Either god based morality on his personal preferences, making

Well done anon, go tell mummy and daddy so they know how well you're doing in AS Philosophy!

>>34037931
yeah, there is basically no way that the christian god could be the ultimate creator of everything unless everything is actually much more finite than infinite, in which case everything in existence is permafucked

>>34037931
not a christfag or abrahamicfag in general, but this is some 101 shit
god 'based morality on his personal preferences' in that god, as an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, would be able to know for certain what moral standards are best for people and lead them to the most happiness and success
therefore, from an abrahamicfag perspective, following the moral standards set by god is the only logical option because they have been vetted and prescribed by someone who knows absolutely everything there could possibly be to know on the topic
children listen to their parents on morality because their parents are smarter, and parents are nowhere near all-knowing like god is

>>34037931
god's law is arbitrary

religious people admit this from day 1. It took you 30 years to conclude the same thing, congrats.

Morality is based primarily on effects.
God has a better understanding of the effects of human actions than humans do.

>>34037997

>god 'based morality on his personal preferences' in that god, as an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, would be able to know for certain what moral standards are best for people

Begging the question.

>and lead them to the most happiness and success

At this point it's just segued into utilitarianism.

>>34037970
Claims to be all-knowing and powerful, leaves Adam and Eve with the "warning" about some fucking forbidden apples. Lets DEVIL get into heaven to seduce them. He's a fucking monster. Nothing sacred about god. Just another asshole with a magnifying glass

>>34038048

>God has a better understanding of the effects of human actions than humans do.

Then why wouldn't he make humans perfectly moral?

>>34038048
>Morality is based primarily on effects.

Human morality is based on effects.

God morality is not based on effects. In fact, god's morality often contradicts efficiency. Israel is a perfect example of how ignoring Talmudic law and aspiring towards humanistic goals is a more stable way of creating a country. As soon as the arab gulf leaves Islam, they too will thrive.

>>34038062
>Begging the question
that would be applicable only if i believed in an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god
we are speaking in a context where the specific question is 'if the abrahamic god existed, how did he develop the moral system prescribed in those religions and how is it not hypocritical in one way or another?', and the abrahamic god is inherently all three of those things, so assuming those facts to be true in this hypothetical scenario is not begging the question
>At this point it's just segued into utilitarianism
is that a bad thing? why would someone who loves everyone and everything fully not want them to follow a system that would allow them the most happiness? if you had a dog that you cared about a lot, you wouldn't want to feed it shitty food, because then it would be less happy from its bad diet

>>34037997
>>34038048
the fact that you must resort to a real world moral basis (utilitarianism, consequentialism) shows the flaw in the divine morality theory. Moral truths can only be reached through moral reasoning and philosophy, no god needed.

>>34038143
no, it shows the flaw in humans trying to explain the morality of a creature that thinks on an entirely different level
a mouse trying to comprehend human morality would have just as many problems, but that wouldn't make our morality invalid
also, philosophy and theology are intertwined disciplines, hence why reddit stemfags bitch about both equally

>>34038075
Because then the game will be rigged.
God wanted to gave human free will to choose. I know what you are gonna tell no "if god knows everything, there can't be free will".
Now tell how the fact that god knows what my action ultimately will be contradicts the concept of free will.
Like imagine anon, i know everything about you about your choices about your future and you never seen me or k ow anything about me, does that mean that you don't have a free will ? Ofc you do, you choose between multiples alternatives freely, i didn't oblige you or anything. I just happen to know what your choices will be in the time.
For god, time is just another dimensionnal space, he can just walk through it.

And god gave us the free will so that ultimately we will be judged on our decision. Did they cause warm to our surroundings and to which extent or did they improve it and to which extent.

>>34038176
Sure, god may be better at reasoning than us and therefore reaching the best conclusions the fastest but the point is that the moral truths would be true regardless of who came up with them, taking god out of the equation. And even then, the basis for such morality would still have to be set more or less arbitrarily as is the nature of moral philosophy in general so there couldn't be "the one" true morality anyways.

>>34037999
>religious people admit this from day 1
Never once have I witnessed a religious person admit the arbitrary nature of their morality. Quite the opposite actually, this is exactly what they accuse the non religious of.

