Dtruthspeaker:


You are just making your matters worse.

Do you not see that it is crazy to say that "I happen to believe in" is not connected to "has nothing to do with you believing in it"?

Nna men!

I'm going to try this explaining thing one more time

A: I believe in magic unicorns, who told me to chop off my finger for a million dollars

B: do you have any evidence for this magic unicorn? How are you sure it wasn't lying to you?

A: I find that offensive.. stop attacking me

B: Jumps off a cliff

That's how you sound right now.

Do not mistake asking questions, for questioning someone or something.. especially when it's a third party. I told you this before but you decided to exclude that part of my explanation in your response.

Asking you questions about your belief is what i call questioning the belief . I'm not subjecting you to scrutiny.. I'm subjecting the beliefs you happen to hold, to scrutiny

Endtimer:
I’ll address what I can. I need to read more on God’s relationship to certain things.



I don’t see the contradiction. The point of that option in the dilemma is to make the theist abandon moral objectivity in favor of arbitrariness. I accepted the option and sidestepped the challenge it is supposed to pose.

It seems one of us sees a contradiction, while the other sees it as completely fine.. I'm sure as the discussion goes on, our points will be made clearer to each other

I agree.

OK... Now I better understanding your position on God's morality, I can respond accordingly.

I disagree. Here you are mixing up the premises of both options of the dilemma. It isn’t that God will only act in a certain way to be seen as good. It is that whatever God does is good. Good is whatever God does. It isn’t that He only acts in those ways to conform to the good; rather those things are only good because they are His characteristics. Good is therefore entirely dependent on Him. However to eliminate the possibility of moral subjectivity, I said that God does not change morally. While whatever He does is good, He has only ever done the same things. So good is good because God does it and it doesn’t change because God’s nature doesn’t change. Evil would be good if God suddenly did it, but that’s an impossibility in this model. This is theistically sound, even though it requires further explication to be used in Christianity.

I personally don't think moral subjectivity can be avoided in this situation.

You said God has only ever done the same things. But you also said whatever God does, by nature, has to be considered good. So how exactly would you know if God did something “different"?

If whatever he does is considered good automatically, then he can do literally anything, and they would fall under the category of "good".

Saying he has only ever done “the same things" is something I don't quite understand. Maybe you can expatiate on that a little.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you're saying “everything which God has done up until this point has been good things" ... If so, then there needs to be something against which we can judge them as good or bad. Or else how do we know they are indeed good?

If as you've said earlier, they are good simply because God did them, then saying God has only ever done good things, loses it's meaning.

In that case, it would be impossible for God's actions to ever be seen as bad, or “different", not because he can't do what would be considered bad, but because whatever he does, is by nature, good.

I do believe that God is the only authoritative source of morality. I’ve just been accused of not knowing anything about ethics but it is in fact well known that any atheistic philosophy of ethics must assume certain moral first principles borrowed from religion. Aquinas referred to these as the cardinal virtues as we can arrive at them logically even though they lack moral value without God.

I think atheistic morality, or more specifically, morality not based on the supposed sayings of a God, is another debate entirely. But i sincerely doubt that their principles are “borrowed from religion"

This is especially insightful. God’s moral qualities are seen as superlative. That is, God’s virtue outdoes all incidence of morality. While all morals are on a scale of decay from His, we’ve already covered this as part of the dilemma. The reason the standard is good is because it is representative of God’s character.

I've noticed you've made mention to God's character a number of times. What exactly do you mean by that?

I don't see how the standard set by God, can be in any way, different from his character or nature.

Perhaps i need to rephrase what I'm trying to say. If something cannot be considered bad, then it cannot be considered good either.

Even if you say God's morality is superlative, it still doesn't make it intrinsically good. Pushing the ball upwards from God's standard to God's morality or character still yields the same question.

Why would God's morality, or his character, or Virtues, be considered good? If these are the highest standard by which all others must conform, then these by themselves cannot be seen as good or bad.

The highest good, if something like that were to exist, is something which could deviate from these standards, or nature, but doesn't.

If there is nothing from which God's character or Virtues or nature itself can deviate from, then those things by themselves, are neither good nor bad. Only the things which conform to them can be.

