Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't ask who determines whether anything is against YOUR wellbeing. Who determines whether what you do is good or bad? Would you say Conscience?

Then you're asking the wrong question. It's not who determines whether what you do is good or bad, but what determines whether what you do is good or bad. And I've already answered that.

 

[Davian]

You are claiming that the information in it is scientific, though. But it's not.

I never claimed it was. It merely described what they believed.

What writings would those be?

Do you not recognize the text references in the diagram?

The Old World

• Davian
• Oct 17, 2014
• 1

And this is a red herring anyway, as this is not intended to disparage the writers of the Bible, and they would not have been the only ones with such beliefs.

Exactly!

Not exactly, if you read carefully how I phrased that.

But it would seem that you concede that the view that the cosmos rotates around the Earth can be rational and justified, the flatness of the Earth notwithstanding.

They didn't have the perspective we have now, and until they did, they couldn't come to the conclusion we did later. But it does show that heavenly bodies were generally disc-shaped.

Ergo, the world, going forward, knew it wasn't flat.

Discs are flat.

If someone would take the questions I'm asking seriously, we might get there. I'm not holding my breath, though.

By "seriously", you mean, "lower the evidential bar low enough for your god to hop over". The problem with that is you can also leave the Earth covered in giant, invisible, immaterial marshmallows.

I hate driving through those things on the freeway.

 

[Davian]

You haven't shown any theology to be morally bankrupt.

You did that in #229, when you confirmed that, in your theology, one is judged, or held accountable, for things beyond ones control. How is that not morally bankrupt?

And the judge in this case is preceding over its own interests, which in any other context would be considered unethical.

But, feel free to use special pleading.

 

[Davian]

No, I said our God is everything, where do you get 'gaps'.

#489, RoJ: "When you get to a point of I don't know, you've figured it out-God."
(my bold)

That is what fills the gaps in the naturalistic worldview.

Also, the naturalistic explanation of the world is just another way of saying "God did it".

Then why use the word "God" and all the baggage it carries, if it adds no explanatory power?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You did that in #229, when you confirmed that, in your theology, one is judged, or held accountable, for things beyond ones control. How is that not morally bankrupt?

Like what? I don't believe I said any such thing.

And the judge in this case is preceding over its own interests, which in any other context would be considered unethical.

Please speak English, I don't know what this even says...

But, feel free to use special pleading.

Huh?

 

[Root of Jesse]

#489, RoJ: "When you get to a point of I don't know, you've figured it out-God."
(my bold)

That is what fills the gaps in the naturalistic worldview.

I wouldn't call that gaps. But you would. Whatever. What I was saying is that, when you study the cause of something, you get to another thing, which requires a cause as well. And so on and so on. When you get to a point where there is no known cause, it's God. There is no known cause of the universe.

Then why use the word "God" and all the baggage it carries, if it adds no explanatory power?

I don't believe the word "God" carries baggage. I know that mankind carries loads of baggage. Not God.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am just trying to get caught up on this thread....was there any logical answer to what the "Origin of God's Morality" is? I could throw my two cents in if anyone cares.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

If there has been an answer it is forever lost in "The Post Zone"..........

 

[civilwarbuff]

#229

Yes, you will be held accountable for your beliefs. I believe God is merciful, and if you're sincerely ignorant of Him, He will take that into account.
We will be held into account for everything. God will allow for sincere ignorance. He is Merciful. All Loving. He will ask you what you love the most. If your answer is not Him, he will allow you whatever hell you choose. If you love watching porn, he will let you. He will deny Himself to you, though. I think that's exactly what CWB believes.

You did that in #229, when you confirmed that, in your theology, one is judged, or held accountable, for things beyond ones control. How is that not morally bankrupt?

Where did he say that?

 

[Davian]

Like what? I don't believe I said any such thing.

#229, RoJ: "Yes, you will be held accountable for your beliefs."

What I believe is not under my control. There is no virtual switch in my head that I can flip one day to believe in gods, and another not. My beliefs are subject to compelling evidence, among other things, and this position is consistent with the modern philosophy of mind and cognitive science.

Please speak English, I don't know what this even says...

In most first world judicial systems, such as the one I live in (Canada) judges are not permitted to preside over cases involving their own interests; it is considered a conflict of interests, and unethical. YMMV.

Huh?

