Does morality exist without God?

[Zebra1552]

That it can be known requires that it is predestined (or deterministic, if you prefer). Omniscience and free will are as mutually exclusive as an irresistible force and an immovable object.

Merely countering a rebuttal with another claim isn't going to refute that claim.

Who did I stereotype with that paragraph?

Theists.

I didn't make any presumptions about you, and I'm simply pointing out the inherent danger in holding an immutable belief.

...while making that danger exclusive to theists.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

u have zeal

but why a little sarcasm?



GOD knows

GOD is everywhere


GOD is potentate

Merely countering a rebuttal with another claim isn't going to refute that claim.


Theists.


...while making that danger exclusive to theists.

 

[belarm]

Merely countering a rebuttal with another claim isn't going to refute that claim.

Very well, I'll expound:
For any being to know the entire course of the Universe, it is required that the Universe be deterministic. A deterministic system does not allow for its constituent parts to make decisions; if it can be known what I will do with my life, then that information is, by definition, predefined. It therefor follows that while I may perceive that I have free will, it must be an illusion, as any 'choice' I make will inevitably lead to the known conclusion.
To put it more succinctly, the intersection of the set of universes which can be predetermined and the set of universes which contain free will is an empty set.

Theists.
...while making that danger exclusive to theists.

Who did I stereotype with that paragraph? I didn't make any presumptions about you, and I'm simply pointing out the inherent danger in holding an immutable belief. The same warnings and dangers apply to any such belief - I feel that a belief that America is inherently superior to every other country, without qualification, is just as dangerous. I chose to address the danger in religious beliefs because it was topical.

I thought I was relatively clear in the above paragraph, but just to clarify further:

• Holding a belief that you cannot or will not change is inherently dangerous.

No qualifiers are necessary. It does not apply to one type of belief, and not another. It is not limited to theists, or atheists, or politicians, or people who ride motorcycles dressed as Santa Claus. Immutable beliefs are dangerous by their very nature.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

profound

hm hm ..


i understand what you typed..

Very well, I'll expound:
For any being to know the entire course of the Universe, it is required that the Universe be deterministic. A deterministic system does not allow for its constituent parts to make decisions; if it can be known what I will do with my life, then that information is, by definition, predefined. It therefor follows that while I may perceive that I have free will, it must be an illusion, as any 'choice' I make will inevitably lead to the known conclusion.
To put it more succinctly, the intersection of the set of universes which can be predetermined and the set of universes which contain free will is an empty set.



I thought I was relatively clear in the above paragraph, but just to clarify further:

• Holding a belief that you cannot or will not change is inherently dangerous.

No qualifiers are necessary. It does not apply to one type of belief, and not another. It is not limited to theists, or atheists, or politicians, or people who ride motorcycles dressed as Santa Claus. Immutable beliefs are dangerous by their very nature.

 

[Eudaimonist]

we have ISSUES
the bible has answers

The bible isn't the only source of potential answers.

its logical
its our moral responsibility

It's our moral responsibility to exercise our best judgment in finding answers, but that won't necessarily lead to the bible as the source.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[sandwiches]

Humans are generally different and unique from one another. It should go without saying I had a different childhood. And besides, isn't parenthood simply a biological process?

And isn't God creation and love and all that simply a process of whatever his nature is?

Obviously they do this because they find meaning in doing so. If they did not, they are not very likely to continue.

Humans do things for a myriad of reasons. You listed a bunch of occupations and asked why they are not worthy of worship, and I answered because they are occupations. It is readily observed fact that man has affections and preferences, and that man must also work to make a living and somehow in doing so find meaning in such things. In this, man is obligated to find work they enjoy and this, in part, is obligation. It's not pessimism. It's reality.

So, you're saying that God finds no meaning in loving and taking care of us?

Why shouldn't I? Is there a reason He isn't worthy of such things? What reason have I to not worship and obey?

Well, the fact that he does the same things humans do without the benefit of being GODS. Yet someone, who's infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in every way is somehow deserving for worship because he's infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect? He has no choice but to be way, according to Christian theology.

 

[Zebra1552]

And isn't God creation and love and all that simply a process of whatever his nature is?

If one's nature is set in stone by external influences this would be the case. But that is an assumption.

So, you're saying that God finds no meaning in loving and taking care of us?

I'm saying God has the complete freedom to do this or refrain from doing this, unlike most humans which are ruled by biological and social influences to conform to a certain standard. That's why bad parents are so appalling to us.

Well, the fact that he does the same things humans do without the benefit of being GODS.

