Where's God?

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, but if there is no God then there is no objective basis for morality and it doesnt really exist, it is just personal preference.

As you have demonstrated in this thread, with commendable thoroughness, it is the Christian who claims God is the foundation of morality who does not have a leg to stand on. It is your morality that is completely relative and thus meaningless. You have shown this many times by your inability to explain how you know that God's laws are moral, forcing you to use circular reasoning.

And since humans generally live according to what they think is objectively real, not having an objective basis for morality is a slippery slope toward tyranny and moral degradation.

You've just contradicted yourself. If humans live according to an objective reality, then they do have an objective basis for their reality, ie, the real world.

humanism...allows the killing of unborn women)

There is no such thing as an unborn woman. Nor do abortions affect unborn girls or unborn infants (also things that don't exist). In almost every case, abortions performed on embryos and fetuses. Since these are not persons, I have no problem with this.

does not allow involuntary slavery as I demonstrated earlier

As has been demonstrated to you more than once now, the Bible not only permits slavery, but encourages it. Western slavery in the USA was directly founded on the Christian religion, and correctly so, given what the Bible says about slavery.

encourages us to obey the moral laws of the universe which allows us the greater freedom to flourish.

"So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man."
It's a very moral law, don't you know.

Humanism pushes for more powerful governments and more rules and regulations which restricts human freedom and flourishing.

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."
– Humanists International

Sounds good to me!

Most of those things are the result of the corrupt leadership of the Roman Catholic Church whom ignored the actual teachings of Christ and His word and restricted access to His word which kept the people ignorant of what God expected of them morally. But then when the Reformation occurred and His word became more widespread and taught to the people things slowly began to improve.

Let me tell you a story.
I had an uncle, who was Scottish. And he told me that a true Scotsman never puts sugar on his porridge.
Then one day I went on holiday and saw some Scottish men eating porridge, and one of them was putting sugar on it.
I got home and mentioned it to my uncle, wondering if he would revise his opinion. Not a bit of it!
"Ach, y'see, laddie," he said, "He wisna a true Scotsman. A true Scotsman nivver puts salt on his porridge, ye ken."

Thus ends today's lesson in logical fallacies.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely does exist. See my post to interested atheist where I do so using the BB theory and the law of sufficient cause.

I'm sure you understand, @muichimotsu , that when Ed says he "can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely does exist...using the BB theory and law of sufficient cause," he means that there happens to be an argument that has been made for God's existence, and that's good enough for him.

That fact that the argument in question (Kalaam cosmological) is riddled with flaws doesn't matter. As he says, he's just "demonstrating" that God "most likely does exist."

Of course, Ed has a rather low standard for what "likely" means when it comes to God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It depends on what whether the creator is good or not. If the creator is not good, then you should not do what He says.

Ok, so we are back to the thought experiment where we imagine that there is a completely independent second universe, created by a completely independent God, where the persons there have no way of knowing about our universe or the God that may have made it. Would persons in this imaginary universe be required to follow what their creator says?

You say it depends on whether that God is good. OK, how would those persons in that other universe determine if their God is good?

I contend that the only way they could determine if their God is good is to use similar criteria to what humanists use to determine good.

The same conundrum applies to our universe. Even if a God exists, and this God demands obedience, how would you determine if this God is good?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Christianity has actually raised women not degraded them

1 Corinthians 14:34 says:

Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.​

That sounds degrading to me.

Humanism pushes for more powerful governments and more rules and regulations which restricts human freedom and flourishing.

No it does not. Humanism stands for human freedom and flourishing. It is opposed to tyranny. It also recognizes the value of good government. Some rules and regulations are helpful. Some are not. Humanists disagree on the extent of government. But none supports tyranny, and none supports lawless anarchy. There is a broad range in the middle, and Humanists can be anywhere in that range.

For instance, Penn Jillette, of the team Penn and Teller, is an outspoken Atheist who is also very Libertarian. See Penn Jillette: Is Libertarianism Compatible with Atheism? - Big Think

 

[doubtingmerle]

all humans are interested in morality and in the more successful societies their morality is more similar to God's moral law.

OK, so "God's moral law" is similar to the laws of successful societies?

I agree.

That is not proof that the Bible is uniquely authoritative. That is proof that the Bible is one of many similar systems.

