Does god command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by god?
>>350497
A lot of bit of both
>>350497
The good can be derived from nature.
Nature that God dictated.
So it is good because God dictates.
>>350545
A bit of both isn't really an answer to the question.
I should phrase it better.
Is there an absolute morality that god enforces because he is moral, or is something moral because it is commanded by god?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-09/news/chi-skokie-murder-insanity-claim-20130909_1_jeiloni-miguel-renteria-cynthia-renteria
>>350610
>So it is good because God dictates.
So you agree with the WLC quote?
>>350622
As a Catholic rationalist, yes
Ok here's the final answer, no disputing this because it's objectively true:
God commands it because it's right.
>What makes it right?
All that is right is that which is not wrong.
>What is wrong?
Think of humanity as one organism, and each human is a spiritual cell in that spiritual organism. Every single sin is an act of selfishness. Sin is an act that isolates you from the rest of humanity.
>>350620
A lot of bit of both
>>350628
Blimey. I hope you don't go around calling non-believers immoral.
>>350654
>objectively true
>sin is an act of selfishness
>>350497
Well God is all powerful, which means he can do literally everything.
So if he wanted to he could make literally any action morally good.
That said, he is the source of all moral authority in the universe.
>>350662
>objectively true
I just said that to mess with people.
>sin is an act of selfishness
Yeah, I'd argue that there's only one sin and it's selfishness. All sin stems from that. Who's the guy in your picture? I'm guessing he disagrees with me?
>>350654
>All that is right is that which is not wrong.
Could you possibly make a point that is more silly and banal?
>Think of humanity as one organism, and each human is a spiritual cell in that spiritual organism. Every single sin is an act of selfishness. Sin is an act that isolates you from the rest of humanity.
So essentially god isn't needed to define morality. I agree anon.
>>350668
>I'm guessing he disagrees with me?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
>>350660
Even a blind man can walk the right path.
>>350665
This is saying you agree with the WLC quote.
Or this...
http://pulse.ng/gist/a-son-like-this-man-murders-mother-because-god-told-him-she-was-a-witch-id3960947.html
>>350654
So why is selfishness wrong?
Are all the holy Desert Fathers wrong for isolating themselves from society?
>>350680
42.
>>350685
>I say God told me to do it.
Doesn't mean God actually told him to do it.
Nice strawman.
>>350497
>is it good because it is commanded by god?
Yes, by definition. Morals aren't above God if he's the creator of literally everything.
>>350694
144
There is no god.
>>350697
In that case it's arbitrary.
>>350701
>mfw you can't prove He doesn't exist
>>350704
RETARD
E
T
A
R
D
>>350704
Only as arbitrary as God is.
Do you understand what an arbitrator is?
>>350709
>Can't prove something doesn't exist so I should believe it exists
Well I hope you worship every god then.
God and the good aren't separate because God IS the good.
>>350709
evry day i thank the creator 4 creating animes
>>350721
Do you grasp the central point of the thread that if there is no good except what god commands then you have no way of disagreeing with WLC or saying this person is wrong....
http://awkwardmomentsbible.com/pastors-wife-murder-children-for-jesus/
...and if you are saying that there is good in itself and god only commands good because he is good then god himself is not necessary for good in the first place?
>>350744
>How do you know?
Granted, I don't.
Supposing then that the Almighty actually commanded the man to kill his own mother, yeah it would be morally sound.
Because it's God and he can do that because omnipotence.
>>350762
>you have no way of disagreeing with WLC
Why should I? Is he supposed to be wrong because reasons?
>more fedora clickbait
Prove that God actually commanded this man to commit murder.
>>350497
The former. See Exodus 32:14.
>>350729
For any given property, does God have it because it is good or is it good because God has it?
>>350797
>God can change his mind.
>This means he is not the ultimate source of moral authority!
It does not follow.
>>350800
I believe he was speaking of equality of substance rather than property, ie God as Good instead of God as having Good.
>>350778
>Supposing then that the Almighty actually commanded the man to kill his own mother, yeah it would be morally sound.
>Because it's God and he can do that because omnipotence.
Thank you for agreeing you have no way of knowing if Peter Sutcliffe was a bad man, based on theistic principles of morality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sutcliffe
>Why should I? Is he supposed to be wrong because reasons?
I would be interested in whether you could suggest killing innocent children is morally sound. Even if I am not able to come up with anything better than I don't think it is a good thing because it feels bad to me then you still need to provide a positive justification as to why you think killing children is good.
>Prove that God actually commanded this man to commit murder.
Why do I need to do that? I'm not taking the position that god commands things and that is what good is.
>>350805
>Missing the point this badly.
God is perfect for this argument, remember? God changing His mind is indeed evidence that He's not the ultimate source of moral authority, since otherwise He'd just go ahead and wipe em all out, and that would be good with a capital G because God did it.
Plus, Moses's arguments aren't technically right. God can still fulfill the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by wiping out Israel and rebuilding from Moses; there wasn't a timeframe promised. But He still changes his mind.
>>350816
>you have no way of knowing if Peter Sutcliffe was a bad man
Judge not lest ye be judged.
>suggest killing innocent children is morally sound
If the literal source of all universal moral authority says so, then literally yes.
"Teleological suspension of the ethical"
Go ahead and utilize a search engine.
>>350831
>God is perfect
Yes
>changing your mind means you aren't perfect
I would argue that the inability to change your mind is an imperfection.
Consider the possibility that God can choose multiple or even infinite perfect options, or make his choices perfect because he is omnipotent.
>>350812
What would it mean in such a view to say that something is good?
>>350834
>Judge not lest ye be judged.
That's merely saying you can't judge Peter Sutcliffe.
>If the literal source of all universal moral authority says so, then literally yes.
I don't need to utlilise a search engine to know, based on my own sentiment and feelings, killing children is a pretty shitty thing to do?
Do you have any empathy at all?
>>350842
>I would argue that the inability to change your mind is an imperfection.
Why? You're omniscient too. You would have to know that at some point, a "better" course of action would appear to you, at which point you'd change your mind. But you would still embark on said action despite knowing it was wrong at the "time" you made a decision, thus doing something imperfect at some point in time.
A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being would always make the right decision every time, and have no need to change it at any point.
>or make his choices perfect because he is omnipotent
Well, no, which is why I answered originally the way I answered. God always does the Good action because doing so would be right, not because God's actions make an otherwise wrongful action Good.
>>350847
idk
Maybe that the stated object is of God. Given that he is the creator of all that is, Gen 1:31 is interesting.
>And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
>>350855
>That's merely saying you can't judge Peter Sutcliffe.
duh
>based on my own sentiment and feelings
So if by my own sentiment and feelings I felt that killing is morally acceptable, that makes it ok now?
What makes your feelings more important than mine?
>>350654
Morality is independent of God, then. Smack those who say atheists can't be moral for me
>>350856
>A perfect, omnipotent, omniscient being would always make the right decision every time, and have no need to change it at any point.
