Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

But reality is deterministic... correct?

So in every instance what's considered to be moral is simply the result of antecedent conditions... correct?

If we knew all the conditions, then yes, we'd know. But that's not possible. We're not omniscient.

 

[Neogaia777]

Then the question is did Judas become son of perdition during his life or was he born that way? This is actually linked to the questions of objective morality. If he was born that way, he was created for hell. If he became a son of perdition, then it was his choice. I think he chose to do evil, but I’m not sure. He could have been born without a soul, and his destruction/perdition was complete. I’m not SDA, but there is a slight possibility that some people have no soul. Other than the Antichrist, nobody else gets the title.

I'm a determinist, so it is my belief that he was born for the destiny he fulfilled and it couldn't have ever technically gone any other way.

What I think Hell is, is just having more of this only for eternity, in both previous and what will be next fallen creations after this, that will be both before and after this, for an eternity, etc. But I don't think any of them is aware of this each time however, or they would be aware of it now, etc. But those are my beliefs about that anyway, etc.

And some are harvested for Heaven each time, which is the only real reason for fallen creations even existing. They have to go through and be acquainted with some suffering first before they can be harvested for Heaven most generally, etc. And the ones not being harvested for Heaven generally play a part in that most generally, etc, but don't get to go to Heaven after this most generally, etc.

God Bless.

 

[o_mlly]

The ends would be my wife being subject to me. Or not, depending on the decision. My intention is to ascertain which is the correct position. And the circumstances would be the relationship with my wife.

Nothing new here, just word salad to deflect.

Let me help you out. Here's an example of a concrete moral question.

An atheist, let's call him Brewski, joins a Catholic chat group. In the group Brewski tries in vain to export the misery of his atheist worldview. So, against forum rules, he reenters as an alias, let's say as Fredski, in order to become in his alternate persona an even more aggressively sarcastic atheist. He then posts in his other atheist forums bragging that he has duped the Catholics.

Object: Member reenters forum against the rules to which he agreed to abide as an alternate alias to deceive other members as to his identity.
Intention: Deception.
Circumstances: Brags to others in another forum how he has duped the members of that forum.

Now, kindly give us your moral judgement on that act.

 

[Neogaia777]

I'm a determinist, so it is my belief that he was born for the destiny he fulfilled and it couldn't have ever technically gone any other way.

What I think Hell is, is just having more of this only for eternity, in both previous and what will be next fallen creations after this, that will be both before and after this, for an eternity, etc. But I don't think any of them is aware of this each time however, or they would be aware of it now, etc. But those are my beliefs about that anyway, etc.

And some are harvested for Heaven each time, which is the only real reason for fallen creations even existing. They have to go through and be acquainted with some suffering first before they can be harvested for Heaven most generally, etc. And the ones not being harvested for Heaven generally play a part in that most generally, etc, but don't get to go to Heaven after this most generally, etc.

God Bless.

To be clear, I am not talking about reincarnation within this creation/reality, or being re-born as an animal, or an insect, or whatever, ok. Anyway, I'm not talking about any of that for those who don't get to go to Heaven after this, ok.

But I am talking about earths/creations that were both before this, and will be after this, etc, or that might even be in other places right now currently maybe, etc. But with some people, their program/essence does not immediately continue after the judgment is over with, or when some do immediately get to go to Heaven/continue on after this, etc, but their program/essence is stored in and with God until it needs to be re-created/resurrected/brought back up to fallen life again in another creation very similar to this one either before, or after this, or in another place after this "again", etc. And I say "again", because this has been going on/happening with them for a very, very long time now, and will continue to happen with them for a very, very long time yet, but they never ever were/are ever meant for Heaven, etc, but only some out of every creation are ever meant for Heaven each time it/they happen either before, or after, or in another place elsewhere maybe after this, etc.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the eastern mysticism theory of reincarnation, ok, and I just want to be clear on that.

