Is there a God?

[Necroghastia]

Where? Where have you refuted the statement that something can be omnipotent or omnibenevolent, but not both? Because I'm pretty sure that was he first time I actually said that flat out in this thread.

It's been argued a couple times in this thread already. Not my job to get you up to speed.

Considering that you thought I posted that 10 pages ago, I really don't think I'm the one not up to speed here.

[Neutraligon]

Something that humanity must decide.

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.

Referring the question upwards, doesn't make the answers better, it just makes them harder to argue with when the consequences of those beliefs start having deleterious effects on society.

Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

"Higher" authority does not make morality any more meaningful.

[Neutraligon]

And I fail to see how that means it is "meaningless."

It lacks a fixed meaning, I guess you could say. Anyone can twist it around to make morality whatever they want it to be.

though it's not like organized religions haven't done that, either

That is true regardless of if a god exists or not.

[Tarsonis]

Do you not see how that actually supports my point, not refutes it?

Why shouldn't morality be useful to humanity?

Being useful, doesn't make it meaningful. For example, the speed limit can be useful. But if i'm free to disregard it, it's meaningless. Like any law, it's only meaningful if its enforced, which necessitates an authority capable of enforcing it.

[Neanderthaland]

Uh, no. That wasn't done or assumed. I was pointing out your mistake of assuming these things ARE simultaneously true, and ignoring all other possibilities.

I'm not ignoring other possibilities, I just don't consider them relevant.

I mean, we're on the subject of the morality of God, and if you don't consider any possibilities other than "Good" and "Mysterious" to be relevant. Then you're not taking the topic seriously. It's just La Xinga style, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" at that point.

[Tarsonis]

But that wouldn't be true morality, that would just be what humanity has decided is useful at the time. And thus there is no reason for anyone to beholden to it, beyond it being useful for their survival.




Without a higher authority, morality is meaningless. There in lies your problem.

"Higher" authority does not make morality any more meaningful.

Higher authority is the only thing that gives it meaning. Otherwise it's just a useful lie agreed upon.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not ignoring other possibilities, I just don't consider them relevant.

I mean, we're on the subject of the morality of God, and if you don't consider any possibilities other than "Good" and "Mysterious" to be relevant. Then you're not taking the topic seriously. It's just La Xinga style, "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right!" at that point.

You haven't given me any specific alternatives, you're just alluding to possible alternatives. I don't have to consider something not stated.

[Kiu Ghesik]

It lacks a fixed meaning, I guess you could say. Anyone can twist it around to make morality whatever they want it to be.

though it's not like organized religions haven't done that, either

That is true regardless of if a god exists or not.

If a god defines absolute morality, then that becomes false. There becomes an objective singular correct morality.

[Tarsonis]

It's been argued a couple times in this thread already. Not my job to get you up to speed.

Considering that you thought I posted that 10 pages ago, I really don't think I'm the one not up to speed here.

Alright, I'll just assume you're ignoring the refutations stated in this thread because you can't challenge them and thus are pretending they didn't happen. Cheers.

[Godular]

That is true regardless of if a god exists or not.

If a god defines absolute morality, then that becomes false. There becomes an objective singular correct morality.

How can we know what it is though?

[Neutraligon]

"Higher" authority does not make morality any more meaningful.

Higher authority is the only thing that gives it meaning. Otherwise it's just a useful lie agreed upon.

How does a higher authority give anything "meaning." Define meaning and morality.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

I'd like to ask those believing in moral absolutism: Why is god the arbitrator of morality? What gives him that "right" to do so?

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.

What specifically makes him unable to be evil?

Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

Alright, well considering I didn't get a response from the scientific question, I'm now going to properly address these points.

Firstly: Nobody here consented to god's rules and regulations. They're slapped on us even though we had no say in it. Does that sound fair to you?

And secondly: You know we're talking about morality right? Even though I just compared morality to "rules," they aren't really rules since they are supposedly universal. Does that mean morality does apply to god? Probably so, unless god himself is practicing moral relativism by ignoring his own rules.

