But God is so very different from humans. Things that humans are and do are pretty meaningless in the context of a God's existence. Like stealing, for example. How do you explain 'stealing is wrong' in the context of what God is? God created everything anyway, it's all his, so he can't steal it. And even if he could, who would he steal it from? Humans? But it's not ours anyway, it's his. But for humans to steal from one another... now that can be done. So how did we arrive at 'stealing is wrong'? Surely it should be 'everything belongs to God' and having any material possessions is wrong, and as such stealing is not wrong, but irrelevant? I'm pretty sure God doesn't indulge in sex, extra-marital or otherwise. So why does he say it's wrong unless you're married? These are all human things, I don't see how God's nature is a factor in them being wrong. Is it just that God doesn't like them? 'God saw the man touch another man's feet as a woman would touch a man's, and, yea, God felt the urge to vomit'?
Errr... sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you rephrase that please? Did you want me to expand on any of the points? Neither do I. What do you mean when you say defining quality? I completely agree with you. I am Atheist for the reasons that religion appears to be riddled with fallacies and inconsistencies and offers no proof; I was just anticipating a potential religious response. But isn't this a discussion about religious-independant moral systems? Regardless of whether you accept a standard of morality is possible, my posts have shown that non-religious based ethics have developed on an intellectual level that is far superior to the religious based ethics of Divine Command Theory ('Do what God Commands!').
What's God's nature? You have a tendency to ask a question without first giving it a context. Go one step at a time.
I mean God is not a human being. Do things like stealing/murder/adultery exist for God as anything other than 'things humans do'? If they don't exist for God except in his observations of humanity, but are part of human nature and do exist for us, how does God's nature have any bearing on whether or not these things are wrong when humans do them? Which brings me to another question: What if the nature of God changes? Does morality then change with him? Will God judge us according to what was 'right' when we acted, or what is 'right' when we are judged? Will someone who stoned a homosexual in, say 2006 BCE, be let into heaven for upholding God's law, while if I were to do it in 2006 CE, I'd be sent to hell? In this case, how can it be said morality is objective? Remember that space and time are inextricably intertwined, according to special relativity (this can be demonstrated with planes flying round the earth, studying muons falling out of the sky, etc), so how is having a different rule for two cultures separated in time different from having different rules for cultures separated in space? If God's nature does not change, how do you account for the difference in the New and Old Testaments?
I would think the principles behind these specific behaviors exist. For ex, behind adultery we can see dishonesty: you broke a promise. Dishonesty is a principle independent of any particular act. Adultery is but one of several ways to act out dishonesty. Likewise we could identify principles behind your other examples, and then think up other ways to act out those principles. I think it's the principle behind these specific acts that conflicts with God's character, and it is that conflict with his character that makes the specific acts wrong. I suppose morality would change. I deny, however, that the nature of God changes.
Here is an interesting moral question . . . . Two men walk around looking for trouble, real trouble, like a woman being raped or something, not randomly trying to pick a fight. So, he finds trouble ( we'll use a woman getting raped ) and he kills the man who was raping her. Now, one man goes around looking for trouble like this because he is bloodthirsty and wants to kill. He has a sense of what is right and what is wrong, but it's not the initial reason he does it. He goes to find somebody doing something moraly wrong so he can justify his bloodthirst, all the while doing it in something society would see as moral, therefore he thinks it's moral. The other man wants to help others. He wants to protect people, and understands that killing is sometimes necessary. But his reason for doing so, is he wants to help others. Which man is doing the moral thing? Both have the same result don't they?
God IS different than humans. Consider that to be 'one thing' that you know by revelation about God -- He is different than we are. All these mnoral issues, thouyghm,derive from His nature. Everything belongs to God, as you pointed out. Therefore, we do not really 'own' anything, but are merely caretakers of it (the word used for this is 'stewardship'). It is wrong to steal because God sovereignly decided who should legitimately have what property/resources, and to take by force from another is to usurp God's authority to do what he wills with His property. Similar to above: God gave one specific Man to one specific Woman (and vise versa), and to violate that special relationship either by force or consent is to usurp God's authority. In the case of marriage, though, there is an additional consideration: God designed the marital relationship from the beginning of creation as a picture of God's relationship to His people (the collection of all people everywhere in all time who would believe and trust in Him). If you want to get a 'picture' of what God is like, look at a faithful marriage. Adultery then violates other people and distorts the picture we have to see what God is like (i.e., makes it more difficult for people actually looking for what God is like to have something to 'see'). Murder is an easy one, even though it, too can only be committed against another person, and not against God. God specifically states in Genesis that murder is wrong because Man was created in the image of God. That simple statement gives value, purpose, and meaning to every human life, from the king of Saudi Arabia to the guy panhandling for quarters, sleeping nights in the subway. For some more 'food for thought', try looking up the Ten Comandments in the Bible. Check out the order they are in, and see if you can get some hints about what is being said regarding God, His authority, and the value He places on people. Time to go train!
I notice you like to accuse me of committing the straw man fallacy a lot. You are seeking to propose moral guidelines without appealing to God. Please explain how this is NOT natural morality? Your argument appeals to nothing but the natural rationality, and therefore it is justifiable for me to bring it up. I am not changing your argument, but you may be misrepresenting yourself. You make no mention of the state of nature and theories about how we come to a social contract, no theories from utilitarian camps, you simply try to show that morality comes out of the supposedly rational mind of human beings. I have poined out several times my objections to this theory, have provided counter-examples for it, all of which you off-handedly dismiss by saying I'm guilty of the strawman fallacy or that my arguments are "off topic" or irrevalent, without actually stating why. It is clear to me now that you are not interested in any real debate about the issue or your argument, and since I don't like arguing with somebody who has no interest in it I can only say that you can believe what you want.
