Does Might Make Right?

[Moral Orel]

The truths of mathematics are not arbitrary because they were not chosen - just like God’s character. They are what we call necessarily true. It’s not possible for them to be false and we cannot even imagine a world in which they are false.

I can imagine God having different traits.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

God's commands are absolute because they are unable to be evaluated by a higher standard. They are the highest - or the absolute - standard.

Just because we can trace 'moral assertions' all the way back to a 'first cause', does not necessarily render such moral assertions 'correct', do they?

They can still be arbitrary, can't they?

Let's play 'devil's advocate', and assume infinite regress does not exist, and we do have an initial source "law giver". Okay... Now let's assume this source law giver states "X is good."

How do you know? Is it merely because He answers to [no one or nothing] 'above' Himself? Based upon your given responses, thus far, this looks to be the case?.?.?

But all you've done here, is push the 'problem' back. It still demonstrates being arbitrary, thus far. -- As our agreed upon definition...

And after we sort all of this out, HOW the HECK did we get to Scripture as THE source, as you assert in post #29?

There are many senses in which God's commands are "right". It depends on what you mean by "right". One sense in which they are right is that they perfectly comport with human wellbeing and happiness.

I gladly admit 'morals' cannot be grounded in objectives/absolutes. But YOU do.

What I say is 'right' appeals to subjective preferences, such as the examples you raise: 'well being', 'happiness', other

God states 'X is right". How do you know? Thus far, your answers look to be nothing more than blank assertions.

 

[Tree of Life]

That’s interesting. If God’s character is not arbitrary then he has no free will. He cannot act outside of his inherent parameters.

I’ve never thought of it like that; thank you for the insight!

God cannot act outside of his nature. But I think that any notion of "free will" which says that acting outside of your nature is necessary to freedom is totally incoherent.

 

[Tree of Life]

God states 'X is right". How do you know? Thus far, your answers look to be nothing more than blank assertions.

If you're asking how I know what God says, then I would say "the Bible".

If you're asking how I know what God says is actually right, then I would have to say "because God said it." God's speech is a source of knowledge.

Think about it like this. You see a red object in front of you. But how do you know that the object is red? Do you need another corroborating source of knowledge, or is the red appearance to your eyes enough to say that you know that it is indeed red?

 

[Tree of Life]

I can imagine God having different traits.

I'm not sure that this is possible. You may think that you can imagine this but in fact it is unimaginable. Sure, we can all imagine a very powerful being who is a liar, for example. But can we imagine God, who is the very source and essence of truth, lying? I'm not sure that we really can imagine this.

 

[cvanwey]

If you're asking how I know what God says, then I would say "the Bible".

How do you know the Bible is the source of what God says? Why not some competing circulating set of text(s), or no existing book(s)?

Furthermore, IF the Bible IS the source, how do you know all assertions/commands are 'right'? Couldn't God's commands still be arbitrary, <because> He answers to no one or nothing above Him?

If you're asking how I know what God says is actually right, then I would have to say "because God said it." God's speech is a source of knowledge.

I see (2) issues here:

1. How do you know what God says, came from the Bible? Don't answer if you already answered above.
2. Just because God is the source, it can still be an arbitrary moral command.

Think about it like this. You see a red object in front of you. But how do you know that the object is red? Do you need another corroborating source of knowledge, or is the red appearance to your eyes enough to say that you know that it is indeed red?

You are using a 'physical example' to try and explain 'moral examples'.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not sure that this is possible. You may think that you can imagine this but in fact it is unimaginable. Sure, we can all imagine a very powerful being who is a liar, for example. But can we imagine God, who is the very source and essence of truth, lying? I'm not sure that we really can imagine this.

"slavery is always a sin"
"same sex institution is not a sin"
"men and women are equal, when it comes to education and teaching"

There, three [arbitrary] opposing assertions, made by any old asserted opposing [source God], for which He later commands to His peeps.

That wasn't so hard to imagine, was is?

 

[Larniavc]

God cannot act outside of his nature. But I think that any notion of "free will" which says that acting outside of your nature is necessary to freedom is totally incoherent.

I disagree. If one’s nature is limited such that an action is ruled out the entity does not have actual free will: merely a set of parameters that it freely operates within.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure that this is possible. You may think that you can imagine this but in fact it is unimaginable. Sure, we can all imagine a very powerful being who is a liar, for example. But can we imagine God, who is the very source and essence of truth, lying? I'm not sure that we really can imagine this.

You're mixing up actions and qualities. I can imagine a dishonest God who lies. So can you.

 

[Tree of Life]

I disagree. If one’s nature is limited such that an action is ruled out the entity does not have actual free will: merely a set of parameters that it freely operates within.

I think this is an incoherent notion of free will. I don't accept it.

 

[Larniavc]

I don't accept it.

Okay. I remain unconvinced by your apologetics.