So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[seer]

Seer, you are making my point. The majority is still a group! The powerful elite is still a group! Whatever the group is, the moral rules pertain to all the members thereof. Do morals have any application to you when living on an island all by your lonesome? No? Why not?

And you are making my point. Claiming that the best interest of the whole is a moral good is merely say so, and arbitrary. As opposed to the majority or a powerful minority.

And btw, yes, greedy people do take risks, thats why we both teach moral behavior and codify moral laws. That doesn't mean that murderous, thieving, narcisistic psychopaths like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Idi, Putin or a Trump won't come along and try to lord it over the people. They do exist, they do sometimes rise to power, and that ugly side of human nature is why we need morals.

Not the point, see above

[carpedm9587]

You are just creating your own definitions. Morality by definition is simply: a doctrine or system of moral conduct. The idea of choice may or may not enter in, but it is not key to its definition. So yes, it would have application. God by nature always intends to do right, is always loving and just. He will not change His mind on a whim, as is so common with men. And that is comforting and generates deep trust. Whether you admire that or not.

Seer - it is a long held view that a being that cannot choose cannot be held morally liable. Our legal system is founded on it. Most philosophies affirm it. Morality requires the ability to choose. It is the heart of the entire "free will" discussion. If your god CANNOT act against his nature - and his nature does not permit lying, then your god is not a moral agent. He is merely a robot - forced to act according to his nature. The same would be true if a human person lacked the ability to choose and act. If you're denying that reality - then you're denying some pretty fundamental, widely held positions. You are free to do that, but it's not me that's redefining terms...

Stop with the binary stuff Carp. There is no way it could be otherwise, we are all severely limited in knowledge and experience. We are not working with anything close to a full tool box. God is.

When you make binary statements - expect them to be pointed out. The opposite of "all knowing" is "no knowledge." Limited knowledge does not make a person "ignorant." It merely means they have limited knowledge. They have some knowledge, and lack some knowledge. That does not make them "ignorant" and it does not prevent them from being a moral agent. And you have still not shown that this all-knowing being even exists, so the point is rather moot.

Is this before or after you step on him? Or kill his whole colony because it is messing up your garden?

Tangent - so I have no further response.

Then why on earth did you bring up the whole circular thing concerning God in the first place? You meant it as a slam.

You are not privy to what I meant, Seer - unless you have developed the ability to read minds.

The point is Carp there are certain God given moral laws that don't change from culture to culture are not relative to cultures. And binding in the sense that men will one day be judged by these standards.

And my moral framework doesn't change from culture to culture either, so I don't see how god' moral framework is any different than mine. As for one day being judged - that's a matter of power, not morality. If god exists, god has the power to "punish" or "reward" those who do not adhere to or do adhere to (respectively) his moral code. That's a matter of enforcement. The same is true of any agency that has more power than an individual. So you have not shown how god's moral framework is any different than mine - except that he would have more power than I.

The Christian worldview tells us why something rather than nothing exists, why we have a life permitting universe, why life actually showed up in this life permitting universe, why this life reached self-awareness, and why this life is morally aware.

The Christian framework, Seer, reduces to "god did it." That there is a supreme being that felt a need to create and made us creatures to worship him and do what he wants and will judge us eternally if we don't is not exactly a very logical view of the universe. We do not know how the universe arose, true, but we do increasingly understand the mechanisms that lead to life, lead to sentient life, and lead to moralizing. They are complex, but comprehensible, and they do not require a god. Yes - there are some elements we do not fully understand, but filling those gaps with "god did it" is not a justified leap, IMO. It is essentially a "god of the gaps" belief.

The Christian worldview is a very odd one, Seer. I know it makes sense to those who hold it. It made sense to me once. Then I began to ask some serious questions - and Christianity doesn't have anything but ancient canned answers. It is a psychologically powerful message - no question about it. But it is not a particularly rational one.

As far as my experiences of God, these are things I generally can not convey, but they were deep, real (real as this computer in front of me) and completely life changing. But there is no way I could take these experiences and down load them into your mind and heart. And there are no words that could do them justice.

That's pretty much the response I usually get. And it's frankly the response I used to give myself. I don't anymore

Well I'm glad you agree that we all have faith, you just think that your faith is superior to mine. Got it...

