Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:Please excuse me for using a movie to illustrate a point, but in the movie the "Dirty Dozen" the sniper was told to shoot the general rather than Hitler because the generals death would have a greater effect on the war than killing Hitler. So how do you make a valid decision on who to eliminate to change history, and do you really want to change history, because the good guys (so we assume) eventually won, or would you prefer to be speaking German now? It's the same with Gods motives, what is the real motivation behind the actions that humans can't always understand. Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.

Well, I think the point still remains that I would have morally-sufficient reasons to kill Hitler. The problem is obviously that I don't have a view of history that allows me to know if it would make things better or worse. Ultimately, however, I don't think it undermines that point that to kill a baby is not always "of satanic morals." Certainly not something anyone of sound mind ever hopes to do, but not the objectively immoral act GIA needs it to be for his case.

The only way to make torture and killing of a baby moral is to created an imaginary scenario involving the supernatural.

To built a theology and morality on such would be quite foolish.

I can think of no real justification for the torture and murder of a baby either by a man or by a God.

I can make up some unlikely scenario where I could justifiably do it but it would be such an unlikely one that it should be ignored.

Regards
DL

David Handeye wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL

That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

You have no argument against and just deflect.

Who is simple minded?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
Do you agree?
Regards
DL

That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

You have no argument against and just deflect.

Who is simple minded?

Regards
DL

well at this point I think you are just not able to read the English written.

Greatest I am wrote:The only way to make torture and killing of a baby moral is to created an imaginary scenario involving the supernatural.

To built a theology and morality on such would be quite foolish.

I can think of no real justification for the torture and murder of a baby either by a man or by a God.

I can make up some unlikely scenario where I could justifiably do it but it would be such an unlikely one that it should be ignored.

But that's sort of the point. If there exists a possible scenario where killing a baby saves, say, 1,000 lives, I think we'd have reason to say killing the baby was moral and not killing it immoral. Maybe. To be clear, I understand your point in all this, and you've provided an excellent example. Still, I think one could claim morally-sufficient reasons to kill a baby if would preserve more life in some other way.

The sickness? Yes, that's troublesome, but I think you overstate it to say it was "torture." The sentence "God causes the baby to fall sick and die 6 days later" hardly constitutes "torture." I think here you're being tendentious.

So, to pull all of this back around to the main point, you've argued that God causing David's baby to fall sick and die 6 days is demonstrably "satanic" morality. Insofar as you haven't ruled out the possibility that God had sufficiently moral causes to do this, I don't see that you've demonstrated this. Certainly, you've called the morality of this act into question. You just haven't demonstrated its immorality. (And, as I've already said, I think the much simpler "out" here is simply to hold that God didn't cause David's baby to fall sick. That's just a (bad) gloss the Biblical writers put on it.)

David Handeye wrote:[
That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

You have no argument against and just deflect.

Who is simple minded?

Regards
DL[/quote]
well at this point I think you are just not able to read the English written.[/quote]

Your ilk start to deflect and babble the moment anyone tries to have you speak of your immoral creed.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:The only way to make torture and killing of a baby moral is to created an imaginary scenario involving the supernatural.

To built a theology and morality on such would be quite foolish.

I can think of no real justification for the torture and murder of a baby either by a man or by a God.

I can make up some unlikely scenario where I could justifiably do it but it would be such an unlikely one that it should be ignored.

But that's sort of the point. If there exists a possible scenario where killing a baby saves, say, 1,000 lives, I think we'd have reason to say killing the baby was moral and not killing it immoral. Maybe. To be clear, I understand your point in all this, and you've provided an excellent example. Still, I think one could claim morally-sufficient reasons to kill a baby if would preserve more life in some other way.

The sickness? Yes, that's troublesome, but I think you overstate it to say it was "torture." The sentence "God causes the baby to fall sick and die 6 days later" hardly constitutes "torture." I think here you're being tendentious.

So, to pull all of this back around to the main point, you've argued that God causing David's baby to fall sick and die 6 days is demonstrably "satanic" morality. Insofar as you haven't ruled out the possibility that God had sufficiently moral causes to do this, I don't see that you've demonstrated this. Certainly, you've called the morality of this act into question. You just haven't demonstrated its immorality. (And, as I've already said, I think the much simpler "out" here is simply to hold that God didn't cause David's baby to fall sick. That's just a (bad) gloss the Biblical writers put on it.)

I believe that I have ruled out any moral reason for God's actions.

If there was any good moral imperative then I am sure that the scribes would have put it in the script.

I am with these guys on this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:If there was any good moral imperative then I am sure that the scribes would have put it in the script.

I don't think this follows. Put differently, it's fair to assume that the scribes put this case in the script without providing God's reasons because they felt it was obvious.