Endtimer:

Remember that that is the first option of the dilemma: that what ever God does is good. What makes it good is that God does it. What we’ve done here is pick God’s superlative qualities as our moral pivot (the only alternative would be superlative qualities in the other direction). The reason for this is so one standard doesn’t depend on another; so that we avoid infinite regress of moral dependency.

I think the infinite moral regress arises when you indeed, try to define God's standards as “the highest good", from which all other good get their definition

To me, it would be similar to trying to solve infinite regress in creation, by calling the first cause “the greatest creation", from which all other creations come from.

If we truly want to avoid infinite moral regress, then the highest authority cannot be seen as good or bad.. just as the first cause cannot be seen as created, or having a beginning.

It doesn't invalidate morality in my opinion. Calling it the highest good, begs the question as to why it is indeed good, which begs for a higher standard to compare it to.

You could point to God's character, or his virtues, or his nature, but it still leads to the question “then why are those good"

The response followed by that is often something along the lines of “because it just is".. which makes it lose it's meaning.

If God is truly at the top of the moral command center, then in order to avoid the regress you're talking about, we need to avoid judging the standard, based on said standard, or based on a non-existent higher standard, which would only ressurect the problem

Wilgrea7, you are making a huge mistake. This your question is quite misleading and even your discuss failed to address anything.
Don't get me wrong. It is absolutely right to question the idea people hold about god. I know by now you might have discovered that God is "nothing" from the comments of people like Dtruthspeaker and Co.
God is nothing, that was why the Romans /Greeks created the jesus character as a rallying point..
The purpose of the scriptures is to curtail our animal instinct and promote peace and harmony. And in the long run enjoy the life we have...
Some people like Dtruthspeaker and maxindhouse might not understand this fact and as such end up making a fool of themselves.

The bible is an oracle and should not be interpreted literally...it is full of symbolism and iconographies. If you don't understand the culture in which it originated from. ....you are wasting your time.


God is the universal consciousnesses..

Wilgrea7:

A: I believe in magic unicorns, who told me to chop off my finger for a million dollars

Only a person who is interested in you and your beliefs whether they have a good interest or not would be the one to ask you any question/questions or evidence on it. All others go ahead to continue managing their portion of life.

Dtruthspeaker:


Only a person who is interested in you

Yeah sorry I don't swing that way.

and your beliefs whether they have a good interest or not would be the one to ask you any question/questions or evidence on it. All others go ahead to continue managing their portion of life.

This isn't about you... Never was.. never will be

Wilgrea7:

Yeah sorry I don't swing that way.

Now you have resorted to become a lying evil twisting snake changing Truth into a Lie and evil exactly as prescribed by the atheists bible!

Wilgrea7:

This isn't about you... Never was.. never will be

Your words call you a liar


1. ... I questioned YOUR concept of a God. If you choose to take offense... That's on you

Now, it is proven that you have graduated from being an atheist to a satanist!

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you have resorted to become a lying evil twisting snake changing Truth into a Lie and evil exactly as prescribed by the atheists bible!

Wow... There's an atheist bible? Why didn't you tell me sooner, so i can get it and devote my life to the God of atheism.

Your words call you a liar

1. ... I questioned YOUR concept of a God. If you choose to take offense... That's on you

Now, it is proven that you have graduated from being an atheist to a satanist!

Thanks man. That means a lot to me

Wilgrea7:

Wow... There's an atheist bible? Why didn't you tell me sooner, so i can get it and devote my life to the God of atheism.

Now as the satanist that you are, you have now commenced implementation of willful forgetfulness as we had already in the past that you were an atheist but as usual with atheism and Satanism, you lied that you were not!

So see, you were already a satanist and you have now proven that both atheism and Satanism are the same thing, with Satanism being high quality anti-Godism aka Atheism.

Wilgrea7:


I think the infinite moral regress arises when you indeed, try to define God's standards as “the highest good", from which all other good get their definition

To me, it would be similar to trying to solve infinite regress in creation, by calling the first cause “the greatest creation", from which all other creations come from.

If we truly want to avoid infinite moral regress, then the highest authority cannot be seen as good or bad.. just as the first cause cannot be seen as created, or having a beginning.

