What is the flaw with this logic?
He sounds very right to me, but people disagree and say God can't be blamed for evil.
Why
This is the "problem of evil". People have been debating that nonstop until they dropped dead from a brain aneurysm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Don't bother.
the logic can be circumvented by the assumption evil does not exist on its own but is the state of the absence of God(source of all good) similar to the fact that there is no such thing as "dark" just an absence of light hence evil becoming a choice in free will.
>>29581855
Because evil is really only temporary and if he were to stop it, it would be messing with the evil person's free will.
Litteraly get over yourself, God doesent have to babysit you.
>>29581855
Because all evil in the world is obviously the work of pic related.
Come on, didn't you read the manual that the universe came with?
>>29581953
Wait. People have free will?
What exactly is that?
>>29581915
I disagree. If God were omnipotent, evil would not be necessary to define good.
>>29581908
wah problems that are too hard we should just give up :(
Evil is subjective. If killing is evil, then why do people justify it and at times even praise it?
You would lie to get out of a sticky situation, wouldn't you?
Would that lying be justified if it was for the betterment of humanity, the greater good?
God has killed people. And people praise it. Is it justified if God does it?
It is more evil to mess with peoples free will by stopping their evil. Case closed.
>>29581915
>the logic can be circumvented by the assumption evil does not exist on its own but is the state of the absence of God(source of all good) similar to the fact that there is no such thing as "dark" just an absence of light
Then that just redefines the "problem of evil" as "the problem of insufficient good". Doesn't really change anything.
>hence evil becoming a choice in free will.
I don't see how this follows from the idea that evil is simply the lack of goodness. And now this defense is contingent upon free will even existing.
>>29582020
>It is more evil to mess with peoples free will by stopping their evil.
So, when Jesus overturned the tables and chased out the money-changers from the temple, that was evil of him?
After all, he stopped their evil and messed with their "free will".
>>29581855
1.
It boils down to the problem of the existence of evil in the world. The logic here is that "God" is good and not evil. To any philosopher, this would be absurd. God is never not anything, because then It would not be God. God is by definition without limitation. Good and evil are but aspects of It's nature, but do not encapsulate the totality. God beyond good and evil, therefore to ascribe to It anything, is not actually explaining anything; these are merely the ramblings of a man who was sick of hearing about some deity in heaven watching over us all, even while people were murdered, falling sick, and starving all the time. A philosopher can understand the sentiment, but ultimately it does not actually explain anything. The conclusion we can reach here, is that truly, evil persists in a world where good does nothing. So perhaps we as people should begin to be good, in order to find the good.
>>29581986
It's pointless. It's all part of a complicated worldview. They have explanations but they're not simple, and they don't prove or disprove anything either, as usual... It goes nowhere.
>>29581977
>free will doesent exist
i want the redditors to leave
>>29582020
But isn't saying that if you follow me good things will happen and if you don't, you'll be tortured forever, messing with people's free will?
>>29582020
Do we even know if free will exists?
All particles in the Universe from since the big bang could theoretically be predicted. Particles bounce, bond, and repel, and all of that could theoretically be recreated in a simulation. If everything could be recreated, what's not to say that free will is a myth and everything we do and have done could be predicted with 100% accuracy?
>>29582110
Dodging the question, are we? Tut tut.
This is why it makes more sense that if there were a god, they would be indifferent to the universe.
Like, all god did is create the rules of physics for the universe, and then left it out to mold.
>>29581968
If God is omnipotent, then there would be no Satan
>>29582154
>Do we even know if free will exists?
Well, what are we talking about here, really?
What is free will?
It could be the case that what one person means by "free will" might be different than what the next person is talking about when they say "free will".
Just like how one person's idea of God might be a qualitatively different thing than the next person's idea of God.
>>29582193
In Judaism, Satan is actually a servant of God and does his bidding. His role is that of the accuser/prosecutor; he isn't considered a "fallen" angel; rather, he is an angel who accuses people and puts them to tests.
