Can morality exist without God cont..

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The distinction which you are missing is that:

A) Roman law predates Isrealite law.

Really? Are you trolling me or us this another "typo"? Reference please.

 

[bhsmte]

If we aren't all that intelligent, and are incapable of perceiving ultimate reality.... then why are you so confident in your belief that there is a god? What makes you think your opinions in that regard are definitively true, when you believe your cognition is impaired?

Comfort?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Really? Are you trolling me or us this another "typo"? Reference please.

The Romans entered the area that comprises modern day Israel and Palestine hundreds and hundreds of years after the Roman Republic/Empire's founding. By the time they encountered (much less conquered) the ancient Jews, Roman law and culture was well established.

Note: I should clarify I mean in the context of the Roman world. The two cultures can trace their systems back to roughly 500BC-ish, however given the distance and lack of direct contact, it's not possible that the Isrealite system could have played a role in, much less served as the basis for Roman Law.

By the time the Romans were in direct and close contact with the Jews 400ish years later, their system was already well established. That's what I meant by pre-existing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Just as a good father/creator knows what is best for His children/creation, so does God. Also just as the manufacturer of a car or smartphone knows the best way to take care of what they have manufactured.

de: Not necessarily. Manufacturers have defects and recalls all the time, the flaws are often discovered by users, not the designers.

I am speaking in general terms.

↑

ed: Straw man, I never claimed they were.

de: That doesn't make it a strawman. I didn't strawman your point.

I was showing your argument was ultimately irrelevant.

My point was that the founders are considered some of the greatest thinkers in history and they agree that for criminals and POWs involuntary slavery is justified, irrespective if some hyperskeptical atheist on a Christian website disagrees.

ed: http://americanvision.org/2480/the-biblical-doctrine-of-restitution/

de: I don't see how that article is relevant... You made a claim biblical restitution has worked, and that article doesn't really spell out a situation where anyone has actually been rehabilitated via that method.

Although the article may not mention the implementation of it in Texas, it does refer to the lawmakers in Texas believing it is a good idea and I think later they did implement in some cases. I will have to do some more research to try to find those cases.

↑

ed: My point was that if a wealthier person during the economic stress of a temporary economic downturn needs laborers it is cheaper to hire indentured servants rather than fully free workers because commands such as the one above to pay them a living wage require greater expense.

de: But no, it doesn't. You are under no obligation to pay a living wage to employees in ancient times... and frankly, even in modern day america many workers are not paid a living wage for their job. If you have an indentured servant, you are legally responsible for keeping that person well fed and clothed. It's essentially the same as having a child you're responsible for when it comes to the necessities of life. If anything, it's going to be equal expense, to more expensive in order to have an indentured servant.

The Hebrews and Christians WERE obligated to pay a living wage as I demonstrated with the verses I provided. I disagree and stand by earlier demonstration that paying a free worker is more expensive then an indentured servant at least for a devout Hebrew and devout Christian that wanted to obey God.

↑

ed: Yes your view is. It is based on your objectively irrational sentimentality for your own species, when atheistic evolution has "proven" that no species has any more value than another. If there is no God then humans have no objective value.

de: Sentimentality for my own species is not irrational. There's very good reason to feel sentiment and empathy for my own species... self interest.

You didn't read my statement. I said objectively irrational. Subjectively it may be rational but that is irrelevant as far as objective reality goes. Your feelings are no more superior than someone that considers dogs more valuable than humans. And in fact Dr. Peter Singer at Princeton actually believes that an adult dog IS more valuable than a disabled human baby. So this is not just a hypothetical. How are your feelings more correct than someone like Singers? They are both just feelings. I am sure Singer feels his feelings are "rational" too.

de: Does any species have any more objective value than any other? No. However, objective value is next to meaningless when it comes to this question. Value is almost always subjectively based.

As for god, the existence or non existence of a god is completely irrelevant as to the question of humans having objective value. It's a non sequitur.

Fraid not. God values human beings because we are created in His image and His valuing exists independently of human minds therefore it objectively exists relative to humans.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Perhaps, but we don't need to see things from such a perspective just to deal with ethics.

You seem to see human beings as helpless, and that's just not warranted. I can see how it would be convenient to push dogmas, though. "You're stupid, so believe what I believe."


eudaimonia,

Mark

We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences. We are all stupid compared to our Creator. And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences.

Ah, if.

We are all stupid compared to our Creator.

That doesn't mean that we are too stupid to deal with ethics.

And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.

