Does morality exist without God?

[Belk]

Did I not logically refute it more than once here?



And you replied with:



So basically here you've recognized that the future can be unchanging, but you still fail to realize that an unchanging future makes it logically impossible to change it! You keep saying he 'can' change it if he 'wanted' to, but that logically makes no sense. You're simply giving a cop out argument. If Yahweh did intervene in the world somehow, that would change the future, and thus he wouldn't have been all knowing from the start.

Knowing the future requires by definition that the future be unchanging, else if he can change it down the line, he did not previously know the true future.

Please, show me the flaw in my logical reasoning if you can, without making up some attributes about god.

The only logical way I can see out of this conundrum is if "All knowing" equates to knowing the outcome of every possible eventuality. In this way you know everything that could happen but not exactly what will happen.

 

[Zebra1552]

Perhaps you'd do well to read your bible then.

Malachi 3:6
“I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

Context.

Mal 3:1 See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight--indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.
Mal 3:2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap;
Mal 3:3 he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the LORD in righteousness.
Mal 3:4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.
Mal 3:5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.
Mal 3:6 For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, have not perished.
Mal 3:7 Ever since the days of your ancestors you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, "How shall we return?"
Mal 3:8 Will anyone rob God? Yet you are robbing me! But you say, "How are we robbing you?" In your tithes and offerings!
Mal 3:9 You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me--the whole nation of you!

3:6 refers to the covenant made in the Pentateuch, not an attribute of God's nature.

Psalm 119:89
Your word, LORD, is eternal;
it stands firm in the heavens.

Duh. If God's outside of time, of course anything He says or does is outside of time. This has no bearing on whether His nature is unchanging or whether or not His mind changes.

Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.

Once again, a being outside of time...

Hebrews 6:17-18
Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18 God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

Heb 6:13 When God made a promise to Abraham, because he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself,
Heb 6:14 saying, "I will surely bless you and multiply you."
Heb 6:15 And thus Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.
Heb 6:16 Human beings, of course, swear by someone greater than themselves, and an oath given as confirmation puts an end to all dispute.
Heb 6:17 In the same way, when God desired to show even more clearly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it by an oath,
Heb 6:18 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God would prove false, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to seize the hope set before us.

Once again, context. This is talking about God's purpose to bring a Savior into the mix. It is the entire theme of Hebrews, how God fulfilled His promise for a savior.

James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Analogy. Shadows usually shift rapidly enough that you cannot make them out.

So yes, according to the bible God is unchanging.

According to your interpretation of the Bible, God is unchanging.

Thus god is not all knowing.

God is a noun, as is the Bible. And your reasoning for this statement is flawed.

And you have just proven your original position wrong.

Oh? What was my original position, and how did I prove it wrong?

God is not all knowing because we have the power to change the future. Thus, at any exact moment in time, God can only tell us the logical future at that infinitely small point in time. Move further a second, and the future changes. Thus, as time is always in motion, God never knows the future beyond a 'best guess'.

God isn't limited by time or our choices. He can choose to intervene as well, being omnipotent, which means that our perception of the future can change.

 

[Belk]

tinker made me think of something with this movie analogy. I was thinking of home movies we take and then watch years later. Did we really have a choice back then? Could things really have turned out any different than they did? Are these questions meaningful and useful?

Useful? From philosophy questions? Why, that is neigh on sacrilege.

Nope, these are the same old questions man has been dealing with for thousands of years but lack any means whatsoever to actually answer. Still fun to contemplate though.

 

[Zebra1552]

Did I not logically refute it more than once here?

No, not really.

And you replied with:

Yup, sure did.

So basically here you've recognized that the future can be unchanging, but you still fail to realize that an unchanging future makes it logically impossible to change it!

It is possible that it is unchanging, but I very much doubt that the 'future' from our perception (depending on whose) and the 'history' from God's perception has undergone no alterations. Not only is it statistically unlikely, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah kinda refutes the idea that history has undergone no alterations. God altered His course of action to accommodate a request.

You keep saying he 'can' change it if he 'wanted' to, but that logically makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense. God, being all powerful, has the ability to intervene in events based on His foreknowledge of how those events will play out.

You're simply giving a cop out argument.

Prove it. I've thought this through many times and argued it at least half as much. The stuff I'm typing isn't new, though it has been awhile.

If Yahweh did intervene in the world somehow, that would change the future, and thus he wouldn't have been all knowing from the start.

That depends on your perception. If you look at it from your point of view, then God couldn't have intervened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet we see from the Bible that He did. He also intervened with the Tower of Babel.

Knowing the future requires by definition that the future be unchanging, else if he can change it down the line, he did not previously know the true future.

That would be correct if God was constrained by time. He isn't. I believe this was already pointed out. It's also basic Christian doctrine. Kinda leads to the common Christian conundrum of what happens when we die- directly to heaven, in limbo, or what?

Please, show me the flaw in my logical reasoning if you can, without making up some attributes about god.