>>29582193
Yeah, but like, this one book says you're wrong
Supposedly math has proven there is a God. However, it doesn't say that it is the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. Those Gods were omnibenevolent to their followers, and were also omnipotent. However, if something were omnipotent, it would be indifferent to everything. It would have experienced everything possible and impossible. There would be no reasoning to anything it does, or if there is, nothing in this Universe would be able to understand it unless it was omnipotent itself. There is "evil" because God is not omnibenevolent, and God realizes that good and evil are subjective, like art. Anything can be good or evil.
>>29582215
No. Then there would be no point to any kind of discussion at all. You need to be objective and steer clear of that relativist garbage. Philosophy is a science of logic, just as empiricism is a science of measurement. Measurements are not subjective. When we use logic, let us not be subjective. We know what these ideas are to us as human beings.
>>29582310
>Supposedly math has proven there is a God.
What?
>>29582310
>math has proven a nonmathematical concept
wut?
>>29582015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta
Spin this in a subjectively good light you fucking idiot.
>>29582215
I believe that free will is the ability for someone to somehow make their own decisions without any destiny or outside influences involved. Because the everything in the Universe can be predicted and played out, and there is no way to leave the universe, everything we do is influenced by this universe and we all fall back into "destiny."
>>29582334
>>29582337
>Supposedly
Keyword.
I didn't get that information from a trustworthy source.
>>29582310
>Supposedly math has proven there is a God
Explain yourself
>>29582319
>No. Then there would be no point to any kind of discussion at all.
On the contrary; clearly defining terms is a cornerstone of discussion and rational discourse.
>You need to be objective and steer clear of that relativist garbage.
A clarification of the semantics is by no means an acceptance of "relativism".
>We know what these ideas are to us as human beings.
Truly, I disagree. Are you familiar with the semantic differences between the compatibilist's definition of free will, and that of the incompatibilists?
When a compatibilist (like Daniel Dennett) says we have "free will", what he's talking about is really a completely different thing than what an incompatibilist is talking about, whether that particular incompatibilist believes in "free will" or not.
>>29582376
>I believe that free will is the ability for someone to somehow make their own decisions without any destiny or outside influences involved
I agree with that definition.
>Because the everything in the Universe can be predicted and played out, and there is no way to leave the universe, everything we do is influenced by this universe and we all fall back into "destiny."
I would say that even if it were the case that some events in the universe were truly unpredictable and random (such as supposedly acausal events on the quantum scale as exist in some interpretations of quantum mechanics), that still wouldn't give us free will. If somehow we were at times compelled to act randomly/acausally due to the filtered-up effects of acausal quantum phenomena, that wouldn't make us "free"--we'd be at the mercy of the random actions of little particles.
>>29582582
This means that an omnipotent God is the only one with free will. Welp.
>>29581915
Hence, not omnipotent
Christianity BTFO this before it even existed.
But I'll avoid that:
1. it presumes a god must follow humanity's morality, humanity's logic, etc. A theoretical god could have no concept of evil, claiming the ignorant to be malevolent is pomo nonsense.
And what Christianity brought:
2. It lacks the fourth option; is he going to (prevent this series of events?)
No, because it was humanity's decision. To interfere and totally shelter would not be loving, nor just, nor would it allow a reciprocated act of love. To be just, a judgement must be made on individuals with free will, not individuals manipulated.
This was known before Christianity, but Judaism required active sacrifice and thereby damned those enthralled by the evils of the world. The Crucifixion can be interpreted through a Catholic and Protestant lens, I'll do both.
Protestant: to be both absolutely loving and absolutely just, God's judgement was brought upon Himself in flesh so that man both suffers the consequences of their actions, and are freed from punishment. The sacrifice is reciprocated through continued material sacrifice so as to display thanks.
Catholic: God sent Himself in flesh to Earth so that His light may resonate where it was once eclipsed by evil; through sin, suffering, and death. Thereby, the Holy Spirit may find those that need Him the most equally to those that are raised in His home. The Holy Spirit being the love God has for Man, Man represented through Christ.
Continued
>>29581855
If he is able and willing
Then whence come the evil
>>29581915
>the state of the absence of God
any absence of god circles back around to said god being neither omnipotent nor omniscient. which in itself allows for free will, i guess, but still asks the final question of why call him god.
