God and morality

[Gary Childress]

If there is a God, then does morality exist outside of or apart from God's wishes? Can God wish for something that is evil, or does the mere act of God wishing for something make it not evil? So, for example, if a human being pissess off God by not worshiping God, but the human being is a moral saint or otherwise behaves himself or herself in every other aspect of life, and God retaliates against that human being for no other reason than for not worshiping God, then is God behaving benevolently or malevolently? Could humans judge God to be evil? And if humans cannot judge God as evil, is it because God makes the rules that God cannot be judged evil? Or is it for some other reason?

I'm glad I never had children. I'm glad there will be no more of my genetic heritage polluting the world. I don't think I'm good enough to propagate more of me. I guess the only thing that leaves is my propagation of things I believe. Am I polluting the world by sharing my ideas?

[promethean75]

All of five minutes should be spent on the Euthyphro argument, Gary. That's how easy it is. But because of the incredible conclusions of the argument it has the religious scurrying about twisting the argument and trying to escape its consequences.

Really, a five year old can understand it. It's one of the simplest classical philosophical problems there is. Must we go through it again?

[promethean75]

"and God retaliates against that human being for no other reason than for not worshiping God, then is God behaving benevolently or malevolently?"

This is why one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion. God has trapped himself here: if righteousness is expressed in deed and not in thought, god would not be able to condemn neither disbelievers nor believers in some other god if they act with righteousness. On the other hand, if righteousness is earned by attention to god only and not through deed, a serial killer after a final meal of fried chicken (paraphrasing Harris) and five minutes with his pastor will get into heaven, no prob.

[MikeNovack]

"and God retaliates against that human being for no other reason than for not worshiping God, then is God behaving benevolently or malevolently?"

This is why one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion. God has trapped himself here: if righteousness is expressed in deed and not in thought, god would not be able to condemn neither disbelievers nor believers in some other god if they act with righteousness. On the other hand, if righteousness is earned by attention to god only and not through deed, a serial killer after a final meal of fried chicken (paraphrasing Harris) and five minutes with his pastor will get into heaven, no prob.

No, not God trapped but some religions/conceptions of God trapped.

" if righteousness is expressed in deed and not in thought, god would not be able to condemn neither disbelievers nor believers in some other god if they act with righteousness"

A religion COULD believe that God does not condemn the righteous regardless of what they believe. The position of Judaism is that the righteous of "all nations" get the same reward.

"This is why one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion"

Do you really mean "religion" or "a religion that takes a particular position". Christianity isn't the only religion.

[Immanuel Can]

...one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion...

Okay. Let's say that.

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

[Lacewing]

...one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion...

Okay. Let's say that.

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

It's an innate quality/capability of many human beings. I guess you're not one of them, as you think it must come from outside of yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

...one should pay no attention to god and take nothing from religion...

Okay. Let's say that.

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

It's an innate quality/capability of many human beings.

So...feelings. Nothing more than feeeeelings.

Then any criticism of God amounts to "I feel I don't like God."

Okay, I believe you. But it doesn't show anything's wrong with Him.

[Lacewing]

Okay. Let's say that.

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

It's an innate quality/capability of many human beings.

So...feelings. Nothing more than feeeeelings.

Then any criticism of God amounts to "I feel I don't like God."

Okay, I believe you. But it doesn't show anything's wrong with Him.

That's your spin. Distorted as usual to serve yourself. Aren't you aware that human beings possess all different types of awareness and capabilities? You, and many others, may need extra help in some ways. Don't expect that to be the case for everyone.

[Immanuel Can]

It's an innate quality/capability of many human beings.

So...feelings. Nothing more than feeeeelings.

Then any criticism of God amounts to "I feel I don't like God."

Okay, I believe you. But it doesn't show anything's wrong with Him.

That's your spin.

It's called "logic." Keep trying, and you'll figure it out.

Having no justification means it's just feelings. And you're allowed those. But nobody ever has to agree with them, and nothing promises you that they're objectively right or accurate.

[MikeNovack]

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

Then you admit it, IC. Admit that morality MUST be prior to acceptance of God, since THAT would be a moral decision.

[Lacewing]

That's your spin.

It's called "logic." Keep trying, and you'll figure it out.

That's your "logic". Keep trying, and you'll eventually see beyond it.

[Immanuel Can]

But then, from where do you get your concept of morality? Even to criticize God, you have to be using some moral standard. From where or what do you derive that standard?

Then you admit it, IC. Admit that morality MUST be prior to acceptance of God, since THAT would be a moral decision.

No, I deny the false dichotomy, as I have pointed out before. And as a Christian, I then have grounds for such an assessment: I can say "God is good," and equally, "What's good is God,"

But what are the grounds a secularist can point to? He doesn't even suppose the existence of any being in which an objective conception of the good could be grounded.

[Immanuel Can]

That's your spin.

It's called "logic." Keep trying, and you'll figure it out.

That's your "logic".

Well, Aristotle's...and everybody else's. But I know you're completely unfamiliar with all that, and it's been said already. So carry on as you are.

[promethean75]

"But what are the grounds a secularist can point to? He doesn't even suppose the existence of any being in which an objective conception of the good could be grounded"

This is what is so insufferable about you folks. A relativist says, "There is no such thing as objective good" and you reply, "Well, there must be or else what you're saying is meaningless because to what are you referring when you say "good"?"

Omg don't you guys hate that? Bro, that's precisely what were trying to tell you. There IS nothing to which the word "good" refers. You got it right!

[Lacewing]

It's called "logic."

That's your "logic". Keep trying, and you'll eventually see beyond it.

Well, Aristotle's...and everybody else's.

You are no Aristotle... nor are you everybody else... nor can you truthfully claim that everything you say is based on "logic".

Here's the nonsense that you claimed is based on logic, correct?

Having no justification means it's just feelings.

Who decides?

Does supposed justification mean it's NOT feelings?

You're just making this shit up.