Everyone believes their beliefs are superior to everyone else's Seer. As soon as we find a belief we think is superior to our own, we immediately adopt it, make it our own belief, and then IT becomes superior to any other belief we hear. That's how it works. You believe your belief is superior - more true - better - than mine. Look at your own sig. It screams how much you condescend to atheism.

If we hear a belief that is not our own, and the arguments do not convince us, we do not adopt that belief and we see it as an inferior belief because we see it as "untrue." I don't know why that surprises you. Do I think you have a right to yours? Of course. Do I think it is possible you are right? There is always the possibility I am wrong and you are right. Do I think you are actually right? If I did, I would still be Christian. No - I think your beliefs are mistaken - misinformed - and not well thought through. I think you are accepting arguments without adequate analysis. I think that because I have listened to and examined most of the arguments I have heard here, and found them wanting. You, obviously, have not. So you think I am wrong - and I think you are wrong. Such is life...

[Tassman]

And you are making my point. Claiming that the best interest of the whole is a moral good is merely say so, and arbitrary. As opposed to the majority or a powerful minority.

[seer]

Seer - it is a long held view that a being that cannot choose cannot be held morally liable. Our legal system is founded on it. Most philosophies affirm it. Morality requires the ability to choose. It is the heart of the entire "free will" discussion. If your god CANNOT act against his nature - and his nature does not permit lying, then your god is not a moral agent. He is merely a robot - forced to act according to his nature. The same would be true if a human person lacked the ability to choose and act. If you're denying that reality - then you're denying some pretty fundamental, widely held positions. You are free to do that, but it's not me that's redefining terms...

Like I said Carp, the ability to do otherwise is not necessarily definitional, and since it is not, God certainly is a moral being, attributes like justice, mercy, goodness, truthfulness, etc...are moral in nature in that they have a moral effect on those to whom they are directed. And I did not redefine terms, I quoted a dictionary. And again, I find comfort and certainty in the fact that God is completely trustworthy, and that He can not morally turn on a dime.

When you make binary statements - expect them to be pointed out. The opposite of "all knowing" is "no knowledge." Limited knowledge does not make a person "ignorant." It merely means they have limited knowledge. They have some knowledge, and lack some knowledge. That does not make them "ignorant" and it does not prevent them from being a moral agent. And you have still not shown that this all-knowing being even exists, so the point is rather moot.

Sure you could be a moral agent according to your very limited understanding. But again the question was, if you disagreed with a law or moral position, or a value of God, on what possible basis could you do that? You basically said that you value what you value, OK, but that does not me how you logically get there. Is your knowledge superior? Your mutable moral character is superior to an immutable moral character? What?

You are not privy to what I meant, Seer - unless you have developed the ability to read minds.

You said: And the argument usually ends up being entirely circular since eventually someone will claim that anything god does is good by definition - because god did it.

Now don't tell me you did not mean to suggest that it wasn't a valid way of reasoning.

And my moral framework doesn't change from culture to culture either, so I don't see how god' moral framework is any different than mine. As for one day being judged - that's a matter of power, not morality. If god exists, god has the power to "punish" or "reward" those who do not adhere to or do adhere to (respectively) his moral code. That's a matter of enforcement. The same is true of any agency that has more power than an individual. So you have not shown how god's moral framework is any different than mine - except that he would have more power than I.

First that is nonsense, if you were born in Feudal Japan your moral opinions would be quite different on any number of issues. The fact that you were born in a largely Christian culture is what has informed your ideals. So yes your moral opinion is largely culturally induced. God's moral law is not.

The Christian framework, Seer, reduces to "god did it." That there is a supreme being that felt a need to create and made us creatures to worship him and do what he wants and will judge us eternally if we don't is not exactly a very logical view of the universe. We do not know how the universe arose, true, but we do increasingly understand the mechanisms that lead to life, lead to sentient life, and lead to moralizing. They are complex, but comprehensible, and they do not require a god. Yes - there are some elements we do not fully understand, but filling those gaps with "god did it" is not a justified leap, IMO. It is essentially a "god of the gaps" belief.

And you have "nature of the gaps" Carp. First you assume that just because somethings can be answered by science that all things can. Yet we have some very fundamental questions that science, at this point, can not answer. Why does something rather than nothing exist, why is this something life permitting, why did life show up (we have a near zero understanding of biogenesis)? And we have no understanding of why consciousness came to be, which makes this whole debate possible. You have faith that science can one day answers these, I have faith that they have already have been answered.