It may be that the Almighty has an infinite number of right decisions available to him, given that he has created every single one of those possible contingencies.
>God always does the Good action because doing so would be right
Then you place good and evil above the Creator. I hold that this is incoherent.
>You're omniscient too.
Also, what?
>>350869
>So if by my own sentiment and feelings I felt that killing is morally acceptable, that makes it ok now?
Blimey. Is that the way you feel inclined as individual? I feel sorry for you man, we should lock you up on publioc safety grounds.
>>350895
>we should lock you up
"My feelings are more important than your rights!"
the post
>>350881
>It may be that the Almighty has an infinite number of right decisions available to him, given that he has created every single one of those possible contingencies.
That would imply that every single one of those infinite possibilities yield equally "good" (for whatever value of good) outcomes, which I find rather implausible, if not technically impossible.
>Then you place good and evil above the Creator. I hold that this is incoherent.
Precisely. What is incoherent about it? God's divinity involves perfect adherence to said Good.
>Also, what?
I was referring to God's actions in the second person. God is omnniscient too. God would have to know at some point, a "better" course of action would appear, etc.
>>350901
>equally "good" (for whatever value of good) outcomes
Guess who defines what a good outcome is.
>God's divinity involves perfect adherence to said Good.
I disagree, and for that reason why does divinity not instead hinge on perfect adherence to evil?
Also, what is the source of this Good? Is it somehow metaphysically primary to God?
>>350859
A view of ethics that reduces to "If x exists x is good" seems useless to me.
>>350899
I don't get where you are even coming from other than coming out with a /pol/ meme because you have nothing coherent to say.
You were claiming that your feelings are that you wanted to kill people and now you are saying your feelings are more important than the rights of other people not to be killed by you?
What the hell are you talking about?
>>350497
If God killed a toddler it'd be good. Because God is good.
>>350869
law and morality are not equivolent,
You don't look to law for morals and you don't look to morals for law. The purpose of law is to allow the cooperative functioning of society in a way that is generally agreeable and/or enhances the powers of the authorities who can encorce it.
>>350951
You're claiming that you can base all moral authority on what you "feel" is right or wrong.
And that's fucking retarded.
Everybody feels differently about different thing's, and your particular sensibilities are no more important than anyone else's.
>>350960
>law and morality are not equivalent
So why are we bringing legal systems into the conversation? They are irrelevant to the topic.
>>350962
>You're claiming that you can base all moral authority on what you "feel" is right or wrong.
I said no such thing.
>Everybody feels differently about different thing's,
I think it is fair to say that most people feel that killing children is bad.
You on the other hand seem to be defending the position that whatever god commands is good and that you have no way of knowing what god commands.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/14/man-jailed-cobblestone-tourist-york
>>350979
>I said no such thing.
>based on my own sentiment and feelings, killing children is a pretty shitty thing to do
desu desu
>most people feel that killing children is bad
Argumentum ad populum.
Seriously?
>350962
Actually the feelings of a schizophrenic who thinks he's God are not important when considering whether or not he really is God, because it's obvious he's not.
In the same way, feeling that murder is fun doesn't make you some ethical maverick whose just riding the waaaaave man, it just makes you sick.
Just because someone's morals are diseased does not make them a good counter-argument for morality, in the same way that we're not going to listen to what a fatass has to say about nutritious food just because he thinks twinkies taste the best.
By the way, subjective =/= arbitrary. What, you think something like The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa became known as one of the most magnificent sculptures in the world because enough people's arbitrary gut feelings coincided to call it "beautiful"? Give me a break.
>>351000
>someone's morals are diseased
By who's standards? Is that standard universal? If so, by what justification?
>>350997
>desu desu
You what?
>Argumentum ad populum.
>Seriously?
Unless you are claiming that killing of children is correct because a small number of people think it is then this is a completely irrelevant point.
>>351015
By the standards of moral exemplars such as saints, mystics, teachers, and gurus who have been able to extricate themselves from the corrupting influence of material life to find truth. Forget superficial differences in doctrine, every great man or woman has preached love, compassion, and selflessness.
>>351021
>Unless you are claiming that killing of children is correct because a small number of people think it is then this is a completely irrelevant point.
I am not and you are strawmanning.
It is in fact relevant because you are calling simply upon consensus to bolster a moral claim. This is a fallacy because a majority of people in a group can indeed make a mistake.
You have no source of actual moral authority other than feels and groupthink, which are far from authoritative.
>>351059
Can you directly prove the non-existence of moral laws or are you just going by your "feels" and contemporary academia's "groupthink"?
>>351057
>every great man or woman
What is it then that makes someone great?
Do you dispute the assertion that figures like Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Big Joe Stalin were great men?
>moral exemplars
Who gets to decide who is called a moral exemplar? You're just kicking the can down the road m8.
>>351066
>prove the non-existence of moral laws
I'm not arguing for the non-existence of moral laws, I'm saying that the ultimate source of moral authority is God.
Unless I am mistaken, you are claiming that position of authority based upon your feelings about theft, murder, or jaywalking. And when I point out that someone could have contrary feelings about any one of these things, you call for my imprisonment.
>>350922
>Guess who defines what a good outcome is.
You're arguing from your conclusion though on this. God only defines what a good outcome is if morality is dependent on God's decisions.
>Also, what is the source of this Good? Is it somehow metaphysically primary to God?
No idea, to be honest. But an appeal to "God's better nature" for lack of a better term, which at least if you follow an Abrahamic religion, we know that Moses biblically does, and is in quite a good position to know, "speaking to God face to face", would make no sense if Good and Evil are just arbitrary definitions based on whatever God happens to do. I'm deferring to his expertise, even if I don't fully understand it.
>>351059
Attacking me doesn't make your position more solid.
I think killing children is wrong, my only argument in favour of that is that I feel killing children is wrong. I am happy to agree that my own feelings are not a very solid thing to base my own position on but unless you are arguing killing children is right simply attacking my lameass position isn't an argument at all.
Do you think killing children is right?
Morality is evolved. We have it so that we can help each other and make our species prosper. It's part of being in a social species. Other animals show signs of fairness instinct as well.
>>351076
>Do you dispute the assertion that figures like Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Big Joe Stalin were great men?
Yes, because that is not the context in which I am using the word great. I mean great-souled.
>Who gets to decide who is called a moral exemplar? You're just kicking the can down the road m8.
No one decided Jesus or the Buddha they were moral exemplars after following them. They knew it as soon as they met the person, it was evident to any reasonable person this was a human being that has attained Truth.
>>351099
>Attacking me doesn't make your position more solid.
Granted.
>Do you think killing children is right?
Doesn't really matter what I think, but yeah I think killing children is wrong.
It's God's decision in the end.
>>351110
>it was self evident
Sure, so you are calling upon the revelatory aspect of the divine?
If so, you are reinforcing the position that the divine is the source of moral truth.
