How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[bahman]

I'll need your explanation of how "facts" are not "true."

I didn't say so. Facts are known or proven to be true.

Now you're mixing truth with facts. But you say a person shouldn't do that...

I can't make any sense out of what you are saying.

Fact is known and proven to be true so you need a person for it. The truth is true and you don't need a person for it.

Allah is a fake god. Both you and I know that much.

Oh, come on. You need an argument to show that Allah is a fake God.

To you? I don't think so. Maybe to a Muslim...are you a Muslim?

Now, you are evading my question. Where is your argument for your God to be true and others to be fake? I believe in gods who are Omniscient (I was told about this), Omnipresent (I experience them all the time), and Omnipotent (I witness that). There is however no God, the creator of everything. I have an argument for that.

People have been worshiping different Gods each has His or Her own nature all the time.

Yep. And most of them are fake gods. Like any other real entity, one can describe God rightly, or describe God wrongly.

And actually, everybody thinks that: they just disagree over which purported "gods" they think are fake...not over the fact of the existence of fakes.

And where is your argument? You cannot say that and hope that people accept it.

[Harbal]

But what facts are we looking at when we say something "feels moral" or does not "feel moral"? How do we test to know whether or not the "feeling" is warranted?

You can check this, although I'm sure you won't need to, but I seem to think that Immanuel Kant came up with a test for it. Interestingly, he was a firm believer in God, I think, and yet even he didn't seem to think that we needed to depend on God to tell us how to behave well towards one another.

Interesting. Is there something in particular that makes you specifically uncomfortable with the God of the Bible?

Well I haven't read the Bible myself, but one does hear about the seemingly arbitrary way in which God administered his -sometimes- quite horrific "justice". That's why I don't like what is in the Bible, but as for the book itself: well that's all it is, isn't it, a book.

[Immanuel Can]

Fact is known and proven to be true so you need a person for it.

So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?

The truth is true and you don't need a person for it.

But it's "true" the Earth is round, even if nobody knows it?

Oh, come on. You need an argument to show that Allah is a fake God.

To you? I don't think so. Maybe to a Muslim...are you a Muslim?

Now, you are evading my question.

Not at all. I'm just not wasting time proving something to somebody who has no reason to doubt me.

People have been worshiping different Gods each has His or Her own nature all the time.

Yep. And most of them are fake gods. Like any other real entity, one can describe God rightly, or describe God wrongly.

And actually, everybody thinks that: they just disagree over which purported "gods" they think are fake...not over the fact of the existence of fakes.

And where is your argument?

Argument for what?

[Immanuel Can]

But what facts are we looking at when we say something "feels moral" or does not "feel moral"? How do we test to know whether or not the "feeling" is warranted?

You can check this, although I'm sure you won't need to, but I seem to think that Immanuel Kant came up with a test for it. Interestingly, he was a firm believer in God, I think, and yet even he didn't seem to think that we needed to depend on God to tell us how to behave well towards one another.

Kant got that wrong. He wasn't even able to "keep faith" so to speak, with himself on that, as you can see from his three formulations of the CI. But Alan Wood (arguably the foremost current Kant scholar) has argued that Kant never expected to succeed in that, and that he was a kind of teleologist.

That's all a bit technical, I suppose. But I want to honour the comment.

Interesting. Is there something in particular that makes you specifically uncomfortable with the God of the Bible?

Well I haven't read the Bible myself, but one does hear about the seemingly arbitrary way in which God administered his -sometimes- quite horrific "justice". That's why I don't like what is in the Bible, but as for the book itself: well that's all it is, isn't it, a book.

You should give it a read. I don't mean all 66 books, because that would take you about 3-1/2 years, if you read a chapter a day. But what about selecting something central, like the Gospel of John, for example, and giving it a read? At a chapter a day...which would take most people 5-10 minutes, maybe...you'd have it done well inside a month...21 days...and you could judge for yourself what the moral status of the book was.

Just a thought.

[bahman]

Fact is known and proven to be true so you need a person for it.

So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?

You need a person for a fact to be known or proven. That is true since you need a person for knowledge and proof.

The truth is true and you don't need a person for it.

But it's "true" the Earth is round, even if nobody knows it?

Yes.

To you? I don't think so. Maybe to a Muslim...are you a Muslim?

Now, you are evading my question.

Not at all. I'm just not wasting time proving something to somebody who has no reason to doubt me.

No, you are just evading my question about an argument that shows that your God is true and others are fake.

Yep. And most of them are fake gods. Like any other real entity, one can describe God rightly, or describe God wrongly.

And actually, everybody thinks that: they just disagree over which purported "gods" they think are fake...not over the fact of the existence of fakes.

And where is your argument?

Argument for what?

The argument for your God to be true and others to be fake.

[Harbal]

Kant got that wrong.

Drat! I should have anticipated that.

You should give it a read.

I would, IC, but I only have eyes for Barbara Pym, at the moment.

[Immanuel Can]

Fact is known and proven to be true so you need a person for it.

So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?

You need a person for a fact to be known or proven.

That's not the real question, though. The question is really whether the "knowing" or "proving" actually MAKES anything into a "fact." Do you actually insist it does? Or is there such a thing as "a fact nobody (yet) knows?" Because common usage holds that there is such a thing.

