A Brotherhood of Man

treeplanter

Well-known member
Not really. The Christian would separate their individual morality and what they perceived as God's morality.



Skeptical theism and utilitarianism are similar in that it they both take into account other criteria than just a prima facie glance in order to determine the morality of an action. A utilitarian could just justify drowning babies and owning slaves so long as those situation justified some moral end.
Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I said, isn't it?

We all, for the most part, share a human morality that we, individuals, hold collectively to be true

We all, atheist and Christian alike, recognize when God is in violation of our said standard of right and wrong
It's just that Christians insist, for some bizarre reason, that He is not subject to our standard - that He is separate, as you say

Me, I categorize this phenomena of making excuses for God as a suppression of the individual's own better judgment



Alright, so a utilitarian might be able to justify drowning babies IF AND WHEN there is no other way to remove babies from a wicked world and deliver them to Heaven

However, there is NO moral justification for God to drown babies because He CAN remove them from a wicked world and deliver them to Heaven WITHOUT inflicting the harm of drowning upon them!
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
We all, atheist and Christian alike, recognize when God is in violation of our said standard of right and wrong

Assuming God exist, our standards are irrelevant.

It's just that Christians insist, for some bizarre reason, that He is not subject to our standard - that He is separate, as you say

If there is a God, he wouldn't be subject to our standard for any real consequence. It's just whining at that point.

Me, I categorize this phenomena of making excuses for God as a suppression of the individual's own better judgment

Or realising our standards are irrelevant to a deity.

Alright, so a utilitarian might be able to justify drowning babies IF AND WHEN there is no other way to remove babies from a wicked world and deliver them to Heaven

A utilitarian could justify practically anything. Utility monsters are nightmares.

However, there is NO moral justification for God to drown babies because He CAN remove them from a wicked world and deliver them to Heaven WITHOUT inflicting the harm of drowning upon them!

So are you asserting the Flood of Noah actually happened?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Assuming God exist, our standards are irrelevant.



If there is a God, he wouldn't be subject to our standard for any real consequence. It's just whining at that point.



Or realising our standards are irrelevant to a deity.



A utilitarian could justify practically anything. Utility monsters are nightmares.



So are you asserting the Flood of Noah actually happened?
And I'm supposed to accept that our standard is irrelevant because a being who drowns babies, condones slavery, and commands followers to kill unbelievers tells us that our standards are irrelevant?

Methinks that it is He who is irrelevant!

Agreed, if God is real then He will do as He pleases and there is nothing we can do about it
That said, it is not "whining" to hold Him accountable for His actions and with hold from Him the glorification that He desperately desires

I imagine a man can justify just about anything
What, though, does this have to do with God behaving immorally?

Did the Flood really happen?
No, I don't think so
I don't believe that God exists - it goes without saying that if there is no God then there was no Flood

What I am asserting is that those who do believe in God and do believe that He drowned babies ought to turn away from Him because it is evil and immoral to have drowned babies!
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Can't back up your implied assertions, eh?



No, you won't. You just said no thanks to my question about EVIDENCE to Helen Keller. Wanna see it again so you can fail twice:

Helen Keller is tied to a chair six feet away from a table on which sits a pair of scissors. She doesn't believe the scissors are there. What empirical evidence would you offer to DEMONSTRATE to her the reality of the scissors?

Reply
I just have no reply here. But thanks for the chat.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
And I'm supposed to accept that our standard is irrelevant because a being who drowns babies, condones slavery, and commands followers to kill unbelievers tells us that our standards are irrelevant?

No, but our standards are would be irrelevant to a deity. Our standards are only relevant to us.
Methinks that it is He who is irrelevant!

That's fine. Doesn't bother me.

Agreed, if God is real then He will do as He pleases and there is nothing we can do about it
That said, it is not "whining" to hold Him accountable for His actions and with hold from Him the glorification that He desperately desires

If you don't want to glorify God, that's your business, I doubt that would a deity.

I imagine a man can justify just about anything
What, though, does this have to do with God behaving immorally?

I was in reference to utilitarianism.

What I am asserting is that those who do believe in God and do believe that He drowned babies ought to turn away from Him because it is evil and immoral to have drowned babies!

