rhutchin

As Elfman noted, the command is not to murder. Nonetheless, I contend that God has never killed any person. Every person who has ever lived is still alive today and that person will live for all eternity. Only people can murder, thus the command that God has given to people not to murder.

The term, jealousy, has two meanings. It can mean "envy" which is the point of the command and it can mean "zealous" (in a sense, protective). God does not envy, but God is zealous for His people and protects them.

Your premise was false.

What exactly were you asking from God? I don't doubt that you believed. If you believed God (accepted that which He told you in the Bible was true) and you asked for the things that God told you to ask for, I find it hard to believe you when you say that God never once answered your prayers. I can't help but think that there is something wrong here and I get the impression that you are not telling us the whole story. My experience has been the exact opposite of what you describe.

It was done, as recorded in the NT, and it was done to validate Jesus' claim that he was God. Other than for that purpose, it has not be done. However, God never tells us that He will undo what happens to us.

That is true, but again, God has never told us that we will be free from sin and the effects of sin in this life.

We have to remember that the believer operates on faith in God. He believes that God is telling him the truth. Thus, the believer is constantly praying for God's protection and favor. The believer prays for a baby prior to conception knowing that after the baby is conceived, it cannot be other than what it is. The believer knows that death is inevitable, but he prays for the person prior to death knowing that God will not reverse death once it happens with very few exceptions. God has done it very rarely as recorded in the Bible and the purpose was to validate His prophets and to validate Jesus' claim that He was God.

Prayer is a proactive response to that which God has told the believer and not a reactive response to the difficulties that the believer encounters. People who pray reactively to undo what has happened to them (or others) are misusing prayer.

Prof

That's terrific to hear. Thank you. Of course it goes both ways; these conversations force me to think about my position carefully (as well as the other person's).

This really gets to the heart of things. You repeat an often heard question and I would say it's obviously a reasonable question, yet it also tends to conceal a sort of misunderstanding at it's center: the idea that when someone presents a moral theory or criteria, it is in all likelihood arbitrary.
But it is not necessarily the case.

First, as sort of an aside, an "arbitrary" system of measurement can nonetheless point to objective truths.

There is nothing logically necessary about the units we've invented to measure length - the size of an inch or centimeter or what have you. That's something, a criteria for measurement, that we agree upon. We could change those measurement criteria.

Nonetheless, neither of us would say that, since we decided on the idea of "measuring things" and decided on what units we'd use...that therefore it's not an objective fact that Michael Jordon is taller than Michael Moore. (By "X many inches or centimeters). Or that the moon is X number of miles away from the earth - objectively, quantifiably so. That our "arbitrary" measuring system does not allow us to get at a truth about a relationship between Michael Jordon and Michael Moore.

That doesn't answer the central question of the nature of morality...but it's something to keep in mind as we go along.

Back to your question about the apparent arbitrariness of simply deciding what will be the basis of "good" or "bad."

Remember that the project of morality is answering the question (at it's most basic) "What ought we do?" (Which expands to "How ought we treat one another, etc").

Does this entail we must be left at arbitrariness? No. Because in asking the question we are engaging in reasoning...we are asking "Are there reasons why we ought to act in X way? And if so what are they?"

And reasoning by it's very nature appeals to universal principles (otherwise you end up with special pleading...which is a fallacy because it's an instance of not appealing to a universal principle). Every time you attempt to provide a reason for action you are, IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY REASONING, espousing a universal principle. It can't be something that only pertains to you: it must be a principle that is hardy, that is useful in deciding an issue when applied to similar situations. That's what makes reasoning so important to "knowledge."

Before getting to a deeper moral/value theory, most discussions can begin on the level at which we agree: for instance we would agree on many behaviours and actions that we hold to be "good" or "bad." For instance, helping one another, respecting property, as opposed to hurting one another and stealing from one another.

To look at the nature of reason and arbitrariness, we can start with saying "Ok, we agree these things are good. But WHY should we act good?"

And as it turns out there are plenty of decent, everyday, accessible reasons as to why we would work together to achieve our desires and goals, vs work against each others desires and goals.

But one party (often theists in conversation with atheists) will interrupt with something similar to what you were getting at: "Ok, we agree not stealing and respecting someone's property is "good." But WHY OUGHT I ACT GOOD? Stealing your property will get me what I want, so why follow your concept of 'good?"

To this the reply is a reminder of what one is doing when justifying any behaviour: engaging in REASON, hence appealing to universal principles.

It's a simple fact that anyone can choose to ignore a moral rule and follow his selfish desire to, for instance, steal. In fact, people can act flat-out crazy...nothing to stop them. But that is not the same as JUSTIFYING that behaviour. And that is the question at hand: which behaviour is more reasonable, which has better justification? Stealing or engaging in a mutual respect for other people's property?

And as it happens, it's damned hard...impossible so far as I've seen...for anyone to consistently JUSTIFY their selfishness. Because any attempt to do so means they are spinning out universal principles that 1. Do not make sense as universalized principles and 2. that actually in the end work against or contradict the desires of the purportedly selfish individual.

