Can you be good without God?

[quatona]

Perhaps admitting that there is a possibility of there being a supernatural component would be a start.

As long as I don´t even know what exactly you mean when saying "supernatural", I don´t have any basis for ruling out its existence. So, yes, at this point I say there´s a possibility for it to exist - just like there is a possibility for the subnatural, the meta-supernatural, the parallel-natural, the hypernatural or the frutzlijek to exist. (I wouldn´t know what these terms might mean, either).
OTOH, I have no idea how this admission would enable any further discussion about "the supernatural".

 

[Eudaimonist]

As long as I don´t even know what exactly you mean when saying "supernatural", I don´t have any basis for ruling out its existence.

Worse yet, there's no reason to rule it in.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Cadet]

How can you investigate or discuss this issue if you've already ruled out looking at part of the possible factors

I've done no such thing. Rather, there are allegedly a group of factors outside my understanding that you think I should take into consideration, and I'm trying to understand what, how, and why. But you won't even define the term!

I apologize if it seems to you that I have been coy about definitions, etc, but to begin a discussion about the cause or meaning of anything while holding one intellectual hand behind your back doesn't make sense to me.

But that's not what's going on at all. You are proposing something without a clear definition, it's on you to define it. You say just pick any dictionary definition... Okay, how about this one:

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
​

That is, for a change, actually a coherent definition of "supernatural". Now here's the issue with it: I have no idea how we establish things outside science in particular or empiricism generally. This is a problem I keep coming back to, because I have yet to see any form of epistemology that demonstrably works that's not based on science in one way or another. That's another thing we'd need to establish before we could go on to talk about the supernatural.

 

[Albion]

Okay, how about this one:

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
​

That is, for a change, actually a coherent definition of "supernatural".

Sure.

Now here's the issue with it: I have no idea how we establish things outside science in particular or empiricism generally.

Then perhaps the question has to remain open indefinitely. It's not as though I'm angling for us to settle, here and now and by ourselves, an issue like this one...and I'm not the creator of the thread. My position has been taken in reaction to the claim made early on in this thread that nothing supernatural could be considered. If that were to be the policy, there would be no reason to discuss the matter.

 

[Dave Ellis]

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.

God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?

Problem is your definition is not justified. You can demonstrate that good exists, however you can not demonstrate that god exists.

There's no reason to believe that a supernatural entity like a god would be required for good things to happen. You're simply trying to define this being into existence, which frankly is silly.

As for me, I don't believe in a god, nor do I put much stock in religious teachings. That being said, I'm pretty universally regarded as a nice person who does a lot of good.

As such, I'm walking proof that you can be good without god.

 

[Davian]

Without access to those reasons, then it would remain unknowable.

Which becomes situational ethics, in contrast to the OP.

So tell me, the rape of a child could be a good thing, could it? In that scenario, would you interfere? Or stand idly by?

...But there are some who believe that a time will come where all things will become known, at which time a final judgement will take place

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

 

[Locutus]

This is Correct, I do not judge people, or discredit anyone, ever.

But I never said it satisfies me that anyone would ever have a "good" reason to witness a child being raped, only to remain idle and do nothing to stop it.

Are you saying that you effectively function without a moral compass?

 

[Locutus]

I understand where you're coming from, but I am not selling the supernatural. What "I am" is reluctant to launch into a deeper discussion on this matter and beginning by taking one of the leading answers off the table only because other participants say, "Oh, but I won't discuss that since I don't believe in it."

I can define supernatural as well as anyone else who owns a dictionary, but I needed to know if my producing a definition would facilitate anything...or if, having done so, the reply would still be "We won't consider that as a possibility, only the ideas we already lean towards."

I don't disbelieve in the existence of the supernatural but I also have no idea what it is, other than the entirely nebulous dictionary definition. A definition which, for all practical purposes, may as well be 'everything and nothing'.

Anyone who is selling a particular model of supernaturalism (a specific deity, for example) is obliged to define the idea beyond 'everything and nothing'. That really goes without saying. They would also need to define or explain the mechanism employed for differentiating their particular model of supernaturalism from all others, and of course for determining it supernatural in the first instance. There must be a mechanism which is readily explainable, else no knowledge claims can be made. Without these, we have only personal feelings. And personal feelings have no informative power at all, and are as useful to this exercise as the salesman's personal preference for a car model is to demonstrating the reliability of its motor.

 

[Davian]

What about culpability? Is it evil even for those with mental deficiencies? Things aren't quite so black and white.

Is that the best you can come up with, that we can excuse your [hypothetical] god for standing idly by and not interfering with the rape of a chile because of its mental deficiencies?

 

[Albion]

I don't disbelieve in the existence of the supernatural but I also have no idea what it is, other than the entirely nebulous dictionary definition. A definition which, for all practical purposes, may as well be 'everything and nothing'.

Anyone who is selling a particular model of supernaturalism (a specific deity, for example) is obliged to define the idea beyond 'everything and nothing'. That really goes without saying. They would also need to define or explain the mechanism employed for differentiating their particular model of supernaturalism from all others, and of course for determining it supernatural in the first instance. There must be a mechanism which is readily explainable, else no knowledge claims can be made. Without these, we have only personal feelings. And personal feelings have no informative power at all, and are as useful to this exercise as the salesman's personal preference for a car model is to demonstrating the reliability of its motor.

 

[Locutus]

What "I am" is reluctant to launch into a deeper discussion on this matter and beginning by taking one of the leading answers off the table only because other participants say, "Oh, but I won't discuss that since I don't believe in it."

The problem is, we don't know what THAT is (beyond the extremely nebulous dictionary definition - which is no definition at all), and theists won't tell us. They claim to know what it is, so we have to assume they are simply refusing to discuss it.