The Christian worldview is a very odd one, Seer. I know it makes sense to those who hold it. It made sense to me once. Then I began to ask some serious questions - and Christianity doesn't have anything but ancient canned answers. It is a psychologically powerful message - no question about it. But it is not a particularly rational one.

Rational to whom, you? Why is that the standard for rationality? You really mean your opinion.

So you think I am wrong - and I think you are wrong. Such is life...

On this we agree...

[carpedm9587]

Like I said Carp, the ability to do otherwise is not necessarily definitional, and since it is not, God certainly is a moral being, attributes like justice, mercy, goodness, truthfulness, etc...are moral in nature in that they have a moral effect on those to whom they are directed. And I did not redefine terms, I quoted a dictionary. And again, I find comfort and certainty in the fact that God is completely trustworthy, and that He can not morally turn on a dime.

If such a being existed, I would certainly trust them. I wouldn't admire them or see them as a moral agent. A robot programmed to always chose "good" is not admirable. They're just folowing their programming.

Sure you could be a moral agent according to your very limited understanding. But again the question was, if you disagreed with a law or moral position, or a value of God, on what possible basis could you do that?

On the basis that I do not value as this god values, obviously. Morality is based on what we value.

You basically said that you value what you value, OK, but that does not me how you logically get there.

What we value and why is not always arrived at logically. It sources from many places: our upbringing/families, our community, our experiences, etc. None of those will ever align with what a hypothetical god would experience, so we are necessarily going to value differently, ergo we are going to moralize differently.

Is your knowledge superior?

It doesn't have to be. What I value is not just about knowledge.

Your mutable moral character is superior to an immutable moral character? What?

You've not established that this being exists, so I have nothing to align to. And the being you've outlined is not a moral agent based on the discussion above, so (again) I have nothing to align to.

You said: And the argument usually ends up being entirely circular since eventually someone will claim that anything god does is good by definition - because god did it.

Now don't tell me you did not mean to suggest that it wasn't a valid way of reasoning.

Yes - I stand by that part of the argument. When people point to biblical stories that would be considered atrocities today, which were (according to the bible) commanded by (or sanctioned by) god, the response is typically "god is all good, so that was a good action." That argument is simply circular.

If I act in a particular way, it is not god or bad because I did it. I will assess it as good or bad based on its alignment to my moral framework which is based on what I value which is based on a combination of my life experiences and my nature. Someone else will look at the same act and may assess it differently on the basis of their moral framework which is based on what they value which is based on their experiences. None of us will say, "it's good because I did it."

First that is nonsense, if you were born in Feudal Japan your moral opinions would be quite different on any number of issues. The fact that you were born in a largely Christian culture is what has informed your ideals. So yes your moral opinion is largely culturally induced. God's moral law is not.

The best you can say is "there is a high probabiility." You don't know what my morals would be had I been born in any given place. You just know, as I do, that my moral framework would very likely be different because of the difference in my experiences.

Likewise, had you been born in a predominantly Muslim country, there is a high probability you would be worshiping Allah, claiming that Allah's moral will was absolute, and decrying the Christian framework. Had you been born in Myanmar, there is a high probability you would have been Buddhist, and today you would likely be decrying the Muslim plot to destroy the Buddhist majority. You would value differently, because you would have different experiences, and your moral code would align with that valuing and those experiences.

We are all a product of our circumstances and experiences. You are no different.

And you have "nature of the gaps" Carp. First you assume that just because somethings can be answered by science that all things can.

At no point have I made this claim, nor do I think it. For example, it is entirely possible we will never learn about the origins of the universe because we cannot see beyond its spatial and temporal boundaries. It is also possible that some knowledge is now beyond our reach. One physicist (maybe it was Tyson), when asked what keeps him awake at night noted (and I paraphrase), "our universe is expanding and, someday, it will have expanded to the point that we will not be able to see any adjacent galaxy. The light simply will not reach us in any form. Any species that arises in this galaxy after that time will look out and see this galaxy as 'all that is,' blind to the fact that there are countless other galaxies in existence - but they cannot be seen. I often wonder what things we may already be blind to because we lack any mechanism for seeing."

Yet we have some very fundamental questions that science, at this point, can not answer.

The best you can say is "there is a high probabiility." You don't know what my morals would be had I been born in any given place. You just know, as I do, that my moral framework would very likely be different because of the difference in my experiences.

