God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

[Michael]

The Supreme Being (SB) (GOD; if and only if - there is a SB)is not subject to the limitations of humanity. There is no concept of "Right & Wrong" that is applicable to the SB; only outcomes. Compassion and morality are human inventions, not supernatural enlightenment or devine guidance.

You've made an error in logic in that you've appealed to authority "SB" and then used this as your basis to suggest the SB(s) are beyond moral judgement.

It'd be like saying the Supreme Leader Kim Jung Il is not subject to the same moral laws as the peons he rules over due to his overwhelming command of power to crush them like little bugs beneath his boot. Sorry, but no. He is subject to the same moral rules. The rules, like math, are eternal and supersede any SB(s) that may exist along side them.
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 does not equal -4

The initiation of force against another sentient conscious being is immoral. Humans qualify as being sentient and conscious. Purposely killing them just because you can is sick and demented and the most damning of all - Immoral.

 

[Yazata]

God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

I don't believe that "God" exists. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to attribute actions to a non-existent being.

Perhaps we could treat this "God" as if he was a fictional character in literature, in the manner of forming opinions about the fictional behavior of Sherlock Holmes.

But I can't see myself getting upset or angry or indignant about it.

I wasn't raised in any theistic tradition. So these kind of literary-criticisms aren't battles that emotionally engage me. I'm just not very passionate about the perceived immorality of characters in myths that I've never had any belief in.

 

[Neverfly]

Makes you wonder about the "Created in his image" part.
Either way, since the entity doesn't exist, they simply had to "explain" why he "allowed" terrible things to happen as "his will." It's very basic. A lack of a God, moral or immoral, goes much further to explaining his non-interference.

 

[kx000]

A lack of a God, moral or immoral, goes much further to explaining his non-interference.

God has interacted with me.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Really? However you do realize that personalized experiences are a rather poor argument for the explanation or to convince others of YOUR experience as a valid. I cannot confirm nor deny your personal experiences however i can be skeptical of your claim and how it is relevant to any existential arguments.

 

[Yazata]

I'm often confused to whether we are discussing science (something that is testable and amenable to metrics) or theological beliefs (something that has earned the trust and confidence of man and amenable to human predisposition).

I think that GIA is engaging in something like critical-theology. It's theology, since it accepts the Bible stories as a given. But it's critical, since it implicitly denies your own assertion that theology is "something that has earned the trust and confidence of man". The argument there would seem to be with your word "earned". GIA is seemingly asserting that at least some aspects of religious tradition are on their face immoral and unethical, and hence don't deserve mankind's assent. (I agree with GIA on that, btw.)

Clearly, in some measure, religious beliefs are subjective. But we only get there through the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).

I don't understand that.

Leibniz's 'Principle of Sufficient Reason' says "there can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise, although we cannot know these reasons in most cases".

I'm sure that there are reasons why many people possess religious beliefs. But it isn't necessary for us to assume that the reason is the ontological existence of the object of their beliefs. I'm more inclined to attribute the genesis of religious beliefs to social and historical context, perhaps in concert with innate psychological predispositions such as the human tendency to anthropomorphize.

The Supreme Being... is not subject to the limitations of humanity. There is no concept of "Right & Wrong" that is applicable to the SB; only outcomes. Compassion and morality are human inventions, not supernatural enlightenment or devine guidance.

If this "supreme being" is imagined as being totally amoral, and if we accept that moral predicates like "right", "wrong", "good" or "evil" simply don't apply to this hypothetical thing, then that threatens to deny and subvert a central and perhaps indispensible portion of traditional theology. Theology wants to claim that its "God" is supremely and ultimately Good, and in fact (so Christian Platonists would argue) is the form and paradigm of all the limited earthly goods that we encounter in our finite lives. God is supposed to be the defining source and final arbitor of Good.

The problem is that unless God is at least as good as we human beings are, unless our usage of the word 'good' to apply to God meets at least the minimal standards that we insist upon when we use the word to apply to people, it becomes meaningless.

God has to be at least as good as we expect other human beings to be, or else there's no point in calling God good at all.

And there wouldn't be much justification in worshipping such a God either. In order to be a suitable object of human worship, God would arguably have to be morally better than we are, and he certainly can't be human beings' moral inferior.

Imagining God as untouched by human concepts of morality threatens to make God indistinguishable from Satan. Is God's only advantage over Satan simply that he's supposed to be the more powerful of two fundamentally amoral forces? Is that the only claim that God has on man's allegiance?

 

[Neverfly]

God has interacted with me.

As addressed, this claim carries little weight.

Let's have a moment of Brutal Honesty- shall we?

