The Morality of God

[ddd-shooter]

If I had the opportunity to select a judge to determine where I would spend eternity, I would pick the one who himself took the punishment for the sins of the world. I think he will be pretty fair...(tongue in cheek).

Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim.

Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.

 

[atlashunter]

Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim.

Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.

I don't think anyone is making a big deal of the naturalist view of the world. This topic is addressing the world view put forward by theists.

 

[stringmusic]

If I had the opportunity to select a judge to determine where I would spend eternity, I would pick the one who himself took the punishment for the sins of the world. I think he will be pretty fair...(tongue in cheek).

Yes atlas, my point was this thread is meaningless to a true naturalist. Why make a big deal of why the world is why it is? Unless there may be something in all of us that doesn't line up with the naturalist view. There ought to be a different world, and I think we all know it. The naturalist cannot make that claim; the Christian does make that claim.

Anyway, I am done. I have indulged myself with arguments far too much already.

Well, I for one am really enjoying your posts!

Hope you stick around for a while.

 

[Four]

Personally, I disagree with you fellas. The concept of free will addresses all of this.

Gemcgrew, why does God have to be what you say he is in order to be God?

Atlas, I am sure we can come up with other alternatives than the one you presented....God created freedom, perhaps?????

When I read the NT, I do not see a Jesus who is eager to make war on humanity.

If I as a person would witness a horrific event for which i could intercede. Such as some child rape, or murder, or even a simple mugging, assault, paint whatever terrible picture you want. .. If I could stop this terrible thing from happening with no ill effect to myself.. but i dont and when asked i tell you "free will" Would that satisfy you?

 

[ddd-shooter]

I don't think anyone is making a big deal of the naturalist view of the world. This topic is addressing the world view put forward by theists.

Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ? Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.

 

[atlashunter]

Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ?

Not relevant to the topic.

Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.

Poor analogy. Christians are claiming that there is a god that helps them with the most insignificant troubles they have in life and claim this same being has the power to save millions of children every year but chooses not to. Harris is correct when he says this is the perfection of narcissism.

 

[ddd-shooter]

How can you claim the thread is questioning the worldview put forth by Christians and yet when I ask you what is lacking in Christ's teachings you say it's not relevant?

Christians believe its our duty to make the world a better place. Those who are naturalists see no problem with millions of children dying we should simply accept that it happens. It is neither good nor bad

 

[atlashunter]

How can you claim the thread is questioning the worldview put forth by Christians and yet when I ask you what is lacking in Christ's teachings you say it's not relevant?

The video in the OP I think is pretty clear. If there is something specific about it that you want to discuss then let's discuss it.

Christians believe its our duty to make the world a better place. Those who are naturalists see no problem with millions of children dying we should simply accept that it happens. It is neither good nor bad

When you don't have an invisible friend to fix your problems then you can fully understand and accept the responsibility for doing whatever you can to improve your condition and the condition of others.

For the non-believer you are right, it isn't nature itself that is good or bad. For example physics isn't evil if a tsunami kills a couple hundred thousand people. What is evil is having the power to eliminate the suffering of millions of children and refusing to do so. Absent the mythical figures we have to rely on ourselves and each other to make the most of the world as it is. It's when you posit that one of these figures is real that the moral judgments come into play based on the claims made.

 

[bullethead]

Ok. So after pointing out the lack of moral ground established within naturalistic world views, what do you find lacking in the teachings of Christ? Pointing to a corrupt world and blaming God is like looking at dirty hands and saying soap doesn't work.

Nobody is blaming God for anything because there are a few in here that just do not believe a God exists.
What IS happening is that in order to have conversations with people that DO believe in God we have to play along. Being that it is common among believers to say God created everything and is responsible for everything we then sometimes get curious about how these believers are quick to give credit and praise to God for all the "good" things yet totally ignore the fact that the same God is responsible for many "bad" things also. We have to use the only tool available (Bible) to point out these instances. Then we sit back and watch the believers that use all the "good" parts of every book in the Bible totally disregard and even deny certain parts of the Bible pertain to them when the "bad" God is pointed out.

If the New Testament is all that counts for Christians that is fine. But skip the creation story nonsense and all the OT info totally instead of pointing out the stuff that suits and disregarding the stuff that does not. If the Bible is the truth to a believer then acknowledge and defend it all.

 

[stringmusic]

The video in the OP I think is pretty clear. If there is something specific about it that you want to discuss then let's discuss it.




When you don't have an invisible friend to fix your problems then you can fully understand and accept the responsibility for doing whatever you can to improve your condition and the condition of others.

For the non-believer you are right, it isn't nature itself that is good or bad. For example physics isn't evil if a tsunami kills a couple hundred thousand people. What is evil is having the power to eliminate the suffering of millions of children and refusing to do so. Absent the mythical figures we have to rely on ourselves and each other to make the most of the world as it is. It's when you posit that one of these figures is real that the moral judgments come into play based on the claims made.

To make a claim such as the one above, you must assume purpose to the lives of the children you're referring to, otherwise, millions of children suffering and in pain wouldn't be evil.

What was the purpose of their lives?