Likewise, had you been born in a predominantly Muslim country, there is a high probability you would be worshiping Allah, claiming that Allah's moral will was absolute, and decrying the Christian framework. Had you been born in Myanmar, there is a high probability you would have been Buddhist, and today you would likely be decrying the Muslim plot to destroy the Buddhist majority. You would value differently, because you would have different experiences, and your moral code would align with that valuing and those experiences.

Of course..

Why does something rather than nothing exist, why is this something life permitting, why did life show up (we have a near zero understanding of biogenesis)? And we have no understanding of why consciousness came to be, which makes this whole debate possible. You have faith that science can one day answers these, I have faith that they have already have been answered.

Seer, you are asking questions I do not ask. Why? Why implies a purpose/reason. Purpose/reason implies a purposer/reasoner. The very question betrays the bias of the asker. The asker wants there to be a purposer/reasoner - wants there to be a being vast enough to "cause" all of this.

I do not approach any of these questions that way. I do not ask "why." I ask "how." If the "how" leads to a god - so be it. How is it that something (rather than nothing) exist? We don't know the answer to that. We may never know it. We have some faint clues from quantum mechanics, but nothing definitive. How is it that this something is life permitting? The very same elements that make up the universe make up our bodies. They are merely arranged differently. We are learning more and more about how that arrangement results in this phenomenon we call life. We also know a bit about how life changes over time (evolution). We have some significant gaps in how it initiates - and we have much left to learn about evolution itself. For those gaps, I am fine with "I don't know." That I DO believe, we will eventually discover. I suspect it will not be my lifetime. I certainly don't need to leap to answer the questions with "god did it." I can live with "I don't know."

But you are correct that I have faith science will someday answer these questions. I base that faith on the pattern I see in history. I certainly do not base it on the writings of a handful of men in the middle east 2-3.5K years ago.

Rational to whom, you?

Yes.

Why is that the standard for rationality?

I'm not a "standard" for anything. However, like most humans, I reason. If someone can show me a flaw in my reasoning, I will adjust. I try to remain sensitive to the fact that I can be wrong about any particular thing. After all, I once was Christian, remember?

You really mean your opinion.

Well, the line between "opinion" and "faith" is a narrow one. Every belief we hold is a combination of knowledge, opinion, and faith. From my perspective, the less knowledge we have, the more we depend on opinion/faith, and the less reliable is our belief. The more we know, the less we rely on opinion/faith and the more reliable our belief. We never get to the absolutes.

On this we agree...

[seer]

If such a being existed, I would certainly trust them. I wouldn't admire them or see them as a moral agent. A robot programmed to always chose "good" is not admirable. They're just folowing their programming.

That is your opinion Carp, but there are moral consequences to the acts of God.

On the basis that I do not value as this god values, obviously. Morality is based on what we value.

What we value and why is not always arrived at logically. It sources from many places: our upbringing/families, our community, our experiences, etc. None of those will ever align with what a hypothetical god would experience, so we are necessarily going to value differently, ergo we are going to moralize differently.

It doesn't have to be. What I value is not just about knowledge.

You've not established that this being exists, so I have nothing to align to. And the being you've outlined is not a moral agent based on the discussion above, so (again) I have nothing to align to.

So we are back to basically to you value what you value. And it is not about whether I can demonstrate God or not. It is about on what logical basis would or could you reject His values or moral ideals? Given your limited understanding, your changeable moral nature and the fact that your moral ideals are largely relative - culturally induced.

Yes - I stand by that part of the argument. When people point to biblical stories that would be considered atrocities today, which were (according to the bible) commanded by (or sanctioned by) god, the response is typically "god is all good, so that was a good action." That argument is simply circular.

Yet you will use the same circular reasoning to define good, as you already admitted. So what is your problem?

If I act in a particular way, it is not god or bad because I did it. I will assess it as good or bad based on its alignment to my moral framework which is based on what I value which is based on a combination of my life experiences and my nature. Someone else will look at the same act and may assess it differently on the basis of their moral framework which is based on what they value which is based on their experiences. None of us will say, "it's good because I did it."

But God would define right or good based on His unchanging moral nature and absolute knowledge of all present and future consequences. When we say it is good because God did it, we take those facts (at least facts to us) into consideration.

The best you can say is "there is a high probabiility." You don't know what my morals would be had I been born in any given place. You just know, as I do, that my moral framework would very likely be different because of the difference in my experiences.

