How did God get his morals?

[Davian]

Can you define "spiritual" in a manner that would differentiate it from "imaginary"?

Yes.

Spiritual - experienced at (and perhaps above) the speed of light.
Physical - experienced inside of light (evident by the nature of the speed of light)
and therefore at speeds less than the speed of light.

God is the lucky one, the great miracle if you need to think of it that way.
He came from non-existence, He was first from nothing(no time, no standard model, nothing)
He is the one actively holding all of existence and continually causing everything to be.
That is what the Hebrew name YAHWEH means - He who is and causes to be.
He created the spiritual realm and then became a part of it as The Father.
He created the physical realm and then became a part of it as Christ.

Steven Hawking concludes that the universe just is. But it is God who just is.
If you can accept what Steven concludes about the universe, you can accept that there is a God. The same was true for Stevens old theory and nothing has changed.
The Bible clearly says that God just is - Exodus 3:14 "I am that I am"
Hosea 8:6 - "The workman made it(the golden calf); therefore it is not God."
Implying therefore that God was not created.

If you are going to say "yes", you then need to define "spiritual" in a manner that would differentiate it from "imaginary".

 

[Davian]

Absolutely. One could be deceived, but not if it's truly of God.

So if you are deceived, it is not of God, it is only your imagination. Correct?

You don't seem to realize here that God moves totally outside of human will, imagination, or intentions.

Let's leave your baseless assertions to the side until you have demonstrated that gods are even possible.

Inwardly. It's not intellectual.

I asked, can you define "spiritual" in a manner that would differentiate it from "imaginary"?

 

[Davian]

It's possible for any human being to be wrong. It's not possible for God to be wrong.
...

But it is possible for gods to be imaginary.

 

[TillICollapse]

It's possible for any human being to be wrong. It's not possible for God to be wrong.

Obedience to God's commands leads to a common experience and conclusion. Experiences won't differ. See the New Testament.

Let me ask you a question:

Suppose there is this person whom you've never met, or perhaps only interacted with on occasion ... yet you have this image of them, this idea of what they are like or not like. Perhaps you are obsessed with them, or just a fan ... or maybe you have a keen interest in them historically, you read all about them, everything they've ever done, etc. People arguably do this kind of thing all the time: they do it with celebrities, with those in the public eye. We do it with the person we work with, whom you have a crush on. You get these ideas in your head of what they are like, how they just HAVE to be the most amazing person in the world, or the most generous. You meet one of your favorite celebrities one time, and suddenly, "They were the nicest person in the world ! So real and genuine ! What a great person !" etc.

Would you call this idealizing ? Is it realistic for such a person who has next to no contact with another person to have all these opinions about them, all these ideas about them ? Would you call that ... idolizing them ?

Compare and contrast all of that with someone whom you do actually have a relationship with, who you have known for some time, whom you have experienced ups and downs with, arguments, good times and bad, changes in your world and life. You actually have a history together ... beyond what's in your mind and ideals, but reality. So when you have an opinion on them, you can actually form a bit of one from first hand experience. It may still be biased, but still ... you have walked some miles with them if nothing else.

Having said all of that ... do you think it's possible for someone to make "God" ... an "idol" ? In the sense that they may think all these things about God, and hope they are true, and assert they are true because they idolize God ... but they don't really KNOW if they are true, because they have no direct experience. Would you say that it's possible to do such a thing ? To turn "God" into an image you have of them only ?

Which leads me to my question of your post: how do you know that it's not possible for "God" to be wrong ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's possible for any human being to be wrong. It's not possible for God to be wrong.

That's not what I asked though.

Obedience to God's commands leads to a common experience and conclusion. Experiences won't differ. See the New Testament.

Anyone, from any religion, can say that.

 

[Davian]

How did God get his morals?

What exactly are these 'morals'? Do they not boil down to "believe, or burn"?

Anyone care to answer?

 

[Crandaddy]

As I said previously, you have not established that entities have ideal immaterial natures as a matter of metaphysical necessity. Adding more words to the lexicon does not somehow change that.

My intent wasn't to demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt. If it were, I'd have presented a deductively-valid formal argument for it. If you wish to challenge it, however, then by all means, go right ahead.

Yes, all human beings are human - a trivially true statement if ever there was one. But what is this ideal human essence you refer to? What is essentially human?