I believe there are sometimes very, very long time periods between the ones not getting to go to Heaven's prior experience(s) and next experience(s) and that they are not aware of any of it each time, or they would be aware of it now, etc, but I've kind of already said that, etc.

So they experience an eternal life of eternal torment (compared to Heaven) and their destinies never could/can be ever changed ever, because they all always were/have been according to God's predeterminism/predestiny and/or omniscience, etc, which all always goes according to determinism or the way He has determined it here, as it's how He knows everything here, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

To be clear, I am not talking about reincarnation within this creation/reality, or being re-born as an animal, or an insect, or whatever, ok. Anyway, I'm not talking about any of that for those who don't get to go to Heaven after this, ok.

But I am talking about earths/creations that were both before this, and will be after this, etc, or that might even be in other places right now currently maybe, etc. But with some people, their program/essence does not immediately continue after the judgment is over with, or when some do immediately get to go to Heaven/continue on after this, etc, but their program/essence is stored in and with God until it needs to be re-created/resurrected/brought back up to fallen life again in another creation very similar to this one either before, or after this, or in another place after this "again", etc. And I say "again", because this has been going on/happening with them for a very, very long time now, and will continue to happen with them for a very, very long time yet, but they never ever were/are ever meant for Heaven, etc, but only some out of every creation are ever meant for Heaven each time it/they happen either before, or after, or in another place elsewhere maybe after this, etc.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the eastern mysticism theory of reincarnation, ok, and I just want to be clear on that.

I believe there are sometimes very, very long time periods between the ones not getting to go to Heaven's prior experience(s) and next experience(s) and that they are not aware of any of it each time, or they would be aware of it now, etc, but I've kind of already said that, etc.

So they experience an eternal life of eternal torment (compared to Heaven) and their destinies never could/can be ever changed ever, because they all always were/have been according to God's predeterminism/predestiny and/or omniscience, etc, which all always goes according to determinism or the way He has determined it here, as it's how He knows everything here, etc.

God Bless.

That is what I think of in relation to the living spirit of God within animals, because I think the spirit is the life force, but the soul contains the eternal essence of a person, which animals probably don't have. I didn't think you were talking about Eastern Mysticism, but it might take a while for me to wrap my head around what you mean exactly.

 

[Jerry N.]

I follow most of what has been said about determinism. I disagree, but it makes perfect sense. My thought is that we are on this road of life and we can’t get off until death, but we can choose what turns we make. My thoughts are more practical than philosophical, because we have to make so many choices. The effort of those choices makes me doubt the logic of determinism. With that said, there are 20+ verses in the Bible that indicate God’s testing of His people. I know about the theory that “testing” is “refining” like in metallurgy, but it doesn’t quite fit in my logic.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How could any of this answer all the other questions I asked?

Do you expect to crank out moral decisions everyone agrees with without a process of discussion?

 

[Jerry N.]

To be clear, I am not talking about reincarnation within this creation/reality, or being re-born as an animal, or an insect, or whatever, ok. Anyway, I'm not talking about any of that for those who don't get to go to Heaven after this, ok.

But I am talking about earths/creations that were both before this, and will be after this, etc, or that might even be in other places right now currently maybe, etc. But with some people, their program/essence does not immediately continue after the judgment is over with, or when some do immediately get to go to Heaven/continue on after this, etc, but their program/essence is stored in and with God until it needs to be re-created/resurrected/brought back up to fallen life again in another creation very similar to this one either before, or after this, or in another place after this "again", etc. And I say "again", because this has been going on/happening with them for a very, very long time now, and will continue to happen with them for a very, very long time yet, but they never ever were/are ever meant for Heaven, etc, but only some out of every creation are ever meant for Heaven each time it/they happen either before, or after, or in another place elsewhere maybe after this, etc.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the eastern mysticism theory of reincarnation, ok, and I just want to be clear on that.