>>351106
Landau already BTFO that notion
>>351138
Who
And what'd s/he say
>>351147
shafer landau is a non naturalist moral realist
we hold moral beliefs that couldn't possibly be adaptive
for explanation: http://mail.jesp.org/PDF/Evolutionary_Debunking_final.pdf
>>351167
Could you possibly give me the rough idea in a few lines.
>>351137
We're not in disagreement that God/the Ultimate/Supreme Principle is the source of morality, then
>>351137
>It's God's decision in the end.
So killing children is good if god commands it.
>yeah I think killing children is wrong.
Unless you are claiming tthere is a concept of wrong outside of what god commands then I don't see where you are coming from.
Even my lame position that it is based on my own sentiments is better than this.
>theists
>moral
>>351183
>So literally any action is good if God commands it.
Necessarily.
>I don't see where you are coming from.
Just my feelings on the matter. But feelings don't matter.
>my own sentiments is better than this
Not even a little bit. They are literally just emotive blabbing with the same authority as anyone else's opinion on the matter.
>>351167
Or you could give me an example of a moral that logically could not have been evolved.
According to Leibniz, it is the former. God is perfect because he does perfect.
>>351227
>I am happy to take the position that I am more moral than you based on my own sentiments.
then fuck you cause my sentiments say I'm a better person than you too.
That means a lot.
>>351192
>necessarily
As long as you are taking the position that it is moral to kill little tiny babies and rape their mothers and their twelve year old sisters so long as god commands it then I am quite prepared to take the position that I am more moral than you based on my own sentiments.
I understand you taking the position that good, in itself, does not exist and that good is what god commands. Although I do find your position very saddening and disheartening.
>>351234
for
>>351247
>>350610
>The good can be derived from nature
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8693309
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad%C3%A9lie_penguin#Reproduction
Excellent news, I guess rape, molestation of babies and necrophilia are back on the menu. (On an aside because I wouldn't want to include it with the above, I guess homosexuality wasn't as evil as god said it was after all).
>>351259
It can be derived from our nature. Morality is just human nature. The fact that we want to assume morality is being "given" to us is also human nature.
>>351257
So essentially what you are saying it that good does not, in itself exist and if god commannds it then it is good to kidnap a little eight year old boy and insert a red hot poker into his anus and then rip out his guts and wear them for a hat.
As long as you are taking the position that it is moral to kill little tiny babies and rape their mothers and their twelve year old sisters so long as god commands it then I am quite prepared to take the position that I am more moral than you based on my own sentiments.
I understand you taking the position that good, in itself, does not exist and that good is what god commands. Although I do find your position very saddening and disheartening.
It makes me want to cry, based on my own sentiments, why do hate morality so much? It is so sad.
>>351284
>b-but muh feels
>>351264
See, now you're making an appeal to natural law which for humans is laughable. Almost every genocide in history has been committed by a group who considered it to be a morally good thing on a group that didn't. The fact that you perceive this to be something that is not good is just a product of the times you live in.
An even easier example of this is milgram's experiment. Human nature is fucked in the head, I'm glad that our definition of what is morally good is not based off that.
>>351289
>but my feels
But of course, what else would we base morality on?
Magic?
>>351292
I'm not even arguing that there's a natural "law" that says "no genocide no matter what." The people who killed all those people knew it was "wrong"; they just thought it was a necessary evil for a good outcome. That's where their morality comes in.
>>351296
>what else would we base morality on?
My feels, as opposed to yours.
Cause I'm a better person than you of course.
I'm a Christian, but even I think WLC is a meme philosopher of religion
>>351305
Again milgram's experiment, those people thought they were doing the right thing, hell the genocide of the mori'ori was planned because the maori were bored and wanted to have some fun.
You have an incredibly limited view of what humans have spent most of history doing to each other while thinking themselves to be doing something that is good. Again I point out that you only believe that those people would have thought that what they were doing was wrong because you yourself do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people
>>351330
What makes you think I have a limited view?
>>351330
>shitty morals disproves morality
this meme again
ITT
Nobody understands the Binding of Issac.
>>351307
You already said you were happy to beat six year olds round the head with a bat and then rape their anus so long as you imagined god commanded it.
Why would I care about your feels?
>>351336
The fact that you have the interpretation that people who were doing "wrong" things knew that they were wrong.
>>351340
Shitty morals dont disprove morality, they just disprove the notion that there exists a universal morality or goodness that is derived from (as was argued here) nature, rather than morality being a subjective, time varying factor.
>>351360
>The fact that you have the interpretation that people who were doing "wrong" things knew that they were wrong.
No, I didn't claim this was the case 100% of the time. I ask the same question.
>>351366
>The people who killed all those people knew it was "wrong"; they just thought it was a necessary evil for a good outcome. That's where their morality comes in.
At no point in your argument did you indicate any degree of uncertainty. The fact that you assumed that any of them somehow "knew that it was wrong" by and of itself demonstrates that you're basing the morals of previous societies and cultures on those you yourself hold.
>>351351
Because my feels are the basis of all morality, because I am a better person than you.
This is your own argument.
>>351381
No. My argument is that if you think whatever god commands is good then you think drowning a two year old is good so long as you think god commands it is good and if you think god is good because good is a property unto itself then good exists regardless of god.
>>351351
I wouldnt bother arguing with this guy >>351381
While you are demonstrably incorrect to an extent (just because you perceive something to be morally good or bad does not make this perception universal), his base premise is that there exists a being that defines what is or is not moral such that one day the being may declare murder to be morally bad, and the next day committing murder is a morally good thing.
Thus either the morality this god supports is not universal, but time dependant without any predictability in its evolution (and a non universal morality defined by an actor that doesn't constantly communicate the rules of this morality and claims to judge by it is fucking useless)
Alternatively, the argument that god being 'omnipotent' can reconcile these two notions that A and not A. Then the claim is that god exists outside of logic and any attempt at a logical argument is pointless.
These sorts of arguments are non interesting
>>351398
I think I actually broke your fucking brain.
>>351415
Really?
You completely failed to answer the question other than whining.
>>351411
>his base premise is that there exists a being that defines what is or is not moral such that one day the being may declare murder to be morally bad, and the next day committing murder is a morally good thing.
Correct.
>the morality this god supports is not universal
Incorrect, in that God can change the entire universe at will.
>god being 'omnipotent' can reconcile these two notions that A and not A.
not technically relevant, but illustrative of God's ability. Yes, God can make [A + -A] completely true.
>the claim is that god exists outside of logic
Not outside logic so much as he created the damn thing and is independent of the dichotomies that lie within it.
>non interesting
but that's like, your opinion man.
>>351433
You didn't even ask a question.
Seek help.
>>351434
>Incorrect, in that God can change the entire universe at will.
I was presenting it as one of two cases; the notion that a god could present a non universal morality is logically coherent without requiring a god to be independent of logic as presented in the second case. I perhaps should have been clearer on that point.
