Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

To use your phrase...DUDE...you do realize that a great many of the scientists that discovered the stuff we know today were Christian?

And? Your point?

But the fact is that the very existence of everything requires a cause.

Even God? He requires a cause also?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not much of a problem then, and certainly nothing like trying to defend a morally bankrupt theology.

Which theology would that be?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then why did you pretend to have figured it out?

I didn't pretend anything.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't see an answer, sorry. What determines right and wrong in people?
I wonder if you think people have all the time in the world to deal with you and your evasiveness? I'm not on the internet day and night. I will answer you when I get to you.

My evasiveness? How many pages have we been waiting to see you present your case?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't pretend anything.

It sure looks like you did. You claimed to have figured it out, only to later reprimand someone else for "having it all figured out."

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

God's morality (aka the standard at which God defines good and bad) is a direct product of his purpose and the purpose He bestows upon His creations.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes you do. You presented a textbook-worthy example of an argument from ignorance.

Sorry, I don't use any textbooks.. Maybe you do. But I won't fit in any of your categories.

Are you going for irony? You literally pretended to know the answer to one of the most enduring mysteries of all. Yet you're the humble one? Oh please...

Do you think of yourself as humble? I am, but I'm not perfect. I do work on it all the time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sorry, I don't use any textbooks..

Maybe you should.

Do you think of yourself as humble? I am, but I'm not perfect. I do work on it all the time.

I don't know if you are humble. All I have to go by is your posts, and they're not painting a flattering portrait.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And? Your point?

Without God, there is no science. Most scientists are humble enough to know what they know, what they can know, and what they won't ever know. That's not ignorance, that's intelligence.

Even God? He requires a cause also?

The First Cause is just that...first.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe you should.

Lots of lies in textbooks...

I don't know if you are humble. All I have to go by is your posts, and they're not painting a flattering portrait.

I could care less what you think. What matters to me isn't you...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Without God, there is no science.

You'll need to substantiate this claim.

Most scientists are humble enough to know what they know, what they can know, and what they won't ever know. That's not ignorance, that's intelligence.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?

The First Cause is just that...first.

Now you can add special pleading to your list of fallacies.

Still working on presenting that case?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lots of lies in textbooks...

Even more in holy books.

I could care less what you think. What matters to me isn't you...

You could care less, meaning you care just a little?

 

[Root of Jesse]

My evasiveness? How many pages have we been waiting to see you present your case?

Too bad for you. I guess you don't have a life. I have family, worship time, and a weekend full of chores and sports. I still didn't see your answer to the question.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You'll need to substantiate this claim.

No universe, nothing to study. The end.

Do you know what an argument from ignorance is?

No, I don't have that textbook you keep referring to. Maybe your title isn't what I'd call it, sorta like pro-choice/pro-death?

Now you can add special pleading to your list of fallacies.

I don't have any list.

Still working on presenting that case?

Still working on answering the question? All I saw was "You're asking the wrong question." But that's not for you to determine. The question I asked is "Would you call it "conscience"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Even more in holy books.

I don't know what holy books you're talking about, but the ones I read are complete Truth.

You could care less, meaning you care just a little?

Take it any way you want.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Even more in holy books.

You could care less, meaning you care just a little?

Funny video.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Would anyone mind if I took a crack at the topic?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Root of Jesse]

Would anyone mind if I took a crack at the topic?

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

No objection from me.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No objection from me.

Thank you. I will first like to say that I have discussed this topic at length in the thread titled "the moral arguement". I will attempt to explain my point of view in a more condensed manner for the sake of time. The first thing I want to ask is simply this, "How can something be defined as good or bad/evil ? I would argue that it depends entirely on its purpose.

For example, let's use a knife and a rock as an example. A knife was created with a purpose and that purpose is to cut. Thus, a good knife is one that is sharp and strong so that it can cut well. A bad knife is dull and week. A dull knife is bad because it fails to fulfill its created purpose.

It is also important to note that it is a fact that everything that has ever been created for an intended purpose was created by a being with some level of intelligence. However, something that was created by nature by natural means without a created purpose can be given a purpose by a being with some level of intelligence. In this case we can use a rock as an example. Without a purpose, how can we define what a good/bad rock is? I may say a good rock is shiny and colorful but someone else may say a good rock is hard and flat. The point is simply this, without a clear purpose, it is impossible to clearly define what a good/bad rock is. Now let's just say that a being of intelligence took a rock an put it on a stack of paper and gave it the purpose of being a paperweight. Now we can clearly define if it is a good/bad paperweight based on how well it can hold paper down.

Lets assume that God does not exist and all life (including humans) were created by nature without an intended purpose. Because we are beings with some level of intelligence, we can bestow a purpose onto ourselves. Depending on what that purpose is, our view of what is good or evil will be determined on that purpose we give ourselves.

Let's all assume for the sake of discussion that the God of Abraham does exist. Because He is an eternal being, He was never created with an intended purpose. However, because he is a being with some level of intelligence, he can bestow a purpose onto himself. So whatever purpose He chose to bestow upon himself would be the standard at which he would determine to be good/evil. Also, we would have to assume that mankind and everything else that God created was created for a purpose. So anything that complements our created purpose is good and anything that goes against our created purpose is bad/evil.

In conclusion, the origin of God's moraity is rooted and determined by the purpose he bestowed upon Himself and anything that complements or fulfills God's purpose is good. Anything that goes against that purpose is bad/evil.

 

[Davian]

Which theology would that be?

Any theology where one is held accountable for things beyond ones control, such as what one believes.