The Apathetic God Paradox-Refuted

[Tassman]

You or someone else can derive a moral system from material facts of the universe. But an infinity of moral systems can be created. The problem then is, which system is the best?

Not really because we have evolved as social animals with specific characteristics to enable social cohesion. We are instinctively predisposed towards altruism; cooperation and an awareness of the social rules of the group and it's these qualities that form the basis of our morality. Thus our moral system is circumscribed by our biological inheritance - although our intelligence has enabled us, unlike our simian cousins, to extrapolate moral codes from purely tribal morality to, ultimately,develop a potential global moral system.

But self preservation and procreation themselves are part of many moral systems. Or because God created Adam and Eve as images of God and created in them consciences.

There is no reason to think that "consciences" did not arise naturally.

Of course you reject that alternative because you reject the Bible as unproven. Well, very few things can be proven like theorems in mathematics. Maybe you need to realize we necessarily have to use probabilistic reasoning to make way in our lives.

Adam and Eve is a failed hypothesis. Not only is it not proven to be true, it is shown beyond any reasonable doubt to be wrong. The evidence is overwhelming that we evolved very gradually over vast periods of time as a population, i.e. a collection of interbreeding organisms, which itself originally evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago. Therefore, we cannot be descendants of a literal Adam and Eve as portrayed in the bible.

[Truthseeker]

What evidence do you have that there is a credible non-materialistic viewpoint of morality, or indeed the existence of a non-material world of any kind? Morals are grounded in the material world. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

You or someone else can derive a moral system from material facts of the universe. But an infinity of moral systems can be created. The problem then is, which system is the best?

They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection.

But self preservation and procreation themselves are part of many moral systems.

They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

Or because God created Adam and Eve as images of God and created in them consciences.

Of course you reject that alternative because you reject the Bible as unproven. Well, very few things can be proven like theorems in mathematics. Maybe you need to realize we necessarily have to use probabilistic reasoning to make way in our lives.

[37818]

. . .materialistic viewpoint of morality . . .

Good being what ever builds, preserves and gives. Evil being the negation of good.

[Tassman]

http://www.strongatheism.net/library...c_god_paradox/unless he can prove his materialistic viewpoint of morality and desires that validates the starting premise, his argument seems to be, for all intents and purposes, refuted.

What evidence do you have that there is a credible non-materialistic viewpoint of morality, or indeed the existence of a non-material world of any kind? Morals are grounded in the material world. They are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that the author needs to define "morality" in a way that is independent of the argument. For one thing, someone could say that every being has his own system of morals or ethics. Even Hitler could be said to have his.

I believe the words moral and morality are adequately defined in the English language [independent of the argument], for understanding how he uses them.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

© Copyright Original Source

The reality is from the whole history of humanity is that individual behavior good or bad does not represent morality of the greater societies and groups from which morality is the standard..

As far as the justification of the very human nature of morality, the best evidence is simply the science of human and higher mammal behavior as it evolved to meet the needs of intelligent species. Simple forms of morality in higher mammals like other primates and sea mammals demonstrate the evolution of morals based on the need of the species to survive.

His argument concerning the problems of Divine source of morality is more the presentation of what he sees as the contradictions of such a view, and not a proof.

In my view the claims of the nebulous, vague and undefined claims of a Divine 'Objective Morality' as the standard of human morality is a terribly weak argument based on similar problems as presented in the essay.

[37818]

Good analogy, Baha'i translates a follower of 'light.'

Brings to mind the teaching, "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

[shunyadragon]

It is metaphor. Just as the Scripture says, "God is light." Metaphor.

Good analogy, Baha'i translates a follower of 'light.'

[shunyadragon]

Yes shuny, I'm sure you do think it is to simplistic but thankfully we have Scripture to set us straight. And yes when Scripture says that God is love, or God is just, or merciful or righteous, it is speaking of His attributes. And in keeping with the objection in the OP these attributes are inherent to His nature, not merely attributes He decides to exercise as if He could decide otherwise.

I agree with Jedidiah's explanation of the problem with your initial statement being too simplistic,, and does not reflect scripture as a whole.

[37818]

. . . Scripture says that God is love, . . .

It is metaphor. Just as the Scripture says, "God is light." Metaphor.

[Jedidiah]

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

Scripture does not teach anywhere that God can be fully defined by love. This is clearly nothing more than a strawman.

[seer]

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

Yes shuny, I'm sure you do think it is to simplistic but thankfully we have Scripture to set us straight. And yes when Scripture says that God is love, or God is just, or merciful or righteous, it is speaking of His attributes. And in keeping with the objection in the OP these attributes are inherent to His nature, not merely attributes He decides to exercise as if He could decide otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

God is love, could it not be an innate characteristic of God's love to share said love?

I consider 'God is love' to be too simplistic to reflect 'What is God?' Love would be an attribute of the nature of God and an attribute of Creation reflected in the nature of being human that evolved by natural processes. The different types of love are necessary for the survival of the family and community required to cooperate, and nurture and raise each generation.

[Carrikature]

He also needs to define what he means by potentialities. I know of one type of potentiality, and traditionally it has been held that God does not contain any potentialities at all while the author on the contrary seem to think that God contains all potentialities within Himself. Based on the fact that he thinks that God also contains all actualities within Himself it would seem to me that his understanding of God contain one big glaring contradiction, unless he has some idiosyncratic definition of the word "potentiality".

IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.

I agree. This guy isn't terribly good at expressing what he means for all that he *might* have an interesting point.

The author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.

Superman is not without desire. He may not have all of the same needs/desires that ordinary humans do, but it's still possible that his existing desires are very strong. In fact, having fewer needs would probably mean he can devote more time/energy to meeting the needs he does have.

[Truthseeker]

The author talks about Superman becoming more apathetic than ordinary humans because he can do things that we can't. Yet in every comic book that he appears in, he appears to be busy enough. And always having to cope with a serious problem or more. And if he has love for people, like Christians are supposed to, I can conceive his doing stuff like helping to clean up Fukushima or the junk in the Pacific Ocean. Or rescuing the people of North Korea from its government. Increasing police brutality in the USA. Many problems for him to help with.

[JonathanL]

I'd actually say that the author needs to remove morality from the article altogether. The intent of the article was to show how an omnipotent being would be apathetic. One need never mention morality to do that. It reads to me as if the first few paragraphs are really the author getting to his point rather than being part of the point.

He also needs to define what he means by potentialities. I know of one type of potentiality, and traditionally it has been held that God does not contain any potentialities at all while the author on the contrary seem to think that God contains all potentialities within Himself. Based on the fact that he thinks that God also contains all actualities within Himself it would seem to me that his understanding of God contain one big glaring contradiction, unless he has some idiosyncratic definition of the word "potentiality".

IOW, until he defines what he means by potentialities his argument is impossible to evaluate. And in the case that he uses potentiality in the traditional sense it's patently invalid.