No Absolute Morality WITH God Either

[David Sklansky]

"I get your point. You want neither God nor morality to exist."

They don't, regardless of whether I want that or not. You do agree that such is basically the case for penguins don't you? Deist penguins don't count.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't think you get my point. It is merely that what is morally right or wrong is a matter of opinion. God may have good reasons to ask for actions. But that doesn't mean that they are moraL. Perhaps this is just semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a matter of semantics only, but of how you define "God" and His attributes. Since we christians define God in part as the supreme Truth who is All-Knowing as well as All-Just and omnipotent, then it should be evident that for us, God's "rules" and "opinions" are logically equivalent to TRUTH, and thus He can tell us what is just.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this is what you mean... but...

If God is the Absolute moral standard, then morals are still relative -- to God!

So, morals can be relative to humans -- that we know exist, and can poll to get their opinions on various ethical situations -- OR, they can be relative to "God" -- that we don't know exists, and can't poll to get his opinion on ethical situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if God = Morality. Morals must be seperate from god to be relative to him. If God is the moral law then no moral relativity is possible in relation to god.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if this is what you mean... but...

If God is the Absolute moral standard, then morals are still relative -- to God!

So, morals can be relative to humans -- that we know exist, and can poll to get their opinions on various ethical situations -- OR, they can be relative to "God" -- that we don't know exists, and can't poll to get his opinion on ethical situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if God = Morality. Morals must be seperate from god to be relative to him. If God is the moral law then no moral relativity is possible in relation to god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain what "God = Morality" means? Or is that one of those mysteries we can't know?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
They don't, regardless of whether I want that or not. You do agree that such is basically the case for penguins don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not recognizing the fundamental differences between humans and penguins is a pretty critical error.

[atrifix]

Well, we usually take God to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good being. To say that God = good seems rather circular. Triangles are defined as three-sided, closed geometrical figures, but I could explain to someone what it means to be three-sided, closed, or a geometrical figure without having to refer them to a triangle. Likewise, omnipotence and omniscience can be explained without referencing God--why not omnibenevolence?

How we know a standard is good is a question for metaethics and deontology, which are not incompatible with religion.

Not only do religious adherents want to explain the cause of the universe (god) but they want to take it a step further and describe god as being ALL GOOD. When in fact, all evidence supports the contrary. Nothing on this planet seems to fit with the Christian/Hindu/Judaic concept of morality and goodness--not the way wolves, tigers and alligators live, not the way most humans live, not even the way a hurricane behaves. There is no evidence on this planet that there exists anything TOTALLY kind, good or benevolent in the way the typical moral code dictates.
For most people that creates a sense of fear so intense, they need to ascribe that to a Deity in order to assuage their fears...

g

[atrifix]

I should mention that there are in fact three ways for God to be all-good:

1) There is some moral code that "exists" independently of God. However, God always abides by this moral code in virtue of his nature.

2) God self-predicates the good. That is, whatever God does is then what is good, and whatever he doesn't do (or command) is bad. This is what the majority of Euthyphro examines.

3) God and the good are identical. This is logically possible, but seems pretty vacuous. What does it mean to say "God=good"?

If god (assuming it exists) is defined as all-good, than by the very statement hurricanes are good, serial killers are good, etc. That defeats the point of our basic moral concepts. The idea that there is a god who decided that certain things are good and bad, than basicaly created a world where absolutely NOTHING conforms to this moral structure makes very little sense. I want one religious believer to step up and name something observable on this planet which adheres to this moral structure they espouse. There isnt one single example of this. They will point to Jesus whom nobody has met or seen and they may point to Saints most of whom noone has met either. I will again say that nothing in nature such as animals, insects, or even weather patterns show any prediliction to follow this moral structure. This seems to defy the idea that a moral code has any basis other than societal foundations.

[ QUOTE ]
I just doubt that if there are “rules” from God that anyone would find them debatable (again assuming a “good” God.

[/ QUOTE ]