Some of the same things, not all. Big difference. You would expect that God, wanting to connect with His creation, to be like His creation in how He interacts with His creation, would you not? Yet also go beyond us in many other ways that are not essential to know?

Yet someone, who's infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect in every way is somehow deserving for worship because he's infallible, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect? He has no choice but to be way, according to Christian theology.

I'm sorry, but where is that written? I don't recall covering this in any of the classes I took at Crown, nor have I heard any Christian every make this claim- that God did not choose His qualities and has no choice.

 

[sandwiches]

If one's nature is set in stone by external influences this would be the case. But that is an assumption.

I'm saying God has the complete freedom to do this or refrain from doing this, unlike most humans which are ruled by biological and social influences to conform to a certain standard. That's why bad parents are so appalling to us.

Do humans not have freedom to do or not do things? Or are we products of society and biology?

Some of the same things, not all. Big difference. You would expect that God, wanting to connect with His creation, to be like His creation in how He interacts with His creation, would you not? Yet also go beyond us in many other ways that are not essential to know?

In what ways does he go beyond what humans do?

I'm sorry, but where is that written? I don't recall covering this in any of the classes I took at Crown, nor have I heard any Christian every make this claim- that God did not choose His qualities and has no choice.

Can God be evil? Can God lie? Can God murder? Can God rape children?

 

[Zebra1552]

Do humans not have freedom to do or not do things? Or are we products of society and biology?

You ask that like it's one or the other.

In what ways does he go beyond what humans do?

Can humans violate the laws of science?

Can God be evil? Can God lie? Can God murder? Can God rape children?

See, this is what seems to confuse non-theists. Yes, God can do these things. But that does not mean that He will do them. Just because God is all powerful does not mean God wantonly exercises this.

 

[sandwiches]

You ask that like it's one or the other.

So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?

Can humans violate the laws of science?

Let me rephrase for specificity: In what specific ways does God go beyond humans to show he's worship-worthy love for us?

See, this is what seems to confuse non-theists. Yes, God can do these things. But that does not mean that He will do them. Just because God is all powerful does not mean God wantonly exercises this.

So, he can lie. How do you know he hasn't done so already, with the Bible, for instance?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

i agree

So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?


Let me rephrase for specificity: In what specific ways does God go beyond humans to show his worship-worthy love for us?


So, he can lie. How do you know he hasn't done so already, with the Bible, for instance?

 

[Zebra1552]

So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?

You say that like it has to be one or the other.

Let me rephrase for specificity: In what specific ways does God go beyond humans to show he's worship-worthy love for us?

You mean besides creating us, dying for us, healing us, and befriending us?

So, he can lie. How do you know he hasn't done so already, with the Bible, for instance?

I don't.

 

[sandwiches]

You say that like it has to be one or the other.

I see you evaded the question a second time. So, I'll ask again, "So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?" It's a yes or no question but you're welcome to elaborate.

You mean besides creating us, dying for us, healing us, and befriending us?

So, a good mother who sacrifices herself for her child is worthy of worship by her child?

I don't.

But you trust he hasn't, I take it. Why?

 

[Hakan101]

I see you evaded the question a second time. So, I'll ask again, "So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?" It's a yes or no question but you're welcome to elaborate.


So, a good mother who sacrifices herself for her child is worthy of worship by her child?


But you trust he hasn't, I take it. Why?

That first question is worded weird. Can you rephrase it? Are you asking if humans are born with the ability to love?

Why do you dance around his response? He did not say God merely sacrificed himself for us, and that is all. A mother births and raises you, but does not stay with you your whole life. Take the entire response into account. God "Created us, died for us, healed us, and befriended us."

Lying is a sin, sin is evil, God is holy and without evil, God hates evil, therefore God does not lie. But really, in the Bible God talks a lot about fulfilling his promises. There are some that take quite a long time (Hebrews getting to the Promised Land), others that happen pretty quickly (Jesus foretelling his death and resurrection). I should really find some scripture for you but I gotta run soon, hopefully someone else here knows some good ones.

 

[Zebra1552]

I see you evaded the question a second time. So, I'll ask again, "So, humans can love without it being a mere result of their upbringing or biology?" It's a yes or no question but you're welcome to elaborate.

Actually, if you think about it some, I didn't evade your question. I answered it rather directly. Why should I answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer when I think the answer is something other than yes or no?

So, a good mother who sacrifices herself for her child is worthy of worship by her child?

Said mother didn't create all of mankind.

But you trust he hasn't, I take it. Why?