Within the Christian theological context of the Flood, the babies would have had original sin, death is a part of that process unfortunately. The only two individuals that didn't die were Enoch and Elijah but they were extremely close to God. Hence also the analogy between sceptical theism and utilitarianism as means to justify anything. If God is the Good, then God's actions would be morally justified no matter what actions God took. If God is fine with slavery relative to a specific circumstance, that's God's business. In order to declare something moral or immoral, you'd have to have all the relevant facts. Being omniscient by definition, God would have all the relevant facts to make such a determination.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
No, but our standards are would be irrelevant to a deity. Our standards are only relevant to us.


That's fine. Doesn't bother me.



If you don't want to glorify God, that's your business, I doubt that would a deity.



I was in reference to utilitarianism.



Within the Christian theological context of the Flood, the babies would have had original sin, death is a part of that process unfortunately. The only two individuals that didn't die were Enoch and Elijah but they were extremely close to God. Hence also the analogy between sceptical theism and utilitarianism as means to justify anything. If God is the Good, then God's actions would be morally justified no matter what actions God took. If God is fine with slavery relative to a specific circumstance, that's God's business. In order to declare something moral or immoral, you'd have to have all the relevant facts. Being omniscient by definition, God would have all the relevant facts to make such a determination.
I can live with that...our standards are irrelevant to Him and His standards are irrelevant to us

"My" business whether or not I choose to glorify God?
I disagree - I think it's OUR business whether or not one chooses to glorify God

To glorify God entails, among other things, that one is substituting His judgement for their own
To glorify God means that one is adopting His moral standard over our collective standard

Being that His standard is inferior to our own and being that a moral standard, by which each of us chooses to operate, most certainly does affect how we interact with one another - I'd say that we all have a vested interest in whether or not one chooses a substandard standard by way of glorifying Him!

Are you assuming that all atheists are utiltarians?

Yes, I realize that, within a Christian theological context, the babies that were drowned deserved to be drowned
Do you realize, though, that it is evil and immoral to regard babies as guilty - much less deserving of being drowned?

God is NOT "the good" {regarding babies as guilty is proof of this} and actions are NOT morally justified on the basis of whom it is undertaking an action - actions are either immoral or not immoral on the basis of whether or not they conform to a standard of right from wrong
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
I can live with that...our standards are irrelevant to Him and His standards are irrelevant to us

If there's an afterlife, God's standard would be relevant if that affects how you want to spend it. For example, If the Christians are right and you want to go to Heaven, then God's standard would be relevant. Same for Islam, Buddhism, etc.

"My" business whether or not I choose to glorify God?
I disagree - I think it's OUR business whether or not one chooses to glorify God.

If you don't want to glorify God, that's up to you. If someone else does, that's up to them.

To glorify God entails, among other things, that one is substituting His judgement for their own

An omniscient being would have all the relevant facts so God's judgement would have better apprehension of what was "good judgement". That's not really substitution, just recognition.

To glorify God means that one is adopting His moral standard over our collective standard

There's hardly any coherent "collective standard. Besides, that's just an ad populum.

Being that His standard is inferior to our own and being that a moral standard, by which each of us chooses to operate, most certainly does affect how we interact with one another - I'd say that we all have a vested interest in whether or not one chooses a substandard standard by way of glorifying Him!

You've presented no evidence that God's standard is inferior to human collective standard.

Are you assuming that all atheists are utilitarians?

I never said atheists were utilitarians, I merely commented on utilitarianism as that's common position. If someone isn't a utilitarian, it doesn't apply to them.

Yes, I realize that, within a Christian theological context, the babies that were drowned deserved to be drowned
Do you realize, though, that it is evil and immoral to regard babies as guilty - much less deserving of being drowned?

My lack of knowledge of relevant moral facts at the time the Flood occurred does not mean that no relevant moral facts existed.

God is NOT "the good" {regarding babies as guilty is proof of this} and actions are NOT morally justified on the basis of whom it is undertaking an action - actions are either immoral or not immoral on the basis of whether or not they conform to a standard of right from wrong

How do you know that God's actions were not morally justified? Are you aware of all the relevant moral facts? Are you omniscient?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
If there's an afterlife, God's standard would be relevant if that affects how you want to spend it. For example, If the Christians are right and you want to go to Heaven, then God's standard would be relevant. Same for Islam, Buddhism, etc.



If you don't want to glorify God, that's up to you. If someone else does, that's up to them.