>>29582759
An omniscient God would understand all possible concepts of good and evil. If this God disagreed with humanity that what we typically consider evil is actually evil, it doesn't change the fact that an all powerful God has allowed countless living beings of it's own creation to suffer needlessly.
What if God is Beyond Good and Evil?
>>29582732
>This means that an omnipotent God is the only one with free will.
However, if God is omniscient (and a case could probably be made that omnipotence implies omniscience), then logically speaking, even he couldn't have free will.
If God knows everything, then he knows all his future actions, and he cannot change them (because if he changed them, then his knowledge would be wrong, and therefore he wouldn't be all knowing. An omniscient being's actions would be predetermined. It would KNOW what it was going to do in the future--not just suspect, but KNOW, for definite. Meaning it could not actually do otherwise. To say that God knows everything he will ever do but has the actual power to do otherwise is to say that God can know he will do something, and then instead of doing that thing, he doesn't do it, so he knew what he would do, then didn't do that thing he knew he would do. In other words it's meaningless nonsense.
The concept of free will itself is basically incoherent.
>>29582828
Then he's not all-good.
>>29582828jade is original content muteblox
>>29582759
>1. it presumes a god must follow humanity's morality, humanity's logic, etc. A theoretical god could have no concept of evil, claiming the ignorant to be malevolent is pomo nonsense.
This implies that logic and morality are not objective, but in fact just opinions (such as the opinions of humanity, or the opinions of God).
>2. It lacks the fourth option; is he going to (prevent this series of events?) No, because it was humanity's decision. To interfere and totally shelter would not be loving, nor just, nor would it allow a reciprocated act of love. To be just, a judgement must be made on individuals with free will, not individuals manipulated.
If God made humans and God is omniscient, then he made humans in such a way that they would do whatever it was they were going to do. Omniscience is incompatible with metaphysical libertarianism.
>>29581855
There's a really simple objection that destroys this argument.
The problem of evil is based on an assumption which cannot be rationally justified. The assumption is that, if God has a morally justifiable reason for allowing evil, then we should expect to know that reason.
There has never been a good argument in favor of this assumption.
If God exists, then it seems reasonable that finite beings like us would not know the reason(s) God, a supreme being, allows evil and suffering. Thus the problem of evil falls apart.
>>29582950
>The problem of evil is based on an assumption which cannot be rationally justified. The assumption is that, if God has a morally justifiable reason for allowing evil, then we should expect to know that reason.
"Morally justifiable" in this context would mean, what?
>>29582759
In both instances, God is lowering himself so that he may drag himself through the mud so that we need not step in it. Though this may not be an official stance, it is clear that God is also infinitely humble; though the Father himself is a fairly inhuman figure, often misrepresented as very vain and petty (but is actually righteous, arbitrating, guiding,) the Son himself is humble, compassionate, and empathetic. The Holy Spirit is what connects these two and finishes the complex figure known as God, alongside many other names and titles.
It is this figure that the very arrogant rationalists have issue with; He is a figure that does not make sense to their narrow perception and thereby cannot be real, cannot be 'God', or cannot exhibit one of His traits.
Even ignoring the first point I made in the previous post, this is an extremely faulty mindset.
The Trinity itself disrupts this very naive logic by presenting three separate beings that form God, and thereby all of Creation: the Son, the figure that is on our level, is not the arbiter; similarly, the Father, the figure that is above us, is not the humble. Both, however, are limitless in their love.
Before the Son was actualized, this love (salvation) had no conduit to reach humanity in its whole.
Originally, salvation was the default, the conduit however was broken through Original Sin and was brought forth once again after a time of population and many trials.
Were God to simply forgive the crime, it would not change the suffering it brought Man, and it would make God unjust.
Were God to never forgive the crime, the suffering would continue as normal, but it would make God unloving.
Thereby, God had to resolve this through either of the popular stances aforementioned; not eliminate the suffering Man brought upon themselves, but offer a means (and possibly, a definite and all-encompassing*) way to escape Mankind's humanness through simple acceptance of His sacrifice.