That's three times. I hate to keep count of such things, but I'm beginning to think you're insulting me by intentionally refusing to capitalize nouns.

 

[rjc34]

That's three times. I hate to keep count of such things, but I'm beginning to think you're insulting me by intentionally refusing to capitalize nouns.

I'm not using 'god' as a proper noun. I use Yahweh when referring to the Judeo-Christian god.

You can capitalize it all you like, and I know English translations of the bible do, but as a non-believer in all gods, I will only capitalize the proper name of the god I am specifically referring to.

 

[rjc34]

It is possible that it is unchanging, but I very much doubt that the 'future' from our perception (depending on whose) and the 'history' from God's perception has undergone no alterations. Not only is it statistically unlikely, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah kinda refutes the idea that history has undergone no alterations. God altered His course of action to accommodate a request.

Makes perfect sense. God, being all powerful, has the ability to intervene in events based on His foreknowledge of how those events will play out.

Prove it. I've thought this through many times and argued it at least half as much. The stuff I'm typing isn't new, though it has been awhile.

That depends on your perception. If you look at it from your point of view, then God couldn't have intervened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet we see from the Bible that He did. He also intervened with the Tower of Babel.

That would be correct if God was constrained by time. He isn't. I believe this was already pointed out. It's also basic Christian doctrine. Kinda leads to the common Christian conundrum of what happens when we die- directly to heaven, in limbo, or what?

I guess this argument all boils down to interpretation of theology. As I do not believe the bible to be true, I do not hold any of the supernatural events in it to be true, just as you likely do not hold miracles proclaimed to have come from Saints by the Catholic church to be true.

I think logically both of are arguments are sound under our respective understandings of theology. Thus I think we should just call a friendly draw and agree to disagree.

It was an interesting discussion though, brought some interesting ideas to my attention.

 

[Zebra1552]

I'm not using 'god' as a proper noun. I use Yahweh when referring to the Judeo-Christian god.

You can capitalize it all you like, and I know English translations of the bible do, but as a non-believer in all gods, I will only capitalize the proper name of the god I am specifically referring to.

Gee, I'm a Christian and you're arguing against a few attributes of the Christian God I follow. What else could you possibly be referring to?

 

[Zebra1552]

I guess this argument all boils down to interpretation of theology. As I do not believe the bible to be true, I do not hold any of the supernatural events in it to be true, just as you likely do not hold miracles proclaimed to have come from Saints by the Catholic church to be true.

I know nothing of these miracles and firmly believe that God works miracles regularly.

I think logically both of are arguments are sound under our respective understandings of theology. Thus I think we should just call a friendly draw and agree to disagree.

Then logically you realize we both cannot be correct. It's a stalemate, not a draw.

 

[rjc34]

Then logically you realize we both cannot be correct. It's a stalemate, not a draw.

We can only not both be logically correct under our respective understandings of theology. Your view is incorrect under mine, and vice-versa. Thus we are at an impasse, and what you call it doesn't matter, to further this discussion would require us to go much deeper into our basic theologies, which would further derail to topic of this thread.

So I call for a peaceful treaty between our beliefs. Do you accept?

 

[rjc34]

Gee, I'm a Christian and you're arguing against a few attributes of the Christian GodI follow. What else could you possibly be referring to?

In this case 'god' should be left uncapitalized, because you are not using it as a proper noun

In any case I'm used to referring to deities as 'your god', etc etc... So it was my mistake to use the proper noun 'God' without capitalizing it.

 

[Zebra1552]

We can only not both be logically correct under our respective understandings of theology. Your view is incorrect under mine, and vice-versa. Thus we are at an impasse, and what you call it doesn't matter, to further this discussion would require us to go much deeper into our basic theologies, which would further derail to topic of this thread.

So I call for a peaceful treaty between our beliefs. Do you accept?

I suppose.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

peace peace

to the world


then sudden destruction

I suppose.

 

[Eudaimonist]

peace peace

to the world


then sudden destruction

It's still a few billion years before the Sun goes nova, so the human race should be fine for a while.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

ummm



i dont believe in that


neither may 31 2011



dec 31, 2012



or whatever many teach

It's still a few billion years before the Sun goes nova, so the human race should be fine for a while.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[rjc34]

i dont believe in that

Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact that it's the path our sun is going down...

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact that it's the path our sun is going down...

Just like all other suns in the universe. They don't last forever.

 

[rjc34]

Just like all other suns in the universe. They don't last forever.

And as any cosmologist will tell you, every atom in your body is the product of an exploded star

 

[selfinflikted]

And as any cosmologist will tell you, every atom in your body is the product of an exploded star

As is pretty much everything.

 

[rjc34]

As is pretty much everything.

There's a Lawrence Krauss quote I'd love to post... but I fear I might be reported for blasphemy

 

[chris4243]

And as any cosmologist will tell you, every atom in your body is the product of an exploded star

Including the 63% of your atoms that are hydrogen?