You'd have to explain why you think there isn't.

The truth is true and you don't need a person for it.

But it's "true" the Earth is round, even if nobody knows it?

Yes.

I notice you cut off my first question, and didn't even try to answer it. It read:

"So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?"

You really need to answer that one. Because while I agree with your claim about "truth" there, I don't believe you've got your word "fact" right at all.

But you can prove you do, by answering that question.

Now, you are evading my question.

Not at all. I'm just not wasting time proving something to somebody who has no reason to doubt me.

No, you are just evading my question about an argument that shows that your God is true and others are fake.

Well, there's no use in us debunking some imaginary "Muslim." in absentia. That job's already done, so far as you and I are concerned. You don't believe in Allah, and neither do I; so that's not a live hypothesis in a conversation between you and me -- and I hate "playing for no stakes." If I'm going to speak of my God, I will speak also of yours.

So let me address the "god" you believe in, instead of the two of us talking about some putative Muslim's "god." What "god" do you believe in?

[Immanuel Can]

I only have eyes for Barbara Pym, at the moment.

You like 'em older, do you? And longtime deceased?

[Harbal]

You like 'em older, do you? And longtime deceased?

It's her mind that I've fallen for, and she ain't been dead anywhere near as long as Jesus.

[Immanuel Can]

You like 'em older, do you? And longtime deceased?

It's her mind that I've fallen for, and she ain't been dead anywhere near as long as Jesus.

Well, she won't be coming back.

[Harbal]

Well, she won't be coming back.

I know, and I've almost read all her books. I don't know what I will do when I've finished.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, she won't be coming back.

I know, and I've almost read all her books. I don't know what I will do when I've finished.

Maybe James Herriot...again.

[Belinda]

You like 'em older, do you? And longtime deceased?

It's her mind that I've fallen for, and she ain't been dead anywhere near as long as Jesus.

I'll follow your recommendation. I see her latest was 1980. The Sweet Dove Died

Here is the poem by Keats that the title quotes;

I had a dove and the sweet dove died;
And I have thought it died of grieving.
O, what could it grieve for? Its feet were tied,
With a silken thread of my own hand’s weaving;
Sweet little red feet! why should you die –
Why should you leave me, sweet bird! why?
You lived alone in the forest-tree,
Why, pretty thing, could you not live with me?
I kissed you oft and gave you white peas;
Why not live sweetly, as in the green trees?

If a person's idea of God inhibits their creative imagination then believing in their God can't resolve moral conflict. It's human nature to be free to create.
Pym, I assume is a Romantic like Keats was and believed in the freedom of the individual to create.

Believers like Immanuel Can in his posts are pre-enlightenment in their world view. Not even medieval as their faith stance lacks the social services benefits of the Roman Catholic medievals. They are stuck in unreformed Protestantism.

[Harbal]

I'll follow your recommendation. I see her latest was 1980. The Sweet Dove Died
Pym, I assume is a Romantic like Keats was and believed in the freedom of the individual to create.

She is one of the few authors who's writing makes me laugh. The humour is so subtle. There is no adventure or excitement in her books, they are mostly about self important but incompetent men and the women who put up with them. Although there isn't really religion in them, there are lots of clergymen. She isn't heavy reading. If you decide to give her a try, I suggest you start with Excellent Women, it will give you a good idea of what she is about.

Believers like Immanuel Can in his posts are pre-enlightenment in their world view. Not even medieval as their faith stance lacks the social services benefits of the Roman Catholic medievals. They are stuck in unreformed Protestantism.

I think he'll be really pleased at your assessment of him, Belinda.

[bahman]

So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?

You need a person for a fact to be known or proven.

That's not the real question, though. The question is really whether the "knowing" or "proving" actually MAKES anything into a "fact." Do you actually insist it does? Or is there such a thing as "a fact nobody (yet) knows?" Because common usage holds that there is such a thing.

You'd have to explain why you think there isn't.

The definition of fact is passive which means that it is something that one knows or proves.

But it's "true" the Earth is round, even if nobody knows it?

Yes.

I notice you cut off my first question, and didn't even try to answer it. It read:

"So if nobody knows it, its' not a "fact" that the Earth is round?"

You really need to answer that one. Because while I agree with your claim about "truth" there, I don't believe you've got your word "fact" right at all.

But you can prove you do, by answering that question.

If there is no one, there is no one to know that the Earth is round.

Not at all. I'm just not wasting time proving something to somebody who has no reason to doubt me.

No, you are just evading my question about an argument that shows that your God is true and others are fake.

Well, there's no use in us debunking some imaginary "Muslim." in absentia. That job's already done, so far as you and I are concerned. You don't believe in Allah, and neither do I; so that's not a live hypothesis in a conversation between you and me -- and I hate "playing for no stakes." If I'm going to speak of my God, I will speak also of yours.

So let me address the "god" you believe in, instead of the two of us talking about some putative Muslim's "god." What "god" do you believe in?

I believe in gods, who are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. They are not just the creator of everything. I have had lots of spiritual experiences so my belief is based on my experience.

But anyhow, even if your God is proven to be the true one then need moral facts to derive the rightness and wrongness of acts.