>>29581855
The failure in that logic is the assumption that an omnipotent being thinks like we do. That it has motivations we can comprehend.
Those arguments might work with a specific religion that already has doctrine laying out the will, purpose, motivations of a God.
But then you must assume, if their information is correct including that their God exists, that they didn't just misinterpret the actions or communications of said God.
>>29582965
If God exists, then whatever conception of morality he created the world with is the true morality, right? That is what I mean by "morally justifiable." Morally good or permissible with respect to the true morality; i.e. God's morality. I don't need to state exactly the content of that morality for my objection to work.
>>29581855
>malevolent
looking at things from a limited human perspective we can never know until the afterlife. What we do know is that we are pawns, for what game? we can not say. What is the nature of this game? we cannot fathom.
>>29582986
>The failure in that logic is the assumption that an omnipotent being thinks like we do. That it has motivations we can comprehend.
If we can't comprehend its motivations, how could we know they were "good" motivations?
God isn't omniscient. He doesn't notice it happening.
>>29583021
It seems that you're saying that if God exists, then that which is morally good is morally good BECAUSE it is commanded/endorsed/willed by God. Is that right?
>>29581855
If there's a God, he can do whatever he wants. If there's evil, he chose it to be there. He's not held to human standards, to him it may be the same as stepping on an ant.
Besides, why would he be obligated to make sure everyone is happy all the time. Most people seem to feel that we learn the most, and grow the most, from our misery and failures. Happiness and success just feels good for a moment.
>>29583113
>If there's a God, he can do whatever he wants. If there's evil, he chose it to be there.
Then he's not all-good.
* search 'Apocatastasis', essentially it means that Hell/Purgatory is another set of trials that exist as purification, and thereby all of Creation will be saved and return to be with God. Yes, this includes the most infamous heretics, the Devil in all his forms, and all seemingly irredeemably corrupted by his influence.
This, again, is not an official stance. It however is not heretical, and thereby can be supported.
>>29582798
Please read my post before replying, thanks!
You're like the person at the theater that screams at the screen because they don't understand the whole of the plot yet and disagree with what's happening without the whole of the context!
>>29582840
Your logic is extremely faulty:
God has seen and continues to see every single possibility, and allows them all to possibly occur.
God is not succumb to free-will, silly, He is not succumb to anything. That doesn't negate that lesser beings have the capacity.
>>29582940
Logic is not objective, morality a representation of God's justness and thereby is objective. God cannot have opinions, stop anthropomorphising.
>Omniscience is incompatible with metaphysical libertarianism.
No it isn't, you're just antopomorphising God by presuming he is succumb to your narrow logic. You're no worse than the idiots that presume he is succumb to their narrow perception of righteousness.
>>29583026
Because God is absolutely just and thereby is the 'Defining Good'.
Through Christ and His prophets is His will deconstructed.
Before Original Sin, his Will was always known (though still incomprehensible).
>>29581855
The Judaic/abrahamic concept of God screwed up people's interpretation of divinity. Look at other concepts of divinity (no not fucking Buddhism), youre stupid and biased if you only criticize one.
>>29581855
Just to point out, this argument obly really works against a Christian, or possibly Abrahamic, God.
Many theologies and philosophoes posit a God that is not inherently benevolent. The philosophy of Spinoza is a good example; to him, God is the totality of all of nature, he is the universe.
>>29583021
grant me the one assumption, that the worst possible experience for everyone can be morally classified as bad, and you can derive everything else from that.
Either gods morality alligns with that, which would prove OPs point right, or it doesn't and god is the worst being in the universe deserving nothing but our disgust.
>>29583148
>God has seen and continues to see every single possibility, and allows them all to possibly occur.
When you say "possibility", are you talking about epistemic possibilities or metaphysical possibilities?
>Logic is not objective
So the law of identity (A is A) is simply a subjective opinion?
>morality a representation of God's justness and thereby is objective.
What does it mean to say that morality is a representation of God's justness? Please, elaborate on this point further.
>God cannot have opinions, stop anthropomorphising.