Evidence?

Here is some of the evidence that the Greeks influenced early Christianity: Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy - Wikipedia

The fact that Humanists and Christians learned from earlier moral systems is not proof that we need to go back to an earlier system.

We need to go back to the moral laws of the universe just like if we ignore the physical laws of the universe we get into trouble so also ignoring the moral laws of the universe we get in trouble. The creator created these laws for our good and flourishing.

Psalms 137:8-9 says:

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.​

This comes from the book that you want to take us back to. I am fine with some things in your book, but I am not fine with verses like this. It is wrong* to praise those who take little babies and dash them against stones. Where your book is wrong, we should say it is wrong.

* (Once again, since my posts are in English, use any common English dictionary as a reference if you do not understand what I mean by the word "wrong".)

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: It is more rational for morality to have come from a preexisting moral standard rather than amoral processes.

ia: No, it is less rational to believe that morality came from some pre-existing moral standard. Because that then begs the question: where did this pre-existing moral standard come from?

it comes from a being that is a Cause and not an effect, therefore He doesn't need a cause.

ed: What I want is irrelevant, there is strong evidence that there is a perfect moral standard whether you or I want it or not, the objective character of the Creator of the Universe. The moral law of God would say that what you did was justified.

ia: Sorry, but after forty pages of this thread, that's just a joke. You've been asked many, many times to supply this evidence that a perfect moral standard exists, and have been unable to.

No, I explained how the being with this objective moral character can be demonstrated using the BB theory and the law of causality.

ia: In fact, my claim that you are using circular reasoning has been proved beautifully by the way you repeat yourself again and again. "God's character is the standard of morality. How do we know? Why, from our moral sense. Which was given to us by God. Who is the foundation of our morality, as you will recall from when I just said it."

No, you can determine His character BEFORE you know that your moral character came from Him. You can also see if He is good by studying His character when He was on the earth by looking at the character of Jesus Christ. Another thing you can do is see if His moral law has brought about good on the earth and that has been confirmed because almost everything good about Western Civilzation came from Christian principles. All three of these are the ways you determine whether anyone is good, how is that circular? It is how you determine whether your friends are good, right? How is that circular?

ia: I have to thank you, though. You have provided a completely exhaustive response to whether or not a Christian can address Euthyphro's Dilemma, showing that they can not.

I think I have addressed it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Please look at the picture below of the Holocaust. Can you not understand that this is obviously bad? Can you not understand that these people obviously are not living the good life? Can you not see that since these people want to live, and want to live the good life, that they are being treated unfairly? Can you not see that treating people unfairly is wrong? Can you not see that other rulers have treated people better.?

So how can you look at this picture and ask us why we think other ways of treating the Jews would have been better?

Are you seriously going to tell us that the only way to figure out if the Holocaust was bad is to ask what God thinks about it? Are you seriously going to tell us that humans cannot look at this picture, and see for themselves that this is bad?

You are not fully understanding my point. I am referring to how would you convince the Nazis that what they did was wrong. The Nazis would not think that that picture showed any of those things. They would think the jews deserved it, how could you convince them with an objective argument? You could only say that you feel human beings, all human beings, should be treated well and fairly as you state above. And they would say well those are your feelings, but they feel differently and that not all humans should be treated well. So you both use your feelings to justify your actions. Generally most people want to live according to objective reality. So they would be much more likely to listen to your objections to their behavior if you could demonstrate that there is an objective moral standard and they are violating it and will be held accountable for it either in this life or the next.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, I explained how the being with this objective moral character can be demonstrated using the BB theory and the law of causality.

The Christian cosmological argument says nothing about the morality of the purported Big Bang Starter, and is a fallacious piece of reasoning in itself.

No, you can determine His character BEFORE you know that your moral character came from Him.

Sure. But that's not what we're talking about, as we shall see below.

You can also see if He is good by studying His character when He was on the earth by looking at the character of Jesus Christ. Another thing you can do is see if His moral law has brought about good on the earth and that has been confirmed because almost everything good about Western Civilzation came from Christian principles.

You could see if God is good or not by examining his actions - but what do those actions show? Sadly, forum rules forbid me to answer.
Anyway, yes, that's how I determine if anyone I meet is a good person, and you could - in theory - do the same thing with God. But you've forgotten what we're debating. The question is not "Is God good or not?" The question is:
"Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?"
Saying that we can see that God is good because he does good things is, quite simply, asking a question you were not asked.

