If god is real, god is amoral.

Author: RationalMadman
Morality
Philosophy
theism
theology
deism

Posts

Total: 255
#91
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
I've gone back through and read some previous post in this thread and I cannot for the life of me remember why I posted this. I just cannot find the context that I brought it up for now. I'm completely thrown off track by it LOL. I'm sure it made sense to me at the time but thanks for your response.
#92
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
An Apuffinist Stephen.
#93
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
An Apuffinist Stephen

That's sounds good, Vic lad. Is that Greek for I don't believe in the God of all Puffindom?
#94
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Paint your face stripy.


And GODPUFFIN created the Platypus and thought what the fuck.


And the Proboscis Monkey, looked in the still water and and also uttered........What the fuck.


And GODPUFFIN said unto Platypus and Proboscis Monkey....Care not......For KATE of the high end breathable outdoor wear will be thy salvation.


And so it came to be so.....That which is the BBC and Attenborough and all Humble came forth into the light and gave succour.


And the ugly little Bat fucker heard the Moth AND IT WAS GOOD.
#95
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Yep. Greek or Latin or something.

Are you a Puffin sceptic then?

Are you a HUMBLEIST?

Not bad for 53......But a little goes a long way.


#96
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you a Puffin sceptic then?

Not at all Vic lad.  I have seen the Puffins.  And let me tell you, much time has past since the days of the ancient Puffin tribes and nations and much much more 'knowing' and 'begatting'  and 'coming un into' has taken place. The Puffin nations have  given rise Penguins with  some that have their own Kings and Emperors - Divi filius 


Are you a HUMBLEIST?


She's nice and is informative. But not to be worshipped.

Not bad for 53......
53? Humble is only 53? Maybe she could be worshipped after all.




#97
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
53?.............Billion years of age.


And she cast the Dancing Penguins into the wildernesses of the frozen south.....Filii raptus in nomine deorum.

And the Puffin shall paint it's face as Mel Gibson and reside upon the Holy Isles of Northumbria.

From where the swooping Tern shall shit upon the heads of all celebrity ornithologists.
#98
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
No. That has nothing to do with my objection. You proposed that your description of God constitutes amorality. Demonstrate how your description of God constitutes amorality.
My description of God, which you stated was not your objection, is that it is logically impossible for anything bad to happen that is not in accordance with God’s will. Therefore, the existence of all bad things, say child sex trafficking rings for example, is in accordance with God’s will.

Do I really need to demonstrate for you how this constitutes amorality?
#99
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Yes, but one of those things He created happens to be free will, you seem to be forgetting that.
No, I’m not forgetting that. That’s irrelevant.

If I allowed my 1 year old the free will to decide whether she wants to cross the street and she got run over, is that moral?

Of course not, that’s absurd. If free will was a defense against knowingly allowing horrible acts to be committed by horrible people then it would be immoral to imprison anyone for anything.
#100
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Double_R
And yet some people do worship other gods.  The fact that some people worship other gods is NOT God's will.
Let’s go back to the beginning.

God is all powerful.

God is all knowing.

God is the creator of everything.

These three qualities do not allow for anything that happens to be anything other than God’s will. Why?

Because it is logically impossible under this set up for anything to exist without God having created it.

And if God created it and is all knowing, then he created it knowing full well what the results would be as he created it.

And if God is all powerful, then there are no circumstances where anything would have forced his hand to create anything he didn’t desire.

For you to claim that anything he created was not in accordance with his will either violates that he is all knowing or that he is all powerful. This isn’t rocket science. If I bake brownies that turned out to be full of THC, and this was not my desire, then I either did not know what was in them or was somehow pushed by outside forces into creating them that way against my desire. There are no other options.

You do realize that this is your beginning and one of the most often used strawman arguments provided by atheists.  Christians don't believe in the strawman god you have outlined.  Christians begin with God is Holy.  God is just and perfect. God is love. God is peace. God is truth.  Christians begin with the character of God. Non-Christians begin with the so called power attributes.   

To start with the power and not with the character simply reflects the idea that God is power.  Christians say power is only a small part of who and what God is. 

God's revealed will is that people should not worship other gods. You did not address this.  You chose to try and rejig the discussion to AVOID answering it. 

When you bother to address that question and statement - then we can look at the rejigging - to see if it is relevant. 
#101
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
If free will was a defense against knowingly allowing horrible acts to be committed by horrible people then it would be immoral to imprison anyone for anything.
Now your twisting the narrative to suit you, originally you stated

God is all powerful.

God is all knowing.

God is the creator of everything.