It doesn't invalidate morality in my opinion. Calling it the highest good, begs the question as to why it is indeed good, which begs for a higher standard to compare it to.

You could point to God's character, or his virtues, or his nature, but it still leads to the question “then why are those good"

The response followed by that is often something along the lines of “because it just is".. which makes it lose it's meaning.

If God is truly at the top of the moral command center, then in order to avoid the regress you're talking about, we need to avoid judging the standard, based on said standard, or based on a non-existent higher standard, which would only ressurect the problem

I find formatting these posts to be quite difficult so I’ll quote your post in its entirety.

First off, I think you are committing the fallacy of equivocation by comparing morality to creation. Morals can be scaled given a standard; they have gradation. While it is possible to be more moral than something the same cannot be said about being created.

As for whether the highest authority is to be seen as good or bad, I addressed this before as a semantic issue. Given superlative morality, we can choose to call one extreme good and any imitation of that extreme good. It is not that they are actually “good”. “Good” is a term designated to describe behavior characteristic of this superlative morality. Evil is the term chosen to describe the opposite superlative morality. It isn’t that God is good; it’s that God is superlatively moral in a direction we call “good” while calling the reverse superlative morality evil.

Think of “good” as a term chosen to describe one of the two kinds of superlative morals.

This should also settle the problem of infinite regress. God’s morality isn’t called good because it matches an external standard. It is simply the highest standard of morals in a certain direction, that we happen to call it good is inconsequential. To paraphrase Shakespeare; would what we call a rose, by any other name, smell less sweetly.

I hope I’ve ironed this point out.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]
I don't see how the standard set by God, can be in any way, different from his character or nature
[\quote]

This is astonishingly correct. God’s own immutable nature is the standard. That’s been my point all along.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]
The highest good, if something like that were to exist, is something which could deviate from these standards, or nature, but doesn't.
[\quote]

Is that a restatement of my argument? If it is then we completely understand one another. The highest good in your comment above is God: something that could deviate from itself as it is the standard, but doesn’t. Our choosing to call it “good” is a matter of semantics.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]
Perhaps i need to rephrase what I'm trying to say. If something cannot be considered bad, then it cannot be considered good either
[\quote]

The above does not follow. The correct statement is: if something cannot be considered bad, then it must always be considered good at best and morally neutral at worst.

[quote author=Wilgrea7 post=116753775]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like you're saying “everything which God has done up until this point has been good things" ... If so, then there needs to be something against which we can judge them as good or bad. Or else how do we know they are indeed good?

If as you've said earlier, they are good simply because God did them, then saying God has only ever done good things, loses it's meaning
[\quote]

I’m not saying that God has only ever done good things. I’m saying that on theism, it is considered that God has only ever done the same things rather than good things. Those things, by virtue of His doing them are good. If He had done the opposite of those things they would be considered good. Moral arbitrariness is avoided by positing that God only ever does the same things, therefore the same set of actions remain good and objective morality is preserved.

Endtimer:


I find formatting these posts to be quite difficult so I’ll quote your post in its entirety.

First off, I think you are committing the fallacy of equivocation by comparing morality to creation. Morals can be scaled given a standard; they have gradation. While it is possible to be more moral than something the same cannot be said about being created.

As for whether the highest authority is to be seen as good or bad, I addressed this before as a semantic issue. Given superlative morality, we can choose to call one extreme good and any imitation of that extreme good. It is not that they are actually “good”. “Good” is a term designated to describe behavior characteristic of this superlative morality. Evil is the term chosen to describe the opposite superlative morality. It isn’t that God is good; it’s that God is superlatively moral in a direction we call “good” while calling the reverse superlative morality evil.

Think of “good” as a term chosen to describe one of the two kinds of superlative morals.

I salute your analogies. However, there is something I've noticed. It has to do with the idea of superlative morality. Or maybe I've been misunderstanding it all this while.

So, we've been discussing about a sort of standard, against which right and wrong get their meaning from. We both agree on that one.
But I also noticed you've made reference to the standards, or the superlative morality as a sort of dichotomy. Or maybe I'm once again misunderstanding it.