Whatever is good and healthy for a human being is determined by the essence of humanity, but the essence of humanity can be imperfectly realized in someone who is sick, unhealthy, or morally corrupt. All it takes to be essentially an individual human being is to be a living individual of the human race, but the health (wellbeing, moral virtue, etc.) of such an individual is determined by how well (s)he realizes, or actualizes, that essential human nature.

I am using the term as it is traditionally and almost universally used by theists: to refer to a supernatural intelligence with certain omni-powers who created the universe.

To me that looks an awful lot like what some call “theistic personalism.” By contrast, I would fall into the “classical theism” camp. See here for an explanation of the difference (the third full paragraph is where he gets to the point).

And he would respond by saying, "Yes, it is. God is commanding me to this; therefore, it is good." What then?

Straitjacket?

So you know this without any religion?

Yes.

So it seems we don't need theology for that at all. It's superfluous at best, a roadblock at worst.

Well, I would classify the use of reason to discern moral principles under natural theology, but religiosity and belief in God clearly aren't required for it.


If religion tries to tamper with the natural ability of human reason to arrive at basic moral truths, then it can do far worse than set up a mere roadblock, which is one reason (probably the main reason, actually) why I so vigorously and adamantly oppose fideism.

This is the naturalistic fallacy.

What's so fallacious about it?

What exactly are these 'morals'? Do they not boil down to "believe, or burn"?

Anyone care to answer?

If by “believe or burn” you mean “mentally subscribe to the correct set of doctrinal propositions before you become worm food or else God will torture you forever in an eternal fire pit,” then no, they don't.

 

[Davian]

...

If by “believe or burn” you mean “mentally subscribe to the correct set of doctrinal propositions before you become worm food or else God will torture you forever in an eternal fire pit,” then no, they don't.

What action or thoughts might preclude you from entering "heaven"?

 

[Crandaddy]

What action or thoughts might preclude you from entering "heaven"?

I think as long as you honestly try your best to be a good person and do everything entailed by that, then you'll be fine. To require more than that wouldn't be reasonable or just.

 

[yesyoushould]

I think as long as you honestly try your best to be a good person and do everything entailed by that, then you'll be fine. To require more than that wouldn't be reasonable or just.

One must believe in God in order to enter Heaven. The scripture says as much. It may be offensive to some, but it is our freedom. Considering God is all that is good in a believers mind, and that goodness doesn't exist without God, it is very easy to understand for all that believe in God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

My intent wasn't to demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt. If it were, I'd have presented a deductively-valid formal argument for it. If you wish to challenge it, however, then by all means, go right ahead.

I don't need to challenge it. You haven't provided anything to challenge.

Whatever is good and healthy for a human being is determined by the essence of humanity, but the essence of humanity can be imperfectly realized in someone who is sick, unhealthy, or morally corrupt.

What is the essence of humanity?

All it takes to be essentially an individual human being is to be a living individual of the human race, but the health (wellbeing, moral virtue, etc.) of such an individual is determined by how well (s)he realizes, or actualizes, that essential human nature.

This is somewhat tautological. All it takes to be essentially human is to be human essentially.

To me that looks an awful lot like what some call “theistic personalism.” By contrast, I would fall into the “classical theism” camp. See here for an explanation of the difference (the third full paragraph is where he gets to the point).

Seems too fine a hair to split.

Straitjacket?

Yes.

Well, I would classify the use of reason to discern moral principles under natural theology, but religiosity and belief in God clearly aren't required for it.

If religion tries to tamper with the natural ability of human reason to arrive at basic moral truths, then it can do far worse than set up a mere roadblock, which is one reason (probably the main reason, actually) why I so vigorously and adamantly oppose fideism.

Then you don't need to appeal to the supernatural to make moral claims. You could do just as well (or better) without it. You don't need to say to the fanatic, "God doesn't approve of this," only for him to shoot back, "Yes he does!"

What's so fallacious about it?

What's so fallacious about the naturalistic fallacy?

 

[Colter]

How did God get his morals?

I AM that I AM​

The perfection of God is self existent; God is the first source and center of all that is.

 

[Davian]

I think as long as you honestly try your best to be a good person and do everything entailed by that, then you'll be fine. To require more than that wouldn't be reasonable or just.

One must believe in God in order to enter Heaven.

Can you two not get your stories straight?

The scripture says as much.

Indeed. Anything goes, as long as you believe.

It may be offensive to some, but it is our freedom. Considering God is all that is good in a believers mind, and that goodness doesn't exist without God, it is very easy to understand for all that believe in God.

I find no offence in it, as I have no reason to believe that it has any basis in reality.