File: atheist triggered.jpg (8KB, 234x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 234x250px

>>34037931
>Either god based morality on his personal preferences, making it arbitrary

If it wasn't "arbitrary" then it existed before God - which is a contradiction.

back to Logic class, you tumblrino

>>34038108

>is that a bad thing?

No, but it defeats the premise that moral "good" is what God says it should be and replaces it with utilitarianism, which is a different conception of morality.

On top of that, if God is omnipotent, then it's actually up to him what leads to the greatest pleasure or suffering, and he himself could just choose to make suffering not a thing. Then by utilitarian standards, he would be omnibenevolent.

But since suffering clearly does exist, then God is either not omnibenevolent in a utilitarian sense, or not omnipotent.

>>34038383
>If it wasn't "arbitrary" then it existed before God - which is a contradiction
proving his point
putting arbitrary in quotation marks won't make it less arbitrary

>>34038369
you're talking about religious people who use religion in the fashion sense.

I'm talking about religious people in the real sense. Anyone who philosophically grasps Abrahamic religion understands that god is arbitrary. There are entire passages of Exodus where God changes his mind on issues merely to express his anger or "test" the faith of his people. These are arbitrary changes not based on any objective morality. The food laws are specifically like this.

>>34038439
Most intellectual theologists also believe in a very abstract version of their religion, but even they often try to circumvent this problem.
But if all religious people started to adopt these peoples beliefs, the world would be very different anyway.

>>34038439

>God changes his mind

>tests the faith of his people

how the hell does that make sense if god knows everything?

if he knows everything why does he "test" people's faith? He already knows how faithful they are.

and how could he change his mind? He'd already know what he would do, because he knows everything

literally none of this makes any sense

>>34038554
>literally none of this makes any sense

it doesn't make any sense, obviously.

After reading the torah, I don't think God genuinely cares that you make sense of it all. All he wants is obedience.

>>34038554
I doubt that many theologists actually take that stuff literally. Most that I've talked to take a position that is little more than a slightly more involved kind of deism.

>>34038501
most atheists (not agnostics, ignostics, etc, but people who have a positive disbelief in god and make threads like this) also have a very shallow understanding of their faith and that of others, to the point of making mistakes that aren't even 101 level (like jesus mythicism)
the world would be a much better place if people actually thought about their beliefs

>>34038596
Exactly. Modern smug christians need to be called out on that shit though. Following god has nothing to do with being morally superior or feeling gods love, it is simply a pragmatic decision assuming that this god actually exists.
At least ISIS is honest about their god and their motivations and most importantly consistent about it.

>>34038645
What is your beef with jesus mythicism?
To my knowlege there is conclusive evidence that "the Jesus" ever existed, which is not to say that much of his story couldn't be based around a real historical figure (or several) of that time.

>>34037931
God is an invention of man so this thread is pointless

>>34038783
Ya know, people with a 3-digit IQ actually like intellectual stimulation.
Besides that, as long as people still believe this stuff, it needs to be discussed.

>>34038827
>anon doesn't have at least a four digit IQ
I'd post a too smart wojak but I'm to smart too do that

>>34038764
the evidence body for jesus is robust as far as 1st century lower-class street preachers go
the time and place in which he lived was full of people extremely similar to him, so he wasn't worthy of note to anything near the degree he is today, but we can be fairly confident there was a jesus of nazareth born around 4 bc, preached on the streets of roman judea, was followed by his disciples, associated with prostitutes and beggars, crucified in 33 ad, etc
this does not imply anything about the validity of his claims or the existence of his miracles, but the arguments against it often seem borne out of the subconscious idea that his existence would somehow 'confirm' christianity (one reason why it's so often espoused by militant atheists raised by militant christians)

>>34038928
Not to forget the Yeshua was pretty much the equivalent to a name like "John" or "Bob" nowadays. I think it's possible however that the Jesus character, while being based largely on one historical figure could've been an amalgamation of several figures of the time (not even considering the influence of religious myths on his persona), so that "the Jesus" hardly resembles any of them, not even the one he is mostly modeled after.

God isn't bound by the ideas of Good and Justice, He is the very definition of the Good and the Just. But you can't say He is arbitrary because you would be making the assumption that God isn't abiding to some external idea of Justice (therefore making Him arbitrary), which in this case simply doesn't exist.

