A problem with some religous views

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The only logical problem I see has already been touched upon: the fact that you are assuming an absolute morality that both you and God are subject to, and can both appeal to. God could be subject to a completely different moral code than you are , in which case your moral code could quite rightly tell you that it is wrong, and God would still be good.

Also, there's the chance that all three of the possibilities you listed could be correct, as they are not mutually exclusive.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making any assumption about an absolute morality for me. The only assumption for me is that I have moral feelings which I do.

It doesn't matter if all the possibilities are true as long as they can't all be false when the premise is true.

I'm not arguing against all religons (at least don't think so, but its possible I suppose) but my intention will become clear if we can agree on this simple logical argument (which seems in doubt at the moment [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You have two numbered as 1.

The first:

[ QUOTE ]

1. My moral sense tells me that a god that enforces the given statement is repugnant.


[/ QUOTE ]

is just a statement of your moral code.

The second number 1. :

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me, god is not good, or any religon that subscribes to the view in the statement is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

combines the premise of the first number 1 and implicitly adds the premises I stated.

Your logic is not necessarly wrong but it is stated in a confused way, which is why I tried to rearrange it.

Ignoring my attempt at formal logic, what I said in my other post still applies.

I'm also not sure what you mean when you say:

[ QUOTE ]

If 1. is true then either my moral sense misleads me


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean it is true that your moral sense tells you this or

Do you mean your moral sense is true and God would be immoral if He punished sinners?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see the confusion. All that is meant by the single premise being true is that it is true that I have the moral feeling not that the moral feeling is correct.

Does that make sense now?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the baby in Africa who just died form AIDS at 4 days old? Or the Buddhist monk who never heard of Jesus? Or your own gift to us The Who’s Tommy? My God will be harsher on me who does believe than these examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

I met Pete Townsend in the street once and we used to go to the same pub occasionally. We never spoke.

Before we get to the application, I'm hoping to get some consensus on the theory.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
i would argue that your 'moral sense' is meaningless if you believe atheism is true. if your 'moral sense' is legitimate, then there must be an absolute moral standard. an absolute moral standard, as Sklansky can attest to (dont know why im appealing to sklansky!), is inconsistent with a godless universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

having read Notready's response I realise a source of the confusion is the idea that I am making some big claim about my moral feeling being true.

I'm not, all I mean is that I feel something is wrong in the same way I feel pain. Presumably you can accept I have feelings whether or not I believe in god.

Given that clarification is there any way I can have that feeling and the conclusion not follow. If you think it is possible then can you tell me how?

Thanks

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking about this in the wrong sense. It's not that God isn't good because He is only saving those who believe. If God did what was fair, we'd all be cast into the fires of Hell. It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
consider the statement:

"we are all guilty of sins, those who believe can get redemption and those who don't believe have no chance of redemption and will be punished"

The religons I have a problem with claim that this statement (or something similar) is true.

My moral sense tells me that a god who enforces this view is morally repugnant.

So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.


There's more but it all relies on this simple argument. Any flaw in the logic?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking about this in the wrong sense. It's not that God isn't good because He is only saving those who believe. If God did what was fair, we'd all be cast into the fires of Hell. It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking about what in the wrong sense? I'm not claiming that statement reflects any particular religous view or is true.

I think I've clarified this in the thread, can you let me know if its clear and what you think of the logical argument?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
It is through His grace and mercy that He chooses to save those who accept the sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross.

[/ QUOTE ]

Save us from what?

He is all-powerful and created the universe, so what is there to save us from?

And since we are his own creations, why are we culpable for having weaknesses?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are looking for as what I am about to say has been explained in the thread several times already. You are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. The reason for this is because absolute morality comes from God.

Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.

From what I've read in this thread, you don't seem to object to the statement that we are all sinners. What I meant by my earlier post, is that the fair thing would be for God to send everyone of us to Hell because of our sin. So how is saving a few from the fires of Hell morally repugnant? His offer is open to everyone. It is you who are rejecting it.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it that so many mopral compasses of people and cultures which do not believe in your god appear to operate correctly? And so many moral compasses of those who do profess belief in your god, do not? In fact, it might be a hard sell to show any differences between the moral compasses of christians through history and those of non-christians. So much for that unfounded theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So either I am being deceived by my feelings of right and wrong, god isn't good, or that religous view is mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are looking for as what I am about to say has been explained in the thread several times already. You are being deceived by your feelings of right and wrong. The reason for this is because absolute morality comes from God.

Think about a compass. Just as a compass can be made to read incorrectly due to local magnetic fields (minerals, etc.), so is the same with a person's moral compass if he or she is not focused on God.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're agreeing the argument is logically valid, am I right about that?

chez