Yes, uninteresting is my opinion, but I call it uninteresting because it's not a philosophical argument worth having. As logic is the basis of philosophy, the notion of having a philosophical discussion about something that is considered independent of logic is fruitless. It's an unprovable and undefendable stance to an even higher degree than the deistic argument is already.
>>351453
Silly position. If pure logic was the entire basis of philosophy then philosophy ends at cogito ergo sum.
Arguing over what assumptions to use as priori in logic is the basis of philosophy.
>>351472
Given that all philosophical arguments that are not metaphysical can be denoted using logical formalism, then pure logic is the basis of non metaphysical philosophy. (Where obviously this argument is in and of itself metaphysical)
>>350497
This is among the most despicable shit I've ever read.
>>351445
>hurr what was the entire conversation
It is good because it is commanded by God.
Any other answer is completely incoherent.
>>351773
Any answer seems incoherent when you want to invest in a circular argument.
>>351790
>circular argument
>muh feels determine morality because muh feels reflect what is moral
vs
>The creator of literally everything doesn't get to decide what morality is because somehow good and evil predate temporal existence itself.
vs
>The creator of literally everything decides what morality is because he created it.
>>351827
>The creator of literally everything
Which you have no proof of.
>I'm good because I said so, because I'm God and I said so
>>351855
>proof
I don't have to prove God's existence in order to use the definition you fucking moron.
>>351873
>I don't have to prove God's existence
If you're claiming that's how morality works, yes you do.
>>351827
The fact that you used the phrase "predate temporal existence" indicates you are not mathematically prepared to even begin that discussion.
>>351892
If God doesn't exist, then morality is completely arbitrary.
Because if we put aside the notion of the supernatural, there is no actually objective measure of what is right or wrong. It instead becomes a matter of practicality rather than an issue of morality.
I'm cool with it, but you have to be logically consistent. You can't have a moral system without an objective authoritative source free of subjective human values that change from person to person.
>>351910
>autistic farting noises
>muh use of the term "predate" in reference to time itself is triggering
primary to, secondary to, whatever. Forgive my colloquialism.
>>350497
To be honest, in the face of an omnipotent being who has complete control over all but 100 or so years of your infinite existence, I don't think morality matters, as acting according to anything other than its will is a horrible idea.
>>351620
The first paragraph seemed like typical shit but the second made me feel ill.
>>351911
The only thing "objective" about God's morality would be that he's the greatest power in the universe. It's literally just might makes right with an extra supernatural layer on top.
>b-but God creates physical consequences for sin
So do the police.
>>350497
neither. good comes from god. in knowing him we know good.
>>351911
>If God doesn't exist, then morality is completely arbitrary
No more arbitrary than because someone or something said so. You still haven't proven the existence of this authority.
> if we put aside the notion of the supernatural
Which an honest person would because of it's lack of demonstration.
> is no actually objective measure of what is right or wrong
Apologists sure like this word Objective. What is objective about God's whim?
>instead becomes a matter of practicality rather than an issue of morality
Societies comes into a mutual agreement of what causes harm and which of that harm is necessary. It's not perfect, and it's not consistent in agreements, but it explains perfectly well how morality comes about.
>>351953
>physical consequences for sin
hehe, which God are you talking about?
Cause if it's the Christian one, they certainly don't believe that.
>just might makes right
No so much might makes right as he literally created rightness and wrongness itself.
>>351964
>God's whim
Funny way of saying decision. You know how a judge is supposed to take an "objective" viewpoint?
God has an eternal viewpoint. He sees everything as it is, was, will, and could be. It is the most objective of all possible viewpoints because in encompasses all of them.
>It's not perfect
So why adhere to it?
>>351983
> a judge is supposed to take an "objective" viewpoint
Which can be appealed and even disregarded after the fact. An infallible God's whim is exactly that if it can't be challenged.
>God has an eternal viewpoint. He sees everything as it is, was, will, and could be. It is the most objective of all possible viewpoints because in encompasses all of them.
Still waiting for you to prove any of this white noise.
>So why adhere to it?
Because I don't expect a perfect world, or really hope for perfection in anything.
>>351977
"Physical" is the wrong word. I should have said "mechanical" or "reactive". In other words, consequences for your actions.
>No so much might makes right as he literally created rightness and wrongness itself.
Except he didn't, because his standards can only be maintained by power. There is no abstract imperative having actual existence outside of religious law enforced on earth and divine law enforced after death. So, in a godless universe, human law is just as "objective" as divine law in a universe with god.
>>352172
>can be appealed and even disregarded
by other judges with supposedly more objective viewpoints.
>An infallible God's whim
Doesn't sound like a whim if it's infallible by definition.
>prove
I don't honestly care if you don't believe in God, the thread is about a moral issue in Theistic thought. If you can't assume the validity of a basic premise and argue from there I can't expect much else from you.
That said, explain how the universe came into existence without relying upon anything outside the universe itself.
>>352452
>Except he didn't
Created literally everything.
>his standards can only be maintained by power
Many legal systems aren't maintained by power, and yet they are still legal systems.
Likewise, morality does not need to be maintained because it simply is.
>in a godless universe, human law is just as "objective" as divine law in a universe with god
Not all human moral law is the same, hence not universal, hence not objective.
Again, the distinction between legality and morality is important here.
>>350497
Both, in the Christian sense.
God creates nature and all things with purpose. That purpose is their natural good. God commands people fulfill their natural good.
>>350620
>Is there an absolute morality that god enforces because he is moral, or is something moral because it is commanded by god?
As I said, God's commands are commanding people adhere to their natural good. It's a bit of both.
>>350497
>pic
>abort fetus
>fetus has a 100% chance of going to heaven as opposed to some chance of going to hell if it lived to adulthood
>abort the fetus with the knowledge that doing so is a sin and will send yourself to hell
>therefore doing so is an altruistic sacrifice for the sake of your child
>therefore it's actually virtuous and you should go to heaven
Checkmate Christians. :^)
>>352521
>all things with purpose. That purpose is their natural good.
Then God has created the natural good.
>>352581
Why yes, but that's a much more complex answer than "God commanded it". It breaks the dichotomy the OP was trying to present.
>>352521
>God creates nature and all things with purpose. That purpose is their natural good. God commands people fulfill their natural good.
So the man that creates his own purpose creates his own natural good. In this way you can have man comply with God's wish to fufill their natural good.
>>352465
>by other judges with supposedly more objective viewpoints.
Not just judges, historians, Government officials, etc. You can pretend this "objective" business is problematic for others, but I've only found theists who rely on it. I'll personally admit morally is relative, but that doesn't mean I'm prevented from moral judgement.
>Doesn't sound like a whim if it's infallible by definition.
It's a whim by an being who claims to be infallible and falsifiable. It's circular and useless.
>you can't assume the validity of a basic premise
Because the truth of that basic premise is what your entire argument hangs or falls from.
