Can you be good without God?

[Davian]

Hmmmmm....where exactly did you respond to my query, on that thread?

Thanks.

I stated the scenario in post #2, responded in #5, and elaborated in #9.

 

[brinny]

I stated the scenario in post #2, responded in #5, and elaborated in #9.

LOL! Thanks for the clarity....it was a bit "maze-like" for me.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is very much involved in the most intimate way. While he permits horrible things to happen, and sustains the life of the wicked, he doesn't sit there idly without casting judgement on them. He gives common grace to everyone, and to some, the sense to try to set things right, to seek justice and to do good.

How pathetic. You wouldn't accept this as an excuse for inaction from anyone else. You'd condemn them for not doing all that they could to prevent the evil from happening. Yet when it comes to an omnipotent and omniscient super intelligence, apparently this is okay. How much further could you possibly lower your expectations?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Why do gorillas care for and protect their young?

Well yes, it was a poor example - particularly as one reason that people were upset at the shooting was that the previous time a little boy fell into a gorilla enclosure, a silverback called Jambo treated him with protective care and allowed his rescue, earning the soubriquet 'Gentle Giant'.

It's also true that many social mammals show what we'd call moral behaviour if humans did it - a sense of fairness, punishment or exclusion of cheats and free-loaders, helping the injured, consoling the slighted, rejected, or bereaved, and altruistic actions. Even rats can be altruistic. All of which suggests that the foundations of morality are not unique to humans, we just elaborate them according to our social needs.

As for secular rationales for basic morality beyond group success in evolutionary terms, it seems to me that enlightened self-interest - such as the Golden Rule - has a role (and what is 'Love your neighbor as yourself' but paraphrasing the Golden Rule?). I'd be wary of over-reliance on consequentialism - 'Direct' and 'Actual' consequentialism suggest that only the consequences, not the intent or motivation, determine the morality of the action, so an act of good intent is considered immoral if it has bad consequences and vice-versa; that doesn't sit well with me... utilitarianism has its problems too. But there are plenty of moral and ethical philosophies to choose from; most cultures have an an-hoc consensus blend, partly codified in law (or scripture).

It's interesting that non-literalist Christian's concepts of God's morality seem to align - and vary - with their personal moral attitude; and in tests, answers to questions about what they thought what God would think or expect them to do in response to various morally challenging example situations differed significantly when they'd been shown videos of loving and caring behaviour compared with when they'd seen violent behaviour... Just sayin'

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The same value they'd have if I lived forever, I don't see how the length of my life has any bearing on that.

My experiences only have meaning to me while I am here to experience them.

If anything, the fact life is temporary makes me value it even more. How valuable is anything that you have an endless supply of?

You are missing the point. It is not about "length" of life. It is about the fact that after you die. Everything about you cease to exist. Your consciousness, memories, personality, including your precious little experiences. Why worry about your experiences when they will cease to exist along with your consciousness after you die? Yes... you could "live on" in the memory of others, or perhaps through the offspring you produce. It still doesn't matter because all of it will cease to exist. After humanity becomes extinct, the universe will continue like it never existed at all.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Achilles6129]

How so?

The fallacy of special pleading. If that works for you....

We've been through this before. You're well aware that God and human beings aren't alike. God can do many things that human beings can't do, and for that reason you can't compare a human being sitting idly by to God sitting idly by. God, for example, can redress any evil that's occurred. Human beings can't do that. I've brought this up before and you basically tried to deny that God could even redress evil. Your denial is clearly a contradiction if God is omnipotent (which he is), and if redressing evil is logically possible (which it also is: if not, you've given no reason to the contrary).

So it's actually rather confusing that you would compare human beings to someone who's omnipotent. The comparison clearly isn't even remotely the same.

 

[Achilles6129]

I don't know where you are going with this. Are you not arguing from the position of a (Christian) theology where there is no good and evil, it only matters that you believe?

No. What I'm saying is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to anything. And if there is no ultimate meaning to anything, then there is no meaning period. So "meaning" is just something that you assign temporarily. And your temporary designation is actually an illusion, because nothing has any meaning whatsoever.

