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.
And which basis would that be?Well I agree that humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and honor, but unlike you, I have a basis for making that assertion
Under a godless view of reality, man is merely one of many accidental by-products of a blind, uncaring, ultimately meaningless evolutionary process. He is an ape-like creature reproducing and evolving on a cosmic speck of dust in an uncaring universe and is beset by delusions of morality ingrained in him over a millenia of evolution. His sole existence is survival and reproduction.
When I think of "better", Roger Water's The Gunner's Dream comes to mind:
A place to stay
Enough to eat
Somewhere old heroes shuffle safely down the street
Where you can speak out loud
About your doubts and fears
And what's more no-one ever disappears
You never hear their standard issue kicking in your door.
You can relax on both sides of the tracks
And maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control
And everyone has recourse to the law
And no-one kills the children anymore.
Yes, a basis that allows for genocide and child rape as permissible. Care to provide a serious response to this post?...
Of course everone wants these things, but why do we consider these "hypothetical worlds" where there is no evil "better" than the one we are living in? Because humans are treated with dignity, respect and honor? Well I agree that humans should be treated with dignity, respect, and honor, but unlike you, I have a basis for making that assertion,
Yes, I do. Do I need to link back to those posts to show you wrong?you do not.
Under a godless view of reality, man is merely one of many accidental by-products of a blind, uncaring, ultimately meaningless evolutionary process. He is an ape-like creature reproducing and evolving on a cosmic speck of dust in an uncaring universe and is beset by delusions of morality ingrained in him over a millenia of evolution. His sole existence is survival and reproduction.
Presenting a strawman of [an] argument, then attacking it, is not good argumentation.
What he thinks is wrong is pretty much irrelevant to the point.
Your allegedly existing God´s allegedly objective morality says it is objectively wrong. So in your God´s eyes a world without it would be a better place.
We can simply compare the world as it is to your God´s own standards and conclude that from within the Christian pov the world could be better.
What we are not trying to do: demonstrate an inconsistency between different views. We are demonstrating a problem that´s inherent to your theology.
Hence, all the rest of your post with the tired old attacks on relative morality is just an attempt to distract from what´s actually being shown.
What he thinks is wrong is pretty much irrelevant to the point.
Your allegedly existing God´s allegedly objective morality says it is objectively wrong. So in your God´s eyes a world without it would be a better place. We can simply compare the world as it is to your God´s own standards and conclude that from within the Christian pov the world could be better.
What we are not trying to do: demonstrate an inconsistency between different views. We are demonstrating a problem that´s inherent to your theology.
That´s a different point than the one that I addressed in my post. Does that mean you concede that your point has been refuted?The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.
Sure I have thought of that. Assuming for a moment it is authored by an omnipotent omniscient creator God which even invented natural laws and all - the option are almost countless.Of course it could be. But what would have to take place for it to be better? Have you thought of that?
Well, if there is a solution from the Christian pov, it is somewhat unlikely that God needed to create this problem along with a possible solution.Evil is not a problem to Christianity, in fact, Christianity is the only worldview that can provide an accurate account of the existence of evil, and provide a solution as well.
And a perfect world would point away from his existence?Evil also points to God's existence, not away from it.
Both would be irrelevant to the argument at hand.Not at all. Since no one is actually a moral relativist, it really is not something that needs to be attacked. I would be attacking a strawman if I did. Demonstrating why people are not actually moral relativists is a whole other ballgame, and is sometimes necessary.
Actually, I was only correcting Elioenai in his perception as to what the actual argument of the poster was.Thank you, and let's build on that. What do you perceive as the problem inherent to theology? (I'm guessing you're going to say that earth is not heaven?)
So shall I take this response to the above questions as no, no, and no?Yes, a basis that allows for genocide and child rape as permissible. Care to provide a serious response to this post?
Yes, I do. Do I need to link back to those posts to show you wrong?
Do you even listen to yourself?
A distinction without a difference.Possible, not permissible. You used the wrong word.
Actually, I was only correcting Elioenai in his perception as to what the actual argument of the poster was.
But since you ask me: One problem I perceive is the contradiction between the Christian idea that the world is fallen, sinful, evil etc. and the Christian idea that God had to create the world in this way that came out as not to his liking.
A distinction without a difference.
I can see why you don't invite your brother here.
