Qpetz:


Who is God?

A supreme being that shaped the cosmos

.

festwiz:
Johnydon22,

It is impressive that you'd open this thread. Unfortunately, a good percentage of theists run away from anything that has to do with thought of any kind.

even atheists on this board stay clear of such profound questions. Majority of folks on this board on either side of the spectrum of belief index prefer the name calling aggressive squabbles that are not addressing anything in particular to arguments or questions that'd make them think deeper than they are comfortable with.

They are good, obedient sheeps though. That's why they will follow their herder/sherperd/lord/saviour butterflyleo (A.K.A butterflyinglion) and not use their brains for anything proactive or productive.

#peace

Lol

johnydon22:
A supreme being that shaped the cosmos

And you think such a being will be concerned with morality?

Qpetz:


And you think such a being will be concerned with morality?

It won't be logically improbably if it was.

johnydon22:


Yes it doesn't really matter. You can. Create something and figure out that it is good.

I made a good food. I made a terrible meal.

I made both and got to figure out they are good or not

You are just stating it based on what God said or saw was good from his own perspective. How do you independently know that it's good or bad?

johnydon22:


It won't be logically improbably if it was.

Is that a yes or no?

dalaman:


You are just stating it based on what God said or saw was good from his own perspective. How do you independently know that it's good or bad?

That's the purpose of this thread.

If it is good because God said it is then we know that to the theist, goodness is independent of man's judgement.

But if goodness is independent of God's determination then even God himself is subject to moral judgements.

And this begs the question, how did this moral confinement get in place?

I think these questions are more suitable for a theist.

Qpetz:


Is that a yes or no?

Yes or No is an oversimplification. Either of the two is subject to logical contingency.

So keep the answer within the compass of logical feasibility.

Seun can you take us to frontpage? Let us get more opinions and audiences?

johnydon22:
Yes or No is an oversimplification. Either of the two is subject to logical contingency.

So keep the answer within the compass of logical feasibility.

I rest my case.

Qpetz:


I rest my case.

LOL

johnydon22:
So when you say objectivily right, what are you implying?

It’s a meaningless term. To me objectivity and morality are not compatible. Every moral actor or group of moral actors has its own morality. If a sentient creator exists, his morality is just one of many. He judges right and wrong from his point of view, just like all other moral actors e.g. elephants, lions and human beings.

From a lion’s point of view, killing a baby elephant is morally acceptable because they have to kill to eat, but from an elephant’s point of view, lions that kill elephant babies are evil animals that ought to be exterminated.

From the hypothetical creator’s perspective, allowing little children to have cancer or be raped may be right, since he allows these things to happen; because he sees them as his playthings (he is the potter and we are the clay, right?). That doesn’t make those things right from our point of view as decent people. Any human who allows kids to be raped even though he could prevent it, would be condemned as evil by all human beings.

If a creator exists, his morality is just his subjective morality. I do not believe that picking one moral actor’s subjective morality and labeling it as “objective” makes sense.

johnydon22:
Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?



This question is meant to insight deep thought and debate

Any morality based on God is false.

orisa37:
C O N S C I E N C E in us is Foresight of G O O D & B A D.
Consult your Belief and Training to know how you got Conscience. In Christianity, It's The Breath of our Maker, God in us.

Conscience is geo culturally determined. All morality at the core are nothing but matters of social convenience.

johnydon22:

Meaning good is whatever our conscience decides it is?
Are you sure this simplification is something you'd like to pursue?

.

No. Atheists are not invited to complicate this.

Seun:

To me objectivity and morality are not compatible. Every moral actor or group of moral actors has its own morality. If a sentient creator exists, his morality is just one of many. He judges right and wrong from his point of view, just like all other moral actors e.g. elephants, lions and human beings.

For example, From a lion’s point of view, killing a baby elephant is morally acceptable because they have to kill to eat, but from an elephant’s point of view, lions that kill elephant babies are evil animals that ought to be exterminated.