I believe there are sometimes very, very long time periods between the ones not getting to go to Heaven's prior experience(s) and next experience(s) and that they are not aware of any of it each time, or they would be aware of it now, etc, but I've kind of already said that, etc.

So they experience an eternal life of eternal torment (compared to Heaven) and their destinies never could/can be ever changed ever, because they all always were/have been according to God's predeterminism/predestiny and/or omniscience, etc, which all always goes according to determinism or the way He has determined it here, as it's how He knows everything here, etc.

God Bless.

After some thought, I think I know what you mean. I wrote that the life spirit of animals might return to God to be recycled, but animals probably don’t have an immortal soul. This is similar to what you wrote about people. I think your “reincarnation” theory in relation to people doesn’t hold up under investigation. It is a clever thought, but I can’t think of any source for the theory. Is it just your idea, or does it come from another source?

 

[Jo555]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

Not sure i understand all you are saying, but will do my best to answer as well as i can.

Morality to me is more a set of thinking and behavior created by human beings.

God never meant for us to live out of the knowledge of good and evil. That was forbidden fruit. We chose that route. It was never his choice for us.

Now speaking of laws created by God, or commandments ... Even humans do that as an expression of love. Think of his commandments as the law of the land and cops as the ones in charge of seeing they are carried out.

Do we not want cops in the land to do their best to prevent rapists, robbers, murderers, etc, from carrying out their warped desires on us?

Is dictating wrong in this instance?
Not gratifying? Ok, well in this instance you agree with God. This was never the plan for us, but it is the one we were bent on in partaking of the wrong fruit.

Not sure i understand what you find more gratifying in your last statement so can't agree or disagree in a sense, but understanding at the deepest level will require getting to know God beyond surface knowledge.

We all have some knowledge of God in our conscience. God forbid we didn't.

Right and wrong, good and evil exist inside the heart, but unless our hearts are joined to Him by his Spirit, our understanding of good and evil will be very limited, and often warped.

Hope that helps some.

 

[Neogaia777]

After some thought, I think I know what you mean. I wrote that the life spirit of animals might return to God to be recycled, but animals probably don’t have an immortal soul. This is similar to what you wrote about people. I think your “reincarnation” theory in relation to people doesn’t hold up under investigation. It is a clever thought, but I can’t think of any source for the theory. Is it just your idea, or does it come from another source?

I think that all beings have a chief spirit that they are made in the image of, which also reflects their personality, and what/how they think/act, and the way that they behave, etc. And with human beings, this chief Spirit is of course God, but, like, in the Garden of Eden, I think each "animal" that Adam got to "name" (according to a language that was pure back then (before Babel) and perfectly wrapped up that beings whole personality, and the way they thought/acted/behaved, etc) But and/or anyway, I think these "animals" in the Garden of Eden that Adam got to define/name, etc, might have actually been angels, or was at least a physical manifestation of that spirit beings entire behavior/personality that Adam got to "name", etc. And that each kind or type of animal we have now, each has a chief common spirit to which they return to, or get rejoined back with when they pass away, or when they die, etc. Don't forget that there are many, many books in the Bible that use animal likenesses/beasts to represent/describe nations and people groups, etc, representative of, I believe, of the angels who became jealous of man (who was made in God's likeness/image, and not an animals, etc) and who rebelled against both God and man, and who took the authority over the earth/national groups away from man in the Garden, etc. Anyway, I don't think these other images/likeness of quote/unquote "animals/beasts" representative of nations are a coincidence, but very, very much accurately describe the fallen angels who represent them, or gave birth to them, or made them, etc, (these different nations/people groups/world powers that would come about over the ages), etc. And the angels who did not rebel, I believe are still the cheifs of certain types of animals, or animal likenesses, etc, and is what happens with animals when they die, etc. Just like what happens with man and God when man dies, etc, God being the cheif, primary head Spirit of man, and to whim man returns to/rejoins with/becomes back a part with when he dies, etc.