Likewise, had you been born in a predominantly Muslim country, there is a high probability you would be worshiping Allah, claiming that Allah's moral will was absolute, and decrying the Christian framework. Had you been born in Myanmar, there is a high probability you would have been Buddhist, and today you would likely be decrying the Muslim plot to destroy the Buddhist majority. You would value differently, because you would have different experiences, and your moral code would align with that valuing and those experiences.

We are all a product of our circumstances and experiences. You are no different.

You are only proving my point. Our values are largely culturally relative. The law of God would not be. You said that His moral law was relative, it would not be because He, it, is not subjected to the vagaries of culture, upbringing or or varying genetics.

And I will leave the rest for now, these things get to long for me... BTW are we still on for Saturday? I'm looking forward to it.

[JimL]

And you are making my point. Claiming that the best interest of the whole is a moral good is merely say so, and arbitrary. As opposed to the majority or a powerful minority.

Seer, 1) Is it in your best interests to survive, to live in peace without fear of theft and violence? Or is your say so necessary for that to be true? 2) Is it in your best interests to live in a society whose moral codes best facilitates those interests? The answer is yes, it is, and your say so isn't necessary, and so the morals that best facilitate that are based on reason, logically founded, with respect to the good of human society. Morals are related to the best interests of human beings and human society and therefore, prima facie, need have nothing to do with an objective source, or god. I understand that you want morals to be objective realities of some sort, but that is merely an agenda driven notion, you have no supporting argument.

[seer]

Seer, 1) Is it in your best interests to survive, to live in peace without fear of theft and violence? Or is your say so necessary for that to be true? 2) Is it in your best interests to live in a society whose moral codes best facilitates those interests? The answer is yes, it is, and your say so isn't necessary, and so the morals that best facilitate that are based on reason, logically founded, with respect to the good of human society. Morals are related to the best interests of human beings and human society and therefore, prima facie, need have nothing to do with an objective source, or god. I understand that you want morals to be objective realities of some sort, but that is merely an agenda driven notion, you have no supporting argument.

Jim let me try again. The majority believes that it is a moral good to further their comfort and wealth and power by exploiting a minority group, and they have the power to maintain order. Then you have your (or our) opinion. Why are we right? Because of our "say so?"

[carpedm9587]

That is your opinion Carp, but there are moral consequences to the acts of God.

Actually - it is my conclusion based on your description of the god you believe exists. I do not believe in a god, remember? If you believe that a sentient agent that lacks the ability to make moral choices for good or ill can actually be a moral agent, so be it. The concept defies conventional definitions and understandings of the concept of a "moral agent."

So we are back to basically to you value what you value.

I don't think we're "back," Seer. I have never said otherwise.

And it is not about whether I can demonstrate God or not.

Well, if you want to make the case for an absolute moral standard based on a god, you will have to first show this being exists. That would be the first step. But it will not be enough. You will also have to show how their moral framework (which apparently is forced on them), is "binding" on me.

It is about on what logical basis would or could you reject His values or moral ideals?

I've answered this already.

Given your limited understanding, your changeable moral nature and the fact that your moral ideals are largely relative - culturally induced.

None of which changes that my moral framework is rooted in what I have come to value, as your god's would be if your god actually existed. As your moral framework is. As all moral frameworks are.

Yet you will use the same circular reasoning to define good, as you already admitted. So what is your problem?

I've answered this already. See my previous answer.

But God would define right or good based on His unchanging moral nature and absolute knowledge of all present and future consequences. When we say it is good because God did it, we take those facts (at least facts to us) into consideration.

God's definition of good (assuming you mean moral good) will be based on what god values, as mine is based on what I value. It is not good to god because god did it. It is good to god if it aligns with god's moral framework. And you apparently believe god is not free to act outside this framework, which kind of erases the concept of "moral agent."

You are only proving my point. Our values are largely culturally relative. The law of God would not be.

Of course not. God's moral framework would be relative to god. It is informed by god's experiences and the things god values as a result. You still have not made the case for why a moral framework derived by a god relative to the experiences of a god are in any way binding on me - a human.

You said that His moral law was relative, it would not be because He, it, is not subjected to the vagaries of culture, upbringing or or varying genetics.