You, like Baz, are saying that some things in this world are objectively wrong or evil. You like Baz, must borrow from a theistic worldview regarding the infinite intrinsic worth of a human being to make such a statement. You cannot have humans who are intrinsically worthy of respect, honor, and dignity, without God. Read Nietzsche, read Dostoyevksy.
Thanks for offering!Thank you
I can show you why this is not the case in Christian theology if you like.
Thanks for offering!
Gotta admit, though, that I have seen countless attempts to solve such theological problems - none of which was convincing.
Don´t take it personally but I am not really too enthusiastic about seeing this stuff again and again.
IOW: if it´s one of the standard defenses I sure would take a look at your argument.
No, what I'm actually saying is that I feel that there are ways this universe could have been constructed so that I am better off than I am now. Where is this fabled "objective wrong" of which you speak?
That´s a different point than the one that I addressed in my post.
Does that mean you concede that your point has been refuted?
Sure I have thought of that. Assuming for a moment it is authored by an omnipotent omniscient creator God which even invented natural laws and all - the option are almost countless.
Well, if there is a solution from the Christian pov, it is somewhat unlikely that God needed to create this problem along with a possible solution.
And a perfect world would point away from his existence?
Both would be irrelevant to the argument at hand.
It should, however, be mentioned that your attempts to demonstrate why people aren´t actually moral relativists are countless, and none of them had been successful. You have tried this with me alone only three times, and each time you ran away or ended up throwing ad hominems at me.
No, what I'm actually saying is that I feel that there are ways this universe could have been constructed so that I am better off than I am now. Where is this fabled "objective wrong" of which you speak?
Yes, and I said this with emphasizing "in god´s eyes", as opposed to my or anbody else´s eyes (since you responded to the post in question as though it were saying the latter). I was merely clarifying what the argument was and was not.How is it different? You said that in God's eyes, a world without people hurting others [..]would be a better world. That is what you said quatona.
What do you mean - "God´s only view"? Does your God have changing or alternating views on this subject?I then asked you to prove why this would be God's only view.
That´s pretty trivial, isn´t it? You don´t create something that you abhor. That would be stupid.You can't, that was my whole point in saying: The burden of proof is on you to provide one reason why God could not abhor wrongdoing and at the same time create a world in which free moral agents have the capacity to commit wrongdoing.
I remember quite well what I wrote, and, besides, me, you and everyone can go back and re-read it if in doubt.In light of the facts that you do not even remember what you are posting and have failed to shoulder the burden of proof for your assertion, I will not concede that anything has been refuted.
Sure. An omnisicient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator god could have only admitted those beings into existence of which he knew they would use their so-called "free will" only for what god considers "right-doing".Ok. Name one. Just one.
You should be able to do that if the options are almost "countless"?
Unless he desired drama, he could have created that which (in case of a created problem) appears to be a "solution" right away.How does that follow? How does it follow that if Christianity provides a solution to the question of evil, that it would therefore be unlikely that God needed to create the problem of evil along with a possible solution?
So when you speak of "wrong-doing" you are actually referring to mere inaction?The objection is incoherent at best for it misconstrues the nature of evil for one. Evil is not something that is "created" as if it is a material object like a rock, or a human. Evil is a privation, or a lack in something that is inherently good.
I don´t see why God created "free moral agents" in the first place when the creation of "free moral agents" would lead to those wrongdoings God abhorred.You also would have to shoulder the burden of proof and provide a good reason why God could not create free moral agents with the capacity to do good or evil and at the same time, not provide a solution to the problem of evil.
Give me one example for a world that you´d consider inconsistent with an omni-God, and you´d have at least a half point.Any world that is consistent with what an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, God would create points to His existence.
The only question here is if we deal with it subjectively or allegedly objectively.Personally, anyone who can say that they do not deal in right and wrongdoing is morally deficient.
I have answered all your questions regarding my subjective value judgements. I just refused to answer your loaded questions concerning what is "objectively" right/wrong.That is akin to saying you are a moral nihilist. And you may say that all you want to on this forum, you can try to cleverly side step my questions and use sleight of hand semantics to keep from answering clear cut questions about what is right and what is wrong.
Well, here´s hoping that I am at least very different from you.But you are no different from anyone else here.
