-->
@FLRW
This is all due to God's lack of knowledge of Quality Control. This is why God got voted off of MasterGod.
Quality subject to what measures? Who determines it?
If god is real, god is amoral.
Posts
Total:
255
-->
@Athias
Culpability of an OOC for all the "bad" outcomes are just projections?
yes
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."
(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all things
for example,
if a woman "created" two new humans, and raised them to be phenomenal individuals (by widely accepted modern standards), would that give the woman in question LICENSE to murder two people ?
such an individual might ask themself, "is morality like mathematics ?"
i recently encountered the concept of "moral hazard"
Do you cap and trade your good and bad deeds?
A friend of mine shared this story with me about a study that showed environmentalists were more likely to steal, cheat and lie, and it really fascinated me. It highlighted the idea of “compensatory ethics,” the idea that people act as if they have to (or can) balance the good and bad they do — if they do something good, they need (or can) to do something bad to compensate.
After reading the article, I read this opinion piece about not only why environmentalists might be inclined to do bad, but why anyone who does good deeds is more apt to also do bad deeds:
So when you do the right thing, but not to any particular person, we instinctively feel that we have earned some sort of pay back. Since no-one will do that for us, we opt for self-service reciprocation.
"redemption" is a common theme in the stories we tell, but apparently the idea can be a double-edged-sword
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all things
I agree. So would it not then be inconsistent-- even contradictory--to refer to this OOC as "amoral" given that their moral concepts would necessitate that this OOC be projected as a moral being?
if a woman "created" two new humans, and raised them to be phenomenal individuals (by widely accepted modern standards), would that give the woman in question LICENSE to murder two people ?
Using my adopted moral framework as a measure? H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks No.
Do you cap and trade your good and bad deeds?
I know this is rhetorical, but I know individuals who believe in "Karma" maintaining that something bad will be met with something equally bad, so they must insure themselves with "good Karma." I've always rebuffed with the notion that it's about balancing the Karmic checkbook. Mistakes made are mistakes made; bad decisions are bad decisions; one can learn from them or not.
The medieval Catholics used to hammer this concept hard with the practice of indulgences. Except rather than trade good for bad, one would trade money for good.
A friend of mine shared this story with me about a study that showed environmentalists were more likely to steal, cheat and lie, and it really fascinated me. It highlighted the idea of “compensatory ethics,” the idea that people act as if they have to (or can) balance the good and bad they do — if they do something good, they need (or can) to do something bad to compensate.After reading the article, I read this opinion piece about not only why environmentalists might be inclined to do bad, but why anyone who does good deeds is more apt to also do bad deeds:
How did that line go? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
"redemption" is a common theme in the stories we tell, but apparently the idea can be a double-edged-sword
I agree. Though the issue I take with the concept is the expectation of recompense. Personal growth/acknoweldgement is far more nuanced than paying someone back.
-->
@Athias
Individuals age at such differing rates that some grow older three times faster than other people of the same age, a new study has found. US scientists who conducted the study on a group of 38-year-olds found that their biological ages ranged from 28 to 61. Don't you think that this is poor quality control?
-->
@FLRW
Individuals age at such differing rates that some grow older three times faster than other people of the same age, a new study has found. US scientists who conducted the study on a group of 38-year-olds found that their biological ages ranged from 28 to 61. Don't you think that this is poor quality control?
No. Why would that be poor quality control?
-->
@3RU7AL
the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"
It does if moral people are being rewarded and immoral people are being punished, it’s called justice.
-->
@Tarik
The problem is according to God not worshiping him makes you evil. That is complete bull crap. I know plenty of moral non-Christians and I know plenty of immoral Christians. The system the way that Christians think it works is broken the only reason they support it is it benefits them no matter what they do.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The system the way that Christians think it works is broken the only reason they support it is it benefits them no matter what they do.
How so?
-->
@Tarik
I basically just explained it. Anyone that isn't a Christian is automatically immoral even if they're more moral than a Christian simply because they don't worship your God. And somehow your God gets to decide what happens to every single person in the afterlife even the ones that don't worship him and if you're the most moral person on the planet more moral than seven or eight different Christians you go to hell but the Christians well they get a pass if they play their cards right. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say to someone that's exactly the same as you but the only difference is you worship Jesus that they're going to hell because they're evil.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say to someone that's exactly the same as you but the only difference is you worship Jesus that they're going to hell because they're evil.
Not as ridiculous as it sounds to be that reluctant in making that one change.
-->
@Double_R
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 powerfulB) God is not all knowingC) God is not the creator of everythingLooking 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.
so you want to retain your strawman argument. Your problem. not mine.
It is impossible to clarify your questions because it ignores God's character. Start there and come back to the other points. After all, God is holy and God is good. That is my starting point. Hence, every other attribute will be subservient to this character. You want to start with power and then read God's character into it as a logical conclusion. Yet the bible starts in reverse. Hence when your argument remains a strawman argument.
-->
@RationalMadman
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
That just misses the point entirely.
God is Holy and God is good. Everything else is subservient to these characteristics. Hence, despite the convenience of language such as infinite - which is always used incorrectly in this context , God chooses to limit his power characteristics to ensure his character is not mischaracterized.
For example. God is powerful enough to send another flood to wipe out the world. Yet he has promised not to do so. So does this promise mean God can't send another flood or not? On one hand a promise doesn't reduce God's capacity to do so - yet his promise on the other hand is a choice God has made to reduce or limit his power.