Greatest I am wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The trial stuff can certainly be fun to watch, but I think it ultimately fails, much for the same reason I argue your demonstration fails: we are applying a finite awareness of the irreducibly complex interactions of humans to a being that (if you accept it) has a view of all possible outcomes in the present and the future. So perhaps I should say something like the following:

If God is bound like humans are bound--which is to say at the very least that "He" is finite and not omniscient--then yes, I think you're right: God is a Grade A asshole whose morality is, at a minimum, inferior to our own. I think the problem here is that to talk coherently about "God" we don't mean a finite being whose view of history is as limited as our own. And if that's true, we can never show that God does not have morally-sufficient reasons to do what "He" does. And if we can't show that (because it's impossible), then we can't demonstrate your point. This is ultimately the hurdle you have to overcome, and I don't see that you've done it above.

Now, as I've said several times, I'm inclined to side with you on the idea that "no good God" would do such a thing. Where we differ, perhaps, is that I simply write such Biblical narratives off as human myth-making. You seem to want to write the whole idea of God (or at least that one) off as myth-making. I'm not prepared to go that far (though, as a generic theist, I don't feel I'm beholden to the Biblical narrative in any sort of robust manner). So if you want to ask me if God caused David's baby to grow sick and die, then my answer is "No." If you want to ask if such a God could have had morally-sufficient reasons to do so, my answer has to be "yes," insofar as I cannot see the possibilities that would have occurred otherwise.

^^

IOW, you will go by faith instead of the facts.

Shame on you.

You are an example of this phenomenon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mJCCARjyNM

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:IOW, you will go by faith instead of the facts.

Certainly not. You've just offered no facts here. You and I are both speculating. The difference is that you're speculating your way to a conclusion you claim you can demonstrate. I'm speculating my way to, well, a speculation. It all has to do with the strength of our claims. You claim to be able to demonstrate something for which you cannot provide facts. I claim to be able to show this, and I think I have. Your claim is far more robust than mine. You're claiming definitive knowledge. I'm claiming speculative knowledge. I carry a far smaller burden of proof than you do.

So, as I've said before, I am perfectly happy for you to assert that God's morality is satanic. Fine. What I will push back on is whether you can demonstrate it. To do so, you must show that there is no morally-sufficient reason for God to do what he's done, which you haven't. And, barring some new insight of yours, it's because this is effectively impossible. Why? Because you can never undermine the rebuttal, "you do not have the knowledge God does." I'm debating hypotheticals, and so long as you can't show those hypotheticals to be logically or metaphysically impossible, you can't demonstrate your claim.

So, as before, the exchange has been enjoyable, but you've once again over-extended yourself. I can understand why you would, but you're not surrounded by village idiots here. Assertion absent demonstration doesn't mean just a whole lot on a philosophy forum.

PS Even Job does not hold, because God could simply respond to your YouTube video, "in doing what I did to Job, I prevented Satan from taking hold of all of humanity and torturing it for all eternity." And insofar as you can't show that God can't say this, your claim is not demonstrably true.

PPS Once and for all, please stop referring to, or alluding to, me being a Christian. I am not. I feel like I've made this clear, but you continue to lump me in with them. At least at this point in my life, that is an unfair grouping. I am an apostate. If you continue do so, I'll have to join in with I.C. and start calling you a Gnostic non-Christian. Or worse: an atheist!

And one final thought, an additional piece of demonstrating your claim, is demonstrating that God can actually do anything immoral. To do so, you'll have to demonstrate the existence of a moral standard independent of God. Good luck with that.

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:[
That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

Your ilk start to deflect and babble the moment anyone tries to have you speak of your immoral creed.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Of course I agree, but you assume God punished his Son, actually I think resurrection is not a punishment.
On the other hand I don't believe in the original sin, I don't think human beings were born with the sin of Adam to be cleansed, and neither Jesus thought. He never thought of being punished by his Father too, or at least we have no proofs, so that's only your supposition.

ReliStuPhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:IOW, you will go by faith instead of the facts.

Certainly not. You've just offered no facts here. You and I are both speculating. The difference is that you're speculating your way to a conclusion you claim you can demonstrate. I'm speculating my way to, well, a speculation. It all has to do with the strength of our claims. You claim to be able to demonstrate something for which you cannot provide facts. I claim to be able to show this, and I think I have. Your claim is far more robust than mine. You're claiming definitive knowledge. I'm claiming speculative knowledge. I carry a far smaller burden of proof than you do.

So, as I've said before, I am perfectly happy for you to assert that God's morality is satanic. Fine. What I will push back on is whether you can demonstrate it. To do so, you must show that there is no morally-sufficient reason for God to do what he's done, which you haven't. And, barring some new insight of yours, it's because this is effectively impossible. Why? Because you can never undermine the rebuttal, "you do not have the knowledge God does." I'm debating hypotheticals, and so long as you can't show those hypotheticals to be logically or metaphysically impossible, you can't demonstrate your claim.

So, as before, the exchange has been enjoyable, but you've once again over-extended yourself. I can understand why you would, but you're not surrounded by village idiots here. Assertion absent demonstration doesn't mean just a whole lot on a philosophy forum.

PS Even Job does not hold, because God could simply respond to your YouTube video, "in doing what I did to Job, I prevented Satan from taking hold of all of humanity and torturing it for all eternity." And insofar as you can't show that God can't say this, your claim is not demonstrably true.