Not being relative to culture does not mean it is not relative - it just means it is not relative to that particular thing. Presumably, god is a one-of-a-kind and does not participate in any particular "culture." Of course, there are all sorts of Christian (and other) theologies that suggest the realm of the supernatural is populated by various entities (angel's, demons, etc.), so presumably god's moral framework is influenced by god's environment. Since I don't believe any of that actually exists, I have no further observation.

And I will leave the rest for now, these things get to long for me... BTW are we still on for Saturday? I'm looking forward to it.

It is still my plan. The open issue is the time that I will conclude class on Friday. If it goes late into the afternoon, I may not make it to your area in time to meet for breakfast. But I'll know that on Friday when class wraps up and I'll drop you a PM with my status. If you want to track my progress, I run Life360 on my cell and would be happy to create a "group" for the two of us. You can load and run the app and not share your position. That will give you the ability to see where I am at as I travel on Friday. Let me know if you want to give that a shot and I'll create the group and send you an invite.

[JimL]

Jim let me try again. The majority believes that it is a moral good to further their comfort and wealth and power by exploiting a minority group, and they have the power to maintain order. Then you have your (or our) opinion. Why are we right? Because of our "say so?"

Seer, your argument is that morals must needs be objective absolutes, that they must needs be divine laws of god, in order to have any meaning or purpose. I have shown you that not to be the case, that morals are relative to human society, that they are based on reason and serve the best interests of human society and so have no need of existing objectively, or of being "gods say so." You're obviously never going to accept that, even though it's as obvious as the nose on your face. So no sense in continuing with this, like most believers, your mind is fixed, eyes on the prize, so to speak, and nothing is likely to change that.

[Tassman]

Jim let me try again. The majority believes that it is a moral good to further their comfort and wealth and power by exploiting a minority group, and they have the power to maintain order. Then you have your (or our) opinion. Why are we right? Because of our "say so?"

The majority does not believe that, merely sociopaths who, largely, are rejected by society. Your argument is hypothetical nonsense artificially constructed to allow for an unevidenced deity who has supposedly handed down objective rules of behaviour from on high. And, the likes of you take it upon yourselves to interpret these alleged divine ordinances and try to enforce them on everyone else.

[seer]

Seer, your argument is that morals must needs be objective absolutes, that they must needs be divine laws of god, in order to have any meaning or purpose. I have shown you that not to be the case, that morals are relative to human society, that they are based on reason and serve the best interests of human society and so have no need of existing objectively, or of being "gods say so." You're obviously never going to accept that, even though it's as obvious as the nose on your face. So no sense in continuing with this, like most believers, your mind is fixed, eyes on the prize, so to speak, and nothing is likely to change that.

Jim, you are still refusing to answer the question. And as I have made clear in the past, any number of times, if all men sincerely followed the golden rule we would have a peaceful world. The problem comes in because men often don't. And their moral opinion is no less correct or valid than ours. The best interest of the whole, is just that, an opinion. It is no more right than the best interest of the majority or a powerful minority at the expense of the rest of the population.

[seer]

Actually - it is my conclusion based on your description of the god you believe exists. I do not believe in a god, remember? If you believe that a sentient agent that lacks the ability to make moral choices for good or ill can actually be a moral agent, so be it. The concept defies conventional definitions and understandings of the concept of a "moral agent."

Right your opinion relies on convention. But concepts like justice, mercy, goodness, forgiveness are moral in nature, and whether God can do otherwise does not change that.

Well, if you want to make the case for an absolute moral standard based on a god, you will have to first show this being exists. That would be the first step. But it will not be enough. You will also have to show how their moral framework (which apparently is forced on them), is "binding" on me.

I've answered this already.

None of which changes that my moral framework is rooted in what I have come to value, as your god's would be if your god actually existed. As your moral framework is. As all moral frameworks are.

Again Carp, you know what I will say about demonstrating God to an unbeliever (inherent blindness) so that is not even a question that makes sense to me. But not you have not answer except to say you value what you value. I mean how is that even an answer? No logical rebuttal, no rational response for accepting your moral framework over His.

I've answered this already. See my previous answer.

And you can not define "good" apart from circular reasoning, so stop pretending that you can. And looking at it as a flaw as applied to God, it is a double standard.

Of course not. God's moral framework would be relative to god. It is informed by god's experiences and the things god values as a result. You still have not made the case for why a moral framework derived by a god relative to the experiences of a god are in any way binding on me - a human.