He limits his power - as subservient to his character. Yet you are proposing we don't start with his character but with his capabilities of power. That is the difference between God and humanity. Humanity thinks authority is all about power. God knows authority is all about character. Putin thinks - my armies can beat anyone I want. That gives me authority. Yet his character has let him down and the world knows it. He put power over integrity.
God always begins with who he is - not what he can do. That is why your argument remains strawman. It is trying to win against a god no one really believes in. If God was going to start with power and not character - what in the world was the cross about?
For the believer the cross is victory, not defeat. It is there that the world changed. And that life is given. Character - not power. Humility not pride. Adam's initial sin was pride. I don't need God. I can do it myself.
The Cross demonstrates the powerlessness of humanity - and the humility of God.
Leibniz put forward this argument with the problem of evil.
The concept of God: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient.
Evil exists in a metaphysical, physical and moral sense (e.g. earthquakes, starvation and murder)
Leibniz pointed out that suffering and physical evil can build character and better circumstances.
Moral evil is a result of the misuse of freewill.
Now to the argument:
It is impossible to have a perfect world with human beings in it with their associated free will.
God's omniscience and omnibenevolence allowed him to choose the best of all possible worlds.
God's omnipotence allowed him to make the best of all possible worlds.
Therefore, the world is is the best of all possible worlds.
Leibniz implies that God could of made a world with no evil in it, but this world would be full of automatons with no free-will.
Rationalist arguments can't prove anything about world in my opinion.
-->
@Tradesecret
No, you assume god is good, that is not a conclusion but an assumed premise.
-->
@Athias
(IFF) one were to imagine that their concept of morality applied to a godlike ALMOST OOC (THEN) one would have to imagine how they would judge a being that has explicitly CAUSED all thingsI agree. So would it not then be inconsistent-- even contradictory--to refer to this OOC as "amoral" given that their moral concepts would necessitate that this OOC be projected as a moral being?
it would only be "inconsistent" iff one tried to simultaneously maintain that only humans can be "morally culpable"
all non-human actors are technically "amoral", regardless of their activity and (apparent) motive
-->
@CoolApe
Leibniz put forward this argument with the problem of evil.
+ 2 for mentioning Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
-->
@Tarik
the mere existence of a reward and punishment does not itself magically make that reward and punishment "MORAL"It does if moral people are being rewarded and immoral people are being punished, it’s called justice.
apparently hitler, dahmer, and leatherface can get into heaven if they turn to jesus on their deathbeds
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heaven
-->
@CoolApe
Evil exists in a metaphysical, physical and moral sense (e.g. earthquakes, starvation and murder)
hold on,
how exactly is an earthquake "evil" ?
-->
@CoolApe
Leibniz pointed out that suffering and physical evil can build character and better circumstances.
(iff) god created human nature (and)(iff) some humans are more naturally inclined to moral action than others (then) why did god make human nature so strongly inclined to immorality ?
-->
@CoolApe
Rationalist arguments can't prove anything about world in my opinion.
do you self-identify as an irrationalist ?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The problem is according to God not worshiping him makes you evil. That is complete bull crap.
i love u
-->
@RationalMadman
you assume god is good, that is not a conclusion but an assumed premise.
precisely
-->
@Tradesecret
God is Holy and God is good.
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLD
PERFECT WORLD = PERFECT GOD
IMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
IMPERFECT GOD = IMPERFECT WORLD
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heaven
I said nothing about my expectations.
-->
@Tradesecret
He limits his power - as subservient to his character.
this statement is provably false
omnipotent = all powerful
this means that an omnipotent being is the ONLY source of power
there is no "alternative" source
(iff) omnipotent god does not EXPLICITLY allow something to happen (then) it instantly ceases to exist
no event can happen without omnipotent god specifically and consciously and deliberately causing and sustaining it
god cannot take "some" of their power and put it into something else
because even if they did, it would still be "god's power" and also, god would know with 100% certainty what that "other" being would do with that delegated power before they ever even did anything
there is no way for an omnipotent god to divest their full moral responsibility for every single event from the beginning of time until the end of time
-->
@Athias
Your diversions won't work. You affirmed a proposition. You have yet to provide sufficient information in support of this affirmation.
Because the level of “sufficient information” you need to proceed means you are either need help or are not trying to have a good faith productive conversation.
The point I was making was about the logical impossibility of God having the qualities often prescribed to him and still being anything other than amoral given the reality we can clearly observe. There are serious ways to deal with that if you disagree; you can for example claim that God does not have all of those qualities, or you can show how those qualities logically square to the world we observe. You responded by asking me to explain what “bad” is and why I would apply that to my example of child sex trafficking rings.
What morality is and how we apply it is certainly a philosophical conversation worth having and one where there is much disagreement. But to go down that path in this conversation along with the litany of other things you asked for shows that you aren’t serious, this is more like an attempt to just wear me down by making me explain every simple concept to you while you pretend not to understand. Not worth my time.
-->
@Tarik
i'm not sure how you expect to keep the people who double-parked in front of a fire-hydrant out of heavenI said nothing about my expectations.
you strongly suggested that moral people go to heaven and immoral people go to hell
this does not appear to be the case
-->
@Double_R
this is more like an attempt to just wear me down by making me explain every simple concept to you while you pretend not to understand.
each individual (human) decides in-the-moment what they think is "bad"
-->
@Tarik
You taking that to mean God is amoral, if that were true we wouldn’t have concepts like heaven or hell.
Hell is perhaps the most amoral concept imaginable. What are you talking about?