 

[atlashunter]

To make a claim such as the one above, you must assume purpose to the lives of the children you're referring to, otherwise, millions of children suffering and in pain wouldn't be evil.

What was the purpose of their lives?

Really? Why must that be assumed?

 

[stringmusic]

Really? Why must that be assumed?

Purpose is automatically assumed when one makes a moral judgment.

 

[atlashunter]

Purpose is automatically assumed when one makes a moral judgment.

Sorry I'm not seeing the logical connection. You're saying if I rape someone that the morality of the act hinges on whether or not some vague "purpose" can be established for the life of the victim? You'll have to explain that one because you've lost me.

 

[ddd-shooter]

If I may, string is perhaps inferring that we value human life above the level that science says we should. Without that intrinsic value, what is the difference between children dying in a tsunami and the hundred shrimp you ate last weekend?

 

[David Parker]

Jumping in head first here. With regard to the Tsunami kids, if their parents reject God b/c they can't resolve in their mind this conundrum about God's will, are they condemned?

Second part, if those folks ARE condemned how can it be justified when compared to folks that didn't experience a tragedy such as that. It appears it would be so much easier to cling to faith for someone who skates by without true loss than someone who had to endure it, but yet salvation is granted to the one who endured less?

I know everyone has to be tired of the questions getting posed to disprove and prove but it's about the only way I know to get a clarification on it.

 

[stringmusic]

Sorry I'm not seeing the logical connection. You're saying if I rape someone that the morality of the act hinges on whether or not some vague "purpose" can be established for the life of the victim? You'll have to explain that one because you've lost me.

ddd-shooter is hitting on what I'm talking about.

 

[ddd-shooter]

Jumping in head first here. With regard to the Tsunami kids, if their parents reject God b/c they can't resolve in their mind this conundrum about God's will, are they condemned?

Second part, if those folks ARE condemned how can it be justified when compared to folks that didn't experience a tragedy such as that. It appears it would be so much easier to cling to faith for someone who skates by without true loss than someone who had to endure it, but yet salvation is granted to the one who endured less?

I know everyone has to be tired of the questions getting posed to disprove and prove but it's about the only way I know to get a clarification on it.

If you haven't read CS Lewis, I highly recommend him. I hope this helps.

“The bad psychological material is not a sin but a disease. It does not need to be repented of, but to be cured. And by the way, that is very important. Human beings judge one another by their external actions. God judges them by their moral choices. When a neurotic who has a pathological horror of cats forces himself to pick up a cat for some good reason, it is quite possible that in God's eyes he has shown more courage than a healthy man may have shown in winning the V.C. When a man who has been perverted from his youth and taught that cruelty is the right thing does some tiny little kindness, or refrains from some cruelty he might have committed, and thereby, perhaps, risks being sneered at by his companions, he may, in God's eyes, be doing more than you and I would do if we gave up life itself for a friend.

It is as well to put this the other way round. Some of us who seem quite nice people may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and good upbringing that we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we should have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power, say, of Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. But God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it. Most of the man's psychological makeup is probably due to his body: when his body dies all that will fall off him, and the real central man, the thing that chose, that made the best or worst out of this material, will stand naked. All sorts of nice things which we thought our own, but which were really due to a good digestion, will fall off some of us: all sorts of nasty things which were due to complexes or bad health will fall off others. We shall then, for the first time, see every one as he really was. There will be surprises.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

 

[Robert Tuck]

.....It is a very good argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good god....Or maybe there simply is no god at all. That is the simplest explanation for the world we live in.

I realize you believe it’s a "very good argument", I'm asking for the proof required to substantiate the argument. Who's to say this isn't the world that has the least amount of suffering, along with the highest number of free will choices to be saved, possible?

Shout out to Swampstalker, he actually gave a logical argument in an effort to substantiate the claim made by Sam Harris in the video. It was a great post. However I think Stringmusic has already pointed out its shortcomings in not taking into account free will and life beyond death. Since you started the strand Atlas, I’d like to hear from you proof that this world isn’t the world with the least amount of suffering, along with the highest amount of free will choices for salvation, possible.

This isn't a frivolous request. The argument you posted falls flat without the answer. There's a reason Sam Harris doesn't lay out a logical proof like Epicurus attempted to. Instead he relies on emotion to persuade.

 

[atlashunter]

If I may, string is perhaps inferring that we value human life above the level that science says we should. Without that intrinsic value, what is the difference between children dying in a tsunami and the hundred shrimp you ate last weekend?

ddd-shooter is hitting on what I'm talking about.

From the standpoint of nature there is no difference.

You're asking for a scientific explanation for why we value our lives and the lives of others?

 

[atlashunter]

I realize you believe it’s a "very good argument", I'm asking for the proof required to substantiate the argument. Who's to say this isn't the world that has the least amount of suffering, along with the highest number of free will choices to be saved, possible?

Why should I or Sam Harris do the theists homework for them? If that is the defense for all of the suffering we see then it is the theist who needs to substantiate that such is the case and that it is morally justified. That is going to be quite a challenge given the fact that theists are already selling a place with no suffering in the hereafter.