Special pleading is when the [fallacious] argument is made that because God is God, the rules one typically applies to murder, morals, ethics etc do not apply.

 

[Davian]

I wouldn't call that gaps. But you would. Whatever.

Is that not what you applied to Thor, to his detriment? He doesn't fill any gaps for you?

What I was saying is that, when you study the cause of something, you get to another thing, which requires a cause as well. And so on and so on. When you get to a point where there is no known cause, it's God.

Where I would say, "I don't know".

There is no known cause of the universe.

Or there may not be a need for a cause, or what we think of as a "cause" may not even make sense in the conditions that preceded the most recent expansion of the universe. We can only speculate at this time.

I don't believe the word "God" carries baggage. I know that mankind carries loads of baggage. Not God.

As I have seen the word used in these forums, the word "God" typically invokes a character in the bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with using a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing, exists, and requires tossing virtually all of modern scientific knowledge.

A god-of-the-gaps-type god only fills the gaps in modern scientific knowledge, and does not require it to be wildly inaccurate.

 

[Davian]

#229

Where did he say that?

See #549.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What I believe is not under my control.

Then what or who controls your beliefs if you don't? Don't know about you but I am not about to give up control of my beliefs to anyone or anything; my beliefs are my choice. So, once again, who or what controls your beliefs?

 

[civilwarbuff]

See #549.

Not going to chase after your empty useless requests....you want to post 549, be my guest.....not really interested since you have been shown to be less than truthful on #229.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I wouldn't call that gaps. But you would. Whatever. What I was saying is that, when you study the cause of something, you get to another thing, which requires a cause as well. And so on and so on. When you get to a point where there is no known cause, it's God. There is no known cause of the universe.

If you don't know the answer, then the only intellectually honest thing to do would be to admit that you don't know, not to claim that you've figured it out.

 

[Davian]

Then what or who controls your beliefs if you don't?

From what I understand of modern philosophy of mind, what the brain accepts as true happens at a subconscious level, while providing the illusion of having made conscious choices.

"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"

From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger

Don't know about you but I am not about to give up control of my beliefs to anyone or anything; my beliefs are my choice.

Sure, but I do recall how evasive you got when asked to demonstrate, even to yourself, that they are a conscious choice.

 

[Davian]

Not going to chase after your empty useless requests....you want to post 549, be my guest.....

I did not realize that you would have trouble scrolling back two posts, on the same page. Next time I will repost the entire text.

not really interested since you have been shown to be less than truthful on #229.

How so? If you are going to make an accusation of lying, be clear about it, or retract it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I did not realize that you would have trouble scrolling back two posts, on the same page. Next time I will repost the entire text.

How so? If you are going to make an accusation of lying, be clear about it, or retract it.

I posted 229 and your claim....not gonna do it again....

 

[civilwarbuff]

From what I understand of modern philosophy of mind, what the brain accepts as true happens at a subconscious level, while providing the illusion of having made conscious choices.

"The unsettling point about modern philosophy of mind and the cognitive neuroscience of will, already apparent even at this early stage, is that a final theory may contradict the way we have been subjectively experiencing ourselves for millennia. There will likely be a conflict between the scientific view of the acting self and the phenomenal narrative, the subjective story our brains tell us about what happens when we decide to act. (p. 127)

From a scientific, third-person perspective, our inner experience of strong autonomy may look increasingly like what it has been all along: an appearance only. (p. 129)"

From http://www.beinghuman.org/metzinger

Sure, but I do recall how evasive you got when asked to demonstrate, even to yourself, that they are a conscious choice.

I believe I made it clear that I make the choice, not something or someone else, as to what I believe; I chose. If not, it should be clear now....

From what I understand of modern philosophy of mind, what the brain accepts as true happens at a subconscious level, while providing the illusion of having made conscious choices.

I guess that is one way of escaping responsibility for choices..."It wasn't me, it was my subconcious. I can't control it and therefore I can't be held responsible for my choices."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe I made it clear that I make the choice, not something or someone else, as to what I believe; I chose. If not, it should be clear now....

I guess that is one way of escaping responsibility for choices..."It wasn't me, it was my subconcious. I can't control it and therefore I can't be held responsible for my choices."

Can you honestly manufacture a sincere belief in unicorns at will?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Can you honestly manufacture a sincere belief in unicorns at will?

Stop with the make believe already, your tired analogy has run its course....and fallen short of the goal line.....