Not being relative to culture does not mean it is not relative - it just means it is not relative to that particular thing. Presumably, god is a one-of-a-kind and does not participate in any particular "culture." Of course, there are all sorts of Christian (and other) theologies that suggest the realm of the supernatural is populated by various entities (angel's, demons, etc.), so presumably god's moral framework is influenced by god's environment. Since I don't believe any of that actually exists, I have no further observation.

As we have use relative in our discussions Carp, we were speaking of ethics as relative to culture, upbringing and such. God's law would not be influenced or changed by these. And God's moral law is not influenced by His environment. He influences His society.

It is still my plan. The open issue is the time that I will conclude class on Friday. If it goes late into the afternoon, I may not make it to your area in time to meet for breakfast. But I'll know that on Friday when class wraps up and I'll drop you a PM with my status. If you want to track my progress, I run Life360 on my cell and would be happy to create a "group" for the two of us. You can load and run the app and not share your position. That will give you the ability to see where I am at as I travel on Friday. Let me know if you want to give that a shot and I'll create the group and send you an invite.

Thanks for the invite, but if you can just PM me. Before 6am on Saturday, if possible, after that I'm off to the woods.

[carpedm9587]

Right your opinion relies on convention. But concepts like justice, mercy, goodness, forgiveness are moral in nature, and whether God can do otherwise does not change that.

I never said they weren't moral concepts, Seer. The point is that a sentient being incapable of moral choice cannot be a moral agent. It's the free will argument, which you seem to be willing to suspend in the specific case of your god. I don't see how you can make that exclusion on any rational grounds. If you choose to - that is your concern, obviously. It just isn't very convincing.

Again Carp, you know what I will say about demonstrating God to an unbeliever (inherent blindness) so that is not even a question that makes sense to me. But not you have not answer except to say you value what you value. I mean how is that even an answer? No logical rebuttal, no rational response for accepting your moral framework over His.

Yes, I know. In my experience, the "you're blind so you cannot understand" defense is the usual last resort of those who cannot support their position. I've kind of gotten used to it. There is obviously no response, so I'll leave it to you. As for the rest, I've responded to this already, so repeating myself won't achieve anything further.

And you can not define "good" apart from circular reasoning, so stop pretending that you can. And looking at it as a flaw as applied to God, it is a double standard.

I don't believe I said I could. Every language term is defined circularly. I think I explicitly said that. But there is a difference between these two logical chains:

Michel: How do you know action X is morally good?
Seer: God says so!
Michel: How do you know what god says is good is actually good?
Seer: Because god is good.
Michel: How do you know god is good?
Seer: It is his nature.
Michel: How do you know it is his nature.
Seer: Because he's god.
....and on and on it goes.

...or...

Seer: How do you know action X is morally good?
Michel: It is morally good if it aligns with my moral framework.
Seer: How do you know your moral framework correctly points to what is good?
Michel: I know it points to what is good for me because it rationally aligns with what I value.
Seer: How do you know what you value is good?
Michel: Anyone comes to value a thing in so far as they see it as a good for them. They arrive at that valuing through the experiences of their life. If they did not see a thing as good - they wouldn't value it, pretty much by definition.
Seer: How do you know this is true?
Michel: Experience

This chain too could continue forever. But I see a significant difference between the two. Perhaps you do not.

As we have use relative in our discussions Carp, we were speaking of ethics as relative to culture, upbringing and such. God's law would not be influenced or changed by these. And God's moral law is not influenced by His environment. He influences His society.

If you go back, Seer, you will see a place where I asked you to define how you use "relative." Here I believe you have finally provided that definition. I don't see a particular difference between "subjective" and "relative." The former suggests that morality is unique to the subject - is internally created. The latter suggests that this moral framework is influenced by culture/society/upbringing (which is basically "experience"), which simply clarifies how the subjective moral framework is derived. So your god also has a subjective moral framework, and (as with all sentient beings) it would be derived based on this god's experiences as well. "Nature" is nothing more than "experience of self." It is my nature to be human, to be sentient, to be bi-pedal, etc. How these "natures" color my experience is how they influence my moral framework. I see no reason to think your god would be any different.

