HRG

You have added that part about God owning everything and having authority over everything. It is a condition which is independent of creation, omnipotence and the rest, since the "everything" contains sentient, self-aware, volitional beings.

Regards,
HRG.

Fiach

I shouldn't presume to speak for Christians. But as I understand it, God's ownership of humans and all sentient beings is contingent on the supposition that God created us. One generally owns what he makes. He also has control or authority over what he makes. This is the connection to Divine ownership of humans as one would own puppets or slaves. So it is verd DEPENDENT on Creation that God owns us as slaves.

Fiach

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill,
Well I guess we have reached the point in conversation where each side summarizes their take on the discussion.


From my perspective the conversation progressed this way:

-You claimed 'God is a slavemaster and we are slaves'.

-I pointed out that God is not a slavemaster because we have freedom.

-You claimed that authority only exists over those who give consent.

-I pointed out that this simply false...as anybody who breaks the law is not 'consenting' to the authority of the government.

-You change your argument to 'God is a dictator'. However, you fail to realize the God's rule is a monarchy...not a dictatorship.

-I echo the sentiments that Gods rule is a monarchy and point out that God's ownership and authority are tautological.





You misunderstand. It's not that I don't see the difference
between pre and post enlightenment philosophy. It's not even that I disagree with post-enlightenment concepts (in fact I emphatically embrace them).

I am just making the simple observation that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE THINK. IF God exists...THEN it doesn't matter if we feel He shouldn't have authority. Our feelings don't effect that fact that He actually does have authority over everything. It doesn't matter that we attach fancy words like 'post-enlightenment' to our ideas...it doesn't make them less false.



I agree that continuing the discussion may be pointless. Until you quit ignoring the tautological ownership and authority of God...there is not much we can converse on.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

HRG,
Not at all.

IF God is the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator of everything...His ownership and authority are logical neccesities.




Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Bill Snedden

True. You pointed out that the "freedom" to choose to kill oneself instead of remaining in an existence one neither asked for, desires, nor has the power or ability to change is all the "freedom" one really requires. Forgive me for being less than impressed by this risible and demonstrably false claim.

I made a point earlier, conveniently ignored, that African slaves were "free" to kill themselves as well. Did this somehow make them any less enslaved?

This is completely irrelevant to the question of how authority to create laws is derived. The fact that people break laws says nothing about the moral weight they carry or the authority on which they stand.

Lawbreakers are ostensibly members of a society who, by remaining in that society, consented to the rules and laws enacted by that society and then, for some reason, they later chose to break this "social contract". That is precisely the relationship that gives society the moral right to punish them! If they were truly non-consenting (i.e., not true OR de facto members of society), there would be no right to punish them at all!

Take again the case of the African slave, brought to this country against his will. Is he under any sort of moral obligation to obey the laws of this country? Must he remain a slave simply because it's legal here? Certainly, the state has the power to force his involuntary servitude, but does it have the right?

You continue to offer these types of defenses in what appears to me a desparate effort to prove that democratic societies operate under some authority other than consent. How exactly do you believe they are formed? What gives the U.S. Constitution it's power? Read the preamble: WE THE PEOPLE.

Actually, I didn't change my argument. I made an additional analogy. It is however, salient to note that post-enlightenment thinking explicitly rejects the concept of monarchy just as it rejects the concept of a dictatorship.

However, what's the practical difference? NONE. Let's look at the definitions to which you so helpfully pointed. In the interest of fairness, we'll eliminate upfront any connotative or value-laden parts of the definition.

Monarchy:

1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
2 : a nation or state having a monarchical government
3 : a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

Hmmm. God's rule really can't be said to be hereditary. He didn't get it from anyone, and his powers couldn't be said to be nominal, so I'd say we can discard number 3. Other than that, the other two would seem to still apply.

Dictatorship

1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state.

I'd say that we can eliminate 3c. "Despotism" is, after all, part of the point in contention. Number one is problematic; "Dictator", after all, has a somewhat perjorative connotation. However, one of the Webster's definitions for the word includes "one holding complete autocratic control" so it does seem to apply. Still, I'll grant the benefit of the doubt as I understand why you would be reticent to accord your god the title "Dictator" (although I think it's quite apropos). The word appears in 3a & b as well, so I guess we have to throw them out also.

So, what are we left with?