PPS Once and for all, please stop referring to, or alluding to, me being a Christian. I am not. I feel like I've made this clear, but you continue to lump me in with them. At least at this point in my life, that is an unfair grouping. I am an apostate. If you continue do so, I'll have to join in with I.C. and start calling you a Gnostic non-Christian. Or worse: an atheist!

"If you want to ask if such a God could have had morally-sufficient reasons to do so, my answer has to be "yes," insofar as I cannot see the possibilities that would have occurred otherwise."

Deny all you like and call yourself whatever you like but what I quoted shows you giving God a break on faith.

Regards
DL

ReliStuPhD wrote:And one final thought, an additional piece of demonstrating your claim, is demonstrating that God can actually do anything immoral. To do so, you'll have to demonstrate the existence of a moral standard independent of God. Good luck with that.

Look at the Book of the Dead and you will see the ten commandments.

Religions and moral tenets were around for thousand of years before Christianity came along.

To suggest that they were all savages or whatever, without morals and laws is quite disingenuous.

The standard I follow is much superior to Christianity and their commandments.

Care to prove me wrong or right?

You can if you care to answer another simple question.

Should a person or a God's first moral tenet be self-centered of centered on others?

Regards
DL

David Handeye wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

David Handeye wrote:[
That is not the question, I could agree or I could not agree. The question is that you wrote people put money into the basket for payments of indulgences or the forgiveness of their sins. This is bullshit, as you say in english. I have just reported you The Offertory according to the Cathechism of the Santa Madre Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana.
Now if you wanna talk with cognition of cause that is the the reason of putting money in the basket.
Otherwise you can continue to write your fantasy. If you would say those reasons of yours here in Italy people would just smile and think of you to be a sort of poor simple-minded.

Your ilk start to deflect and babble the moment anyone tries to have you speak of your immoral creed.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Of course I agree, but you assume God punished his Son, actually I think resurrection is not a punishment.
On the other hand I don't believe in the original sin, I don't think human beings were born with the sin of Adam to be cleansed, and neither Jesus thought. He never thought of being punished by his Father too, or at least we have no proofs, so that's only your supposition.

I suppose nothing as I do not believe in your version of Jesus. He was Rome's invention.

I do suppose that the creed you follow is immoral and if you do agree with that premise above then you would have to see any God using such a creed as evil. Yet you do not.

Why not?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:"If you want to ask if such a God could have had morally-sufficient reasons to do so, my answer has to be "yes," insofar as I cannot see the possibilities that would have occurred otherwise."

Deny all you like and call yourself whatever you like but what I quoted shows you giving God a break on faith.

I don't think you understand what faith means here. not being able to see any other possibility has nothing to do with faith. If you can state you can demonstrate that God has Satanic morals, but I can show it logically possible to be explained otherwise, you've demonstrated nothing. This has nothing to with faith and everything to do with simple argumentation. To demonstrate the truth of your proposition, you must undermine my objection. It's that simple. If you cannot, you've demonstrated nothing. You've been unable to show my objection to be false (insofar as you've not proven God had no morally-sufficient reason to do what he did). Rationalize it however you want, but you've shown clearly here that you cannot demonstrate your contention. Since that's all I was after, I consider the matter settled. You gave it your best shot, but in the end, you made clear that God's morals are not demonstrably satanic by any standard of philosophical argumentation. That you believe them to be so is of no concern to me. To each his own.

Greatest I am wrote:Should a person or a God's first moral tenet be self-centered of centered on others?

God's "first moral tenet" is, by definition, self-centered since God is the source of all moral tenets. God cannot look to an external moral standard by which to derive morality. In fact, God does not follow a morality to even have a first moral tenet. God establishes morality. Without a God (it need not be the Christian God), there is no objective morality. In fact, Kant's Moral Argument for God's Existence is, in my opinion, the slam-dunk reason why atheism is irrational (or at least atheism which holds that objective morals exist).

The Book of the Dead doesn't prove what you think it does. Morals are not established by religions. Rather, they are "uncovered," if you will (or, more accurately, religions claim that they have been revealed). The presence of moral commands that predate Christianity does not undermine Christianity. If anything, it simply lends strength to the claim that "thou shalt not kill" (be it in the Bible or the Tibetan Book of the Dead) is an objective moral truth. Whether that objective truth extends from the Xian God, the Buddhist "God" (non-contingent ground of being), or none of the above matters not to me. It extends from God, not humans. (Call that faith all you want. I think it's fairly clear it's simply a metaphysical truth.)


As I've said, over and over and over, it's completely fine for you to believe any numbers of things. I'd prefer they were logically or metaphysically consistent, but that's certainly not a requirement I can enforce. The problem is when you start to maintain you can demonstrate them. You've got quite a heavy burden to undermine 3,000 years (that's right, before Jesus) of rigorous thought on the topic. Certainly, your opinions on what should or should not be moral don't amount to a hill of beans. After all, without being able to appeal to an objective moral standard, your morals carry no more weight than Hitler's, even if I happen to like yours better.