So you said we can choose to call one extreme good, and the other extreme bad. What exactly are we placing at, and between these extremes? Is it our actions? Or is it the very standards we're talking about here?

The way I see it, this superlative morality, which is, the highest definition of what is right and wrong, IS the standard of God we're talking about.

Except of course, you mean that God's standard itself, is by choice of definition, what we'll call the "good" side, of the superlative morality "spectrum".

But if that's the case, then there has to be another sort of standard, which we would have to place, by definition, on the "bad" side of the superlative morality spectrum, for the spectrum to have any meaning at all. A spectrum or a dichotomy with only one value isn't much of a spectrum anymore.

This should also settle the problem of infinite regress. God’s morality isn’t called good because it matches an external standard. It is simply the highest standard of morals in a certain direction, that we happen to call it good is inconsequential. To paraphrase Shakespeare; would what we call a rose, by any other name, smell less sweetly.

I hope I’ve ironed this point out.

So this is where I think that is where we've been seeing things differently. You said God's standard, is the highest standard of morals, in a certain direction, which we happen to call good. But isn't that by definition what standards are supposed to be?

Standards as we know them, point towards a certain direction. Their act of pointing towards this direction is the very thing that outlines what good and bad will be. Good is seen as what follows this rule, or direction, while degrees of bad are measured by degrees of variation from the direction being pointed to by the standard.

All standards, whether superlative or not, point towards a certain direction. That's how good and bad are identified, as the degree to which an action is in line with the direction pointed out. But the direction itself, although being defined as good, only exists by virtue of what the standard itself is trying to outline.

I understand that God's morality is the highest standard, which by definition, points to the highest good achievable, but the definition only exists by virtue of the properties the standard itself is trying to outline.

I noticed you tried to quote several of my points to attend to them individually. To end a quote, you use the forward slash (/), not the backward one (\)

Endtimer:


This is astonishingly correct. God’s own immutable nature is the standard. That’s been my point all along.

Is that a restatement of my argument? If it is then we completely understand one another. The highest good in your comment above is God: something that could deviate from itself as it is the standard, but doesn’t. Our choosing to call it “good” is a matter of semantics.

But how exactly can God deviate from himself, especially when the standard as you said earlier depends on his actions. Meaning that whatever he does has to be considered good?

The above does not follow. The correct statement is: if something cannot be considered bad, then it must always be considered good at best and morally neutral at worst.

But why would something which cannot be considered bad, be considered good by default? When I say something cannot be considered bad, I don't mean it in the sense that that specific thing lacked the ability to be or do what is considered bad, I mean it in the sense that regardless of what that thing does, it cannot be considered bad. Meaning the definition of good and bad have to be warped around what that thing does.

I’m not saying that God has only ever done good things. I’m saying that on theism, it is considered that God has only ever done the same things rather than good things. Those things, by virtue of His doing them are good. If He had done the opposite of those things they would be considered good. Moral arbitrariness is avoided by positing that God only ever does the same things, therefore the same set of actions remain good and objective morality is preserved.

I think get it now. So basically, what I think you're trying to say is that God once acted in a certain way, which became the arbiter of good and evil. But he will only act in line with how he acted before, or as you've put it, only ever do the same thing, in order not to change the definition of right and wrong, thereby making it arbitrary.

I think this is an absolutely outstanding position in theory, or if you try to argue for a deistic sort of God. But the theist, especially Christians and Muslims may run into serious problems when they try to apply this to their God. But I'll try not to make this about the Christian doctrine.

Wilgrea7:
I
I think get it now. So basically, what I think you're trying to say is that God once acted in a certain way, which became the arbiter of good and evil. But he will only act in line with how he acted before, or as you've put it, only ever do the same thing, in order not to change the definition of right and wrong, thereby making it arbitrary.

I think this is an absolutely outstanding position in theory, or if you try to argue for a deistic sort of God. But the theist, especially Christians and Muslims may run into serious problems when they try to apply this to their God. But I'll try not to make this about the Christian doctrine.