One thing that we've learned throughout human history is that leaders that are above the law tend to be abusive and corrupt. Why would god be any different? Because he's somehow divine? He rules like a king over the rest of us, does he not? Does that mean his rules shouldn't be treated as universal?

I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but they're relevant to dissecting the root of what "god" truly is.

[Neutraligon]

That is true regardless of if a god exists or not.

If a god defines absolute morality, then that becomes false. There becomes an objective singular correct morality.

Nope, it just becomes that gods opinion on morality.

[Neanderthaland]

Why shouldn't morality be useful to humanity?

Being useful, doesn't make it meaningful. For example, the speed limit can be useful. But if i'm free to disregard it, it's meaningless. Like any law, it's only meaningful if its enforced, which necessitates an authority capable of enforcing it.

Ah, but you see, your authority doesn't enforce it.

You say that they'll enforce it after we're dead, without providing any proof, and there's a lot of you religious types who try to enforce it on their behalf (much to everyone's annoyance and occasional harm.) But this is a cop who never pulls you over or gives you a ticket, just threatens a bill on your deathbed.

[Tarsonis]

If a god defines absolute morality, then that becomes false. There becomes an objective singular correct morality.

Nope, it just becomes that gods opinion on morality.

Which functions objectively.

[Neutraligon]

Nope, it just becomes that gods opinion on morality.

Which functions objectively.

Nope, opinion after all cannot be objective.

[Godular]

I'd like to ask those believing in moral absolutism: Why is god the arbitrator of morality? What gives him that "right" to do so?

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.

What specifically makes him unable to be evil?

Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

Amusingly, hot and cold are subjective.

[Tarsonis]

Being useful, doesn't make it meaningful. For example, the speed limit can be useful. But if i'm free to disregard it, it's meaningless. Like any law, it's only meaningful if its enforced, which necessitates an authority capable of enforcing it.

Ah, but you see, your authority doesn't enforce it.

You say that they'll enforce it after we're dead, without providing any proof,

Proof was given via revelation. Granted were about 2000 years removed from that event, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

and there's a lot of you religious types who try to enforce it on their behalf (much to everyone's annoyance and occasional harm.)

Yes, to my annoyance as well.

But this is a cop who never pulls you over or gives you a ticket, just threatens a bill on your deathbed.

When the bill comes is inconsequential.

[Neutraligon]

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.




Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

Amusingly, hot and cold are subjective.

Lobsters and slowly increasing the heat till they boil and all that.

[Tarsonis]

Ultimately? His sandbox his rules.




Same reason that Hot, can't be cold.

Amusingly, hot and cold are subjective.

you're right, I should have said heat. I was rushing.

[Neutraligon]

Ah, but you see, your authority doesn't enforce it.

You say that they'll enforce it after we're dead, without providing any proof,

Proof was given via revelation. Granted were about 2000 years removed from that event, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I have no reson to believe it happened. Revelation simply becomes rumor if I did not see it happen.

[Kiu Ghesik]

If a god defines absolute morality, then that becomes false. There becomes an objective singular correct morality.

Nope, it just becomes that gods opinion on morality.

If that god is omnipotent, then it becomes objective.

[Neutraligon]

Amusingly, hot and cold are subjective.

you're right, I should have said heat. I was rushing.

Changing the word to heat does not change anything in the response. Since cold is simply molecules moving slower, while hot is simply molecules moving more quickly.

[Tarsonis]

Which functions objectively.

Nope, opinion after all cannot be objective.

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

[Neutraligon]

Nope, it just becomes that gods opinion on morality.

If that god is omnipotent, then it becomes objective.

By definition an opinion cannot be objective.

Nope, opinion after all cannot be objective.

But they can function objectively if given from a high enough authority.

No it cannot, anymore then if god insists that strawberry milk is best milk. Gods opinion cannot be objective, because by definition opinion cannot be objective. It does not matter how powerful a being is, that does not change the fact that the opinion is still that, an opinion.