God and morality

[Immanuel Can]

P2: Evil is defined by God's subjective opinion

You'll find that God has no opinions that are merely "subjective." You'll find they're all "objective" as well. That's the distinct advantage of having been the Creator...or one of the advantages.

That's metaphysically impossible. Opinions are subjective by definition.

No, opinions, like statements of fact, can be true or false. That is, a statement made by a subject ("subjective") can be true ("objectively").

But if a statement is ONLY "subjective," then it means it has no corresponding reality. It's not objectively true. It's either purely aesthetic, or outright false.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't adopt the rile of grand philosopher at all. I have never described myself as anything more than I am, an average philosophy grad. What I mock is all the people who are much less than that, but who believe they have mastered philosophy to such an extent that they can surpass Kant and Hume in wisdom etc. My tactics are not negative because I am negative but because I am arguing against a lot of junk. You wouldn't understand, you are below average even by PN forum standards, which are not high.

Very well. Does your philosophical training enable you to make sound judgments about the conditions and conflicts we face in our present? Do you feel you have an advantage in your analysis of people, events, moral and ethical conflicts?

That's not really what philosophy does, so no, not particularly. I threw the word wisdom in there as shorthand, I don't actually associate philosophy with wisdom at all in reality.

[FlashDangerpants]

You'll find that God has no opinions that are merely "subjective." You'll find they're all "objective" as well. That's the distinct advantage of having been the Creator...or one of the advantages.

That's metaphysically impossible. Opinions are subjective by definition.

No, opinions, like statements of fact, can be true or false. That is, a statement made by a subject ("subjective") can be true ("objectively").

But if a statement is ONLY "subjective," then it means it has no corresponding reality. It's not objectively true. It's either purely aesthetic, or outright false.

And?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It seems weird that you just can't bring yourself to say Hitler was bad or the Holocaust unjustified and evil, but yet you whine about getting called a Nazi.

But as we already discussed years ago, this matter has been investigated many times and your naziness is established. I see no reason to waste my time relitigating the matter.

If you ask me I would say that the means or methods by which you arrived at this conclusion were examined, they’d be seen as faulty. And then I would ask: If that is so, in what other areas of analysis will similar bad methods result in erroneous conclusions?

[Immanuel Can]

That's metaphysically impossible. Opinions are subjective by definition.

No, opinions, like statements of fact, can be true or false. That is, a statement made by a subject ("subjective") can be true ("objectively").

But if a statement is ONLY "subjective," then it means it has no corresponding reality. It's not objectively true. It's either purely aesthetic, or outright false.

And?

I'll let you do the deduction. I've given you all you should need.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's not really what philosophy does, so no, not particularly. I threw the word wisdom in there as shorthand, I don't actually associate philosophy with wisdom at all in reality.

Ah well, this is important. Only because the larger bulk of the conversations that take place here are on the topics of cultural debate, politics, and all the rest. And most people are drawn to discuss those topics because they are matters of immediate concern.

I do not agree with your take on what philosophy is, or what good philosophizing is. And the fact that you have limited it seems quite a bit off.

[Fanman]

Based on Isaiah 55:8–9 (NASB), we can speculate about God's (the Father, Yahweh's) morality and why He allows suffering, but we cannot convict Him of absolute immorality.

Isaiah 55:8–9 (NASB):

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

We can investigate the Problem of Evil, evaluate proposed explanations for suffering, and speculate on God's moral purposes and plans. But within the biblical framework, His thoughts and ways transcend our own in ways we cannot fully understand. Therefore, we must consider whether we possess sufficient knowledge and capacity to pass absolute moral judgement on Him.

That does not mean moral enquiry is invalid or that we cannot evaluate Him through the moral frameworks available to us. Rather, it means we should distinguish between moral evaluation and absolute conviction. We can question, investigate, and reason about God's morality without claiming to comprehend the full scope of His purposes and plans.

Therefore, based on Isaiah 55:8–9, I believe we can reasonably speculate on God's morality and the reasons He permits suffering, but we cannot justifiably convict Him of absolute immorality when our understanding of Him remains limited by the constraints of our own ontology.

[Gary Childress]

Based on Isaiah 55:8–9 (NASB), we can speculate about God's (the Father, Yahweh's) morality and why He allows suffering, but we cannot convict Him of absolute immorality.

Isaiah 55:8–9 (NASB):

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”

We can investigate the Problem of Evil, evaluate proposed explanations for suffering, and speculate on God's moral purposes and plans. But within the biblical framework, His thoughts and ways transcend our own in ways we cannot fully understand. Therefore, we must consider whether we possess sufficient knowledge and capacity to pass absolute moral judgement on Him.

That does not mean moral enquiry is invalid or that we cannot evaluate Him through the moral frameworks available to us. Rather, it means we should distinguish between moral evaluation and absolute conviction. We can question, investigate, and reason about God's morality without claiming to comprehend the full scope of His purposes and plans.