All three of these are the ways you determine whether anyone is good, how is that circular? How is that circular?

Because we're not determining whether anyone is good or not. We're discussing how you can tell what goodness itself is.
Your argument - if I may remind you - is that goodness is founded upon God's moral character. This, however, is circular reasoning. You are saying that God always tells us to do good things, and we know we can trust that this is true because God is good.
That is circular logic, and therefore invalid reasoning.

I think I have addressed it.

As we can see from what you said above, you don't even seem to remember what Euthyphro's Dilemma is!
To remind you, it is:
"Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?"
Your answer, from some time ago, was that an action is morally good because God commands it. The immediate response is, then, that your morality is no morality at all. If whatever God commands is good, then God could command anything - child rape, murder, adultery, torture, theft, anything - and it would be moral, because God has commanded it.
Your response was to say that God's morality is founded on His own unchanging and virtuous nature. But this doesn't avoid the problem, it merely relocates it. If it was in God's nature to lie, then lying would be good.
Your response to that was to say that God has never lied, and would never lie, or do anything bad. But how do we know what good and bad are? In your eyes, simply because God has told us. And so how can we know if His commands are morally worthy, as it is He who defines morality for you.
Your next response was to say that we can know, because we can test God's commands against our own moral sense, which (you then went on to invalidate your own argument by saying) God has given us. If you are using a moral sense designed and put in place by God, you might just as well ultimately be saying "I know God is good because He told me He is." Which is, of course, no use to anyone.

In summary, Euthyphro's Dilemma is a piece of logic that strikes right to the heart of any theist who says their morality is based upon their god or gods. It's an ancient logical puzzle that has stood the test of time, despite plenty of apologists who say that it's simple to disprove, and then find it isn't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All three of these are the ways you determine whether anyone is good, how is that circular? It is how you determine whether your friends are good, right? How is that circular?

You continue to argue in a circle. As @InterestedAtheist pointed out to you, you tell us good is defined by God's character. When we ask you how you know God is good, you compare his character to goodness itself. So the real meaning of goodness is something other than what God is.

No, you can determine His character BEFORE you know that your moral character came from Him.

If God exists, I know of no reliable way to know the character of God. If you say we go by the Bible, well, that book says he commanded the slaughter of children for what their ancestors did 400 years earlier, commanded the Israelites kill all the Midianites except the virgins which they could keep for themselves, praised the killing of Babylonian babies, and commanded Abraham to kill his son. Do you call these actions good?

You can also see if He is good by studying His character when He was on the earth by looking at the character of Jesus Christ.

First, the gospels are obviously largely fiction. They are written by unknown authors who wrote long after the events they claim to report. They conflict with each other and known history. Anybody can make up a fictional story where the central character is good.

Second, they don't always portray Jesus as good. For instance, Luke 11:37-40

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat.
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.
And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness.
Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?​

Is this any way to talk to a man who invited you to his house for dinner?

And third, even if the gospels are true, and they always portrayed Jesus as good, how would that make God good? As we have seen, when the gospels speak of Jesus and God, they speak of them as being two different "persons", not the same "person". See KJV Search Results for "jesus" AND "god" (blueletterbible.org)

Another thing you can do is see if His moral law has brought about good on the earth and that has been confirmed because almost everything good about Western Civilzation came from Christian principles.

Now you turn to the pragmatic argument. Christian morals work. Sure, and so do a lot of other morals.

And as you have been told and ignore, Western morals came from many sources.

So no, you have not shown that God is good, and you have not shown us a consistent definition of good.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are not fully understanding my point. I am referring to how would you convince the Nazis that what they did was wrong.

The Nazis were wrong. If there were applicable international laws, I would take the Nazis to court and try them in a court of International law. Else I would appeal to the need for human decency in order for people to have good lives.

How would you convince us that the Nazis were right or wrong?

The Nazis would not think that that picture showed any of those things. They would think the jews deserved it, how could you convince them with an objective argument?

I would tell the Nazis that the Jews were innocent until proven guilty. I would then put the burden of proof on them to make their case for guilt. That is the way courts work.

How would you convince us that the Jews did or did not deserve it?