These three qualities do not allow for anything that happens to be anything other than God’s will.
The former is an argument of what’s defensible and the latter is an argument of what’s God’s will, I’m arguing that the only will God implements in life here on earth is free will, meaning He is not responsible for every horrible act that happens, it’s the animal that did those horrible acts responsibility.

Topic's author
#102
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Tradesecret
You do realize that this is your beginning and one of the most often used strawman arguments provided by atheists.  Christians don't believe in the strawman god you have outlined.  Christians begin with God is Holy.  God is just and perfect. God is love. God is peace. God is truth.  Christians begin with the character of God. Non-Christians begin with the so called power attributes.   

To start with the power and not with the character simply reflects the idea that God is power.  Christians say power is only a small part of who and what God is. 

God's revealed will is that people should not worship other gods. You did not address this.  You chose to try and rejig the discussion to AVOID answering it. 

When you bother to address that question and statement - then we can look at the rejigging - to see if it is relevant. 
Perhaps that explains why the believers are in the wrong then, their logic is backwards.

If a being has power to control and stop (as well as enable) everything, has infinite knowledge of all variables that are real and existent at any time and has omnipresence to be aware of all reality at all times and be active everywhere at once, it follows that nothing within the reality is able to unknowingly (accidentally) be occuring outside of God's wilful control.
#103
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R

My description of God, which you stated was not your objection, is that it is logically impossible for anything bad to happen that is not in accordance with God’s will.
Yes, we already know what your proposed description is.

Therefore, the existence of all bad things, say child sex trafficking rings for example, is in accordance with God’s will.
As would be raising one's children to be prominent philanthropists. In other words, the existence of all "good things"--and I'm quoting this for a reason--by the same measures applied in your description, is in accordance with God's will.

Do I really need to demonstrate for you how this constitutes amorality?
Yes, that's what I've demanded a few times already. Start off by defining, "amorality." Then delineate the moral framework with which you apply the descriptions, "good," and "bad." After that, you can let us know the reason this moral framework is the only moral framework worth considering. Then substantiate how the application of "bad" either voids or nullifies said moral framework. And finally, substantiate how God's action or inaction is consistent with the previously delineated application of the description, "bad."

#104
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
You do realize that this is your beginning and one of the most often used strawman arguments provided by atheists.  
First of all, it’s not a straw man. I am not portraying anyone’s position, I am attacking a very specific concept of god that you either accept or you do not. Please learn the difference.

Second, here’s your opportunity to fix it. Tell me which of the following statements is true:

A) God is not all powerful
B) God is not all knowing
C) God is not the creator of everything

Looking forward to your clarification.

To start with the power and not with the character simply reflects the idea that God is power.
I’m not “starting” anywhere. This is a specific rebuttal to a specific idea. You either accept the idea or you don’t, if you do then you need to resolve this, if you do not then this doesn’t apply to you.

God's revealed will is that people should not worship other gods. You did not address this.
Yes, I do address it. If you begin with the premises I laid out this is logically incoherent, so you have it backwards; you need to address the premises first so that we can talk about the God concept you advocate for. To  do otherwise is what an actual straw man looks like.
#105
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
The former is an argument of what’s defensible and the latter is an argument of what’s God’s will, I’m arguing that the only will God implements in life here on earth is free will, meaning He is not responsible for every horrible act that happens, it’s the animal that did those horrible acts responsibility.
First of all, this thread is literally about God’s morality so to claim I am twisting things by talking about what’s defensible is absurd. Follow our thread in context, that’s what we have been talking about the entire time.

Second, I understand what you are arguing, that’s why I laid out the premises showing how it’s logically impossible or at the very least logically incoherent.

If God is all powerful and all knowing then there is no such thing as an act he is not ultimately responsible for because it is not possible for anything to happen which he either didn’t know about or couldn’t stop.  What is so difficult about this?
#106
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
See: Christianity Isn’t Immoral—It’s Amoral
August 3, 2012