>explain the universe came into existence without relying upon anything outside the universe itself
We don't quite know the full workings of the universe or its beginning, but very interesting theories have developed in recent years. The thing is nether do you, yet you claim you do and then propose the world is dictated by the consequences of your faith.
>>352631
>So the man that creates his own purpose creates his own natural good.
No. Natural ends are precisely that - natural. Artificial does not mean natural.
>>352631
>implying you're supposed to create your own purpose
WHOA, SLOW DOWN THERE. God gave you free will but it's not like he wants you to actually use it or anything.
>>352657
From my understanding of theology that is actually... somewhat true.
It's like a war between materialistic desires and attaining the 'path' God wants you to.
>>352653
So if I create my own purpose that's not natural? I would be able to set it just a great deal of things until it's restricted by a command from God.
>>352690
>So if I create my own purpose that's not natural?
Correct.
If you make a grapevine sprout tomatoes is that natural?
>>352690
>I would be able to set it just a great deal of things until it's restricted by a command from God
Okay, we're together in a room with a woman. She's tied up, and so are you. You and me both are both staunch Christians. I'm approaching this woman with full intentions of raping her, beating her, then killing her. What can you possibly say to stop me?
>>352669
To add on, the path is really just the purest expression of your will.
But it's a different will...
It's like Nietzsche vs. Kierkegaard (and who did you think God preferred)
>>352717
So is making a grapevine sprout tomatoes forcing it to go against its natural purpose? Are GMOs an evil abomination?
>>352738
What do you think
>>352644
>morally is relative
Then murder, rape, arson, etc is acceptable depending on who's making the judgment.
>the truth of that basic premise is what your entire argument hangs or falls from
No shit, that's some 101 dank memes right there.
Ever consider the fact that science makes some wobbly basic assumptions about perception and the nature of reality, yet we use it anyways?
If we can suspend radical doubt for one, why not the other? NPOV is necessary here.
>you claim you do
All I claim is that it's impossible for temporal reality to pop into existence on it's own, without outside intervention. That's not a particularly heady claim I think.
>>352745
I have no idea, this all sounds retarded to me so I don't know how far you'll go. If God creates all things with a natural purpose and fulfilling that purpose is good and making a grapevine sprout tomatoes is unnatural then it sounds like that wouldn't be good.
>>352738
>>352717
>If you make a grapevine sprout tomatoes is that natural?
You could answer this one of two ways.
One is that a grapevine can never sprout tomatoes. In this regard an unnatural purpose is any purpose I cannot do. For such a case there is no reason to have laws. It would be silly if we made law that farmers cannot use grapevines to grow tomatoes?
The other way is this. Suppose a geneticist makes a grapevine that does grow tomatoes. Well its' just another mutation. Human behavior can also be mutated and changed.
I'll ask you a question. If I made a tomato that grew from a grapevine and it was safe to eat would you have any problem with it at all?
>>352761
>>352738
>>352690
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificiality
>teaching elementary school words in /his/
>>352720
I could tell you that I'm a better fuck than her.
>>352749
>Then murder, rape, arson, etc is acceptable depending on who's making the judgment.
Yes, there's these people called sociopaths and psychopaths in the world. Many times they feel there actions are justified or can be forgiven with religion.
>science makes some wobbly basic assumptions about perception and the nature of reality, yet we use it anyways?
Some of the further flung ideas, yes. Most of it has been established through empirical demonstration. Can you name one thing that Religion has disproved from science beyond a shadow of a doubt?
>impossible for temporal reality to pop into existence on it's own, without outside intervention
And yet somehow this "outside intervention" is exempt from cause, observation, the laws of physics or nature. Then under Theistic assumptions, this meaningless entity is able to interfere in the continued workings of the Universe and the affairs of man.
>>352776
>It's artificial and therefore bad!
Nah dude, everything that exists in the physical universe is natural by virtue of the fact that it exists in the physical universe.
>>352775
Yo man, consider the possibility that genetic engineering or just regular selective breeding (without which tomatoes as we know them probably wouldn't even exist) is part of the unfolding and development of an object's natural good.
Our God is a living God.
>>352776
>implying I implied a different definition
I'm >>352761
>>352738
btw
>>352796
>sociopaths and psychopaths
Right, and you say that their moral opinion is just as valid as yours. Congrats.
>further flung ideas
What, you mean like the idea that if one thing happens under certain conditions, it will happen again under those same conditions?
That's the fallacy of induction, look it up. It doesn't work.
>"outside intervention" is exempt from cause, observation, the laws of physics or nature.
necessarily since you know, those things are a part of temporal reality.
You're just biased as fuck and you don't even know it.
>>352763
Its' actually an interesting question. Let's change a few words though. Replace "vegetable" with "human" and the value system of the religion goes fucking crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMsSjbxG_g
^correct video
"Cloning is evil. That's changing nature and only God is allowed to do that...well humans can do it too but you really shouldn't....God hates competition" For even more fun imagine fucking with the genes of the clone so they are thinking and feeling completely differently, essential you re-write what it means to be a human.
What the hell does nature even mean if it can be re-made? It's a very tricky word.
>>352803
Not bad, just artificial. I never said it was bad. Now you're discussing something entirely different from the OP. Look back at the question:
"Does god command the good because it is good..."
This is asking if it is a natural good, what something naturally adheres to and is most fulfilled at. Now you could do what I said with the grapevine and make it grow tomatoes and that could be your thing and you could like it but whether you like it or not does not weigh on the nature of the grapevine. Whether you side with things as they are naturally and things as you will them to be is up in the air but you can't assert that because you like something it is now naturally as it should be.
>Nah dude, everything that exists in the physical universe is natural by virtue of the fact that it exists in the physical universe.
No shit, but this is semantics now. You grasp the dichotomy, modern and ancient academia grasp the dichotomy, we're square.
>>352806
You didn't imply anything different, you seemed like you didn't grasp the standard one. It's crazy but we understand each other now.
>>352824
It's not an interesting question. It's a hilariously confused and simplistic question. I would recommend looking into Natural Law. Edward Feser is a decent modern writer of Natural Law that could give you a good intro.
>quote and video
Quote isn't even in your video, mate.
>>352819
>Right, and you say that their moral opinion is just as valid as yours. Congrats
They can believe it is. They're also people incapable of remorse or empathy. I see unnecessary harm put upon another individual. We're of course speaking in generalizations, and these things, besides rape, might occur under a context which could be justified. For example, the shooting of John Dillinger can be argued to have done good for the community at large.
However, the Sacking of Jerusalem by the Latin Crusaders, or a homosexual being stoned in Iran, occurred entirely because the perpetrators, who might otherwise not fall under pathological diagnoses, believed they were commanded by God, and there's nothing you can do to argue against that.
>What, you mean like the idea that if one thing happens under certain conditions, it will happen again under those same conditions?
