• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Does morality exist without God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
God makes His values known, His qualities known, so that there is no excuse for denying His authority or values, but once again the issue is not one of opinion. You can have any opinion of morality you like. You simply cannot enforce it.

Rom 1:20-21

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse :

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
KJV
 
Upvote 0

ABlessedAnomaly

Teacher of the Word
Apr 28, 2006
2,840
263
Arizona
✟34,362.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
[note: I speak of the Christian God of the Bible, not of any mythical gods. Couch my replies with this understanding, unless explicitly listed otherwise.]

1: If god exists outside of time, and can see all of time at once, he must then know everything that everyone will do during their lifetimes.
God created time, therefore He exists outside of it (or it would have a control over Him, and it does not). But to your statement otherwise, yes: God knows what choices we make even if they are future to our current place in time.

2: If he creates someone, then based off the first point, as he can see all time, he must then also know if they will accept Jesus during their lives or not.
He knows the end from the beginning, so yes he knows our choices. It must be stressed that He does not make our choices: our choices have been given by God, in the bubble of time, for us to freely make for ourselves. But since God is not restricted by our timeline (although He certainly can enter it and move "at a given time"), He can see all things on that timeline at once.

3. If he creates someone knowing that they will not accept Jesus in their lives, then he is creating them in a way that will inevitably condemn them to hell.
No. He did not create them knowing they will not accept. He created them. They had a free choice of acceptance. They make their choice. God knows all choices. It is not a matter of God knowing the choices and making a sovereign decision based upon that to then not give away the choice.

He did not create them to condemn them. He created them with a free choice. Period. It was not a condemnation because He knew their choice. It was still THEIR choice.

I KNOW that sometime in the future an airplane will go down with many people on board. If I do not make it my life's work to stop the airline industry am I condemning somebody to death?

As a side note: It could be argued it would be more moral for God to not create that person at all.
The argument would be moot since God created this world and the system it rides on for His puposes. Whether you like the reasons or not does not make God disappear *poof*. Even if your observations were correct (they are not) and God is the most immoral, condemning "person," it does not make the atheist position a fact. No, God still exists and your denial of Him only separates you from His Love and you have chosen an eternal existence of "suffering" (or lack of His Love and Mercy would be more apros pos).
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
He knows the end from the beginning, so yes he knows our choices.
No. He did not create them knowing they will not accept.
If your first statement is correct - what exactly is wrong about the statement "he created them knowing they will not accept."?
Did God not create us? :confused:


I KNOW that sometime in the future an airplane will go down with many people on board. If I do not make it my life's work to stop the airline industry am I condemning somebody to death?
Yes - if you have created the people, the airplane, the conditions, the airline industry and knew what would be the result you have knowingly created the outcome. You don´t even have to "condemn" them to death - you have effectively chosen to create them for the purpose of dieing.


The argument would be moot since God created this world and the system it rides on for His puposes.
Yes, he obviously gets something out of people suffering eternally in hell. Or else he wouldn´t have created things the way they are (according to certain Christian ideas).
Whether you like the reasons or not does not make God disappear *poof*.
Of course it wouldn´t make him disappear (if he existed). It would just tell us something about him.
Even if your observations were correct (they are not) and God is the most immoral, condemning "person," it does not make the atheist position a fact.
Of course it doesn´t, and the argument is not intended to do such. The argument is intended to disprove a particular god concept.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Could you please elaborate why you think I am under this onus? Is it a "might makes right" thing, or something deeper?

Might certainly creates the onus. One can argue that God as expressed in the Bible is unjust, but for some reason I only rarely hear that argument. People tend to say instead, "I just don't believe God exists." Once there is no authority, they are then free to cast me as a poor substitute for God. "Sure, your opinion, but why should I care about you?" You don't get that option with God, assuming He exists.

To me, God is truth, or the truth is my God. So with or without a specific deity, I still have a sort of guiding principle. It just so happens that I buy rather literally into Jesus claim to be "the way, the truth, and the light."
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Might certainly creates the onus.
Ok. I do understand the "might makes right" concept but I have never bought into it.
One can argue that God as expressed in the Bible is unjust, but for some reason I only rarely hear that argument.
Well, the PoE and all its variations basically make that very argument. I´m surprised you rarely see them.
People tend to say instead, "I just don't believe God exists."
Apparently you are confusing or conflating the argument as presented with other arguments.
Once there is no authority, they are then free to cast me as a poor substitute for God. "Sure, your opinion, but why should I care about you?"
Yes - but that would be a different argument. Of course, unless you can provide a substantiation that the god of your concept exists, I and others will say "Sure, your opinion, but...". However, that´s an entirely different point.
You don't get that option with God, assuming He exists.
Well, I explicitly made use of that very option: I asked you this very question: "Why do I (assuming for the sake of the argument that a god exists) have the onus to respect his opinion?". How is "usually I am asked a different question" an answer? :confused:

To me, God is truth, or the truth is my God. So with or without a specific deity, I still have a sort of guiding principle. It just so happens that I buy rather literally into Jesus claim to be "the way, the truth, and the light."
(emphasis added)
Now, this is the point where I would say: "Sure, your opinion, but why should I care about you?" ^_^
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟67,315.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Now I have officially heard everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark



It's not all that surprising really... the Bible is the big book of multiple choice, you can find a justification for just about everything conceivable in there if you try.... Which is why there's over 30,000 denominations now that read the bible a slightly different way from each other.

Still, it's pretty funny that subjective morality can be justified in the bible, I'll have to remember that one.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
It doesn't make any difference if morality is subjective, therefore the constant talking-around-each-other that goes on over the subject. God states that He has made His nature and quality known through the physical world and people are without excuse for not seeing it and abiding by it, so from an experiential point of view it could be argued that this is the "objective" morality.

The real question to me is, what alternate morality are you proposing?

There is none. People propose plastic moralities that change on the whim of the ebbing and flowing tide of public opinion as if that is an equally valid option. Atheists refuse to sit down and do the hard work of producing a larger, centered moral structure of similar thoroughness, complexity and nuance to the Christian or Judean (Or heck, Confucian) value systems, then get angry about being forced to walk in like with the only more or less thorough moral and ethical systems available for consumption.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Kudos on avoiding anything like a cogent expression of your own beliefs
Which particular beliefs of mine would you like to hear about? And why would these be important to our discussion?
The only position relevant to the discussion would be "I don´t think I am under the onus to respect God´s (assuming there is such) opinion." (which, I think, was implicit in my question).
while pretending that people are forever actually providing one.
Sorry, I am not understanding this part. Where did I "pretend that people are forever actually providing a belief"?

What exactly is a PoE? Power over Ethernet?
"Problem of evil". One of the most often used arguments against the concept of an omniscient plus omnipotent plus omnibenevolent creatorgod.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
The problem of evil is that it is not a problem. God created creatures capable of evil, but created them "upright" as the Bible states. God even participates in the fallen creation, suffering alongside all the rest of us who suffer because of evil. There is nothing intrinsically evil in allowing evil so long as you then exact justice. God has arranged to do so.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
I will point out that the PoE is not an alternative value system, so it really does not address my point.
Well, in the post I responded to you didn´t ask for an alternative value system. In that post you said you have rarely heard a particular kind of argument (which happens to be the basis of the PoE argument). Now that I have reminded you of it you appear to be pretty familiar with it (despite your initial claim).
I´m sorry that I am unable to anticipate your goal post shiftings.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟67,315.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
[note: I speak of the Christian God of the Bible, not of any mythical gods. Couch my replies with this understanding, unless explicitly listed otherwise.]

There's no evidence to distinguish your god from "mythical" gods.

God created time, therefore He exists outside of it (or it would have a control over Him, and it does not). But to your statement otherwise, yes: God knows what choices we make even if they are future to our current place in time.

Ok, so we are in agreement on the first point in this hypothetical situation

He knows the end from the beginning, so yes he knows our choices. It must be stressed that He does not make our choices: our choices have been given by God, in the bubble of time, for us to freely make for ourselves. But since God is not restricted by our timeline (although He certainly can enter it and move "at a given time"), He can see all things on that timeline at once.

Your argument is not logical. He must know the outcome of every choice if he can see all time. Even if the decision is freely made by ourselves, he would have known in advance that's what we were going to choose. By necessity he would have also created us in such a way that we were going to make that choice.

No. He did not create them knowing they will not accept. He created them. They had a free choice of acceptance. They make their choice. God knows all choices. It is not a matter of God knowing the choices and making a sovereign decision based upon that to then not give away the choice.

He did not create them to condemn them. He created them with a free choice. Period. It was not a condemnation because He knew their choice. It was still THEIR choice.

I KNOW that sometime in the future an airplane will go down with many people on board. If I do not make it my life's work to stop the airline industry am I condemning somebody to death?

No, but your analogy isn't consistent with your argument.

A more accurate scenario was God created you as the pilot of an aircraft with faulty engines. He then forces you into flying the aircraft, and blames you for the crash.

Let me give an example. Lets say you are a brilliant inventor, and in your lifetime you develop a time machine. On top of that, you perfectly figure out how to manipulate genetics so when you have a child, you can make him however you want him to be.

If you create your kid with a brain chemistry that is prone to religiosity, he will be far more likely to accept religion. You can hop in your time machine and see if he will accept Jesus or not.