(contained within:)
I don’t really see the problem.  Just think this instead.
An idea that’s often trotted out when atheists ask for concrete evidence of God’s existence is that if he gave us concrete proof, we wouldn’t be able to make an independent decision.  Such an explanation is preposterous.  Imagine an earthly analog: a lawyer who has evidence that will conclusively vindicate his client, but won’t show it to the jury because that would unfairly sway their verdict.  Giving people a reason to believe something does not diminish the strength or validity of that belief.  If anything, it enhances it.  We could fake it and say that we believe whatever is asked of us to believe, but God’s omniscient, remember?  Faking it obviously won’t work on him.
So let’s return to the “only faith matters” idea.  If murder, genocide, and slavery can be wiped clean by genuine penitence and regret for what you’ve done, reopening the door to heaven — and they can, clearly — the law is no longer relevant.  In fact, Jesus himself broke the law when he refused to punish an adulteress (or her strangely absent partner-in-crime) in the gospel of John, chapter 8.  The law is unequivocal: adulterers must be stoned.  God said so.  But Jesus violated that mandate.  Furthermore, the phrase “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” implies that only the sinless can punish the sinful, and no human being can be sinless.  Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”  Couple that with Jesus’ charge in Matt 5:38, “Do not resist one who is evil,” and you have a framework for removing human law altogether.  We’re no longer allowed to tell other people what’s right and wrong, and if they do wrong, we’re not allowed to stop them.  We as humans have been effectively forbidden from exacting justice on our fellow human beings in any form.

#107
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Do I really need to demonstrate for you how [the allowance of child sex trafficking rings] constitutes amorality?
Yes, that's what I've demanded a few times already. Start off by defining, "amorality." Then delineate the moral framework with which you apply the descriptions, "good," and "bad." After that, you can let us know the reason this moral framework is the only moral framework worth considering. Then substantiate how the application of "bad" either voids or nullifies said moral framework. And finally, substantiate how God's action or inaction is consistent with the previously delineated application of the description, "bad." 
If you need it explained to you why the allowance of a child sex trafficking rings is amoral please seek help. Immediately. DART is not where you need to be.
#108
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
If you need it explained to you why the allowance of a child sex trafficking rings is amoral please seek help. Immediately. DART is not where you need to be.
Your diversions won't work. You affirmed a proposition. You have yet to provide sufficient information in support of this affirmation. Your feigning concern for my mental stability and/or character was neither solicited nor relevant. If you are incapable of satisfying the onus your affirmation has created, as I suspect, then you are more than welcome to concede that fact. This ill-mannered display, contrary to your presumed intentions, does not help you save face.
#109
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
If God is all powerful and all knowing then there is no such thing as an act he is not ultimately responsible for because it is not possible for anything to happen which he either didn’t know about or couldn’t stop.  What is so difficult about this?
You taking that to mean God is amoral, if that were true we wouldn’t have concepts like heaven or hell.
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
No, it wouldn't. You would have to demonstrate how a lack of interference or inaction constitutes amorality.
(IFF) you are fully aware of an atrocity (even many years and or eons BEFORE it happens) (AND) you are fully capable of ending that atrocity (with no danger to yourself and with little to no effort) (AND) you decide to do "nothing" (THEN) you are morally culpable for that atrocity

#111
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
You taking that to mean God is amoral, if that were true we wouldn’t have concepts like heaven or hell.
the question is rather, who gets into heaven and who gets into hell and WHY

the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"
#112
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you are fully aware of an atrocity (even many years and or eons BEFORE it happens) (AND) you are fully capable of ending that atrocity (with no danger to yourself and with little to no effort) (AND) you decide to do "nothing" (THEN) you are morally culpable for that atrocity
If we were to indulge this, that still wouldn't make God, "amoral." "Immoral" perhaps, but not "amoral." One would first have to demonstrate how God's action and/or inaction is subject to this moral framework, and the reason said moral framework is prominent above all others. As for the proposed moral reasoning, I would object given that I oppose "Good Samaritan" obligations.
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I would object given that I oppose "Good Samaritan" obligations.
i generally agree

the "trolley problem" is easily "solved" when you understand that the person in question did not CAUSE the situation itself and therefore cannot be "morally culpable"

substituting an omnipotent omniscient creator "god" in any hypothetical "trolley problem" changes the math

an OOC "god" cannot claim ignorance and cannot sidestep their part in creating the situation

OOC = full moral culpability for all events and outcomes
#114
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
i generally agree

the "trolley problem" is easily "solved" when you understand that the person in question did not CAUSE the situation itself and therefore cannot be "morally culpable"
Excellent.

substituting an omnipotent omniscient creator "god" in any hypothetical "trolley problem" changes the math

an OOC "god" cannot claim ignorance and cannot sidestep their part in creating the situation

OOC = full moral culpability for all events and outcomes
That's a better argument. And if you look here:

God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.
By that very same metric, God has also made the brains, bodies, and life events of each individual who have never committed a crime, who contribute large amounts of time and labor to their communities, and live content lives. Again, you would have to establish how inaction or non-interference establishes amorality.
and here:

I understand; that is, however, not the basis of my objection. As pointed out to RationalMadman: if God is responsible for all the bad outcomes, by that very same measure, God is also responsible for all the good outcomes. How is that indicative of an "amoral God"?
I've reached the same conclusion, if we sustain your reasoning. So then I must ask: do you also sustain that "OOC God" must be "amoral" with respect to your preferred definition? If so, please make your definition of "amoral" explicit.