For instance, if "John" wanted to justify his selfishness in stealing, what is he going to say? "I want your stuff, stealing your stuff will get me what I want, therefor I should steal your stuff."

Well, if John is actually engaging in reasoning, then he must be appealing to a reliable principle, e.g. "It follows that if you (or any entity similar to John) want someone else's property, you ought to steal it."

So John has not given any reason why you shouldn't steal his stuff, and in fact has ENDORSED you stealing his stuff, should you desire. Yet surely John would not agree that his property ought to be stolen by you, if you want it. The very principle works against his own interests.

This is why it is so hard to universalize - to MAKE REASONABLE - truly immoral, selfish ethical commands. And it is no coincidence that you will be hard pressed to find any true specimen of such an ethical system. Pretty much every ethical system you can find today (and throughout history) promulgated by sages, philosophers or prophets, universalize principles, and none are able to justify pure amorality/selfishness (that I've seen).

(Take even the famous "Enlightened Selfishness" of Ayn Rand's "Objectivist Ethics." It does espouse a type of self-interest of the individual. But it does so in the context of a Universalized Principle: the argument being that an enlightened self interest is the best way for humanity to thrive - the best principle to universalize).

So reason itself, so long as it is sound, brings with it the nature of "Non-arbitrary - holding universally."

Back to the foundation of morality.

The temptation is to ask "Why OUGHT I adopt your system of morality?"
Insofar as that question presumes an arbitrariness to doing so...it's off the mark.

A value theory, like Desire Utilitarianism, is a theory about the Nature Of Value. It is either sound or not. (Ok, this doesn't get into non-cognitivism...another issue...)

It either correctly identifies what it means to say "I ought to do X" or it doesn't. If it does, and it's reasoning is sound, then it's not a matter of "adopting" or "choosing" it as the "System I'll arbitrarily consider using."
It just amounts to either apprehending the facts about morality identified by Desire Utilitarianism, or ignoring them.

(I'm just using DI as one example of a secular moral theory).

Now, I gave a brief nutshell concept of Desire Utilitarianism for you in a previous post. But it should be enough to at least show you there are some interesting, and hopefully in some way compelling, lines of thought within secular explorations of morality.

That's all the time I have for now.

Cheers,

Prof.

Emil

Yes, I agree.

I think I get what you mean, but the wording in this one is troubling me. It looks invalid. This is what I understand it to be:

1. All acts contrary to god's are evil acts.
2. God cannot perform an act contrary to god's law.
3. God cannot perform an evil act.

But this does not follow, the form is:

1. All As are Bs.
2. God cannot do any A.
3. God cannot do any B.

But, there are several plausible ways to change (1) so it is valid. For instance,

1'. A is identical to B.
1''. All Bs are As.
1'''. All As are Bs and all Bs are As.

I will in the future. Sorry, but my time is limited, as are yours.

Joan of Bark

First of all, I have read the Bible, and it merely confirmed my view that your God doesn't exist.

Secondly, everything you say in the second paragraph could apply to any God. Maybe you don't believe in Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva simply because you don't obey them?

Thirdly, if God responds to requests, why don't you ask him for a cure for cancer? Think of all the lives you'd be saving.

And finally, to repeat myself, I don't believe in God, so how can I not be satisfied with what He has given me? He doesn't exist, therefore 'He' has given me nothing.

But assuming for the sake of argument He does exist, and in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic form, then NO, I am not satisfied ... with what He has given humanity. What kind of asshole creates diseases like malaria, smallpox, and influenza? Each of these little gifts from your loving creator has tortured and killed more people than all the wars in history combined. Blaming them on mutations makes no sense. God is omniscient, therefore he knew from the outset what they would do to humans. A being who knowingly creates a disease that will cause suffering to billions of people, many of them children and babies, is a monster far worse than any human being.

Face facts, rhutchin: you worship humanity's greatest imaginary enemy.

connick

Deleet, you are correct in your understanding of what I meant in my argument, and any of your proposed premises would be an apt replacement for my faulty one. Thank you for taking the time to look at it again.

Moving forward, I will adress Elfman first.
This is a bit difficult. In arguing for or against an omnimax god, one often has to accept definitions that end up being circular or absurd in order to continue the discussion. In the above quote, you ask if God's all-lovingness precludes him from punishing evil, but it seems that the origin of evil is God's doing, either directly or by proxy. Also you ask if a good and just god are compatible with free will, which seems to me to not exist. I'm reluctant to define "all-loving" and "all-powerful" as the terms arise from the very camp which I am arguing against. I'll try my best, based on my understanding of what a lot of theists believe. We'll define "all-loving" as "always acting to prevent suffering" and "all-powerful" as "able to do all things". I won't limit "all-powerful" to the boundaries of logic, because it's apparent that theists don't either. Regardless, God's defense is no better when constrained by pesky logic.

Good is an absence of evil, light an absence of darkness and heat an absence of cold. Toying with negatives does not change what things are. If evil is a lack of good then God created the universe with evil or with a lack of good. God is still responsible.