I hope that you are aware that Christianity benefited greatly from Greek and Roman culture. They had inherited a lot of scientific, technological, and philosophical knowledge from pagan cultures.

We can't ever know just how well the pagans would have done if Christianity hadn't taken off, but I doubt that it would have been much worse, and could have been much better.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am speaking in general terms.

And they're still wrong.

My point was that the founders are considered some of the greatest thinkers in history and they agree that for criminals and POWs involuntary slavery is justified, irrespective if some hyperskeptical atheist on a Christian website disagrees.

The founders had some good ideas on how to form a system of government. As for greatest thinkers in history, I think you're deifying them a bit.

After all, these are the same guys who enacted the three fifths compromise, and allowed slavery to continue when they drafted the constitution. They also made a number of other mistakes.

Nobody is perfect, not even the founding fathers. However, they were wise enough to know they weren't perfect either, which is why they created a constitution that had an amending mechanism built in. If they knew they were fallible and open to making errors, perhaps you should acknowledge that fact as well.

Throwing ad hominems my way won't change that either.

Although the article may not mention the implementation of it in Texas, it does refer to the lawmakers in Texas believing it is a good idea and I think later they did implement in some cases. I will have to do some more research to try to find those cases.

Yes, because Texas lawmakers have a long history of enlightened thinking and effective criminal rehabilitation.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976

The Hebrews and Christians WERE obligated to pay a living wage as I demonstrated with the verses I provided. I disagree and stand by earlier demonstration that paying a free worker is more expensive then an indentured servant at least for a devout Hebrew and devout Christian that wanted to obey God.

And the point you are missing is that they'd be required to do that either way. Whether they are an employee, or indentured servant. Even if you are absolutely correct and they must pay that person a living wage which can provide for food, shelter and other necessities of life, they still have to provide food, shelter and the necessities of life to an indentured servant.

At the very least, the costs are equal. However, if that indentured servant has a family, perhaps a wife you provided him with, that comes with far more costs to you, the slavemaster.

Putting that aside, even if we say it's equal, then there still is no need for a slavemaster/servant relationship.

You didn't read my statement. I said objectively irrational. Subjectively it may be rational but that is irrelevant as far as objective reality goes. Your feelings are no more superior than someone that considers dogs more valuable than humans. And in fact Dr. Peter Singer at Princeton actually believes that an adult dog IS more valuable than a disabled human baby. So this is not just a hypothetical. How are your feelings more correct than someone like Singers? They are both just feelings. I am sure Singer feels his feelings are "rational" too.

You're misusing the terms "objective" and "subjective".

If your thought process is in line with the rules of logic and the evidence you are aware of, then you are being rational. That is an objective fact.

There is no such thing as subjectively rational. You either are rational, or you are not. If you believe you are acting rationally and you are not, you are not subjectively rational. You are objectively irrational.

I provided a good, logical reason for why I should care about other people. It is a rational basis from which I am arguing.

Fraid not. God values human beings because we are created in His image and His valuing exists independently of human minds therefore it objectively exists relative to humans.

You again are misusing the terms objective and subjective.

A conscious being valuing something is necessarily subjective. The fact that being may be human, some other living being, or a god, it is still subjective.

The best you can say is that god values us. However, that means we have a subjective value as far as god is concerned.

In short, value is always subjective.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We are all stupid compared to our Creator.

What method does your god use to determine what is ethical/moral, and what is not?

 

[Ed1wolf]

If we aren't all that intelligent, and are incapable of perceiving ultimate reality.... then why are you so confident in your belief that there is a god? What makes you think your opinions in that regard are definitively true, when you believe your cognition is impaired?

Because we can do simple logic, and that is what demonstrates the existence of God and then once you believe in Him and then trust Him you can communicate with Him and thereby begin to learn about ultimate reality. But I am not saying I know these things with absolute certainty.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because we can do simple logic, and that is what demonstrates the existence of God and then once you believe in Him and then trust Him you can communicate with Him and thereby begin to learn about ultimate reality. But I am not saying I know these things with absolute certainty.

If you use the laws of logic, you can not reach a justified conclusion that a god exists.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Romans entered the area that comprises modern day Israel and Palestine hundreds and hundreds of years after the Roman Republic/Empire's founding. By the time they encountered (much less conquered) the ancient Jews, Roman law and culture was well established.

Note: I should clarify I mean in the context of the Roman world. The two cultures can trace their systems back to roughly 500BC-ish, however given the distance and lack of direct contact, it's not possible that the Isrealite system could have played a role in, much less served as the basis for Roman Law.