If he can't have opinions, then is he truly omnipotent?
>>29583095
I know what you're getting at. I don't think the Euthyphro dilemma is a good argument either.
Yes, if God exists, then what his commandments/will/endorsements are good by definition, because God is defined as having a perfectly good nature, and so his commandments would exist as a necessary result of his perfect nature.
>>29583148
>Logic is not objective
It's as objective as it gets, like math.
>>29583199
Sam Harris pls leave
Why would God be obliged to align with your preferences?
Also, why should I grant you that assumption? I've never seen a good argument for why "suffering" should be considered identical with "bad."
>>29583320
if the worst possible experience of everything capable of experiencing isn't bad, then morality has no meaning.
>>29583320
>I've never seen a good argument for why "suffering" should be considered identical with "bad."
Well, what is it to "suffer"?
>>29581915
God is presumably omnipresent. Argument voided.
>>29583356
What's your argument for why "suffering" should be considered identical with "bad"?
>>29583386
Something like "to experience extreme discomfort"? What's your point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBxaOcZnGk
>>29583199
>grant me the one assumption, that the worst possible experience for everyone can be morally classified as bad, and you can derive everything else from that.
Hey, if I make one ad hoc assumption, then this perception that I like makes sense!
So clearly, that assumption must be correct because I'm the smartest man alive!Fuck off
>>29583244
>When you say "possibility", are you talking about epistemic possibilities or metaphysical possibilities?
Epistemic.
>So the law of identity (A is A) is simply a subjective opinion?
Logic is still based upon assumptions, assumptions are perceptions. A better way of phrasing what I said is "logic has its grounds in subjectivity, and thereby cannot be objective."
>What does it mean to say that morality is a representation of God's justness? Please, elaborate on this point further.
It means that morality is God's will for humanity, and because He is absolutely just His will is objective.
>If he can't have opinions, then is he truly omnipotent?
Opinions are confining, not expanding: one who has opinions is less potent than one free of opinions. I haven't done formal mathematics in nearly a decade, so I cannot explain it that way.
Opinions are an epistemological subset that limits one's scope of actualized and potential knowledge, whereas a lack thereof of opinions is a non-limiting scope (in other words, objective.) I suppose God could hold every possible subset, but that cannot be logically commented on because it is beyond our scope.
>>29583275
Not at all. Read my above reply for reasons.
>>29583356
Just because something is above you, doesn't mean it is meaningless.
>>29583409
It's an assumption. Also don't try to weaken my point by using the word suffering. I'm talking the worst possible experience. That would be suffering^infinity.
Morality only exists in the context of consciousness. If there is no other consciousness than one, morality has no meaning.
If then the worst possible experience for everything concious can not be classified as bad, morality loses its purpose and meaning, it becomes an empty word.
>>29583256
>Yes, if God exists, then what his commandments/will/endorsements are good by definition, because God is defined as having a perfectly good nature, and so his commandments would exist as a necessary result of his perfect nature.
I have my doubts as to whether this is a logically sound argument. Would you be so kind as to format it as a syllogism labeled with alphabetical symbols by each subject and predicate?
I think it would be a useful exercise. I tried to do it myself, but I was unsure about whether it was worth differentiating among "good", "a perfectly good nature", and "a necessary result of his perfect nature".
>>29583501
I defined morality here: >>29583498
Why are you trying to force in some strange secular morality here?
>>29583541
you didn't define shit there m8
>Why are you trying to force in some strange secular morality here?
in a philosophical thread? how dare l
I get it, there can be no such thing as a objective morality by definition. I think however that my definition is the closest we'll ever get to something like that.
God might have a different set of morals that every consciousness ever would disagree with.
That would make him worthy of our disgust, tho.
>>29583498
>Epistemic.
So, let's say I'm thinking about whether to eat an apple or an orange. I don't know which one I'll pick yet. They're both epistemic possibilities.
God knows that I don't know which one I will eat and that both SEEM possible.
But metaphysically speaking, he KNOWS which one I will actually pick, and which one was merely an epistemic possibility--not an ontological (metaphysical) possibility.