>>34037931
False dichotomy and a core error in attribution.

>>34039229
Just giving gods nature the title of good doesn't get rid of the initial problem. You're just hijacking an already established term in the hope that nobody notices it.

>>34039272
It's not a false dichotomy. Either morals are created by god or they aren't.
If they are created by god they are by definition arbitrary.

False dichotomy.

Read what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about it.

>>34039347
No, what I'm saying is that outside of God there's no Good or Justice. You can't just simply make up your own definition of goodness or justice and say "God is evil and arbitrary".

>>34039404
you need to give me a link dude
judging from what I've read from Aquinas I'm expecting circular reasoning and extreme bending of words definitions.

>>34039423
>You can't just simply make up your own definition of goodness
which is what you're doing. the common understanding of good isn't "gods nature". If you wanna bastardize the definition of words, sure, anything can mean anything, god can be he sole source of morality, the earth can be flat, 9/11 can be a jewish conspiracy...but it doesn't actually prove anything.

>>34037931
it's arbitrary as in it was decided by someone with authority, like with arbitration in legal disputes. Not arbitrary as in random.

>>34039728
Agreed. The point still stands though.

>>34039531
>which is what you're doing
How so?
>the common understanding of good isn't "gods nature".
And?
>If you wanna bastardize the definition of words, sure, anything can mean anything
Of course, words don't have intrinsic meaning (without God, nothing has intrinsic meaning. Ecclesiastes 1:2). Only God is good (actually, this is a very limited and flawed definition of what God is or isn't. Read some apophatic theology), and we can know that only through revelation (if you choose to believe it, of course).

>>34040027
assertions aren't actual arguments, ya know...

>>34040070
Whatever you say. As others pointed out, it's a false dilemma. God isn't bound by a superior idea of Good, but he doesn't invent it either: Good is his nature, he is the definition of good (if you don't want to accept this definition, that's your problem, not God's). He can't be arbitrary and choose to do evil (just as he can't cease to exist) because he is bound to himself, to his essence, to what he is. That doesn't make him "not omnipotent".

>>34040365
Once again, your whole argument is a semantic slight of hand. Unless you can actually establish that the common understanding of morally good and gods nature are compatible, you have proven nothing. If the dilemma in the OP is only a false dilemma if you have to intentionally misunderstand what is meant by it, it is in fact not a false dilemma.
Call things what you wan't, we're discussing ideas here.

>>34040533
What is "the common understanding of morally good"?

>>34039404
>citing Aquinas

kekkles

>>34037931
The premise is that God is able to conjure perfect things out of nothing so I don't see what good arguing about is going to do. Pulling a valid moral system out of his butt is consistent with the original assumption

>>34040778
Adding to this: God by definition is unknowable and beyond understanding (bloody convinient). If you accept the definition of God, you cannot, by definition, argue about anything He is or does because your brain's logic doesn't allow you to.

>>34040712
3rd definition for Morality on Google (the first one regarding moral truths)
"the extent to which an action is right or wrong"
There's better ones out there but this should be enough for now.
By calling morality gods nature, all you do is take the word morality and give it the meaning gods nature. The previously established meaning of the word doesn't magically become part of the new concept by doing this.
Until you can establish that gods nature is actually what is understood to be morality, all you did is create a pointless language barrier.

>>34040778
perfect/valid by what measure? By Gods? Because that would be the definition of arbitrary.

>>34039229

>He is the very definition of the Good and the Just.

So, returning a lost wallet not only pleases God, but IS god?

>>34040871
You say "bloody convenient" as if it was just some kind of dialectic trick and as if the alternative was more reasonable (that is, that we should be able to understand 100% what God is, what he does and why he does it.)

>>34040975
>God is either unknowable and beyond understanding or we understand 100% what God is, what he does and why he does it
now that is a false dichotomy

>>34040936
You can call it arbitrary but God can make his morality it "natural" and "absolute" and "logical" and whatever else attribute He wants. See, this is why arguing about God is boring.

>>34041022

So God could make it morally imperative to hate God?

>>34041039
why shouIdn't he be able to do that?