As for the rest, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't talking about reincarnation, but it's "whatever" I guess...

And my "source" is God the Father, and the Trinity, etc, do with it what you like, etc. And before that, it was the Bible, who got me introduced to Them, etc. Again, do with it whatever you like. I also have as a source what has been learned so far in this modern era, or ever since 2000 years ago also, which They have encouraged me to use and take full advantage of as well, and it has played a part in all of this also, etc.

Again, do with it what you like.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think that all beings have a chief spirit that they are made in the image of, which also reflects their personality, and what/how they think/act, and the way that they behave, etc. And with human beings, this chief Spirit is of course God, but, like, in the Garden of Eden, I think each "animal" that Adam got to "name" (according to a language that was pure back then (before Babel) and perfectly wrapped up that beings whole personality, and the way they thought/acted/behaved, etc) But and/or anyway, I think these "animals" in the Garden of Eden that Adam got to define/name, etc, might have actually been angels, or was at least a physical manifestation of that spirit beings entire behavior/personality that Adam got to "name", etc. And that each kind or type of animal we have now, each has a chief common spirit to which they return to, or get rejoined back with when they pass away, or when they die, etc. Don't forget that there are many, many books in the Bible that use animal likenesses/beasts to represent/describe nations and people groups, etc, representative of, I believe, of the angels who became jealous of man (who was made in God's likeness/image, and not an animals, etc) and who rebelled against both God and man, and who took the authority over the earth/national groups away from man in the Garden, etc. Anyway, I don't think these other images/likeness of quote/unquote "animals/beasts" representative of nations are a coincidence, but very, very much accurately describe the fallen angels who represent them, or gave birth to them, or made them, etc, (these different nations/people groups/world powers that would come about over the ages), etc. And the angels who did not rebel, I believe are still the cheifs of certain types of animals, or animal likenesses, etc, and is what happens with animals when they die, etc. Just like what happens with man and God when man dies, etc, God being the cheif, primary head Spirit of man, and to whim man returns to/rejoins with/becomes back a part with when he dies, etc.

As for the rest, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't talking about reincarnation, but it's "whatever" I guess...

And my "source" is God the Father, and the Trinity, etc, do with it what you like, etc. And before that, it was the Bible, who got me introduced to Them, etc. Again, do with it whatever you like. I also have as a source what has been learned so far in this modern era, or ever since 2000 years ago also, which They have encouraged me to use and take full advantage of as well, and it has played a part in all of this also, etc.

Again, do with it what you like.

God Bless.

You take some the much more tribal, pagan religions for example, who believed that each animal had a spirit, or had a cheif god/spirit, etc. Well, in a way, there was/is some truth to that, etc. But it's just sometimes a little bit off though, or it's incomplete though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

I think that all beings have a chief spirit that they are made in the image of, which also reflects their personality, and what/how they think/act, and the way that they behave, etc. And with human beings, this chief Spirit is of course God, but, like, in the Garden of Eden, I think each "animal" that Adam got to "name" (according to a language that was pure back then (before Babel) and perfectly wrapped up that beings whole personality, and the way they thought/acted/behaved, etc) But and/or anyway, I think these "animals" in the Garden of Eden that Adam got to define/name, etc, might have actually been angels, or was at least a physical manifestation of that spirit beings entire behavior/personality that Adam got to "name", etc. And that each kind or type of animal we have now, each has a chief common spirit to which they return to, or get rejoined back with when they pass away, or when they die, etc. Don't forget that there are many, many books in the Bible that use animal likenesses/beasts to represent/describe nations and people groups, etc, representative of, I believe, of the angels who became jealous of man (who was made in God's likeness/image, and not an animals, etc) and who rebelled against both God and man, and who took the authority over the earth/national groups away from man in the Garden, etc. Anyway, I don't think these other images/likeness of quote/unquote "animals/beasts" representative of nations are a coincidence, but very, very much accurately describe the fallen angels who represent them, or gave birth to them, or made them, etc, (these different nations/people groups/world powers that would come about over the ages), etc. And the angels who did not rebel, I believe are still the cheifs of certain types of animals, or animal likenesses, etc, and is what happens with animals when they die, etc. Just like what happens with man and God when man dies, etc, God being the cheif, primary head Spirit of man, and to whim man returns to/rejoins with/becomes back a part with when he dies, etc.