The dichotomy between "moral objectivist" and "sociopath" is false on many levels. It´s just your attempt to distract from the fact that you haven´t given a single substantiation for your claim that an "objective morality" exists by simply pathologizing those who do not swallow your empty assertions. Where I come from, that very bad discussion style. But it would be the first time that your alleged "objective morality" appears to be pretty permissive compared to my subjetive ethical values.You know that raping children is wrong among other things and you know this to be true regardless of what the rapist thinks. Unless, as I have stated earlier you are unable to say that raping children is wrong. If that is the case then you are sociopathic.
Yes, it came out wrong. Thanks for correcting me.I think that last sentence came out wrong, and you'd prefer something non-standard?
I would prefer to speak for myself. I can.My previous reference to "heaven" is in its simplest meaning: the best we can imagine. We can ALL imagine how this world could be better than it is now. Agreed?
To me the question is rather: If God wanted heaven to be the end result of his creation, why didn´t he create heaven right away?So, why is the world, and this life, less than perfect? Or in childishly simple terms, why is it not heaven?
Obviously - but the question is "why?".God's plan is for earth not to be heaven.
Ok, but why did he want the universe and us to be in this state?If we ever doubt that He recognizes the difference and the implications to us in the midst of our suffering, well that is one use for the symbol that is my faith icon. It serves as a reminder that He knows COMPLETELY.
Ok, but Christian theology points out differences between earth and heaven, doesn´t it? That would be my starting point. And I am still asking why God - if the "finished product" was heaven, couldn´t or didn´t want to create it right away.He sees the finished product, and we do not. Even as a Christian, I do not. Even those Christians that have had great visions of heaven, they will be the first to tell us that they do NOT comprehend the finished product.
No, sorry, not really - but I appreciate your efforts anyway.In the meantime we are still aware that this life and this world are indeed, not "heaven." This is theologically consistent, even though we would all like it to be different. And it will be! And no, its not a question of "just waiting for the sweet by and by." We all have an active role to fulfill between now and then, and each individual is both unique and important.
Here is a passage of Scripture that zeroes in on this:
"For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."
I quoted this in a modern translation (ESV) rather than the KJV. This one reads kind of clunky, and the original language has no punctuation. The part I emphasized tells us we are subjected to hope in the KJV, which despite being archaic drives home a point I hope you find relevant to our discussion?
There is one common question which is often posed as an objection to God's omnibenevolence and that is the question: "why does God not prevent or stop the evil in the world?"
"Why does God not stop all the child molestors and rapists and murderers, why does God not stop this or prevent that or do this or that...."
These types of questions, surprisingly are raised by many atheists. But I find it ironic that the few instance in which we see God acting to stop and to prevent such heinous acts in the Bible, these same objectors claim that God was wrong in in stopping these people!
On one hand, God is blamed for tolerating evil, and on the other hand when He is shown to act in judgment on people who commit such atrocities, He is branded as being a murderer and genocidal!
If there were known to us today, to be civilizations and societies in existence that behaved the way the Canaanites, Amorites and Amalekites, did in making it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies and young children on fiery pagan altars to gods, atheists would be among the many to cry out: "If God exists, then why does He not stop these atrocities!"
Yet, in cases where it is clear that this was happening, when God does act, He is judged as being a genocidal murderer!
It seems to me that the qualm with God is not that He does not act to judge sin, but that He indeed does exist and holds us morally accountable for our sins. It is evidently clear, that in some people's eyes (those who lack belief in God) that whatever God does, He fails to meet their moral standards. Which is ironic, for if there is no objective moral standard, then all we have is opinions, none being any closer to the non-existent standard than any other. And the opinion that God was somehow wrong in ordering the children to be killed is no closer to adhering to this non-existent moral standard than the opinion that God, since He is the author and giver of life, was justified in taking that life.
So what is the objection?
You are still using the word "better".
In fact, you cannot not know what this optimal ideal world is because everyone of us intuitively knows that things like murder, theft, rape, are wrong.
You speak of objective moral values and duties as if they are fables. I assure you my friend, contemporary philosophers know very well what objective moral values and duties are. Its called moral realism and the vast majority of philosophers and those in academia adhere to some form of it. Do some research on it.
You speak of rape, murder, and other thinks you dislike. Well I agree, I dislike them too. But according to you, if the objectivity of these actions is simply mythical or imaginary, then you cannot say any of the above are wrong.
Is that what you want us to believe? That rape is not wrong?
If you are unable to discern the difference between possible and permissible maybe you should be asking instead of flaming.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?