Is it any wonder we're reluctant to continue a dialogue, given this? The experience, for us, goes this way:

theist: you refuse to consider the supernatural in your consideration of my god

atheist: what do you mean by supernatural, and how do you know it exists?

theist: I mean the realm of the gods, of my god, and I know it exists with great certainty

atheist: okay, I'm willing to consider it. so, please define this supernatural realm, and in particular how you/we can recognise your god's activities specifically (and differentiate them from other supernatural activity), and also please explain how you/we can have certain knowledge of this supernatural realm.

theist: I don't want to talk to you if you refuse to believe in the supernatural

Does that seem like a reasonable dialogue to you?

 

[Albion]

I don't disbelieve in the existence of the supernatural but I also have no idea what it is, other than the entirely nebulous dictionary definition.

Oh, I think you're too modest. Of course you know what it is in concept, if not in particulars. And you know that it's not really 'everything and nothing.' That the supernatural is full of question marks is true, but we don't know everything about the natural world, either, yet everyone here seems willing to talk about it.

Anyone who is selling a particular model of supernaturalism (a specific deity, for example) is obliged to define the idea beyond 'everything and nothing'. That really goes without saying. They would also need to define or explain the mechanism employed for differentiating their particular model of supernaturalism from all others, and of course for determining it supernatural in the first instance.

What if one were to say that the answer MAY relate to SOME god, and not to a "particular model" as you suggested?

I merely mentioned the word God, and was then told we can't bring that into the discussion.

 

[Locutus]

Oh, I think you're too modest. Of course you know what it is in concept, if not in particulars. And you know that it's not really 'everything and nothing.' That the supernatural is full of question marks is true, but we don't know everything about the natural world, either, yet everyone here seems willing to talk about it.

What if one were to say that the answer MAY relate to SOME god, and not to a "particular model" as you suggested?

I merely mentioned the word God, and was then told we can't bring that into the discussion.

I seriously don't have a clue what it is. I'll wager no one else has a clue, either. If it is, literally, anything outside the physical/natural realm, then it truly is everything and nothing because we only know what it isn't. Getting back to our car salesman .. that's like him responding to a question on attributes of the motor of a particular car with "it's not a pumpkin". 'Full of question marks' doesn't go anywhere near the uselessness of the dictionary definition.

Of course we can talk about the natural world, because we can see it, measure it, test it, demonstrate it, define, etc. But more importantly in terms of discussions of the god, the natural world is said to be his arena. His specific creation, and the one in which he constantly acts and interacts.

 

[Albion]

I seriously don't have a clue what it is. I'll wager no one else has a clue, either. If it is, literally, anything outside the physical/natural realm, then it truly is everything and nothing because we only know what it isn't. Getting back to our car salesman .. that's like him responding to a question on attributes of the motor of a particular car with "it's not a pumpkin". 'Full of question marks' doesn't go anywhere near the uselessness of the dictionary definition.

Of course we can talk about the natural world, because we can see it, measure it, test it, demonstrate it, define, etc. But more importantly in terms of discussions of the god, the natural world is said to be his arena. His specific creation, and the one in which he constantly acts and interacts.

I disagree, although it appears that this will remain at an impasse. Supernatural matters are not totally unknowable or unknown and, meanwhile, the natural world is far from being entirely known by Man. It's a great exaggeration to hold that nothing supernatural can even be contemplated, however tentatively, but that everything that can be known of the physical world has been discovered already.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Which becomes situational ethics, in contrast to the OP.

So tell me, the rape of a child could be a good thing, could it? In that scenario, would you interfere? Or stand idly by?

maybe next week

• Davian
• Dec 1, 2014

You use a *hypothetical* example, and then rule out any possible detail? Such as perhaps *hypothetically* a greater danger could occur by attempting to stop the rape of a child. Say the man has a gun, or say he is a well known gangster known for having entire families assasinated...

...You tell me what the greater good is then; if you had to choose between: saving a child from physical and emotional abuse - or protecting yourself or your entire family from death...

Therefore, it is *possible* that doing nothing while a child is being raped, is neither good or evil.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Just like a landowner who's tree falls and crushes a person. There is neither "good" or "evil" in the situation.

...Not every action we make either, is good or evil. Intentions mean everything and our culpability depends on what we do compared to what we know.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You use a *hypothetical* example, and then rule out any possible detail? Such as perhaps *hypothetically* a greater danger could occur by attempting to stop the rape of a child. Say the man has a gun, or say he is a well known gangster known for having entire families assasinated...

...You tell me what the greater good is then; if you had to choose between: saving a child from physical and emotional abuse - or protecting yourself or your entire family from death...

Therefore, it is *possible* that doing nothing while a child is being raped, is neither good or evil.

The problem is your god is immune to your criticism. He could both prevent a child rape without creating the risk of anyone being shot and killed.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Is that the best you can come up with, that we can excuse your [hypothetical] god for standing idly by and not interfering with the rape of a chile because of its mental deficiencies?

You insulting my God is like me insulting your mother. In either case, we should have enough respect to avoid these types of exchanges.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You insulting my God is like me insulting your mother. In either case, we should have enough respect to avoid these types of exchanges.

I'm sure if his mother stood by and let a child rape happen that she could have prevented, he'd want to know what the hell was wrong with her as well....

Same goes for my mother, and hopefully yours as well.

 

[Landon Caeli]

The problem is your god is immune to your criticism. He could both prevent a child rape without creating the risk of anyone being shot and killed.

So you think we can determine the eternal Laws of the next life? How do we determine which repercussions will or will not result from God removing our free will or intervening? Who do we suppose he lets in heaven, those who have never had the chance to choose?