Why is this relevant to the topic?

 

[Zebra1552]

Lying is a sin, sin is evil, God is holy and without evil, God hates evil, therefore God does not lie. But really, in the Bible God talks a lot about fulfilling his promises. There are some that take quite a long time (Hebrews getting to the Promised Land), others that happen pretty quickly (Jesus foretelling his death and resurrection). I should really find some scripture for you but I gotta run soon, hopefully someone else here knows some good ones.

I believe you missed his first question:

So, he can lie. How do you know he hasn't done so already, with the Bible, for instance?

This question by necessity disqualifies the Bible as evidence because the question relies on God's truthfulness for the Bible to be accurate, and it is this truthfulness that is in question. Though the Bible does give weight to God at least being consistent in God keeping His promises, it doesn't necessarily prove that God is completely trustworthy.

The question, then, boils down to belief. Do you believe that God is trustworthy, or do you believe that He isn't? Both require a belief. However, the question is quite off topic to the issue of morality so it would be pointless to give a personal answer on a topic that doesn't require me to give one.

 

[belarm]

Actually, if you think about it some, I didn't evade your question. I answered it rather directly. Why should I answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer when I think the answer is something other than yes or no?

I could be mistaken, but I think the original question was meant to be along the lines of "is the human capacity to love simply a product of our upbringing and biology, or is there another component to it?" It was voiced oddly, but if I'm understanding correctly, that was the yes/no question sandwitch was trying to pose. (Sandwitch, feel free to correct me)

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my last post; I was enjoying our discussion.

 

[Zebra1552]

I could be mistaken, but I think the original question was meant to be along the lines of "is the human capacity to love simply a product of our upbringing and biology, or is there another component to it?" It was voiced oddly, but if I'm understanding correctly, that was the yes/no question sandwitch was trying to pose. (Sandwitch, feel free to correct me)

Also, I'd like to hear your thoughts on my last post; I was enjoying our discussion.

My thoughts are that God knowing all things isn't the same as Him ordaining them or making them happen. Say someone were to show me the movie How To Train Your Dragon before it began production. Would that mean I and the person showing me made the movie happen? Of course not. Foreknowledge isn't the same as making it so. You claim it is, yet you have given me no reasons to believe this claim.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually, if you think about it some, I didn't evade your question. I answered it rather directly. Why should I answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer when I think the answer is something other than yes or no?

All you told me what you thought the answer ISN'T. So, what is the answer then?

Now to be clear, the question is whether we can do good outside of our social and biological desires and "programs." We either can do this or we can't. If we can do it sometimes but not all the times, then the answer is still "We can." So, what's the answer?

Said mother didn't create all of mankind.

A mother created her child, has healed him, befriended him, sacrificed herself for him. Why shouldn't the child worship her?

Why is this relevant to the topic?

Because, from what I understand, your claim is your morality comes from your deity who you understand through the Bible. If the Bible is unreliable, then maybe you don't really understand your deity as well as you claim you do and thus maybe your morality is based on incorrect premises.

 

[Zebra1552]

All you told me what you thought the answer ISN'T. So, what is the answer then?

Now to be clear, the question is whether we can do good outside of our social and biological desires and "programs." We either can do this or we can't. If we can do it sometimes but not all the times, then the answer is still "We can." So, what's the answer?

Is nature responsible for psychopaths, or nurture? You have your answer.

A mother created her child, has healed him, befriended him, sacrificed herself for him. Why shouldn't the child worship her?

One person =/= all of mankind.

Because, from what I understand, your claim is your morality comes from your deity who you understand through the Bible.

My claim is that morality comes from knowing the Bible, yes, but this does not mean that this morality is unchanging. Three hundred years ago slavery- the beating, selling, and dehumanization of Africans and other people groups- was deemed moral based on a very limited understanding of the Bible due to situations where slavery was an accepted fact in those cultures and those situations being seen as moral guidelines rather than cultural norms. Now we understand far more about the Bible and it is readily apparent that dehumanizing, beating, and owning people isn't loving your neighbor (one could argue that it should have been readily apparent, but that's another matter).

If the Bible is unreliable, then maybe you don't really understand your deity as well as you claim you do and thus maybe your morality is based on incorrect premises.

The Bible's reliability has been tried and tested over and over throughout history and found to be accurate. This leaves two options: Either it is true, or it isn't. All the non-spiritual claims of the Bible have proven true: The locations existed, the people and places were real. Do you then say that it was lying about the spiritual stuff, or do you decide it is entirely consistent?