As for the rest, I thought I made it clear that I wasn't talking about reincarnation, but it's "whatever" I guess...

And my "source" is God the Father, and the Trinity, etc, do with it what you like, etc. And before that, it was the Bible, who got me introduced to Them, etc. Again, do with it whatever you like. I also have as a source what has been learned so far in this modern era, or ever since 2000 years ago also, which They have encouraged me to use and take full advantage of as well, and it has played a part in all of this also, etc.

Again, do with it what you like.

God Bless.

You are somewhat close to Plato’s ideal forms. You did make it clear that you were not talking about reincarnation of Eastern thought. Separating modern Christian thought from Platonism is almost impossible, so I won’t try to show how you have mixed the two, particularly since many of Plato’s teachings are probably correct. The thing with animals and nations is probably only symbolic. Jesus is the Lion of Judah. The animals in the Book of Daniel are good examples.

 

[Neogaia777]

You are somewhat close to Plato’s ideal forms. You did make it clear that you were not talking about reincarnation of Eastern thought. Separating modern Christian thought from Platonism is almost impossible, so I won’t try to show how you have mixed the two, particularly since many of Plato’s teachings are probably correct. The thing with animals and nations is probably only symbolic. Jesus is the Lion of Judah. The animals in the Book of Daniel are good examples.

Man, like God, has the special unique ability of being able to fully encompass/emulate/behave like all of the personalities/behaviors of all creatures, etc, which even the angels didn't have, or weren't able to get, etc, which is why some of them became jealous of him (man) and didn't want to be made subject to him, etc.

This is how Jesus could be both like a lion at times, and also like a lamb, or other creatures at other times, etc. This is talking about the different sides to him of what he could be like as a man, etc. Angels were much more specific, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Aaron112]

these "animals" in the Garden of Eden that Adam got to define/name, etc, might have actually been angels, or was at least a physical manifestation of that spirit beings entire behavior/personality that Adam got to "name", etc.

That is fully in line with more than one totally pagan practices and sinful concepts, contrary to all Scripture.

 

[Jerry N.]

Man, like God, has the special unique ability of being able to fully encompass/emulate/behave like all of the personalities/behaviors of all creatures, etc, which even the angels didn't have, or weren't able to get, etc, which is why some of them became jealous of him (man) and didn't want to be made subject to him, etc.

I've been around animals all my life, and I deal with wild animals on a daily basis. I can project human attributes onto them, but I haven't a clue how they think.

This is how Jesus could be both like a lion at times, and also like a lamb, or other creatures at other times, etc. This is talking about the different sides to him of what he could be like as a man, etc. Angels were much more specific, etc.

God Bless.

The key word here is "like" meaning only one or a few attributes. Jesus is brave and fierce like a lion and gentle like a lamb.

 

[partinobodycular]

I'm a determinist,

FYI, I've mentioned it before, but as a solipsist I take few things as being absolute certainties. Thus I'm free to argue either side of any discussion. So you can never be sure whether I actually believe what I'm saying, or I'm simply presenting one particular side of the argument.

In this case I'm simply using @Bradskii's argument that reality is deterministic, and trying to follow it to to its logical conclusion.

If we knew all the conditions, then yes, we'd know. But that's not possible. We're not omniscient.

You kinda missed the point... my bad.