Imagine any possible action. Supposing that God doesn't exist, that action will have no meaning whatsoever one day when this universe ceases to exist. So the meaning you assign to the action is temporary and, ultimately, an illusion.

 

[Achilles6129]

Not right now. Only "ultimately". Right now there is full meaning.

There is no meaning right now. The "meaning" that you believe in is simply an illusion.

How does that follow logically?

How would it not follow logically? You've assigned something "meaning" in the here and now, but we know that once we and the universe cease to exist, it won't have any meaning whatsoever (probably long before then, actually). So actually the "meaning" that you've assigned to it here and now is an illusion that you've created. The event really has no meaning whatsoever. That is reality.

Nothing prevents me from permanently concluding that. It's not like I'm going to change my mind on the subject after I'm dead.

You won't have a mind after you're dead, according to your worldview. So you can't permanently conclude anything. And, you can't prove what good and evil are, meaning that you can't prove Stalin was evil. And, in reality, one trillion years from now or probably much sooner, what Stalin did will be totally forgotten.

See? There is no cosmic good and evil or cosmic meaning without God.

 

[MennoSota]

All I have is your opinion vs theirs. Why should I believe you?

Particularly when neither of you can present evidence for your beliefs being anything but illusory.

You don't have to. It's not my job to convince you. You can cling to your narrative all the way to hell.

The people that Jesus interacted with refused to believe. I don't expect you to believe either. That doesn't stop me from obediently sharing God's word.

 

[Davian]

We've been through this before. You're well aware that God and human beings aren't alike.

Actually, no. As an ignostic, I can only piece together what you mean by "God" from what you present in these threads. It's not actually very coherent.

God can do many things that human beings can't do, and for that reason you can't compare a human being sitting idly by to God sitting idly by.

I just did.

God, for example, can redress any evil that's occurred. Human beings can't do that.

You have just conceded that your God does evil, but can make up for it. Evil is still evil, even redressed.

I've brought this up before and you basically tried to deny that God could even redress evil.

Where did I do that?

Your denial is clearly a contradiction if God is omnipotent (which he is),

Allegedly.

and if redressing evil is logically possible (which it also is: if not, you've given no reason to the contrary).

Redressing evil is still evil. If you can restate this in a coherent, testable manner, and somehow come up with it being "not evil", then I will attempt to comment.

So it's actually rather confusing that you would compare human beings to someone who's omnipotent. The comparison clearly isn't even remotely the same.

Enough with the special pleading.

You said, "...everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition." Full stop.

[Hypothetically] God stands idly by while children are raped, every day. By your definition, this act is "good".

Now, I have been told that this same God [allegedly] provides each of us (regardless of religion, or lack thereof) a 'moral compass'. When I check this against my 'moral compass', I get a different reading.

What does your 'moral compass' say about this act?

 

[Davian]

You don't have to. It's not my job to convince you.

Then you concede I have no reason to believe you.

You can cling to your narrative all the way to hell.

It is a narrative that comports with observations of reality.

The people that Jesus interacted with refused to believe.

"Refused" implies intent. I do not refuse, I simply am not convinced of your claims, and I do not find your opinion to be compelling.

I don't expect you to believe either. That doesn't stop me from obediently sharing God's word.

You don't expect me to believe, but you are gonna keep ranting anyway.

Do you think this sort of behaviour is appropriate for a philosophy forum? Are you simply the resident troll?

 

[Davian]

No. What I'm saying is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to anything.

I am not particularly concerned with "ultimate" meaning.

And if there is no ultimate meaning to anything, then there is no meaning period.

I don't follow. Why is that?

So "meaning" is just something that you assign temporarily.

Okay.

And your temporary designation is actually an illusion,

I prefer "construct", as "illusion" implies deception.

because nothing has any meaning whatsoever.

But that is not so. "North" is a construct. It does not necessarily imply magnetic reference (which, I understand, can flip), or the axis on which the planet rotates (which, I understand, can wander), but a consensus reach among the populace of this planet. "North" will cease to exist with the extinction of our race, and the obliteration of our documentation, and eventually, this planet. Are you now going to assert that I cannot go "north" at this time?