By the time the Romans were in direct and close contact with the Jews 400ish years later, their system was already well established. That's what I meant by pre-existing.

Jerusalem (the first Israelite city) was established before 3000 B.C.

REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/jerusalem/

Rome (the first Roman city) was established around 753 B.C.

REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/Rome/

Your claim makes no sense and you still have yet to give a reference to support your historical claims.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Jerusalem (the first Israelite city) was established before 3000 B.C.

REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/jerusalem/

Rome (the first Roman city) was established around 753 B.C.

REFERENCE:
http://www.ancient.eu/Rome/

Your claim makes no sense and you still have yet to give a reference to support your historical claims.

Did you read my point? Your response has nothing to do with it.

 

[bhsmte]

Did you read my point? Your response has nothing to do with it.

Yea, I noticed that too.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We do need to see things from the ultimate perspective if behaving in an ethical manner has ultimate consequences.

eud: Ah, if.

Yes, but as I have demonstrated earlier, the evidence points in the direction that it does.

ed: We are all stupid compared to our Creator.

eud; That doesn't mean that we are too stupid to deal with ethics.

That is true, because we were created by an ethical Creator. If we had come from an impersonal amoral process then your statement would be false.

ed: And it is not just what I believe it is the belief of millions thru history and those beliefs have produced almost everything good about western civilization. You and I would probably not be communicating this way if not for Christianity.

eud: I hope that you are aware that Christianity benefited greatly from Greek and Roman culture. They had inherited a lot of scientific, technological, and philosophical knowledge from pagan cultures.

Not Christianity but some aspects of Western culture, ie the non-Christian aspects. But certainly not modern science. The Greeks and Romans did not believe in a orderly and intelligible world. Their gods often took the form of animals and inanimate objects. How can you conduct science in a world like that? Christianity teaches that the universe operates primarily by regular laws, read Jeremiah 33:25. Also, the Greek academics believed that only slaves should get their hands dirty, that is why they did not develop experimental science. Conducting experiments was beneath the elite.

eud: We can't ever know just how well the pagans would have done if Christianity hadn't taken off, but I doubt that it would have been much worse, and could have been much better.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I doubt that they would have developed modern science as shown above. Also, their human rights record was pretty bad. They never ended slavery like Christian societies did.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is true, because we were created by an ethical Creator. If we had come from an impersonal amoral process then your statement would be false.

The origin doesn't matter. There is no reason why intelligence must arise from a moral process.

Not Christianity but some aspects of Western culture, ie the non-Christian aspects. But certainly not modern science.

It's not so certain. The classical world was advanced with technology, even if they didn't have scientific method. One can credit post-classical society with creating scientific method as we understand it today, but it is by no means certain that pagans wouldn't have done so if given enough time. It sure took Christians long enough.

The Greeks and Romans did not believe in a orderly and intelligible world.

Which is why Aristotle wrote so much about an orderly and intelligible world? Intellectual Greeks and Romans did not believe in a disorderly or unintelligible world.

Also, the Greek academics believed that only slaves should get their hands dirty, that is why they did not develop experimental science. Conducting experiments was beneath the elite.

Which is why Aristotle spent so much time in nature studying plants and animals? Or why Hero of Alexandria made such marvelous machines?

There was no rule that said that the "elite" should not "get their hands dirty". There were those that did.

I doubt that they would have developed modern science as shown above.

You may doubt all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.

Also, their human rights record was pretty bad. They never ended slavery like Christian societies did.

And how long did it take Christians to do that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Did you read my point? Your response has nothing to do with it.

Before I waste my time with you. You need to show me some kind of reference that says the Roman legal system predates the Israelites legal system. The point of my post was to show you that the israelites have been around over 2000 years before the supposed Romulus and Ramos founded Rome. Don't you think that in those 2000 years before Rome, the israelites had established their own legal system?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What method does your god use to determine what is ethical/moral, and what is not?

How well something fulfills its created purpose.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Before I waste my time with you. You need to show me some kind of reference that says the Roman legal system predates the Israelites legal system. The point of my post was to show you that the israelites have been around over 2000 years before the supposed Romulus and Ramos founded Rome. Don't you think that in those 2000 years before Rome, the israelites had established their own legal system?

And again, did you read my post? Your criticism is irrelevant to it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How well something fulfills its created purpose.

Meaning what exactly?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Meaning what exactly?

Because God is the creator and as the creator, He determines the purpose of all His creations. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad.

A thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.