Has God ever spoken to you- No , not implanted thoughts in your head or signs or hints- Has GOD ever come down and clearly Spoken to you?
No.
Have you seen God? No, not hints or subtle analogies that may be God revealing himself to you... Has GOD stood before you?
No.
Have you had any past due bills disappear and when you called the company to inquire as to why- and they said, "Oh, well God paid that bill for you."
No.

Let's face the hard, cold, uncomfortable (to belief) reality for a moment. GOD has never interacted with you. Instead- you want to believe and so you find whatever Earthly validation for his influence in your life.
A baby is born- that's miraculous.
No it isn't.
So on and so on.

"God" is always moving behind the scenes, subtle, manipulative- this is because all these supposed interactions are just people trying to validate their belief.
There's no God there.
There's just some guy who wants to believe that there is.

I could just as easily take out "God" and replace it with "Easter Bunny." "Santa clause." "Tooth Fairy." All of these claimed interactions- munny fer a toof and decorated eggs are just Earthly events that the believer accepts as validation.

So unless you've got an autographed picture of you standing next to the Almighty- your claims of interaction mean jack-diddly.

"KX- Thanks for all the support
Love,
God"

 

[Jan Ardena]

You've made an error in logic in that you've appealed to authority "SB" and then used this as your basis to suggest the SB(s) are beyond moral judgement.

It'd be like saying the Supreme Leader Kim Jung Il is not subject to the same moral laws as the peons he rules over due to his overwhelming command of power to crush them like little bugs beneath his boot. Sorry, but no. He is subject to the same moral rules. The rules, like math, are eternal and supersede any SB(s) that may exist along side them.
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 does not equal -4
The initiation of force against another sentient conscious being is immoral. Humans qualify as being sentient and conscious. Purposely killing them just because you can is sick and demented and the most damning of all - Immoral.

A ''Supreme Being'' indicates The Greatest of all beings, whereas, a ''supreme leader'' represents a leader of human beings (especially in the example you gave), therefore a ''supreme leader'' is subject to the same things as every other human being (being human himself), and the ''SB'' from which all other beings are brought forth, IS, the ultimate standard of perfection.

jan.

 

[Michael]

A ''Supreme Being'' indicates The Greatest of all beings, whereas, a ''supreme leader'' represents a leader of human beings (especially in the example you gave), therefore a ''supreme leader'' is subject to the same things as every other human being (being human himself), and the ''SB'' from which all other beings are brought forth, IS, the ultimate standard of perfection.

jan.

A Supreme Being would still be subject to and limited by logic. Circles will still contain no corners and triangles three sides - even if the "Supreme Being" wishes that were not the case. For all universes and forever - that will remain the case. Thus, logic supersedes the so-called "Supreme Being". Perhaps "Logic" is therefor a more 'Supreme Being'. Immoral actions will of course remain immoral. If an action is immoral, it is immoral. Just because the action is performed by a "Supreme Being" doesn't turn immorality into morality. Purposely murdering sentient human children in a flood, as an example, would be an immoral act. If you did it, it'd be sick and immoral. If God did it, it'd be sick and immoral.

It should be noted "Greatest" or "Supreme" are relative terms and so the sentence "The Greatest of all beings" is illogical as it only takes one other sentient being to say, you know what, I like another being more - thus, for me, this other being is 'Greater'.

 

[Neverfly]

It should be noted "Greatest" or "Supreme" are relative terms and so the sentence "The Greatest of all beings" is illogical as it only takes one other sentient being to say, you know what, I like another being more - thus, for me, this other being is 'Greater'.

To add to this; Let's assume for the moment that everyone agrees that the supreme being is the supreme being. Even so, as a supreme being, he's only as supreme as much as he is greater than all other beings. This does not mean he's perfect nor omnipotent. It only means he's higher than other beings.
A human in a colony of ants may be the Supreme Being, but he's still far from perfect.

 

[lightgigantic]

A Supreme Being would still be subject to and limited by logic. Circles will still contain no corners and triangles three sides - even if the "Supreme Being" wishes that were not the case. For all universes and forever - that will remain the case. Thus, logic supersedes the so-called "Supreme Being". Perhaps "Logic" is therefor a more 'Supreme Being'. Immoral actions will of course remain immoral. If an action is immoral, it is immoral. Just because the action is performed by a "Supreme Being" doesn't turn immorality into morality. Purposely murdering sentient human children in a flood, as an example, would be an immoral act. If you did it, it'd be sick and immoral. If God did it, it'd be sick and immoral.