Monarchy:

1: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person
2 : a nation or state having a monarchical government

Dictatorship:

2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership

Hmmm...I still think there might be some question here. What does the word "autocratic" mean? Unfortunately, Webster's has here what my secondary school teachers always taught me to avoid: defining a word with that word! (kind of like you do with "god") Webster's points to the definition of "autocrat". Well, let's take a look at that:

Autocrat:

1 : a person (as a monarch) ruling with unlimited authority
2 : one who has undisputed influence or power

What's this? A monarch is described as a type of autocrat. And a dictatorship is described as "autocratic rule." How about that! Like I said, no practical difference.

Of course, I can already see the objection: "it says 'undisputed'! You, Bill, are proof that this definition doesn't apply, for you dispute God's power!" As it is, however, I don't dispute the alleged reality of your god's power, only its moral status. If your god exists then it is undeniable that he possesses the might to do with us as he wishes. It is his right to do so that I am questioning.

You say that they are a tautology, yet it is not self-evident that they are. The existence of tautologies depends upon definitions. All you've done is defined god as "rightful owner of everything, including sentient moral agents". I'm disputing that definition (in terms of "rightful"). Modern ethical thinking rejects out-of-hand the idea that one person can own another. Therefore, I've asked you to provide evidence or argument to support your god's right to "own" us. Until you can do more than assert "he just does, okay?!" then I am completely justified in evaluating that right based upon my understanding of post-enlightenment concepts of justice and liberty; ideals upon which democracies are founded.

Of course you do. IMNSHO, all rational people accept modern-day notions of freedom and liberty as axioms. However, many, apparently yourself included, simply fail to completely internalize this way of thinking. For some reason you gladly accept the practical outcome, a democratic government, yet refrain from fully endorsing or integrating the very ideal that makes it possible: Man has a moral right to self-determination. If it is true that Man has such a right, and God is the source of all morality, then God Himself will be the source of this right (as I believe many of the Founding Fathers believed). If God is the source of this right, then God cannot fail to abide by it. To suggest anything less seems to me blasphemy. Would God would fail to apply his own moral laws? I think not.

Of course that's true, but it says nothing about how we might choose to label him. I imagine the slaveowner felt much the same way about his human chattel: it doesn't matter how they feel; it doesn't change the fact that I own them. It doesn't speak to the slaves righteous feelings of injustice. How the master feels or what he believes is completely irrelevant to how his chattel respond.

In the same way, I suppose you can choose not to call your slavemaster a slavemaster, but it doesn't change reality.

I am unable to ignore what I don't see. If you want me to address it, you'll need to prove it (i.e., demonstrate that it is a tautology).

Regards,

Bill Snedden

theophilus

Here's one for you: why would the eradication of a people be good or bad from a naturalistic standpoint? Why couldn't that just be the next stage of evolution, i.e., the survival of the fittest?

theophilus

theophilus

Ah, but what a giant "IF." That's a big dose of question begging. If one doesn't accept the p-e concept of self-determination, who are you to say they're wrong. After all, if God can't tell his creatures what to do, how can they tell each other what they must believe.
What is the materialistic basic for such a concept? What is the biological foundation for such a concept?

This is like the evolutionist who said "IF we grant that life sprang from non-life "just once," then we can explain oragnic evolution.

theophilus

No, you are just pretending to have something that you don't - moral autonomy.

If God is the creator, then he is "by definition" the source of all morality.

If God is not the creator, then there is not morality and your talk of making a moral statement is meaningless.

Fiach

I don't think that we have moral autonomy. Our morality is the result of up to 4 million years of evolution as social animals. It has become coded in our genes that are the blue print for brain circuits. Those circuits have an "intuitive" awareness of actions that are good (beneficial) or harmful (evil). The efficiency and effectiveness of these circuits does vary in some individuals. This accounts for the presence of many very good people, some very bad people, and many who are a mix of good and bad. But we really are not a morally autonomous as most fellow atheists may or may not believe.

God is not the creator. He is imaginary. But for sake of discourse, if he is a creator, that does not mean that he is a direct source of morality. I don't think that morality can be simply a divine decree by god that varies with his changing moods. Killing little babies is good in Deuteronomy but wrong in Kosovo and Bosnia in the last decade. Bollocks, it was wrong both times. Of course I hold that the Israelites were an unsavourly lot of savages who merely passed the blame to their God who can't defend himself against the charges.

God is not the creator. I will make this part brief. As I stated previously, morality is evolutionarily molded and coded in our genes that blue print Brain circuits for behaviour and intuitive knowledge of beneficial and harmful actions. We do have morality without God. Evidence suggests that God believers are not more moral than Atheists.

Fiach