If it can be demonstrated over and over again, then yes. That's the realm of science, which you're trying to cantilever into the realm of philosophy.
Again, tell me one factual claim by science which Religion has disproved.
>necessarily since you know, those things are a part of temporal reality.
More unsubstantiated white noise. You're trying to talk God into existence. And sure, I could be called biased. Burden of proof is still on you, asshole. Deal with it.
>>352914
>They can believe that it is.
You believe that is the case, by your own admission and claim in the relative nature of morality.
>Sacking of Jerusalem
>a homosexual being stoned
You say that all morality is relative. Who are you to condemn these actions if this is so? You're just another fuckwad without any authority outside your own value judgments.
>believed they were commanded by God
I can believe that unicorns exist. Doesn't make it true. That said, I can believe that unicorns don't exist, whereas in reality it is actually the case that they do. Likewise, one's beliefs on God's Will or existence don't bear any weight on the actual truth of the matter.
>science proves things
Only by the measure of proof that science defines. I can simply ask for a deductive proof and every "proven" scientific fact will fall short, because it's an inductive system.
Good luck proving mathematics via scientific experimentation.
>implying science is not an outgrowth of philosophy
>name calling
u mad.
>>352914
>I see unnecessary harm put upon another individual.
Stop making normative claims if you don't believe it.
>>352944
>You believe that is the case, by your own admission and claim in the relative nature of morality.
And you can ignore everything else I said.
>You're just another fuckwad without any authority outside your own value judgments
With "God Commanded it", you're not allowed to make value judgments. The Latin Crusader's had the same Authority as you. If God had truly commanded them to do so, then you're willing to sacrifice your own moral compass and accept it.
>I can simply ask for a deductive proof and every "proven" scientific fact will fall short, because it's an inductive system. Good luck proving mathematics via scientific experimentation.
Well mathematics have been been shown to be consistence in producing results. Can you actually answer the question of Religion disproving anything scientific fact, or will you continue to play philosophical tap dance?
>name calling
>fuckwad
I don't think Jesus would call that very nice.
>>352968
Don't Believe what?
>>352998
The possibility of normative claims, which involves the kind of relativism you're talking about.
>>352993
>With "God Commanded it", you're not allowed to make value judgments.
Well, you do have free will so it's completely within your power to simply disobey.
>If God had truly commanded them you to do so, then you're willing to sacrifice your own moral compass.
Sure, it's literally God. Ever do something as a kid that you didn't understand why you had to do it, but you did cause your parents knew what was best? I'm not so arrogant as to assume I know more than God himself.
>I don't think Jesus would call that very nice.
What makes you think I am a Christian? For that matter, what makes you think that Christians have to be polite?
Do you automatically assume all theists are Christians?
>>352904
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. If we define Nature or Natural Law as a set of rules that promote a certain outcome or action. What does it mean when those very rules can change?
This is what is scary about genetic engineering. You can argue that certain behaviour is unnatural for a human, for instance necrophilia. Of course if you can design a human where every one of his instincts tells him this is a natural action. To what extent do you think Natural Laws are subject to change?
Another fun question. What is the teleology of an abortion pill?
>>352944
>Good luck proving mathematics via scientific experimentation.
because it's not meant to be proven. math isn't something observable in the real world. it's a man made concept used to measure and make sense of the world based off of quantities. also, to be able to prove something, you need to have a hypothesis first
>proving mathematics
simply "mathematics" is certainly not a hypothesis. now if you said something like: if 1 is added to 1, then it will equal 2, or, if i kept counting by ones, i would never stop, for there is an infinite amount of numbers.
the above examples are hypotheses because it predicts the effect of a cause. and these can be proven, however not with the scientific method, which is used to measure the physical universe, but seeing if they are sound with the laws of mathematics. You can simply carry out these equations to test them. The laws of mathematics are used to prove things in the mathematical universe.
These methods are developed by observing unchanging patterns in these separate universes, and taking questions and seeing if they line up with these requirements.
>>353022
>Natural Law as a set of rules that promote a certain outcome or action.
Like gravity, or thermodynamics.
>certain behaviour is unnatural for a human, for instance necrophilia.
If it was unnatural, it wouldn't happen.
>What is the teleology of an abortion
It's murder.
>>353025
>math
>a man made concept
I disagree.
>>352486
>Created literally everything.
That's the idea, but in actuality morals are not a feature of the world as we describe it.
>Many legal systems aren't maintained by power, and yet they are still legal systems.
Not really. Give me one example.
>Likewise, morality does not need to be maintained because it simply is.
All that exists is maintained in some way. Not necessarily by labor, but a sustained existence, imperative statements made by humans are quite clearly temporal.
>Not all human moral law is the same, hence not universal, hence not objective.
Religious law is just human law dressed up in objective clothing.
>Again, the distinction between legality and morality is important here.
Not when it comes to God.
>>353044
>morals are not a feature of the world as we describe it
Just because we can't see or touch something does not mean it doesn't exist. Besides, I could simply "define the world" such that morals exist.
>one example
Hammurabi's Code is no longer enforced, but it's still a system.
>>353030
its based on quantities and patterns in the real world, but overall, the interpretation of these quantities are man made
>>353007
>Well, you do have free will
I'm a determinist, so that term means nothing to me, especially in a religious context.
>Ever do something as a kid that you didn't understand why you had to do it, but you did cause your parents knew what was best?
How are mortal, fallible parents even remotely comparable to your God premise? I can pull whatever authority out of my ass, draw a fence around it, then go nah-nah-nahnah-nah you can't know more than him, or even know him to begin with.
>What makes you think I am a Christian?
Do you automatically assume all theists are Christians?
Considering every single of your arguments have been regurgitated, almost down to the letter, from every Christian apologist I've suffered though, I just took a wild guess.
>For that matter, what makes you think that Christians have to be polite?
Oh, this meek and mild, be kind to your neighbor business. I don't think Jesus would have said such a thing to someone, unless you believe I'm deserving of some divine anger or some shit.
>>353022
>Perhaps I phrased it wrong. If we define Nature or Natural Law as a set of rules that promote a certain outcome or action. What does it mean when those very rules can change?
Then the outcome that was promoted had changed, what are you getting at here? This has nothing to do with Natural Law as philosophy knows it.
>To what extent do you think Natural Laws are subject to change?
Natural Law the concept is not subject to change but the natural ends of things that exist are as malleable as nature itself.
>What is the teleology of an abortion pill?
To be used for their artificial purposes of course. Surely you grasp the difference between natural and artificial though, right?
>>353044
>That's the idea, but in actuality morals are not a feature of the world as we describe it.
No, they are. When discussing "literally everything" he means exactly what he says.
>>353062
>I'm a determinist and therefore I cannot imagine what it is like to disagree with me
>what is an analogy, why do children listen to their parents
>Jesus was just a meek and mild hippie
>I love science!
mfw
>>353086
So you're going to slay that happy looking dragon no bigger than a large dog? Badass, dude.
