is Omniscient yet you are not aware of a single moral fact that God knows and gives the command base on that?

I'll need your definition of "moral fact," first.

But different religion tells you different things.

Utterly irrelevant.

It is very relevant indeed. Different people believe different things so there will be moral conflicts as far as no moral fact is provided by an authority such as God.

Well, any time people "believe different things," and those things are directly contradictory, then some will be right and some will be wrong; or they will all be wrong.

But it is logically impossible for them all to be right.

So at least somebody is simply wrong. That's a fact you can take to the bank.

Truth is not an opinion poll. Truth doesn't change depending on the number of people who believe something. Truth is a function of reality.

True, but how could you justify that what you believe is true?

With reference to reality.

Love your enemy in Christianity and kill your enemy in Isalm.

That tells you one thing for sure: one of them is right, and one of them is wrong. That's all that tells you.

Now, given you own natural sense of morality, which one of those two would you guess is more moral? (Of course, your guess won't determine that; but indulge me.)

My natural sense of morality is not important.

Wait...you just said that what "people believe" is relevant. Now you say "what you believe" is not?

But I didn't ask you whether or not it was "important." I simply asked you what you would be inclined to think.

Which do you think is more likely to be the genuinely "moral" instruction, the instruction of Christ, or the word of Islam?

To me none.

So it's neither good to love your enemy NOR good to kill him? Explain.

[Age]

In order to resolve moral conflict by believing in God, one requires that God is Omniscient and knows moral facts which mean that morality is objective and any intelligent being can know it. We however know that there is no moral fact.

Who does this 'we' refer to, EXACTLY?

Then how believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

BELIEVING in MISINTERPRETATIONS of God can NOT, and will NOT EVER, resolve the CONFLICT here within 'you', adult human beings.