>>34041063

If that were the case then loving God would be a sin, and the ones who rejected him would be the virtuous ones.

>>34041039
Omnipotence means that He can do anything. Omnipotence is not an internally consistent thing, so being omnipotent puts one outside the realm of logic. God could make an unmovable object that even He can't move. And then He could move it.

>>34041083
So?
You're making ist sound like this were a logical contradiction. It would be pretty fucking retarded and God would propably not do it but that doesn't mean that he would be literally unable to do so.

>>34041083
Cool religion, sign me up

>>34041105

>God could make an unmovable object that even He can't move. And then He could move it.

That's just an abuse of language. You're not really saying anything meaningful.

>>34041021
Well, I didn't say that God is 100% unknowable either. If he was, there would be no point to religion. Abrahamic religions are based on divine revelation, that is, God himself tells us something about him (something, not everything), and it's not a given that we'll be able to correctly understand what he has chosen to reveal us. I just don't see how it's "bloody convenient". In any case, it's consistent with the relationship between the created and the Creator.

>>34041149
I agree. That's why I don't find talking about God's abilities all that interesting. The premise is illogical.

>>34041022
>>34041105
That really depends on your definition of omnipotence. I and pretty much every person that lived in the last century would go with the logically consistent version of it.
And then there's a lot to argue about.

>>34041149
You are the one abusing language, trying to bind God to it. But God transcends language, just as he transcends your "common understanding of morality".

>>34041203
OK. Sorry for disturbing your discussion then

>>34041169
Well, you made the premise up, dude.
No one was talking about that fringe stuff that is commonly accepted as non canonical. Most theologians understand that gods omnipotence would be bound by the most fundamental laws of logic.
Just stop being so fucking edgy.

File: IMG_0038.gif (1MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x180px

>>34038554
For reasons like this I've always doubt the existence of a "god" ever since I was in my middle school years, it was really hard for me to blindly believe without critical thinking just like my family taught me.
Now every time I say stuff like this, they look at me with weird eyes and think I'm crazy. My grandma even told me that she thinks I'm doing drugs.

>>34041265
nothing in the bible gives me confidence that god or the stories are bound by logic

>>34041155
It is convenient because everything can be rationalized with it.
And you still didn't resolve the false dichotomy. There's a lot of wiggle room between what has ben revealed and the possibly infinite aspects of God that haven't.

>>34041203

>I and pretty much every person that lived in the last century would go with the logically consistent version of it.

I don't think there is a logically consistent version of it.

>>34041327
God can do everything that is logically possible.
There you have it.

>>34041351

>God can do everything that is logically possible.

By that definition everyone is omnipotent.

>>34041390
Oh snap. I like your style!

>>34041390
More like: God can do everything except the logically impossible.

>>34041316
Well, there's no reason to believe that he can do crazy paradoxical stuff either. you're just going with your interpretation of the very loosely defined term of omnipotence. It is generally understood that logical contradictions in the physical world are an impossiblility.
Now obviously there are people in your camp but literally all theologian or philosophical arguments regarding god in the last 300 years have worked with the logically coherent premise. If for nothing else, just for the sake of argument.

>>34041390
>>34041456
>God can do everything that is logically possible.
>More like: God can do everything except the logically impossible.
these things mean the same thing
everything that isn't a logical impossibility is logically possible.
The phrasing may just be unintuitive

>>34041557
By my definition, not everyone is omnipotent. God can do everything except the logically impossible. Man can't do everything, but what he does cannot be logically impossible either.

>>34037931
>not realizing He is morality itself
>not realizing He is Being itself

Are all atheists this deluded?

>>34041487
Ok, sure. Logical omnipotence seems like a ridiculously contrived structure to me but I have nothing against you people arguing its implications. Go right ahead. No need to convince a random idiot like me

>>34041606
Well, my definition never adressed omnipotence in particular. God is bound be the laws of logic but not by those of physics.
Positively defined, God can do all that is logically possible and man can do all that is logically and physically possible (on top of further constraints of course but you get my point).

>>34041621

>not realizing He is morality itself

What do you mean by "morality"?

Hora Hora Hora
TLDR don't care.

>>34041621
see>>34040533
>>34040891
ooriginal

>>34041700
You first: what do you mean by morality, and why do you think your definition has absolute value?