God can simply impart any knowledge we need to have directly into our brains. He needn't do anything complicated. "God can work through even the evil desires of men". It seems that way!

Just like I said before: God cannot do evil because God cannot do evil. So now everything that God has done is not evil by definition.

If God left open the possibility for evil and knew that we would choose it sometime and is also responsible for creating us then he is responsible for evil. As for the question of moral absolutes, I don't think that they exist. Torturing babies is wrong according to my culture for a lot of complex reasons, but not because it is inherently wrong. Let's say the Biblical God has commanded the torturing of babies for fun, would you call it wrong then? I daresay an alternate culture with such a mandate from their deity would not only consider the torture good, but necessary.

If you killed your child's killer then it is in your nature to kill under those circumstances. What you do defines your nature. Where the argument becomes circular is where you say that God's nature is that he does no evil ever. According to some, the Titanic's nature was that it was unsinkable. History shows that this notion was false, and to stand by the statement requires one to make all sorts of absurd rationalizations. The Titanic never sank because it was unsinkable. God has never done evil because he is incapable of doing evil. I see a striking parallell.

No quotes around what I said at all. It is clear that God does not want people to kill or be jealous of one another.

Oh? So according to you, he doesn't mind if I covet your love for your mother? In that case, I desire that you love me over your mother. According to what's written, I'm pretty sure that God doesn't want me to covet belongings or immaterial things.

connick

On to rhutchin!

Evidence that the dead still live, please? I'll start drafting the Nobel nomination. God is jealous in that he does not want us to worship other gods. If he were zealous instead, he would just smite false gods now wouldn't he?

I asked God for guidance and answers. I asked him for the vaguest signs about what to do in life. I asked for deliverance from illnesses for myself and others. I asked for happiness for everyone I loved. I never recieved guidance from God. I suffered all illnesses in the same way as a non-believer would. My younger brother's chronic ear problems still cause him trouble to this day. My uncle died of an overdose. You say your experience has been the exact opposite? Please tell me more about what God has done for you.

You should know that claims in the NT are not evidence of claims in the NT.

But he did tell us that he created all things, therefore PoE.

So we should pray that God gives us what he told us he would but not for the things that he said he would but didn't? In other words, pray for it until he gives it to us and thank him or pray until we don't get it and understand his wisdom? Sounds like a heads I win, tails you lose situation to me.

Elfman

Well, I am sure that some theists argue based on those definitions, but I cannot accept them. I would look at omnipotent as being able to do anything that can be done (not absurd), and I do not subscribe to "all loving" as a concept for the Christian God. I do not think the claim has ever been made in orthodox christian belief that being loving means one prevents all suffering. This is an unchristian concept...especially in light that Jesus suffered greatly as a specific part of God's plan. So clearly God does allow, and plan, for suffering. So if you define "all loving" as preventing suffering, then clearly God is not all-loving. I also do not see the claim that God is all loving in the bible. It references that God does love and is love....but it also says God will punish the wicked because He is just. That would involve suffering for the wicked. I do not think we can agree on definitions here. These seem like strawman definitions.

connick

Well, my definitions are rather extreme as I understand God's power and lovingness to be pretty extreme. As theists adjust the definitions in order to defend these characteristics of God, they alter the degree of power and lovingness possessed by God. I have no intention of arguing against straw men and claiming victories. I think that if we define "all-loving" as "always acting to prevent suffering" and "all-powerful" as "able to do all things" then a god possessing such attributes appears to conflict with reality. By changing the definitions by degree until God and reality can coexist, we remove any justification for calling God all-loving or all-powerful.

Elfman

that is just it....I think you are arguing against straw men here by defining "all loving" and "all powerful" in ways that are not supported by reality or the bible. The God of the bible has many characteristics....merciful, just, punishes the wicked, loving, etc.... And any view that fails to encompass the complexity of the God that is presented is making a strawman. I have no interest in talking about a god who ought to make the world soft like a pillow so that no one will ever fall down and hurt himself or he then isn't loving (or all powerful). That's pretty pointless.
But I do think that God can be "very loving" and "able to do all possible things" and still be consistent with reality despite the PoE arguments.

Elfman

I don't follow this....If I give you a fork, and tell you that you should not poke yourself in the eye with it, and you choose to do it of your own free will, how am I responsible in any significant way? Should I not have given you the fork? (make robots with no opportunity to think for themselves) Should I have tied your hands so you would not have been able to misuse what I gave you? (deny free will).....no. If you are to be a free willed being than you need the real opportunity to do either good (not poke yourself) or bad (poke yourself), and the responsibility lies with yourself for poking yourself when I told you not to. Just because I could have said, "well he is an idiot and will most likely poke himself in the eye" does not mean that I am making you poke yourself. This seems like common sense to me. How can God have made a free willed people and not have allowed them the opportunity to do as he didn't desire? They would, by definition, no longer have a free will.
And in all this lies an interesting question....is it a good thing to be able to reject God?