Glad to see that we understand each other. That is the answer to Euthyphro’s dilemma and the only authoritative source of objective morality. To adapt it to Christianity in particular is relatively easy, but as always, it involves Jesus’ death on the cross.

https://fb.watch/fCCJ_0cPqT/




No better time than now

Wilgrea7:
Any takers?

Questioning God? Don't you need to find God first to question God?

Now, I wish this thread was about questioning what one reads about Gods in books since one can at least see and read the books while the Gods themselves seem to have better things to do unless one wants to believe the answers one comes up with in one's head are from God.

I'd be asking the Christian God why Adam and Eve got demoted to slaves in a tiny Garden instead of remaining "in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground", for starts.

I'd also ask why a God would "Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech", just because they have "learnt to make bricks" to "build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens", and then say nothing when people are now building rockets to Mars!

And that bit about Only begotten Son. Surely we'd have benefitted more if he'd not been crucified and taught more instead!

But unfortunately, this thread is not about such things but about questioning some God no one has ever seen, which is rather a bit of a pity.

budaatum:


Questioning God? Don't you need to find God first to question God?

I think a lot of people got the wrong misconception from the title. When i say question God, i meant questioning claims about God we've been told.

Afterall, everything we believe about these gods are things we were told by people. I addressed this in one of the original posts.

Now, I wish this thread was about questioning what one reads about Gods in books since one can at least see and read the books while the Gods themselves seem to have better things to do unless one wants to believe the answers one comes up with in one's head are from God.

It is.

I'd be asking the Christian God why Adam and Eve got demoted to slaves in a tiny Garden instead of remaining "in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground", for starts.

I'd also ask why a God would "Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech", just because they have "learnt to make bricks" to "build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens", and then say nothing when people are now building rockets to Mars!

And that bit about Only begotten Son. Surely we'd have benefitted more if he'd not been crucified and taught more instead!

But unfortunately, this thread is not about such things but about questioning some God no one has ever seen, which is rather a bit of a pity.

Dtruthspeaker seems to know a lot about this God, considering he easily and repeatedly gets offended on the God's behalf..

Maybe he can provide some answers

Wilgrea7:


I think a lot of people got the wrong misconception from the title. When i say question God, i meant questioning claims about God we've been told.

"A lot of people" including my very self, I dare say and you must have noted. So perhaps be more specific about what we are questioning, some imaginary God, or what we read about an imaginary God in a real book.

Below is Jesus teaching the same, question what you have been told.

God is a cosmic abuser and we are all his victims

Wilgrea7:

Dtruthspeaker seems to know a lot about this God, considering he easily and repeatedly gets offended on the God's behalf..

Maybe he can provide some answers

I can but I have decided that from now on, I almost would not give you the answers and you can carry on ahead with the life and powers you already have.

I only add that you should remember that as you have powers to do whatever you like, so do any other who has power to do what they please.

Secondly, I am offended because your questions are never bonafide and based on already conceived judgements you have already passed against God.

In other words, where all over the world it is the good and just practice that people are judged based on the presumption that they were innocent unless proven guilty, in your case, it is the other way round.

You judge God guilty, and then you ask that He is proven innocent, even by your own standards and not by the standards of fairness and equity.

Wilgrea7:

Dtruthspeaker seems to know a lot about this God, considering he easily and repeatedly gets offended on the God's behalf.

Maybe he can provide some answers

I don't think I can accept any answers about anything from a person who thinks square roots are pointless, and Simple Interest and Compound Interest is A Perversion and A Cover up of God's Established Law.

Good luck if you can.

budaatum:


I don't think I can accept any answers about anything from a person who thinks square roots are pointless, and Simple Interest and Compound Interest is A Perversion and A Cover up of God's Established Law.

Good luck if you can.

As I told you then, I have been asking all who practically work with calculations eg mathematicians, accountants, engineers and any one who is in the science world whether they have practically used square root in their real life problem solving activities, with of course, they were going to practically show it to me. But till today, not one has.

On simple/compound interest, Natural Law has already shown us that it is wrong to give far above what you receive. (An eye for an eye! And not an eye for eyes!)

Without duress and pressure no one will ever willfully agree to borrow N10,000 to pay back N30,000 which almost doubles every week. What rubbish!