"...but it's only an illusion, he cries.."

Imagine any possible action. Supposing that God doesn't exist, that action will have no meaning whatsoever one day when this universe ceases to exist. So the meaning you assign to the action is temporary and, ultimately, an illusion.

I am not following you there. How does a "god" change that?

Your argument seems to boil down to [your particular] "God", or nihilism.

I do not see the world through that dichotomy.

To rephrase, are you not arguing from the position of a (Christian) theology where there really is no good and evil? The only "good" is that you believe? Is that not the thrust of your OP?

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a minor clean

Disagree without flaming, please

Do not state a Christian is delusional - that is a flame

Do not flame people for their beliefs here, even if different from your own.

Thank you.


MOD HAT OFF​

 

[MennoSota]

Then you concede I have no reason to believe you.

It is a narrative that comports with observations of reality.

"Refused" implies intent. I do not refuse, I simply am not convinced of your claims, and I do not find your opinion to be compelling.

You don't expect me to believe, but you are gonna keep ranting anyway.

Do you think this sort of behaviour is appropriate for a philosophy forum? Are you simply the resident troll?

I tell you that you are incapable of believing until God opens your eyes and unstops your ears.
I wish God would call you and save you from your own doom, but he is not obligated to do so.

I tell you the truth because God tells me to speak of his reconciliation. I obey. I don't attempt to persuade you. That's up to God.

 

[Davian]

I tell you that you are incapable of believing until God opens your eyes and unstops your ears.

I understand that the god that you believe in will [hypothetically] hold myself, and most of those that ever lived, for reasons beyond our control (belief). I do not see how portraying your theology as morally bankrupt is helpful, or relevant at this time.

I wish God would call you and save you from your own doom, but he is not obligated to do so.

Or, your god simply a character in a book. That is an explanation that comports with observations of reality.

I tell you the truth

...your opinion...

because God tells me to speak of his reconciliation.

I am not interested in empty promises.

I obey.

Sit. Stay.

I don't attempt to persuade you. That's up to God.

But you are persuading me, and my children. You are pushing us away from religion. You are portraying religious belief as coming at the expense of reason.

 

[MennoSota]

I understand that the god that you believe in will [hypothetically] hold myself, and most of those that ever lived, for reasons beyond our control (belief). I do not see how portraying your theology as morally bankrupt is helpful, or relevant at this time.

Or, your god simply a character in a book. That is an explanation that comports with observations of reality.

...your opinion...

I am not interested in empty promises.

Sit. Stay.

But you are persuading me, and my children. You are pushing us away from religion. You are portraying religious belief as coming at the expense of reason.

You naturally hide and run from God. No one is pushing you away because you will never seek him unless you hear his call.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No. What I'm saying is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to anything. And if there is no ultimate meaning to anything, then there is no meaning period.

Nonsense. The word "ultimate" doesn't add to the definition of "meaning". It's all just "meaning". You just don't like the fact that the definition doesn't have anything to do with a god...

 

[MennoSota]

There is only one truth and it is found in God. What you consider philosophy is just your folly.

 

[Davian]

LOL, the moral bankruptcy is in your heart.

Not at all, as I consider it wrong to hold one responsible for things beyond ones control.

Pascal's wager applies here. You think that you will win at roulette, but you've already lost all the while you dream it is only alleged.

Pascal's wager it is. Prove that, out of the thousand of religions and denominations, that you have the right one.

You may confirm that you have no idea by responding with more obfuscation.

 

[MennoSota]

Not at all, as I consider it wrong to hold one responsible for things beyond ones control.

Pascal's wager it is. Prove that, out of the thousand of religions and denominations, that you have the right one.

You may confirm that you have no idea by responding with more obfuscation.

I don't have to prove it. You're not making the wager with me. You're making the wager with God.

Either you die and the molecules that hold you together disband or you face your Creator to be judged for your lawbreaking. If it's the first, justice is never served and you lived an entirely boring and meaningless few years. If it's the latter, you will spend eternity in hell with your bitterness and disappointment at being justly condemned.