If reality is deterministic then WE don't actually decide what we consider to be moral, we just believe that we do. It's actually the antecedent conditions that are determining morality for us... and guess what, those antecedent conditions are omniscient, in-so-far as they represent everything in my timeline. And this is true for everybody. They're not however omniscient about everything in everybody else's timeline. But from the perspective of my timeline, those antecedent conditions are omniscient. Therefore they must be correct about what's moral from the perspective of my timeline.

The question that we have to ask however, is... is there a perspective which encompasses every possible timeline?

It's not a theistic question. It's a physics question, and the answer is... as far as I can tell... yes. It's quite possible that there's an all encompassing perspective from which a panoptic understanding of morality can be attained.

However, trying to ascertain what's true from that panoptic perspective is above my pay grade. I can posit however, that from that perspective, what's moral at one point in time won't be the same as what's moral at another point in time... even from a truly omniscient viewpoint. Morality will vary from time to time, and timeline to timeline.

Does this mean that morality isn't objective? I would posit that it simply means that people don't have a clear understanding of what morality is. So they mistakenly believe that their understanding of morality is the only correct understanding of morality.

It's like thinking that your understanding of beauty is the only correct understanding of beauty.

 

[Neogaia777]

I've been around animals all my life, and I deal with wild animals on a daily basis. I can project human attributes onto them, but I haven't a clue how they think.

Well, the "animals" in the Garden were not wild, and didn't yet have the fear of man, or any of the other fears that they have now after or as a result of the fall of man, so their personalities or behavior(s), or whatever, was not yet like that yet, etc, and that is also the way it is with non-fallen angels, etc. But the angels who did become fallen, or who did fall though, are probably much more like the wild animals that we now know that are out in the wild now though maybe, etc.

The key word here is "like" meaning only one or a few attributes. Jesus is brave and fierce like a lion and gentle like a lamb.

Man (besides God) is the only creature who can be like any personality, etc. Even very, very much extremely contradictory ones like being able to be as vicious or violent as a lion, but also yet at the same time, as quiet and gentle as a lamb, etc. Man (besides God) is the only creature who gets to be able to do this, and it's something the angels didn't get.

If you could learn every single creature on this planets ways, then you would know all of the angels, and would know each of them specifically by name, if you had a pure language in which "the name was the thing, and the thing was it's name", etc. That language has been lost to the ages though, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

Well, the "animals" in the Garden were not wild, and didn't yet have the fear of man, or any of the other fears that they have now after or as a result of the fall of man, so their personalities or behavior(s), or whatever, was not yet like that yet, etc, and that is also the way it is with non-fallen angels, etc. But the angels who did become fallen, or who did fall though, are probably much more like the wild animals that we now know that are out in the wild now though maybe, etc.

Man (besides God) is the only creature who can be like any personality, etc. Even very, very much extremely contradictory ones like being able to be as vicious or violent as a lion, but also yet at the same time, as quiet and gentle as a lamb, etc. Man (besides God) is the only creature who gets to be able to do this, and it's something the angels didn't get.

If you could learn every single creature on this planets ways, then you would know all of the angels, and would know each of them specifically by name, if you had a pure language in which "the name was the thing, and the thing was it's name", etc. That language has been lost to the ages though, etc.

God Bless.

This is a very interesting theory, but I obviously don't understand how it can be like you seem to do. God bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

This is a very interesting theory, but I obviously don't understand how it can be like you seem to do. God bless.

I'm just throwing some information out there, and kind of using you to help me do that (sorry) so you really don't have to fully get it all, or fully believe me either way, ok.

But just kinda keep it in your back pocket, and see if any of the information I'm tossing out there, maybe ever comes up again for you again someday, ok.

God Bless.

 

[Jerry N.]

I'm just throwing some information out there, and kind of using you to help me do that (sorry) so you really don't have to fully get it all, or fully believe me either way, ok.

But just kinda keep it in your back pocket, and see if any of the information I'm tossing out there, maybe ever comes up again for you again someday, ok.

God Bless.

Okay