>>353093
>>353102
Cute kitty.
>>353068
I'm stilling trying to get how you neatly organize the Natural (with a capital N) and the artificial?
I'm not entirely settled on whether there is a natural law myself and if there is how much of affairs are run by it. How would you even identify the natural law when you see it? It seems like all you say natural is just something you are accustmed to.
For example. Would creating artificial human genes and artifice plants count as artificial? Suppose that certain genes floating about and certain plants were artificially made. Suppose these fake genes and plants have been with us as long as we could remember (aliens did it). How would you tell which ones are natural and which ones are artificial. What defining characteristic is there of natural to distinguish them? If you could not answer this than would it be correct to the word 'natural' and 'artificial' are are not very different?
I feel a solid explanation is to say that natural law cannot be broken, everything made or done is part of it.
>>353174
I already gave you an author to use as a resource, anon. I recommend you check it out.
>>353052
>Just because we can't see or touch something does not mean it doesn't exist. Besides, I could simply "define the world" such that morals exist.
They "exist" as imperatives and emotions in peoples minds, which can be pointed to and demonstrated by human behavior, but beyond this, I don't think anyone has described a world without subjective experience containing moral properties, which is why I think the origins of morality are inherently subjective and expressive rather than descriptive.
>Hammurabi's Code is no longer enforced, but it's still a system.
A system, by definition, requires two or more working parts. With nothing to enforce it, a law is lawless, and doesn't really continue to exist.
>>353068
>No, they are. When discussing "literally everything" he means exactly what he says.
I know what he means, but what he's talking of can't be demonstrated to be part of this "everything".
>>353174
Not to mention genetic engineering is a natural end result of humans who exist due to natural forces.
ITT: Sillies.
The issue with the Euthyphro dilemma (which is what OP is getting at) is that you can't apply it to the Judeo-Christian conception of God. Socrates' (read: Plato's) question assumes that the god or gods in question are subject to the laws of human material reality. Most conceptions of God in the Judeo-Christian sense place Him outside the material laws of the universe as we concieve them; He can bring a universal "good" into existence, just like he brought the world into existence. Hence, accusations of the arbitrariness of His morality is redundant.
>>354353
>is redundant
*are redundant.
>>354353
An excellent point.
>>354353
>He can bring a universal "good" into existence, just like he brought the world into existence
Have you ever seen one of those movies where a person discovers they are an android or clone and that their creator made them to fulfill a certain purpose? Than the android or clone does something entirely different with their life?
You can design something with a purpose or 'rule' but as long as a being is sentient they can create their own path through life. Essentially you've turned God into the screaming mad scientist "I made you! I control you!". Only God is not the one screaming God is a sock puppet, used by the church, the screamer is the poster trying to invoke God's name to justify his political or moral stance. The church defines what God's natural law and defines, they not God, are in charge, and in doing so seeks power over the individual.
>>350620
They're the same when we're talking about God, who is omnipotent
>>355739
Neither your obscure teleological rant nor your obscure political influence rant have any relation to the argument I posed, sorry.
>>355739
>You can design something with a purpose or 'rule' but as long as a being is sentient they can create their own path through life.
"Create their own path" != making good moral choices as defined by God, so I don't know what you're getting at here.
>The church defines what God's natural law and defines [sic], they [sic] not God, are in charge, and in doing so seeks power over the individual.
Confirmed for knowing nothing about the catholic church (the largest of the christian churches):
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
>>356546
>"Create their own path" != making good moral choices as defined by God
Well of course it would be good moral choices as defined by me, which you have failed to demonstrate why they would be better necessarily better than my own. What intrinsic quality would make the moral path of Roman Catholism better than say the Zoastrians, the Greeks, the Japanese, the Chinese, or my own? Don't just say it's because God is involved, that's circular reasoning "God is right because God is right" In the end "morality" is just an idea or a spook and the only thing that really exists is the consequences.
To illustrate my point imagine that we have a person who has never heard any of the beliefs of any religion, if he read the bible he would not be able to identify if it was Hindu or Christian he would not even be able to tell if they stories were considered fiction or nonfiction by the readers. Now let's say we give this person a sampling of the moral truths from Christianity, hand-picked quotations from any source you desire. But we also do this for all the other religions and for several different philosophers. Now if he was given plenty of time to study and reflect on the various what intrinsic property of truthfulness would he look for that would validate your religion's understanding over any other one? If there really is intrinsic truth, a truth that will show up without resorting to "God said it, there for it's true" how would one identify it?
>those quotes from the Vatican
You cannot affirm that the priesthood is correct by quoting the priesthood. It's circular reasoning. This is like quoting the bible to prove the bible.
>Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written
I agree with this, we must interpret scripture given that it was written by man with no divine influence what so ever.
>>356640
>What intrinsic quality would make the moral path of Roman Catholism better than say the Zoastrians, the Greeks, the Japanese, the Chinese, or my own?
The fact that their God is the one true God, and his morality is the one, correct morality. That's kind of the point of Christian morality.
> In the end "morality" is just an idea or a spook and the only thing that really exists is the consequences.
Who said I disagree? You don't think _i'm_ a catholic, do you?
>what intrinsic property of truthfulness would he look for that would validate your religion's understanding over any other one?
This question makes no sense. The reader is looking for truth, not a "property of truthfulness", whatever that is.
>If there really is intrinsic truth, a truth that will show up without resorting to "God said it, there for [sic] it's true" how would one identify it?
Do you mean "if there really is intrinsic, God given morality?" How the fuck should I know what specific reasoning would lead this person to believe in God's way? What point are you trying to make?
>You cannot affirm that the priesthood is correct by quoting the priesthood
"You cannot affirm [writer] is correct by quoting [writer]. It's circular reasoning."
Er, no. Circular reasoning (a.k.a. Petitio Principii) is assuming your conclusion of an argument in the premises, i.e. premise A, premise B, premise C, therefore A. Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
>we must interpret scripture given that it was written by man with no divine influence what so ever.
You've misunderstood that sentence dramatically. Reread it.
And for the second time, none of this has absolutely anything to do with my points re: the Euthyphro dilemma.
>>350497
show me one instance where i can be physically proven that god has commanded/demanded anything from anyone
then i can answer your question
>>356736
>Do you mean "if there really is intrinsic, God given morality?" How the fuck should I know what specific reasoning would lead this person to believe in God's way? What point are you trying to make?
Well something is not "good" just because God said it right? Plato believed 'good' was brought into existence in some divine way and he thought the nature of this good could be understood by reasoning it out.
The alternative is that the 'good' is brought into existence by the divine but there is no way to tell what the hell is good using your own brain. You'd have to relay on some divinely appointed priesthood to tell you what the hell 'good' means. In which case we know something is good if the priest says it's good. The only way to obtain knowledge of the good is obedience to the priests. Good luck figuring out which priesthood is right though.