So, God's knowledge of various "possibilities" is compatible with determinism, and incompatible with metaphysical libertarianism.
This is me trying to make sense of your argument, btw.
>>29583409
>Something like "to experience extreme discomfort"? What's your point?
Extreme discomfort just seems like a synonym of suffering.
I'm talking about the qualitative nature of suffering. What IS it?
>>29583506
>God, by definition, has a perfectly good nature (perfect goodness is a necessary property of God).
>If God exists, then his will is perfectly good (he can only will that which is good)
>If moral goodness originated from God's will, then it is good by definition
That's the best I can do right now.
>>29583623
This isn't me >>29583541
>>29583501
Okay, then I won't use the word suffering.
>If then the worst possible experience for everything concious can not be classified as bad, morality loses its purpose and meaning, it becomes an empty word.
You still have not justified this.
>>29583695
It's \the state of being extreme discomfort.
>you have free will
>there's only one right choice though
yeah nice one
>>29583623
>you didn't define shit there m8
Yes I did, or in a previous post.
Read the thread before posting.
>>29583623
>I think however that my definition is the closest we'll ever get to something like that.
Utilitarianism isn't objective.
>God might have a different set of morals that every consciousness ever would disagree with.
False, morality is God's will and disagreeing with it does not make Him worthy of anything.
It just means you're worthy of disgust.
There can be and is, objective morality by definition. You just have a poor definition of morality.
Ethics is personal or cultural/societal; materialistic.
Morality is beyond that; transcendental.
>>29583624
Then let me phrase it another way I imagined: it's epistemic for humans but metaphysical and epistemic for God.
Christian free will is compatibilist, not libertarian. It's a duality where the potential possibilities exist and are known alongside the actualized possibilities.
>>29583837
It isn't a choice, it's an acceptance.
>>29583820
>You still have not justified this.
yes l have
lf you honestly want to get into the meta analysis if the worst possible experience for one conscious being is actually to be morally classified as bad by this one conscious being, you have just proven my point in making morality an empty word.
>>29583895
>free to only make one acceptance
yeah nice one
>>29583925
Search 'Compatibilism'
Stop posting.
>>29583895
Is god bound by morals or does he create them?
If he is bound by them, who made them and who told god about them? Or is he just guessing them, making his attempt at morality as good as ours.
And if he made them up, he's just another being trying to come up with a subjective moral system, since objective morals don't exist (unless you try to sneak some "might makes right" argument in here, exposing you as a hypocrite)
And if that is so and every other conscious being would disagree with his subjective morals, that would make him de facto the least moral being of them all.
>>29583912
I don't understand this, that doesn't make morality an empty word. Morality is concerned with what is good and what is bad. If I deny your definition of bad, that doesn't make morality devoid of any content, all I have done is denied one possible concept of "bad". The true nature of "good" and "bad" could be something else. It seems like your using some sort of sneaky debate tactic, where you say that your idea of something is so obvious, that to deny it is so ridiculous that it would make the idea of that thing meaningless. That is a fallacy, though. Just denying someone's concept of good and bad does not make the ideas of good and bad themselves necessarily meaningless.
>>29584016
God's will is morality, God is not bound by anything.
I keep telling you, God is absolutely just and thereby his will is objective.
>>29584060
good for what? bad for what?
If there is no consciousness, these words have no meaning, as well as if they don't concern consciousness. This would render morality an empty word also.
>>29584086
>might makes right
aha
>God is not bound by anything
>God is absolutely just
making just an empty word
>>29584016
>And if he made them up, he's just another being trying to come up with a subjective moral system
except he made the universe. if he made a moral system, it would by definition be universal and objective
>>29584155
That's not might makes right, it's absoluteness is absoluteness.
God is righteous even if He were impotent.
>>29584125
Sorry, I don't think I understood you before; I agree that consciousness is necessary for any concept of morality to exist. Could you explain clearly how that relates to your claim that, if the worst possible experience for everyone is not necessarily bad, then morality is an empty word?