So, you could then hop back in your time machine and go back to the time you are creating your child, and do so in a way that will make him extremely unlikely to accept religion. You can then fast forward and see what the results will be.

You could then go back and test out every possible incremental difference between guaranteed non-acceptance to guaranteed acceptance, and see the exact results of their creation.

Someone with that kind of power will know exactly what a person will do with their lives, and has the power to create them exactly in a way that will lead to those choices being made.

Your proposed God by definition has that power, and must by necessity know if you are going to accept Jesus or not before you are even born. That means he would have purposefully created you in such a way that you would ultimately be saved or condemned, as he must know what you will ultimately choose.



The argument would be moot since God created this world and the system it rides on for His puposes. Whether you like the reasons or not does not make God disappear *poof*. Even if your observations were correct (they are not) and God is the most immoral, condemning "person," it does not make the atheist position a fact. No, God still exists and your denial of Him only separates you from His Love and you have chosen an eternal existence of "suffering" (or lack of His Love and Mercy would be more apros pos).


Show me reason why I should accept this as fact, and I will take note.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Well, in the post I responded to you didn´t ask for an alternative value system. In that post you said you have rarely heard a particular kind of argument (which happens to be the basis of the PoE argument). Now that I have reminded you of it you appear to be pretty familiar with it (despite your initial claim).
I´m sorry that I am unable to anticipate your goal post shiftings.

I did not ask for anything at all. I stated I rarely hear an argument that God is immoral. The problem of evil provides an argument that a moral god is impossible. It does not argue that there is indeed a God, but that that God is immoral.

So you skipped from the discussion we were having about God's authority if you assume he exists, and used instead an argument that he does not exist because no righteous God of the type in the Bible can exist due to your personal perception of the problem of evil.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟67,315.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Atheists refuse to sit down and do the hard work of producing a larger, centered moral structure of similar thoroughness, complexity and nuance to the Christian or Judean (Or heck, Confucian) value systems, then get angry about being forced to walk in like with the only more or less thorough moral and ethical systems available for consumption.


Wrong... every argument, debate or discussion about an ethical situation in society is an effort to distinguish what our morals are.

Atheism has no dogma, as it is not a belief system. So your assertion that we "refuse" to sit down and create a centralized moral structure is silly. There is no need to do that, as we already have a legal system that governs right from wrong... and nobody is "angry" about that.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
I believe what you just did was tell me I was wrong, and then reiterate that you do not have any such system as I was discussing.

Atheists are constantly displeased with every aspect of morality, and are every bit as likely to disagree with each other as with religious people. Indeed, I have even heard atheists say that the legal system SHOULD NOT govern right from wrong.

Atheists are chaos.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟67,315.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I believe what you just did was tell me I was wrong, and then reiterate that you do not have any such system as I was discussing.

Atheists are constantly displeased with every aspect of morality, and are every bit as likely to disagree with each other as with religious people. Indeed, I have even heard atheists say that the legal system SHOULD NOT govern right from wrong.

Atheists are chaos.



Then apparently you can't read. I said we have a legal system to govern right from wrong.

And the second half of your statement is overt bigotry, please try to show some moral behavior when posting on here in the future.
 
Upvote 0

Shane Roach

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2002
14,552
1,328
57
✟23,036.00
Faith
Christian
Bigotry? How. You have this three times now admitted there is no possible uniting value system. And now you are saying again that the legal system is to govern right and wrong, whereas I have already told you that I have spoken to at least one atheist who believes the law is NOT to govern right from wrong.

It seems you are rather eager to take offense. I find atheism and atheists to be chaotic, unpredictable, and unwilling to construct a holistic morality based on their views of the origins and nature of things. Our current legal systems owe FAR more to our religious history than to atheistic philosophy, which is still ... well, in chaos.

And you offer no refutation to the idea that there is no cohesive atheistic philosophy, but yet find offense in me describing it and the general group of people that call themselves atheists as chaotic?

How may I refer to you in order to not offend and still express the impression you give?
 
Upvote 0

AnotherAtheist

Gimmie dat ol' time physical evidence
Site Supporter
Aug 16, 2007
1,225
601
East Midlands
✟168,826.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I find atheism and atheists to be chaotic, unpredictable, and unwilling to construct a holistic morality based on their views of the origins and nature of things. Our current legal systems owe FAR more to our religious history than to atheistic philosophy, which is still ... well, in chaos.

how are Atheists in chaos? Are Atheists more inconsistent in their morality than Christians or people from other religions? Are Atheists more likely to be confused as to which actions and beliefs are moral?

I'm not saying that no Atheist ever has any doubt or has to think things through as to what is moral. But I doubt that Atheists have significantly more doubt and uncertainty as concerns morality than anyone else.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.