You could only say that you feel human beings, all human beings, should be treated well and fairly as you state above.

False. I have told you the objective reasons that we need morality many times. You simply ignore what I say.

If you are going to clamp your hands over your ears whenever I
talk, then it is not my fault that you are not hearing me. And you cannot come back and then make up things that I was not saying.

That is not fair.

And they would say well those are your feelings, but they feel differently and that not all humans should be treated well.

I would still hold them accountable. The only way to have any kind of a meaningful life is if people choose to cooperate. If the Nazis feel they do not need to cooperate, then we we can lock them up.

So you both use your feelings to justify your actions.

That's what you hear when your hands are clamped over your ears. Why don't you take your hands away from your ears and listen to what we are actually saying?

Generally most people want to live according to objective reality. So they would be much more likely to listen to your objections to their behavior if you could demonstrate that there is an objective moral standard and they are violating it

I have stated my reasons many times. We need people to live in cooperative, moral ways in order to have any kind of a decent life. (Please listen to what I say.)

and will be held accountable for it...

Yes, the Nazis should be held accountable. We agree.

...either in this life or the next.

So you need to scare people with hell to make them do right?

Then why would God give Christians a free pass out of hell, if the only way to make them do right was to scare them with threats of hell?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Instead of playing Where's Waldo, let's play Where's God. In the picture below, where's God?

In this picture He is everywhere.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sorta like a mortician?

What if somebody is praying for the man? Does God still just stay in standby in case the medics fail?

If doctors and nurses are doing all they can to save the man, one would wander why God is just "at his side".

This is serious. Shouldn't he be helping?


But usually not?

God decides when a person’s time is done in this world. He might grant some more time to repent if they need it or He might not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

In this picture He is everywhere.

This post has nothing to do with Hitler, gay sex or the Big Bang.

Oh, wait, I get it. You are going back to the actual thread topic. What a great idea!

If God is in that room in the opening post, and God loves that man, why is that man suffering?

 

[doubtingmerle]

God decides when a person’s time is done in this world. He might grant some more time to repent if they need it or He might not.

How about some time to live life on earth to its fullest? That is what the sufferers from COVID want.

One would think, if God is good, he would want to help. If he was all powerful, he would be able to help.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Interesting. In Christian America, 125,000 people have died of Covid. And yet you say Christians have a lot better chance of getting something from God? Why didn't the dying get the help they needed?

They did, life in this world is not our goal. We may ask God for more time here but ultimately He knows what is best for us. Dying is nothing more than a transition from one place to another. Death from this world is not a loss, it’s actually a blessing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How about some time to live life on earth to its fullest? That is what the sufferers from COVID want.

One would think, if God is good, he would want to help. If he was all powerful, he would be able to help.

God knows more about what we want than we do.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God knows more about what we want than we do.

Ah, so some of those people really want to be in the hospital fighting for their life against a crippling disease, without their loved ones near them? Interesting. If that is what they want, why are the doctors even bothering to help them?

 

[doubtingmerle]

They did, life in this world is not our goal. We may ask God for more time here but ultimately He knows what is best for us. Dying is nothing more than a transition from one place to another. Death from this world is not a loss, it’s actually a blessing.

And yet every day, you choose those actions that keep your life going. If continuing a long, fulfilling life is not your goal, why are you trying to do that?

 

[BNR32FAN]

This post has nothing to do with Hitler, gay sex or the Big Bang.

Oh, wait, I get it. You are going back to the actual thread topic. What a great idea!

If God is in that room in the opening post, and God loves that man, why is that man suffering?

What do you mean by this?

“This post has nothing to do with Hitler, gay sex or the Big Bang.”

I can’t answer your question because I don’t know who that person is or how he or she lived her life. Furthermore neither you nor I know what God’s plan is for this person. Perhaps this person is an atheist and a life threatening or suffering situation is just what is needed to bring this person to repentance. Or maybe this person is a Christian and maybe thru their suffering they might bring someone else to repentance. Or maybe it’s just this person’s time to go to paradise with The Lord. We can only speculate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ah, so some of those people really want to be in the hospital fighting for their life against a crippling disease, without their loved ones near them? Interesting. If that is what they want, why are the doctors even bothering to help them?

Lol you don’t really put much thought into these questions, do you?