An omniscient being would have all the relevant facts so God's judgement would have better apprehension of what was "good judgement". That's not really substitution, just recognition.



There's hardly any coherent "collective standard. Besides, that's just an ad populum.



You've presented no evidence that God's standard is inferior to human collective standard.



I never said atheists were utilitarians, I merely commented on utilitarianism as that's common position. If someone isn't a utilitarian, it doesn't apply to them.



My lack of knowledge of relevant moral facts at the time the Flood occurred does not mean that no relevant moral facts existed.



How do you know that God's actions were not morally justified? Are you aware of all the relevant moral facts? Are you omniscient?
I agree - if one values one's comfort over one's own integrity then, yes, it behooves one to conform to the standard that God has laid out

I agree - each of us are free to glorify God or not glorify God as we see fit - however, this does not mean that we should sit back and do nothing when we see someone else making the wrong choice

Of course there is a collective human standard!
We have agreed that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral
Most every human being on earth conforms to this standard {in theory, at least, if not in practice...}

Regarding the drowning of babies in the Flood:

How do I know that God's actions were not morally justified?

Because I know that babies, by definition, are incapable of doing and / or being evil
Because I know that babies, by definition, are innocent and do not deserve to be drowned
Because I know that being drowned is harmful to a baby
Because I know that God acted consciously
Because I know that God acted purposefully
Because I know that God acted needlessly
And because I know that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral

Am I aware of all the relevant moral facts?

Yes - see above

Am I omniscient?

No
Bear in mind, though, I don't need to be omniscient in order to know that there is NO SUCH THING as a "moral fact" that justifies the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm

Very often, human beings have no other choice except to consciously and purposefully inflict harm in order to achieve a desired end
In such cases, the harm is NECESSARY and NEEDED

God NEVER NEEDS to inflict harm in order to achieve His desired end
When God consciously and purposefully inflicts harm it is ALWAYS, by definition, NEEDLESS

You keep wanting to talk about God's omniscience
Let's talk about God's omnipotence

An omnipotent God is never, ever compelled to inflict harm in order to achieve a given end
An omnipotent God can always achieve whatever end it wants without causing harm in the process

God, according to scripture, consciously and purposefully drowned babies in the Flood
If He is omnipotent, as scripture claims, then, by definition, this means that He drowned those babies NEEDLESSLY
He didn't have to do it
He chose to do it

And, to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is to be immoral
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
Of course there is a collective human standard!
We have agreed that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral
Most every human being on earth conforms to this standard {in theory, at least, if not in practice...}

That standard varies in actual application. Still, it's an ad populum

Regarding the drowning of babies in the Flood:

How do I know that God's actions were not morally justified?

Because I know that babies, by definition, are incapable of doing and / or being evil
Because I know that babies, by definition, are innocent and do not deserve to be drowned

Theologically, they would still have the stain of original sin so they wouldn't be completely innocent in that sense. Assuming physical death is a punishment for sin, even just original sin and not just actual sin, the death would be justified.

Because I know that being drowned is harmful to a baby
Because I know that God acted consciously
Because I know that God acted purposefully
Because I know that God acted needlessly

God apparently determined it wasn't "needless".

And because I know that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm is immoral

Am I aware of all the relevant moral facts?

Yes - see above

Am I omniscient?

No

If you're not omniscient, then there are logically possible moral facts of which you were not aware.

Bear in mind, though, I don't need to be omniscient in order to know that there is NO SUCH THING as a "moral fact" that justifies the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm

Very often, human beings have no other choice except to consciously and purposefully inflict harm in order to achieve a desired end
In such cases, the harm is NECESSARY and NEEDED

God NEVER NEEDS to inflict harm in order to achieve His desired end
When God consciously and purposefully inflicts harm it is ALWAYS, by definition, NEEDLESS

You keep wanting to talk about God's omniscience
Let's talk about God's omnipotence

An omnipotent God is never, ever compelled to inflict harm in order to achieve a given end
An omnipotent God can always achieve whatever end it wants without causing harm in the process

I would agree that omnipotence by is itself is neutral when it comes to motivation for an act and so it. by itself, doesn't limited or otherwise place conditions on actions. However, the God of the Bible is not merely an omnipotent but rather has motivational attributes as well. Such attributes would have to be taken into account when acting.
 
Top