No one reasonable person finds it just and fair as is proven even in today's loan app borrowing shits.

On top of the fact that in Natural Law which was the first Law we all know, It prescribes a giving even without interest.

But Thieves like you (obviously you must be in the lending business) called bankers/money lenders are the ones who always seek to earn far above and beyond their means even by dishonest means, who have ensured that people are forced to accept their stealing by the business of loans and to accept that their manipulation of stealing is right because of their creation of their way of taking more than their reasonable due, through simple/compound interest.

In violation of The Law,
"The tenets of The Law are To Live Honestly, To Harm No One and To Give to each their Due!"

I know why it is taught to children is to ensure that they would think that this their unnatural act of stealing is known, such that they would think that it was natural in the first place and therefore, they must agree with it. Hence, they would not see anything wrong with it when they grow up and steal from them.

Of course it is known that no adult without duress, will ever agree to such a contract of simple/compound interest.

Do you see what I mean, Wilgrea7?

If I step outside and see rain falling and that person then tells me rains is falling, I would go out and check again!

budaatum:


I don't think I can accept any answers about anything from a person who thinks square roots are pointless, and Simple Interest and Compound Interest is A Perversion and A Cover up of God's Established Law.

Good luck if you can.

Wow... I never even knew about those

That explains a lot.

Imagine a nation having people with that sort of mindset, in charge of education. It would be absolute chaos.

Dtruthspeaker:


Secondly, I am offended because your questions are never bonafide and based on already conceived judgements you have already passed against God.

In other words, where all over the world it is the good and just practice that people are judged based on the presumption that they were innocent unless proven guilty, in your case, it is the other way round.

You judge God guilty, and then you ask that He is proven innocent, even by your own standards and not by the standards of fairness and equity.

What sort of preconceived judgements do I already have? Since when have I considered your God guilty until proven innocent?

Is it because I said realistically, if he exists, he can't be seen as Holy? Or is it because I pointed to the barbaric acts in the old testament done in his name? Did I lie in any of those situations?

I judge based on the facts available to me. If it doesn't come out in favor of your God or religion, it's not my fault. I can't bend reality.. or as you like to say, real-eye-ty

Wilgrea7:


Wow... I never even knew about those

That explains a lot.

Imagine a nation having people with that sort of mindset, in charge of education. It would be absolute chaos.

Our nation is full of them, hence the chaos.

You got to watch the history of those you converse with. I find it difficult, but if I had no patience I would not discuss with those who refuse to eat the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil except to educate them, though I am aware they'd be arguing that what they believe is actual knowledge when it is in fact plain ignorance.

God never says humans should not question Him rather He expects your reverence Not playing stupid before Him.
A scripture in Isaiah says “ Come let us reason together “ there is no reasoning without questions asked SIMPLE case closed.
Jesus while praying asked a question “ My God My God why have you forsaken me?
Abraham asked a question “Will the judge of all not do right? and God answered. The issue is the intent with which you question God.
Job himself asked God questions which He responded to? Ask balanced questions without Bias.

#CaseCLOSED!!!

Dtruthspeaker:


If I did not like the Truth I would not be here arguing about it, even sometimes participating in none-sense and foolish arguments.

You do not like the Truth, DT. All you speak of is your belief, which is not knowledge not to talk of be true.

TAYO124:
God never says humans should not question Him rather He expects your reverence Not playing stupid before Him.
A scripture in Isaiah says “ Come let us reason together “ there is no reasoning without questions asked SIMPLE case closed.
Jesus while praying asked a question “ My God My God why have you forsaken me?
Abraham asked a question “Will the judge of all not do right? and God answered. The issue is the intent with which you question God.
Job himself asked God questions which He responded to? Ask balanced questions without Bias.

#CaseCLOSED!!!

Now, if only people would reason instead of stating their beliefs and expecting to be believed.

Maybe one day. I hope.

budaatum:

You do not like the Truth, DT. All you speak of is your belief, which is not knowledge not to talk of be true.

Says the snake who uses the truth to lie.

Dtruthspeaker:


Says the snake who uses the truth to lie.

Like the following obvious truth.

budaatum:


Like the following obvious truth.

And Adam did not reach a day (1000 years)