#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If we were to indulge this, that still wouldn't make God, "amoral." "Immoral" perhaps, but not "amoral."
"moral" and "immoral" are only coherent concepts from the perspective of an individual

however, regardless of which individual you might decide to ask, OOC is clearly "morally culpable" in all conceivable cases

an OOC is beyond human "moral judgement" and therefore best described as "amoral"

human "moral judgement" is based on human experience and human regret and human goals

an OOC has no human experience and is incapable of human regret and human goals

an OOC does not "learn from their mistakes" because they are incapable of learning because they already know everything

an OOC is not subject to the judgement of their social peers because an OOC is peerless (by definition)

only humans can be properly "moral" or "immoral"

a dog may commit atrocities, a spider and a shark may act with brutal efficiency, but they cannot be "immoral"

no matter how shrewd, animals and forces of nature are "amoral"

strangely, human "morality" seems closely tangled with the magical concept of "free-will"

and it bears mentioning that an OOC cannot have "free-will"
#116
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
"moral" and "immoral" are only coherent concepts from the perspective of an individual

however, regardless of which individual you might decide to ask, OOC is clearly "morally culpable" in all conceivable cases

an OOC is beyond human "moral judgement" and therefore best described as "amoral"

human "moral judgement" is based on human experience and human regret and human goals

an OOC has no human experience and is incapable of human regret and human goals

an OOC does not "learn from their mistakes" because they are incapable of learning because they already know everything

an OOC is not subject to the judgement of their social peers because an OOC is peerless (by definition)

only humans can be properly "moral" or "immoral"

a dog may commit atrocities, a spider and a shark may act with brutal efficiency, but they cannot be "immoral"

no matter how shrewd, animals and forces of nature are "amoral"

strangely, human "morality" seems closely tangled with the magical concept of "free-will"

and it bears mentioning that an OOC cannot have "free-will"
So then an OOC would be "amoral" by mere virtue of its being, rendering its presidency over all events and outcomes--"good" or "bad"--inconsequential, right?

#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
If so, please make your definition of "amoral" explicit.
perfecto
#118
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Athias
God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.
By that very same metric, God has also made the brains, bodies, and life events of each individual who have never committed a crime, who contribute large amounts of time and labor to their communities, and live content lives. Again, you would have to establish how inaction or non-interference establishes amoralit
This is all due to God's lack of knowledge of Quality Control. This is why God got voted off of MasterGod.
#119
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
So then an OOC would be "amoral" by mere virtue of its being, rendering its presidency over all events and outcomes--"good" or "bad"--inconsequential, right?
there is a very natural inclination for humans to project human motives and human emotions onto an imagined god

we spend our formative years knowing very little about the world and our parents and or guardians are virtual gods to us

some people never quite grow out of this mindset

the logical problem arises when anyone claims their preferred god is the OOC

with an OOC, all "humanity" instantly goes out the window

"the watchmen" illustrates this surprisingly well

in the television version, humans live in a world with something undeniably ALMOST OOC

and two different characters develop the capability to turn themselves into ALMOST OOC

and when the existing ALMOST OOC is asked, "why don't you try and stop them?"

they respond with something like, "if they achieve their aim of becoming like me, they will only want what i want, they will want like i want, they will not want what they wanted when they were mere humans"
#120
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
perfecto
Haha.

there is a very natural inclination for humans to project human motives and human emotions onto an imagined god

we spend our formative years knowing very little about the world and our parents and or guardians are virtual gods to us

some people never quite grow out of this mindset

the logical problem arises when anyone claims their preferred god is the OOC

with an OOC, all "humanity" instantly goes out the window

"the watchmen" illustrates this surprisingly well

in the television version, humans live in a world with something undeniably ALMOST OOC

and two different characters develop the capability to turn themselves into ALMOST OOC

and when the existing ALMOST OOC is asked, "why don't you try and stop them?"

they respond with something like, "if they achieve their aim of becoming like me, they will only want what i want, they will want like i want, they will not want what they wanted when they were mere humans"
Culpability of an OOC for all the "bad" outcomes are just projections?

NOTE: I don't reject the argument that God is an amoral being because morality applies strictly to human behavior. I reject the argument that God is amoral because bad outcomes are the exemplar for which God has failed to intervene, thereby making God "amoral."