It comes down to the question of this "Can we know the truths about morality through reasoning?" If the answer is yes than we would have to ask what intrinsic truthfulness we are looking for, if the answer is no and morality can only be known by divine revelation (which is generally the Catholic position). In which case nothing about morality can be understood, one must read and obey.
This the question of how to verify the priesthood
>You cannot affirm [writer] is correct by quoting [writer]. It's circular reasoning.
Here's the thing. Most writers write about things that are observable. If a writer tells me that xyz has the property of abc than I can actually weigh that idea. This even works for abstract concepts such as 'the nature of suffering'. Religious writing that relates to something unobservable, I cannot do this with. If someone tells me that the creator of the universe is Jesus, his morality is right, and his morality is such and such and the reason he knows this all to be true is because the Jesus gave his priesthood special privilege....than it's very different.
>>356948
>Well something is not "good" just because God said it right?
According to christian morality, that's exactly what good is.
> If the answer is yes than we would have to ask what intrinsic truthfulness we are looking for, if the answer is no...
Did you not finish this sentence or something?
>morality can only be known by divine revelation (which is generally the Catholic position).
Except that the quotes from the Catechism I outlined above explicitly refute this claim; "To interpret Scripture correctly" is to figure out the nature of God's moral truths.
>>356992
>Did you not finish this sentence or something?
if the answer is no [than] morality can
>Except that the quotes from the Catechism I outlined above explicitly refute this claim; "To interpret Scripture correctly" is to figure out the nature of God's moral truths.
This doesn't address the point, morality is still trapped in divine revaluation, in this case it's written down in scripture. It's still at the conclusion where man is too stupid to understand morality himself, so he's stuck in an obedience mode, with some minor wriggle room if he in scriptural interpretation. (not much though)
>According to christian morality, that's exactly what good is.
So Op is correct, " is it good because it is commanded by god?"
I'd argue that a morality one makes themself would be more legitimate than one by someone else, the morality would be an extension of one's self.
>Except that the quotes from the Catechism I outlined above explicitly refute this claim; "To interpret Scripture correctly" is to figure out the nature of God's moral truths.
This doesn't address my problem. I've said Christianity ends up defining morality as whatever the priest says, since the priest is the one that knows God. And that's what the fucking bible is. It's not the word of God, it's the word of the priests. Of course the priests's word is they were totaling following the God...and we know this is true because the priests say it is true
Obeying a priest, whether his written word or his oral word is not figuring out truth.
This whole thing I'm talking about is what caused secularization of the government btw. One people accepted the idea that truths about the world could be understood just by thinking about it came to be that if an idea seemed true but contradicted the religion, than the idea that was understood by thinking is greater than the religious truth. Or rather the religious is re-interpreted to accept this new truth.
>>357101
>It's still at the conclusion where man is too stupid to understand morality himself, so he's stuck in an obedience mode
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. God cannot be apprehended by human reason.
>so he's stuck in an obedience mode
Yes, but to God, not the priesthood.
>So Op is correct, " is it good because it is commanded by god?"
God brings the good into existence as easily as he brought the world into existence.
> It's not the word of God, it's the word of the priests
Wrong. It's the word of God interpreted by many people over hundreds of years, priests and non-priests alike.
>Christianity ends up defining morality as whatever the priest says
Because they consider him capable of correctly interpreting the scripture, not because of his priestly virtue or something.
>Obeying a priest, whether his written word or his oral word is not figuring out truth.
You are essentially arguing that nobody should accept anything unless they do every single aspect of the research themselves. I'm therefore assuming that you came to understand the nature of, say, the atom by conducting the experiments yourself, and not by trusting your high-school physics teacher, am I correct?
There's this cool concept called "credibility", dunno if you've heard of it.
>This whole thing I'm talking about is what caused secularization of the government btw.
Yeah, people just believe whatever comes out of their mouths instead. Totally different.
>>357179
>You are essentially arguing that nobody should accept anything unless they do every single aspect of the research themselves.
I've already addressed this. You can actually verify things. One can realize our understanding of atoms is probably correct by observing all the technology we have which relies on this knowledge and seeing that it's actually functioning. If I really wanted to verify a certain thing I would track down the papers myself. You cannot do the same with religious arguements. "How do we know God is good?" How can I know God is good, how can I verify it. I can't take his word for it, God can't be good because he says he's good. Which leads to....
I'll repeat my question again because unless you can answer it your kind of fucked.
"A man with no knowledge of religion reads the moral teachings from several different religions and various philosophy. How would you determine which moral teaching has the truth and which ones are incorrect. What property of moral truth, what inherit would help him differentiate the false morals from the truth ones?"
Unless you can answer this question than you
1. Cannot interpret any of God's word. Neither can anyone else because they are unable to understand the properties of moral truth
2. Cannot define or identify the good God brings into existence, since you will not be able to tell the true good from the false good.
3. You cannot even say that God is good since you cannot even measure goodness.
You are in the dark and unable to make judgements. You cannot know good or evil. You can't even do your best to obey God because of point 3, you have no way of even measuring if God is good.
>Yeah, people just believe whatever comes out of their mouths instead. Totally different.
You yourself have admitted you have no way of judging morality. In contrast a secular argument can create a criteria to judge morality on.
>>357347
>I'll repeat my question again because unless you can answer it your [sic] kind of fucked.
Now that I can parse your syntax a little better, I can determine that your reading comprehension is awful, for I have never claimed that a person under the Veil of Ignorance could determine which moral truths were correct or incorrect.
The Euthyphro dilemma _presumes_ that the person at whom the dilemma is directed already believes their morality to be true. So, for the final fucking time, your question is completely unrelated to my points re: the Euthyphro dilemma.
>You yourself have admitted you have no way of judging morality
I never claimed otherwise. Have you been labouring under this delusion the whole time?
> In contrast a secular argument can create a criteria to judge morality on.
Absolute nonsense.
tripfags are the fucking worst
>>357411
Nice dubs
>>357366
>I have never claimed that a person under the Veil of Ignorance could determine which moral truths were correct or incorrect
Giving that we all start life with zero knowledge of religion it's an interesting question.
>Absolute nonsense
If a secular person cannot make a criteria to judge morality than neither can the religious person, since we are all born with no religious leaning. Neither for or against any religion.
If one cannot create a criteria to judge a morality how would they fucking pick the religion with the correct moral truth. They would have no way to know if they are worshiping a God or Demon. Even if divine figure personally spoke to the believer and performed miracles infront of him he would have no way of knowing if it was a 'good' or 'bad' divine figure. Usually the believer though is born into a community of people that practice the same religion and this never occurs to him, the religion is what you are 'supposed to do'.
Thus before you can even arrive at the Euthyphro dilemma you would first have to figure what the hell 'good morality' even means.
>>350665
That is nonsense. That is like asking "can God make a rock so big even he can't pick up?"
>>350497
It's not a mutually exclusive thing.
