Evidence for God from Science

So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?

Absolutely true! As God cannot/will not do any evil. There is no evil that God has caused. But He does use those already intending evil for His own good and eternal purposes: "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." (Genesis 50:20)

James 1:13-14:"When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

“The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).

Clearly, you think you have posed a clever question. So what evil consequences do you believe God has caused. Or what evil in general do you think God has caused?

Okay. There is only one option you can pick and they are mutually exclusive. This is not a clever question, it's a question that gets to the heart of what morality is.

1) Is a thing moral because God commands it?

OR

2) Does God command it because it is moral?

It would seem you all have been leaning towards option 2), but I would like to make sure.

Or what evil in general do you think God has caused?

I have not said anything to this effect. I don't claim God has done any evil.

I'm really at a loss.. Why is this question so frightening?

Beany, It is not a the question which is frightening but the logical conclusion to such a question which is unacceptable. Euthyphro's dilemma makes no room for any factors that may be outside of the two horns being presented. It is an unfair representation.

There is always a context involved. God is good but he is just too. Sadly most people just ascribe to God as loving only and nothing else. This is hardly true God judges and he punishes too. To devoid God of his nature and then question it on logical high ground would just be more problematic.

There is no evil in God, and therefore all of his actions are pure goodness, we may not seem to appreciate the actions associated with it but in his infinite wisdom God plans the best for his creation. Now God also judges and therefore he punishes too, his judgement is righteous, even if we think it is evil, harsh or un-just by our standards in terms of pain or suffering (not saying all suffering comes from God). God can not judge anyone unfair and then say he is fair because he says so. Most people think this is how we justify God (he says its right therefore it is right). But No, this is far from the point. He is right because he is right, we may analyse the situation, relatively but objectively God is right, not because he says he is right but he is the only true "right" there is.

A judge may be sympathetic to the accused but he has no obligation to excuse his judgement with regards to his mercy. That he does so is in his power alone and his right, but on legal grounds no one can actually claim that because the judge seems to be sympathetic to the accused - that this somehow grants the accused a "right" to demand that the sympathy overrules the legal burden of responsibility that the judge has, no.

I am not saying that there are no subjective realities. Just saying that subjective realities do not overrule God's objective standards. What I think or you think, in a subjective reality is good but it has no effect on objective standards put forth by God. And if God decides to over rule our subjective standards we have no higher ground to question him as wrong or right.

Have a nice day.

Beanybag wrote:Okay. There is only one option you can pick and they are mutually exclusive. This is not a clever question, it's a question that gets to the heart of what morality is.

1) Is a thing moral because God commands it?

OR

2) Does God command it because it is moral?

It would seem you all have been leaning towards option 2), but I would like to make sure.

If you strip it of its platonic roots then it's a false dichotomy.

If God is all good and the very measure of all that is moral, and all evil is the antithesis of that, then all God commands CAN ONLY be ULTIMATELY moral. But we have to remember that the entire Creation was made by God and is His. This also means that only He has the right to do with it as He so desires. He also sees the entire arc of existence, at ONCE, which means that His decisions are often not discernable to us finite beings.

In fact, the only reason we have any understanding of morality is because it comes from God. He is the measure of all things. If you accept that God exists, that He has placed all POTENTIAL for moral behavior within you, then you are not going to be able to have a greater understanding of morality than He does - that is preposterous. You can never be ANYTHING even close to what God IS. And when we speak of consequences, we have a very limited understanding of those. To truly, 100% understand whether God is just or moral, we would need to have an ETERNAL and total perspective of all things. Otherwise you are making an evaluation of the morality of a Supreme Being based upon limited data and a limited analytical capability to render judgment upon Him. Whatever one's personal verdict, to pretend to be able to pass judgment upon the character of a Holy God is the ultimate arrogance!

It is wrong because we of what we know - moral culpability lies within our realm of knowledge. I am not copping out! If we suddenly find out that all milk isn't actually from cows but from the bones of children who are killed to make it, that would make milk wrong. Were we wrong to drink it? Not really, we didn't know! Would we be wrong to still drink it? YES!

Beany,

As my friend Jac would say, you are dealing with the epistomology, without dealing with the ontological question. Not to mention, you danced around several points i've already made regarding consequentialism.
Your example lights it own fuse. You are talking about wrong as far as culpability. The question is, "is it wrong to kill children to make milk." The answer is yes. It's wrong whether I have knowledge of the source of milk or not. Yes, knowledge plays a role in my culpability. If I know the source of milk and purchase it, then I am culpable. If I'm ignorant, I'm not culpable, but that doesn't change whether something is wrong or not. Those children and the perpetrators are moral agents. But that is an epistemological issue. In your worldview, as you just stated with this absurd example, is that it is only "wrong" if someone has the knowledge. Your example still leaves the door open that there could be some greater good that you don't have knowledge of yet.