>>29584174
only if he is instructed by some even higher power.
otherwise he's just a being trying to enforce his subjective morals onto his autonomous creation like a parent forcing his worldview onto his kid.
>>29581855
because evil is a product of giving humans free will
>>29584216
I keep telling you God is objective.
Are you illiterate?
>>29584216
>only if he is instructed by some even higher power.
how the actual fuck does that follow? are you actually fucking retarded? are you just desperately trying to weasel your way through an argument that has been debated for millenia and will likely never have any real answers other than pretty good guesses...by shouting NUH UH and arguing semantics instead of substance?
>>29584176
>absoluteness is absoluteness
empty statement
you're trying to deflect
just because you use fancier words for something doesn't change it's meaning
what power makes him righteous? is he bound by that?
or are rightgeous and just simply synonymous with gods nature, making them useless as qualifiers?
>>29584237
so objective is synonymous with gods nature?
the word has no meaning of its own then and is useless as a qualifier.
>>29584265
He is righteous because He is absolutely just.
Stop being illiterate.
>>29583820
>God, by definition, has a perfectly good nature (perfect goodness is a necessary property of God).
>If God exists, then his will is perfectly good (he can only will that which is good)
>If moral goodness originated from God's will, then it is good by definition
Sorry to be picky, but I was really hoping for alphabetical symbols right next to every subject and predicate (A, B, C). It just makes it so much easier to examine the argument, for reasons I explained in >>29583506.
If you don't mind I'll put them there myself. I'll do my best to be accurate. I'm trying to make sense of it.
>God (A), by definition, has a perfectly good nature (B) (perfect goodness is a necessary property of God).
(A) is (B)
>If God (A) exists, then his will (C) is perfectly good (B) (he can only will that which is good)
If (A), then (C) is (B)
>If moral goodness (D) originated from God's will (C), then it is good (B) by definition
If (D) is (C), then (D) is (B)
So the argument is, as I understand it.
Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: If A, then C is B
Conclusion: If D is C, then D is B
I legitimately cannot tell if this argument is valid or not. I went through a lot of effort to conceptualize it, and yet at the end, I was left confused. It feels like something is really wrong with it but I can't put my finger on it.
I'm going to need to think about it.
>>29584294
are you trolling?
what gives these words meaning?
if its god simply calls himself that because why not, then these words have no meaning beyond that.
>>29582020
>allowing innocent children to get tortured and butchered is a lesser evil than taking away the persons will to do it
Gonna have to disagree
>>29584203
morality relates to the well-being or absence of suffering for conscious beings (dependingon how you want to define it). If you don't agree with that definition, what use does it have? lt would just be senseless drivel with no endgame.
>>29583148
is this bait?
blox dox nox fox
>>29584253
>desperately trying to weasel your way through an argument that has been debated for millenia
as we all do in this thread?
>arguing semantics instead of substance?
just because l don't agree with your point doesn't make my argument bad m8
The question at hand is wether there is objective morality or not. my argument is simply, just because the most powerful being says so while pointing a gun at you, doesn't make something objectively moral.
>>29584414
also,
objective morality could only truly exist if god were bound by it, in any other case what would stop him from just making up a new moral "absolute" today and withdraw another one tomorrow (making his morality subjective)?
theodicies are all about answering the question "then whence cometh evil"
>>29584491
You brought up an amazing point just now.
The mainstream religions do believe that evil exists.
So if evil exists (as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all agree), and God doesn't want there to be evil...then why is there evil?
>>29584297
You still here? I'm trying to conceptualize and formulate it too and it's harder then I thought. It might just be because I'm so tired
>>29584770
Yeah, I'm here but I'll probably fall asleep any time now...if I don't see your reply, just letting you know this has been a really interesting discussion
>>29584770
Not him but l think his argument is solid. The question, however, seems to be where good comes from in the first place. lt can't come from god himself or we'd end up with a circular argument.
>>29581855
God created everything, whining that he should help a creature out of existence is retarded. He didn't create the petri dish to manage every whiners life. He didn't do it to make sure everyone is tight and snug at night. All he gave us was the maddening opportunity of free will, easily engulfed by Nihilism. Those within the creation lost to insanity through vain attempts to understand the totality of creation.