From the hypothetical creator’s perspective, allowing little children to have cancer or be raped may be right, since he allows these things to happen; because he sees them as his playthings (he is the potter and we are the clay, right?). That doesn’t make those things right from our point of view as decent people. Any human who allows kids to be raped even though he could prevent it, would be condemned as evil by all human beings.

If a creator exists, his morality is just his subjective morality. I do not believe that picking one moral actor’s subjective morality and labeling it as “objective” makes sense.

I agree with you

Let's look at it this way.

Take Nigeria as an example, constitutionally gay marriage is illegal.

But there are individuals within the country that do not find any negative moral weight on gay marriage.

But the constitutional moral dictate is binding to every individual within Nigeria.

Could objectivity in this sense be referred to the binding nature of a moral codec from a creator as the ultimate authority?

orisa37:
.


No. Atheists are not invited to complicate this.

Lol. Ok. I wouldnt want to do that

Mujtahida:

Any morality based on God is false.

elucidate?

Conscience is geo culturally determined.
Yes. But up to the stage of geo-uniform development, assessment and comparison. Goma people are Nigerians. The Yoruba Emir of Iwo(Akanbi) is a Nigerian too and has travelled to Canada and back. He has God given Conscience like the Goma man.

All morality at the core are nothing but matters of social convenience.

That Core is The Ark of Faith. After God breathed Conscience into Adam, He built him a Garden, thus building into him The Right to believe in Whom Who feeds him. God told Adam not to eat from a particular Tree, extending The Ark of Faith.
The Blood in The Ram that Abraham used in substitution for The Blood of Isaac was The Blood of Christ, An Ark of Faith(Covenant).
On the Israelis Return from Egypt, God gave 10 Commandments, also an Ark of Covenant.
God had been building Moralities and Objectivities into the Consciences of all His Creations, irrespective of geographical locations and tribes.
Until Christ came, a Character, Morality, Subjectivity and Objectivity for all Born Again Christians.

It depends on the God you meant OP, generally, our idea of good and bad is influenced by religion, culture and environment.

orisa37:
Conscience is geo culturally determined.
Yes. But up to the stage of geo-uniform development, assessment and comparison. Goma people are Nigerians. The Yoruba Emir of Iwo(Akanbi) is a Nigerian too and has travelled to Canada and back. He has God given Conscience like the Goma man.

All morality at the core are nothing but matters of social convenience.

That Core is The Ark of Faith. After God breathed Conscience into Adam, He built him a Garden, thus building into him The Right to believe in Whom Who feeds him. God told Adam not to eat from a particular Tree, extending The Ark of Faith.
The Blood in The Ram that Abraham used in substitution for The Blood of Isaac was The Blood of Christ, An Ark of Faith(Covenant).
On the Israelis Return from Egypt, God gave 10 Commandments, also an Ark of Covenant.
God had been building Moralities and Objectivities into the Consciences of all His Creations, irrespective of geographical locations and tribes.
Until Christ came, a Character, Morality, Subjectivity and Objectivity for all Born Again Christians.

Au contraire sir.............. Depends on the God you are talking about. Every tribe have been having dealings with their God since time.

johnydon22:
elucidate?

It is false because it is based on 'God said' as written in a book or through ecclesiastical proxies. God cannot make me to draw air myself in order to leave and when it comes to what religious people say is important to him as in obedience to his commands - upon which morality is built - I get to take it from a book or from the priest craft. It's all a fraud

Mujtahida:

It is false because it is based on 'God said' as written in a book or through ecclesiastical proxies. God cannot make me to draw air myself in order to leave and when it comes to what religious people say is important to him as in obedience to his commands - upon which morality is built - I get to take it from a book or from the priest craft. It's all a fraud

The basis of your argument is that God didn't say anything in the first place or don't exist?

Seun:

It’s a meaningless term. To me objectivity and morality are not compatible. Every moral actor or group of moral actors has its own morality. If a sentient creator exists, his morality is just one of many. He judges right and wrong from his point of view, just like all other moral actors e.g. elephants, lions and human beings.