It should be noted "Greatest" or "Supreme" are relative terms and so the sentence "The Greatest of all beings" is illogical as it only takes one other sentient being to say, you know what, I like another being more - thus, for me, this other being is 'Greater'.

on the contrary, the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

If you don't believe me, just try any of these exercises :

fondle your mothers breast (assuming that you are not a 9 month old baby)
shoot someone with an automatic rifle (assuming you are not a solider engaged in the theatre of war)
repeatedly engage in acts like incest, rape, theft and J walking (assuming you are not a dog or a donkey)
gain employment as a prison guard yet only get paid about 1/17th of the lowest wage bracket and not be allowed to go home for several years (assuming you aren't convicted of a crime and sent there, despite your employment credentials)

etc etc

So as far as the OP is concerned, trying to bring the moral issues of humanity to god is just like trying to bring the moral issues of civilians to soldiers, of adults to 9 month old babies, of dogs top humans, prisoners to prison guards etc.

IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons.

 

[lightgigantic]

To add to this; Let's assume for the moment that everyone agrees that the supreme being is the supreme being. Even so, as a supreme being, he's only as supreme as much as he is greater than all other beings. This does not mean he's perfect nor omnipotent. It only means he's higher than other beings.
A human in a colony of ants may be the Supreme Being, but he's still far from perfect.

only because humans share the same limited capacity of ants that render them far from perfection : namely is sure to commit mistakes, is invariably illusioned, has the tendency to cheat others and is limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership.
:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

only because humans share the same limited capacity of ants that render them far from perfection : namely is sure to commit mistakes, is invariably illusioned, has the tendency to cheat others and is limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership.
:shrug:

And your molars rot.

 

[lightgigantic]

And your molars rot.

moreso if you go around trying to play god as dependent on mundane morality ...
:shrug:

 

[Neverfly]

moreso if you go around trying to play god as dependent on mundane morality ...
:shrug:

Really? That increases dental carries and tooth decay?

The short answer is: You define God by how you want God to be. Just as everyone else who believes in a God does. If you want to believe that God is above morality- then, for you, he is above morality.
It may not make any sense to other people how your God can say "do this" or "don't do this" and then turn around and commit the very atrocities he told us not to do.
You then want him to be perfect so you decide he's "unfathomable" by little dumb beings such as ourselves.

I cannot imagine a more self depreciating and primitive way of thinking for a human. It thoroughly removes all responsibility from the believer and even, from the believers deity.
In the end, all these justifications come across as desperate. A being that cannot be understood in any way, fathomed in anyway, seen in any way, yet must be loved, trusted and granted unquestioning faith. You choose all these traits, define them on your own. You believe it because you want to, not because there is any real need to do so.

And meanwhile, your molars rot.

 

[wynn]

on the contrary, the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.
/.../
IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons.

Basically, you're making the might-makes-right argument.

I'm not disagreeing, but for all human practical intents and purposes, a little more needs to be said here, as theodicy is knocking on our doors, threatening with its confusion.

In short, the issue can be summarized with the question: How can one appreciate, love and trust the God who rules the Universe, the God who is behind karma and reincarnation?

The ills of this world are so enormous that it seems impossible for an ordinary human to still think amicably of God.

The good and the bad of this world are also so complex, so manifold, that it seems impossible to make sense of them, and by extension, to make sense of the God who is supposedly in charge of all this.

only because humans share the same limited capacity of ants that render them far from perfection : namely is sure to commit mistakes, is invariably illusioned, has the tendency to cheat others and is limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership.

You realize though that, provided that you are a mere human, the above confession disqualifies you from making authoritative claims on the topic of "God", don't you?

 

[lightgigantic]

Really? That increases dental carries and tooth decay?

more that it increases the amount of nonsense passing them

The short answer is: You define God by how you want God to be. Just as everyone else who believes in a God does. If you want to believe that God is above morality- then, for you, he is above morality

.
god defined as the summum bonum, cause of all causes etc is pretty standard.

Defining god purely in mundane human terms is quite clearly a speculative "want" of a certain type of atheist or a creed similar enough to it
:shrug:

It may not make any sense to other people how your God can say "do this" or "don't do this" and then turn around and commit the very atrocities he told us not to do.
You then want him to be perfect so you decide he's "unfathomable" by little dumb beings such as ourselves.

Not sure what you are talking about.
I defined god as the cause of all causes etc. I didn't define him as unfathomable ... although I concede that it is certainly quite unfathomable how god can be dictated to in terms of mundane morality ... much like its quite unfathomable how one would go about persecuting dogs for incest, etc
:shrug:

I cannot imagine a more self depreciating and primitive way of thinking for a human. It thoroughly removes all responsibility from the believer and even, from the believers deity.
In the end, all these justifications come across as desperate. A being that cannot be understood in any way, fathomed in anyway, seen in any way, yet must be loved, trusted and granted unquestioning faith. You choose all these traits, define them on your own. You believe it because you want to, not because there is any real need to do so.

And meanwhile, your molars rot.

On the contrary, I think its kind of desperate to try and play humans and ants as radically different to offer some radical slant on god. I guess you are simply beguiled by technology or something and can't understand how humans and ants (unlike god) are limited in an identical manner
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

As addressed, this claim carries little weight.