>>29584948
>All he gave us was the maddening opportunity of free will
I don't think we have free will.
>>29584948
>I don't have to think, the Bible tells me so!
>>29582110
no, you want facts to leave. How the fuck are you even going to spin this as a reddit import?
>>29584297
>>29584893
Premise 1: If God (A) has a perfectly good nature (B), then God (A) has a perfectly good will (C)
Premise 2: If God (A) has a perfectly good will (C), then everything God wills (D) is good (E)
Premise 3: The moral commandments (F) are God's will (D)
Premise 4: God (A) has a perfectly good nature (B)
Premise 5: Therefore, the moral commandments (D) are good (E)
>p1: If A is B, then A is C
>p2: If A is C, then every D is E
>p3: F is D
>p4: A is B
>c: F is E
Logically valid and each premise is true by definition.
>>29582398
Oh, in that case supposedly I have a penis that is under 8 inches
>>29585073
true
however, good hasn't been qualified yet, so the conclusion is meaningless at this point. see>>29584917
>>29582582
breaking the illusion is actually socially irresponsible though. People need to believe themselves to be acting agents in order to internalize scruples and derive self-worth. i would like to will the idiot who decided truth is the ultimate good out of existence
>>29582759
why doesn't he just get a waifu body pillow and call it a day?
>>29582828
then I suppose he is dead and we killed him
>>29585134
>breaking the illusion is actually socially irresponsible though. People need to believe themselves to be acting agents in order to internalize scruples and derive self-worth.
I'm not sure that's true.
>>29585200
I am living proof of the fact
>>29585220
I could just as easily serve as a counter-example. I don't believe in free will, I still have very strong scruples, and my self-image is as good as ever, if not more so.
>>29585247
yeah but fuck you, you normie
Even the most eminent religious figures have long abandoned the biblical idea of God. Only the craziest retards still believe in literal talking snakes and the like. So why keep anything from those dusty old books? If there is a principle that you deem good, it needn't come from a book whose validity is shunned even by the most dogmatic believers.
>>29585265
Don't be that way brah.
Here, have some comfy vibes.
>>29585273
this basically exclusively applies to a small catholic elite and a slightly larger jewish elite.
And even they have some wacky ideas.
It's just that the large majority of christians and jews arent particularily dogmatic believers but still believe in a lot of bullshit.
And don't forget the muslims. Even the muslim elite still believes in god as he is depicted in their old storybook.
>>29581855
Let's pretend that, in principle, an argument based on reason alone could prove God's existence and someone comes up with it. The guy has an IQ of 150, and people with IQs of 110+ can comprehend it. What's left for everyone else? Can they just not get into heaven (presumably believing in God is a prerequisite to entry)? Or can they simply accept that smarter people than them have figured it out and take it as a matter of faith that he exists, etc?
This by analogy demontstrates the necessity of faith, because it allows us to partake in the fruits of wisdom we would otherwise not have access too. But lets say some guy doesn't prove his existence and we have faith in his deductions-- because that guy is really just an metaphor for God himself. God represents the pinacle of our "good" attributes. As such one of those attributes is justice. When people believe in God, or at least the Christian God, they didn't come to it by reason but by faith, and one of those articles of faith is that God is just (as well as being beautiful, true, perfect, etc). Just because we cannot understand how this works in conjunction with the existence of evil doesn't mean that we're entitled to an accounting. Its like the literal retard demanding that unless the 150 can explain it to him in terms he can understand, be refuses to believe it exists (substitute God for whatever hard to understand theory you want, if that helps).
Calling God to account in this way pressuposes that man is on such a level to render judgement on God himself. It is an inherently prideful position which is, of course, the first sin.
Note: this is not intended to prove God's existence.
>>29585437
Either way, you can say there is no need for concern; if not on the basis that even the most eminent are questioning their own ideas, then on the basis that it's downright silly to believe such ideas in the first place (read: Islam).
The assertion of god in any manner is a matter of metaphysical belief. You can claim that god is good or he is evil and you would be correct in your assertions either way.