Therefore, based on Isaiah 55:8–9, I believe we can reasonably speculate on God's morality and the reasons He permits suffering, but we cannot justifiably convict Him of absolute immorality when our understanding of Him remains limited by the constraints of our own ontology.

Assuming the Bible is an accurate description or record of God. And assuming there is such a thing as a conscious, humanlike God responsible for the beginning of the universe who understands English and every other language conceivable and is male in gender, though I'm not sure if that means God has a penis or not, and if so, where in heaven does he alleviate himself. Is that what rain is?

[FlashDangerpants]

No, opinions, like statements of fact, can be true or false. That is, a statement made by a subject ("subjective") can be true ("objectively").

But if a statement is ONLY "subjective," then it means it has no corresponding reality. It's not objectively true. It's either purely aesthetic, or outright false.

And?

I'll let you do the deduction. I've given you all you should need.

Opinions about objective qualities are rendered true by observation of the fact, that fact being external to the opinion holder. Opinions about subjective qualities are, as you say, aesthetic, you can't check them by observing external fact.

God's opinion that buggery is evil is not checked by looking at the act itself and observing a factual quality of badness, it is checked by asking God's opinion. And He only checks by asking Himself his own opinion. It's aesthetic. You just kicked the can down the road one step.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not really what philosophy does, so no, not particularly. I threw the word wisdom in there as shorthand, I don't actually associate philosophy with wisdom at all in reality.

Ah well, this is important. Only because the larger bulk of the conversations that take place here are on the topics of cultural debate, politics, and all the rest. And most people are drawn to discuss those topics because they are matters of immediate concern.

I do not agree with your take on what philosophy is, or what good philosophizing is. And the fact that you have limited it seems quite a bit off.

You are a pseud who throws philosophy words he doesn't understand randomly at conversations for no reason other than to feel important. Your opinion on what philosophy is doesn't matter very much.

[Immanuel Can]

God's opinion that buggery is evil is not checked by looking at the act itself and observing a factual quality of badness,...

That's about the dumbest objection I've ever heard. Congratulations. I mean it. It's really spectacular. I'm almost breath-taken by how little thought it must have take to generate.

God is God. He's the Creator. He doesn't have to "check" what He made, in order to "look," or "observe" a "quality" that He did not put there in the first place. He made everything, and is the only one qualified to say what its right and wrong uses are.

[FlashDangerpants]

God's opinion that buggery is evil is not checked by looking at the act itself and observing a factual quality of badness,...

That's about the dumbest objection I've ever heard. Congratulations. I mean it. It's really spectacular. I'm almost breath-taken by how little thought it must have take to generate.

God is God. He's the Creator. He doesn't have to "check" what He made, in order to "look," or "observe" a "quality" that He did not put there in the first place. He made everything, and is the only one qualified to say what its right and wrong uses are.

So it is just his opinion. And you are satisfied with that, so you don't ask any further questions, even though the opinion in question isn't founded on anything but more opinion.

[Immanuel Can]

God's opinion that buggery is evil is not checked by looking at the act itself and observing a factual quality of badness,...

That's about the dumbest objection I've ever heard. Congratulations. I mean it. It's really spectacular. I'm almost breath-taken by how little thought it must have take to generate.

God is God. He's the Creator. He doesn't have to "check" what He made, in order to "look," or "observe" a "quality" that He did not put there in the first place. He made everything, and is the only one qualified to say what its right and wrong uses are.

So it is just his opinion.

Oh, you're so clueless! You must be kidding.

Yeah, I'm being trolled. Nobody's that slow. Okay, I get it.

Last answer: no, it's the intrinsic moral nature of the world, as designed by God. Things are either being used as He intended when he made them, or abused as He did not.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's about the dumbest objection I've ever heard. Congratulations. I mean it. It's really spectacular. I'm almost breath-taken by how little thought it must have take to generate.

God is God. He's the Creator. He doesn't have to "check" what He made, in order to "look," or "observe" a "quality" that He did not put there in the first place. He made everything, and is the only one qualified to say what its right and wrong uses are.

So it is just his opinion.

Oh, you're so clueless! You must be kidding.

Yeah, I'm being trolled. Nobody's that slow. Okay, I get it.

Last answer: no, it's the intrinsic moral nature of the world, as designed by God. Things are either being used as He intended when he made them, or abused as He did not.

His intent merely represents his opinion. It might be the opinion of somebody who is bigger than you are, but it's still just opinion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Last answer: no, it's the intrinsic moral nature of the world, as designed by God. Things are either being used as He intended when he made them, or abused as He did not.

That is, of course, the answer by way of Christian understanding.

And I will add that the same general idea is expressed in the foundation of East Indian philosophy (the idea of Rta =order). But there is a twist: Christianity inherits from Judaism a range of imperatives that deal on “social justice”. But social justice, in the general structure of East Indian thought, is much more focused on “fulfilling one’s position” rather than seeking social justice as an end in itself, which would allow if not encourage social struggles, even revolution.