And you still have not outlined how this god's moral framework is "binding" on me or anyone else. Indeed, the idea of "a binding moral framework" is a bit odd. My more framework is "binding" on me because it is mine - because it is designed to help me choose my actions. That's what a moral framework does. But my moral framework is not "binding" on anyone else. I would love it if everyone aligned with my moral framework, and I work to convince those around me to see moral issues as I do. But that is because I evaluate all action according to my moral framework, and I recognize that what I value is best protected if I am in a community that values the same things and has a similar moral framework.

Thanks for the invite, but if you can just PM me. Before 6am on Saturday, if possible, after that I'm off to the woods.

I will be able to PM you when class ends that I am hitting the road. From that we can probably extrapolate whether or not I will make it to your area in time and go from there. If anything happens on the road to delay me, I'll pull over and PM that to you at the time.

[seer]

I never said they weren't moral concepts, Seer. The point is that a sentient being incapable of moral choice cannot be a moral agent. It's the free will argument, which you seem to be willing to suspend in the specific case of your god. I don't see how you can make that exclusion on any rational grounds. If you choose to - that is your concern, obviously. It just isn't very convincing.

Carp, God would be a different kind of being, the fact that you do not consider such a being with obvious moral attributes a "moral agent" does nor change the fact that He is a moral being.

Yes, I know. In my experience, the "you're blind so you cannot understand" defense is the usual last resort of those who cannot support their position. I've kind of gotten used to it. There is obviously no response, so I'll leave it to you. As for the rest, I've responded to this already, so repeating myself won't achieve anything further.

It is not a last resort Carp, it is what my worldview and Scripture demand. Again you keep wanting me to reject my worldview and appeal to what you find reasonable, acceptable. But why is what you find reasonable the standard for what is rational.

I don't believe I said I could. Every language term is defined circularly. I think I explicitly said that. But there is a difference between these two logical chains:

Michel: How do you know action X is morally good?
Seer: God says so!
Michel: How do you know what god says is good is actually good?
Seer: Because god is good.
Michel: How do you know god is good?
Seer: It is his nature.
Michel: How do you know it is his nature.
Seer: Because he's god.
....and on and on it goes.

...or...

Seer: How do you know action X is morally good?
Michel: It is morally good if it aligns with my moral framework.
Seer: How do you know your moral framework correctly points to what is good?
Michel: I know it points to what is good for me because it rationally aligns with what I value.
Seer: How do you know what you value is good?
Michel: Anyone comes to value a thing in so far as they see it as a good for them. They arrive at that valuing through the experiences of their life. If they did not see a thing as good - they wouldn't value it, pretty much by definition.
Seer: How do you know this is true?
Michel: Experience

This chain too could continue forever. But I see a significant difference between the two. Perhaps you do not.

And the chain is still circular. Your circle is no more rational or irrational than my circle. My circle may be tighter, but so what?

If you go back, Seer, you will see a place where I asked you to define how you use "relative." Here I believe you have finally provided that definition. I don't see a particular difference between "subjective" and "relative." The former suggests that morality is unique to the subject - is internally created. The latter suggests that this moral framework is influenced by culture/society/upbringing (which is basically "experience"), which simply clarifies how the subjective moral framework is derived. So your god also has a subjective moral framework, and (as with all sentient beings) it would be derived based on this god's experiences as well. "Nature" is nothing more than "experience of self." It is my nature to be human, to be sentient, to be bi-pedal, etc. How these "natures" color my experience is how they influence my moral framework. I see no reason to think your god would be any different.

Well I was using relative in the sense that we have been using it for months now, and in that case God's law is not relative, let me quote:

Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.

And there is a difference between relative and subjective, that is why we have two different words. God's moral law is subjective to him, but not relative since it is universal.

And you still have not outlined how this god's moral framework is "binding" on me or anyone else. Indeed, the idea of "a binding moral framework" is a bit odd. My more framework is "binding" on me because it is mine - because it is designed to help me choose my actions. That's what a moral framework does. But my moral framework is not "binding" on anyone else. I would love it if everyone aligned with my moral framework, and I work to convince those around me to see moral issues as I do. But that is because I evaluate all action according to my moral framework, and I recognize that what I value is best protected if I am in a community that values the same things and has a similar moral framework.

Carp, when I say binding I mean accountable. You could say that the laws of the land are not binding on you, but they are in the sense that you are accountable to them, legally. As with the law of God.

I will be able to PM you when class ends that I am hitting the road. From that we can probably extrapolate whether or not I will make it to your area in time and go from there. If anything happens on the road to delay me, I'll pull over and PM that to you at the time.

Prefect!