From a lion’s point of view, killing a baby elephant is morally acceptable because they have to kill to eat, but from an elephant’s point of view, lions that kill elephant babies are evil animals that ought to be exterminated.

From the hypothetical creator’s perspective, allowing little children to have cancer or be raped may be right, since he allows these things to happen; because he sees them as his playthings (he is the potter and we are the clay, right?). That doesn’t make those things right from our point of view as decent people. Any human who allows kids to be raped even though he could prevent it, would be condemned as evil by all human beings.

If a creator exists, his morality is just his subjective morality. I do not believe that picking one moral actor’s subjective morality and labeling it as “objective” makes sense.

Actually what utterly lack sense are these rantings you put up.

You know what? you're right, god doesn't exist. That's the god in your head though.

However, the God that I serve exists. I converse with Him daily, I enjoy His influence, in Him, I have experience supernatural, so IT CAN ONLY BE FOOLISH OF YOU, THAT YOU'LL EXPECT ME TO AGREE TO YOUR BLIND ARGUMENT ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE.

let any fool argue all his life about the existence of your biological father, perhaps you'd be convinced against his existence.

You know what else, I'll yet send you a proof that'll be glaring to all. it just may not be the most palatable thing to you. Wait on it though.

You be talking as if your opinion counts for anything. Prideful ignorance!

Morality is always subjective

[size=8pt][/size]

awesomeJ:


Actually what utterly lacks sense are these rantings you put up.

You know what? you're right, god doesn't exist. That's the god you have as an idea though.

However, the God that I serve exists. I converse with Him daily, I enjoy His influence, in Him, I have experience supernatural, so IT CAN ONLY BE FOOLISH OF YOU, THAT YOU'LL EXPECT ME TO AGREE TO YOUR BLIND ARGUMENT ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE.

let any fool argue all his life about the existence of your biological father, perhaps you'd be convinced against his existence.

You know what else, I'll yet send you a proof that'll be glaring to all. it just may not be the most palatable thing to you. Wait on it though.

You be talking as if your opinion counts for anything. Prideful ignorance!

Was this suppose to be a rebuttal?

awesomeJ:


Actually what utterly lack sense are these rantings you put up.

You know what? you're right, god doesn't exist. That's the god in your head though.

However, the God that I serve exists. I converse with Him daily, I enjoy His influence, in Him, I have experience supernatural, so IT CAN ONLY BE FOOLISH OF YOU, THAT YOU'LL EXPECT ME TO AGREE TO YOUR BLIND ARGUMENT ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE.

let any fool argue all his life about the existence of your biological father, perhaps you'd be convinced against his existence.

You know what else, I'll yet send you a proof that'll be glaring to all. it just may not be the most palatable thing to you. Wait on it though.

You be talking as if your opinion counts for anything. Prideful ignorance!

You really are awesome, I'm in awe of this irrelevant and useless thesis

awesomeJ:


Actually what utterly lack sense are these rantings you put up.

You know what? you're right, god doesn't exist. That's the god in your head though.

However, the God that I serve exists. I converse with Him daily, I enjoy His influence, in Him, I have experience supernatural, so IT CAN ONLY BE FOOLISH OF YOU, THAT YOU'LL EXPECT ME TO AGREE TO YOUR BLIND ARGUMENT ABOUT HIS EXISTENCE.

let any fool argue all his life about the existence of your biological father, perhaps you'd be convinced against his existence.

You know what else, I'll yet send you a proof that'll be glaring to all. it just may not be the most palatable thing to you. Wait on it though.

You be talking as if your opinion counts for anything. Prideful ignorance!

You'll have to speak a little louder 'cause I don't understand stupid

johnydon22:
[size=8pt][/size]

Was this suppose to be a rebuttal?

johnydon22:


The basis of your argument is that God didn't say anything in the first place or don't exist?

He didn't say anything!