So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?

No one has provided me with a straight answer to the dilemma. Why is this? Are you afraid of the answer?

You've already received an explanation of the Eurypthro issue. It is a false dichotomy rooted in plantonic thinking. Why should we adopt a philosophy we reject to defend a delimma that is rooted in that philosophy? Do you still beat your wife?

Again, I advocate for as much knowledge as we can get - that will lead to more moral societies

Man, that is littered with presumptions. More moral? Measured against what and according to what? You? You don't have the knowledge to make such a statement. It is presumptious. You've yet to account for any inherent human value, which is what you have to smuggle in.

I don't think chastity or virginity are sacred, no, but an argument could be made for it. Stop talking about my world-view, I am arguing within Christianity.

Sorry, but I think it serves the greater good of this board. If you can't defend your own worldview, then you are not open to honest discussion.

Philip wrote:In fact, the only reason we have any understanding of morality is because it comes from God. He is the measure of all things. If you accept that God exists, that He has placed all POTENTIAL for moral behavior within you, then you are not going to be able to have a greater understanding of morality than He does - that is preposterous. You can never be ANYTHING even close to what God IS. And when we speak of consequences, we have a very limited understanding of those. To truly, 100% understand whether God is just or moral, we would need to have an ETERNAL and total perspective of all things. Otherwise you are making an evaluation of the morality of a Supreme Being based upon limited data and a limited analytical capability to render judgment upon Him. Whatever one's personal verdict, to pretend to be able to pass judgment upon the character of a Holy God is the ultimate arrogance!

I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

neo-x wrote:Beany, It is not a the question which is frightening but the logical conclusion to such a question which is unacceptable. Euthyphro's dilemma makes no room for any factors that may be outside of the two horns being presented. It is an unfair representation.

I think you have misunderstood me. See my interpretation of the dilemma below. I am not trying to claim God is evil or immoral. I am suggesting that he acts in accordance with morality (which he created) rather than morality being subject to his every word.

If God said Go and torture a small child, we might know this is immoral (as best as we can - we could perhaps be wrong). Because of that, we know God would not say this, yes? (Perhaps we are being tricked or our obedience is being tested, or perhaps we are very ignorant, I can't say) Same is true if God says something logically inconsistent since God doesn't lie. We can imagine scenarios where these aren't true and recognize them as impossible. By doing this, we can decide which is the correct horn of the dilemma, yes? Am I missing something?

jlay wrote:As my friend Jac would say, you are dealing with the epistomology, without dealing with the ontological question. Not to mention, you danced around several points i've already made regarding consequentialism.
Your example lights it own fuse. You are talking about wrong as far as culpability. The question is, "is it wrong to kill children to make milk." The answer is yes. It's wrong whether I have knowledge of the source of milk or not. Yes, knowledge plays a role in my culpability. If I know the source of milk and purchase it, then I am culpable. If I'm ignorant, I'm not culpable, but that doesn't change whether something is wrong or not. Those children and the perpetrators are moral agents. But that is an epistemological issue. In your worldview, as you just stated with this absurd example, is that it is only "wrong" if someone has the knowledge. Your example still leaves the door open that there could be some greater good that you don't have knowledge of yet.

I said it would clearly be wrong, but an ethical system seeks to influence our actions. If we don't know something is wrong we can't avoid doing it on that reason. Yes, my example leaves such a door open.

Again, I advocate for as much knowledge as we can get - that will lead to more moral societies

Man, that is littered with presumptions. More moral? Measured against what and according to what? You? You don't have the knowledge to make such a statement. It is presumptious. You've yet to account for any inherent human value, which is what you have to smuggle in.

Again. Not smuggling it in. And it's not presumptuous, you've already agreed to it. We know that perfect knowledge would lead to perfect decision and poor knowledge to poor decisions.

You've already received an explanation of the Eurypthro issue. It is a false dichotomy rooted in plantonic thinking. Why should we adopt a philosophy we reject to defend a delimma that is rooted in that philosophy? Do you still beat your wife?

It doesn't necessitate Platonic thinking even though it was originally thought up by Plato. It still holds today under most ontological views. I'm not sure which one would preclude this sort of logical thinking, but do you deny logic and uniformity of nature? I'm confused.

My own interpretation was that God created the Universe, logic, and morals. He then, while acting within the Universe, behaves in accordance with these things. If God were to say A = !A he would be false, even if logic is ultimately subject to him, God acts in accordance with it. Same with morality. While certain things God says would be immoral, he won't say them but will rather act in accordance with morality. Is this really that crazy of a suggestion?

Sorry, but I think it serves the greater good of this board. If you can't defend your own worldview, then you are not open to honest discussion.