I believe they arise over time as a result of evolution and experience. I've posted this before but i think it it relevant here... ___________________________________________ Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, all of the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my fellow monkey, is how policy begins. ___________________________________________ One could use this as an analogy that many of us have not actually experienced what we perceive to be immoral (rape, murder..) on either side of the scale, yet we know it is wrong. This is thoudends and thoudends of years of human/hominoidea evolution at work.
Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is what is moral commanded by god because it is moral, or is it moral because it's willed by god?” More about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma Calling God good makes no sense. If morals are independent of God, then God does not decide which is right or wrong as this already exists, he merely is the messenger. On the other hand, if right is the will of God then he is merely passing along his will, which would be applauded regardless of what the actual will is. Since morality is older than religion and instinctive to both human and animal nature, I’d say that morality is independent of any supposed deity and or religious organisation. A religious animal would make my statement crumble. The problem with the opposite view - that morals are the will of God - is that God is just a creation of man. Either it is totally made up by man as an explanation for the universe, or, there actually is a God, of which we have a man-made interpretation of. Either way, “God” as we know it was created by man, therefore morals, even if traditionally thought of as a product of religion cannot therefore be the will of God.
Ah, but that contradicts what aikimac said about God not just 'deciding' one day what he wanted us to do. He made one man for one woman. Why didn't he make two men for two women, or one man for eight women? Where did he get the idea of one man for one woman from? Could have have decided to make two men and a woman, and then all our marriages would have to be as such? His decision seems arbitrary to me. Is it in his nature to put one and one together? Then it's not arbitrary in the true sense of the term, but it's still a case of if he'd been any other way, we'd still praise and worship him for being good and wonderful, it's just that the idea of 'right' would have changed. Re: The commandments - interesting that he puts not working on the Sabbath above not killing people. Does that mean if someone dials 999 on the sabbath, the police should ignore it and let someone get murdered? If you are asking me if I think they are in order of importance, I think perhaps not. One of the two most important laws isn't even on there, except in the form of the last few laws - if you love your neighbour obviously you won't try to kill him, etc, but that hardly covers the law in its entirety.
What morality/good/bad is, is irrelevant; the structure of it is what matters. The point to the Euthyphro dilemma is whether: 1) God is commanding independently existing morals, or 2) God’s commands become the morals. If it is the latter (#2), calling God good does not make sense as God would be applauded regardless of what he commanded. (i.e, if he commanded murder, murder would be moral.) Equally, if it’s #1 then morality/good is not the will of God as he is merely the message. Your claim that God is morally good by nature is not only an assumption which one much assume to be true for the claim to hold, it also fails to acknowledge that morality existed before religion or even the notion of God. We know this because animals would have had these traits before man, and God came from/through man. In addition to that, as we’ve established multiple times, morality does not require a religion or a deity.
But if everyone's happiness and unhappiness hold zero importance, there's no reason to care if anyone is unhappy. Perhaps we could even say that a person's happiness or unhappiness only has importance to himself, in which case your theory breaks down. The laws of physics alone don't allow for morality. They don't allow for free will, or any type of "will" whatsoever. There is no fundimental difference between sentientience and non-sentience, physically speaking, or even life and non-life. All we have are a collection of particles progressing through predicated energy states. The entire system of the universe is progressing exactly as it must as time passes. However it happens, who are we to say that the way it is progressing is "moral" or "immoral", if there's nothing else? Why is it immoral for a collection of particles to take on a set of quantum states that the laws of physics say they must?
Yep, that's the one. Really? You think the fact that morality is instictive is an argument against God? That seems like an odd conclusion to me. Yes, it's very easy to disprove that something was done by God if we start with the assumption that God doesn't exist. It would be kind of like me asking you to disprove the existence of God starting with the assumption that God created the universe.
I don't think you read what you quoted properly. When I first read it I thought it was beginning with that assumption however if you look closely you will see it says: Whether you believe there is or isn't a God I think everyone realises that it is through humans that our interpretation of God comes from. Yes one could argue they were acting as mere vessels and were divinely inspired to write/say what they did/do but the fact remains its still a human doing the writing and the saying in the end. If it wasn't about human interpretation then we'd see God on the news rather than the Pope or a minister. This again boils down to a very Christian orientated debate though... so to broaden things up a little are the people who are advocating all morality ultimately comes from God suggesting that say the Buddha (who specifically denied the importance of Gods and claimed to base his teachings on morality on what he discovered during his enlightenment) was lieing?
There are differences tho. Maybe God likes left-handed light, and that's why killing things is wrong.
If good is the will of God, then logically, only those who follow his will will be good, but to do that you need to believe in him. We have shown that people can and do have morality without the existence of God. Also, as morality is instinctive in animals other than humans their claim does not stand. You need to quote me in context. Even if God were to exist, we have a man made interpretation of. Who said that interpretation is correct, other humans? Science from my understanding doesn’t make unnecessary assumptions and God is an unnecessary assumption according to our current knowledge. I think we can assume God does not exist because God is an unrequited factor. If something were to happen that suggested a God might exist, then it will be looked at.