Let's have a moment of Brutal Honesty- shall we?

Has God ever spoken to you- No , not implanted thoughts in your head or signs or hints- Has GOD ever come down and clearly Spoken to you?
No.
Have you seen God? No, not hints or subtle analogies that may be God revealing himself to you... Has GOD stood before you?
No.
Have you had any past due bills disappear and when you called the company to inquire as to why- and they said, "Oh, well God paid that bill for you."
No.

How would you know God hasn't interacted with him??

Let's face the hard, cold, uncomfortable (to belief) reality for a moment. GOD has never interacted with you. Instead- you want to believe and so you find whatever Earthly validation for his influence in your life.

That could simply be your projection.

So unless you've got an autographed picture of you standing next to the Almighty- your claims of interaction mean jack-diddly.

So unless the other poster is able to convince you in particular that God has interacted with him, you maintain that God hasn't interacted with him, and he too should maintain that God hasn't interacted with him?
Your opinion should be considered so authoritative that other people should give up their belief in God?


IOW, the way I see it, the problem is that you seem to be unable to meaningfully contextualize another person's claim "God has interacted with me", other than by denying it or requesting evidence on your terms.

I agree that another person claiming "I know God" etc. can be experienced as upsetting. I think it is upsetting because it arouses one's insecurities, envy, despair, confusion, one's human vulnerability.

 

[lightgigantic]

Basically, you're making the might-makes-right argument.

Not sure how babies are mightier than adults when it comes to breast fondling
or dogs are mightier than humans when it comes to incest
:shrug:

IOW if you think its a might = right argument you haven't understood the argument

I'm not disagreeing, but for all human practical intents and purposes, a little more needs to be said here, as theodicy is knocking on our doors, threatening with its confusion.

In short, the issue can be summarized with the question: How can one appreciate, love and trust the God who rules the Universe, the God who is behind karma and reincarnation?

The ills of this world are so enormous that it seems impossible for an ordinary human to still think amicably of God.

Its quite simply

At one side of the spectrum is intense yet temporary attraction to the material energy and at the other is immutable attraction to god (immutable given that its constitutional of the living entity ... so much so that it an illusioned state it finds expression in the material energy). Both are mutually exclusive. In terms of where this life leads its like the story of there being two dogs inside us and trying to guess which one will win (the answer is the one we feed)

The good and the bad of this world are also so complex, so manifold, that it seems impossible to make sense of them, and by extension, to make sense of the God who is supposedly in charge of all this.

Hence the above is a good departure point for ruminating on states of existence beyond this world

You realize though that, provided that you are a mere human, the above confession disqualifies you from making authoritative claims on the topic of "God", don't you?

Hence spiritual life doesn't require that one reinvent the wheel like some mad artist simply for the sake of putting one's name to it

 

[Neverfly]

more that it increases the amount of nonsense passing them

Nonsense doesn't rot teeth, troop.

Defining god purely in mundane human terms is quite clearly a speculative "want" of a certain type of atheist or a creed similar enough to it

The shifting of the goal posts out of reach is suggestive of the want to protect the belief in spite of evidence that contradicts it.

Not sure what you are talking about.
I defined god as the cause of all causes etc. I didn't define him as unfathomable ... although I concede that it is certainly quite unfathomable how god can be dictated to in terms of mundane morality ... much like its quite unfathomable how one would go about persecuting dogs for incest, etc

By insisting that like ants, we cannot fathom the mind of God.

On the contrary, I think its kind of desperate to try and play humans and ants as radically different to offer some radical slant on god. I guess you are simply beguiled by technology or something and can't understand how humans and ants (unlike god) are limited in an identical manner

We are not limited like ants.

How would you know God hasn't interacted with him??

It's not possible that any God has since God simply does not exist.

That could simply be your projection.

You could be a unicorn.
Though, I am fairly certain that is not the case.

Your opinion should be considered so authoritative that other people should give up their belief in God?

Not at all, my opinion is my opinion. I support it with sound arguments and evidence. If someone examines these and chooses to finally let go of primitive superstition- that is fine.
If they choose not to, that is also fine.

My words are not always aimed at the opponent- but at the silent ones reading.

IOW, the way I see it, the problem is that you seem to be unable to meaningfully contextualize another person's claim "God has interacted with me", other than by denying it or requesting evidence on your terms.

On my terms, yes. But the contextualize? No- I did contextualize it by rational standards. Perhaps you missed it when you read that post...
I pointed out his own desire to shift the goal posts, to maintain his belief since he simply does not want to let go of it.

I agree that another person claiming "I know God" etc. can be experienced as upsetting. I think it is upsetting because it arouses one's insecurities, envy, despair, confusion, one's human vulnerability.

That could simply be your projection.