>>34041736
>absolute value
It doesn't have to be. Words don't have inherent meanings. They have usages. Unless you want to intentionally derail the conversation, you just accept the prevailing definition. Rinaming things just creates confusion and won't make the ideas magically disappear.

>>34041736

You're the one claiming to have knowledge that I don't have. Why are you evading clarifying what you mean?

As far as definitions having "absolute value", I'm not sure what you mean by that either. Definitions of all words are socially constructed.

>>34041697
As you can see I was responding to >>34041390 and giving a better definition to avoid his conclusion. But yes, I agree with what you say. God is bound by logic not because he creates logic, but because he is the Logos. The same with the Good: what he does is good not because he does it, but because he in his essence is the Good.

>>34041807
>>34041824
I agree, all language is ultimately flawed (not to say meaningless) to describe the ineffable. Which is why i don't understand why you go so autistic when I say that outside of God, the concepts of "good" or "morality" don't mean shit. It's God who gives meaning to all things and words, not words that give meaning to God.

>>34041834
circular_reasoning.png
Giving God the title of Logos won't automatically attribute him with the concept commonly described with that word, this has to be established beforehand. Same goes for good. What you're doing is creating an orwellian Newspeak that deliberatly derives words of meaning.

>>34041834

>The same with the Good: what he does is good not because he does it, but because he in his essence is the Good.

Therefore, is it God to return a lost wallet?

>>34041886
>It's God who gives meaning to all things and words, not words that give meaning to God
a baseless assertion
>i don't understand why you go so autistic when I say that outside of God
I define x as 1; you say that x is actually god.
Wow you made 1 disappear. Now I don't have a word to describe 1 with. That must mean that you won the argument regarding x.

>>34041897
I think it's circular because God is the end and the beginning, the Alpha and the Omega. I didn't give him the title of Logos, he himself does through the (supposedly) divinely inspired Gospel of John. That's what revealed religion means. That's why all theology must start being apophatic. Now, if you question the Bible as divine revelation, that's another story, but we aren't discussing that here.

>>34041945
> it's circular because God is the end and the beginning, the Alpha and the Omega
what a bunch of meaningless semantics and sophistry
pretty words won't make logic go away

>>34041900
It participates of God's goodness, yes.
>>34041942
>a baseless asertion
According to?
>I define x as 1; you say that x is actually god. Wow you made 1 disappear
Not necessarily. X can be God, but it also can be 1 in a different sense that doesn't contradict the first equation. I didn't claim that your Google definition of "morality" was wrong, it's just incomplete and doesn't have an ultimate basis if there is no God.

>>34042062

>It participates of God's goodness, yes.

But is it God?

>>34041999
>logic
Now that's a pretty word.

>>34042081
No. The created is not the Creator. But good actions participate of the Good that is God.

>>34042062
According to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
adding attributes to a definition changes it
if god is compatible with my definition, it must be proven beforehand without changing anything.
Else you're just being dishonest.

>>34042085
yeah. it is als very well defined and the basis for establishing philosophical truth.

>>34042107

You earlier basically said God = Good.

If that's true, then if it isn't "God" to return the wallet, it's not "good" to return the wallet.

>>34042240
Analogy.

>>34042147
And what's the philosophical truth, according to omnipotent, irrefutable logic?

>>34042468
wtf are you even arguing about? at least take a little effort if you want to bait.

>>34037931
God is morality dumb dumb, God is everything.

>>34042549
All I'm saying is that your definitions of words and your "logic" are deeply flawed, but when I point that out you accuse me of abusing language, playing with semantics and baiting. Ok.

>>34037931
>implying begging the question means bring up the question

File: pleb 3.jpg (81KB, 622x568px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 622x568px

>>34039382
>If they are created by god they are by definition arbitrary
That doesn't follow.
I suspect you don't know what the word 'arbitrary' means.
It means 'a choice not based upon reason'.
Do you use reason and logic to make your decision?
Then it isn't arbitrary.
The dichotomy is false.

File: laugh drink.gif (1MB, 207x207px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 207x207px

>>34039461
>One of the greatest logicians and philosophers of all time
>You think the fact you can't understand him means he's wrong