Pretend my world-view is one of a life-long roman catholic, since I had attended catholic school all the way up until high school and very nearly attended a jesuit university. I'm not advocating this as an atheist. This isn't about me. I've pointed out that many christians accept this line of thinking, I'm not trying to trick people into becoming atheists, much the same as I think christians should accept evolutionary biology without becoming atheists.

Beanybag wrote:I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

Are you familiar with divine simplicity? You need to start there.

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

Are you familiar with divine simplicity? You need to start there.

Thanks. I'm doing some research into this, although, it seems very nonsensical at first brush. Would this mean God is also logic? What all does this entail?

Again. Not smuggling it in. And it's not presumptuous, you've already agreed to it. We know that perfect knowledge would lead to perfect decision and poor knowledge to poor decisions.

That is false. We have jails full of people who had knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. If knowledge will enlighten us, it is enlightening us to something that is objectively right. Not simply because human happiness is at stake.
Also, if you really study consequnetialism, which many brighter minds than myself have, you find out that good is not univocal. You assume that if everyone had the same knowledge that they would agree on what constitutes good. Based on what? You certainly don't posses that knowlegdge.

I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

I would suggest Feser's, A Beginners guide to Aquinas if you really want to understand Thomist philosophy, which deals with this very question, as well as many others, that may give you a better overall view.

I am suggesting that he acts in accordance with morality (which he created) rather than morality being subject to his every word.

Well, I don't think you are looking at morality the same as many of us here. At least not based on how it appears you use the term. If God acts in accordance with something, such as morality, then He is subject to some THING. That something exist outside Himself. The problems here is that if God, say, strikes down Uzzah for touching the ark, one would judge God according to man. God acts in accordance with Himself. Aseity, simplicity. Check it out.

I said it would clearly be wrong, but an ethical system seeks to influence our actions. If we don't know something is wrong we can't avoid doing it on that reason.

I don't necessarily have any issue with that. However, your position says that nothing is inherently wrong, but is wrong based on consequences. Am I right? This thinking ultimately establishes morality that eminates from man's happiness.

It doesn't necessitate Platonic thinking even though it was originally thought up by Plato. It still holds today under most ontological views. I'm not sure which one would preclude this sort of logical thinking, but do you deny logic and uniformity of nature? I'm confused.

Logic is the reason we reject this. It is a logical fallacy, a false dichotomy. To pick one of the choices would require me to adopt assumptions about God that are not consistent with my philosophy. Do tell, why would I do that?

I think Jac already addresses this, if not in this thread, another. I assumed you were part of this thread, but it appears you were not.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 81#p124281
Perhaps Jac can get involved as he is far more qualified to answer these questions.

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

Are you familiar with divine simplicity? You need to start there.

Thanks. I'm doing some research into this, although, it seems very nonsensical at first brush. Would this mean God is also logic? What all does this entail?

Here's a link to a dissertation written by our resident philosopher Jac that should help you get familiar with it. Bottom line is when one gets back to classical philosophy then things start being a whole lot more coherent.

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I am not passing moral judgment on God as everyone seems to think I am doing. I think morals are a creation of God, however, and not God himself. Can you explain why you think God is morality itself?

Are you familiar with divine simplicity? You need to start there.

Thanks. I'm doing some research into this, although, it seems very nonsensical at first brush. Would this mean God is also logic? What all does this entail?

Here's a link to a dissertation written by our resident philosopher Jac that should help you get familiar with it. Bottom line is when one gets back to classical philosophy then things start being a whole lot more coherent.

Thanks for the link.

Divine simplicity was one of, if not the, foundational doctrines concerning the nature of God during the medieval period. Its importance is clear in that it is the first issue Aquinas treats in his Summa Theologica following the existence of God. Yet despite its preeminence, Eleonore Stump has rightly called it “the strangest and hardest to understand” medieval doctrine and “one of the most difficult and perplexing tenets of classical theism.”

That would seem true to me. I will give this some serious consideration and study before I reply again here (including a reading of this dissertation and related sources). This would highlight the fundamental point of our disagreement here, so I'd like to understand this as best as I can before continuing, since it seems most of you would adhere to very similar views on this subject. As a little bit of background, I am currently employed and paying off some debts and hopefully saving up some money so I can get my masters in philosophy. Although, I don't know where I would really apply and what I would even have to offer - I have no idea where to start on a dissertation as my views are no where near concrete. Once again, thanks for the discussion. :]

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Perfect knowledge can only be attainable by a perfect being, who be definition is absolute Good and as such, to answer you other question ( What if God commands you to kill), that means that God can NOT command that which is NOT good, hence God's command to kill, MUST be good ie: a positive outcome will come out of it.
One assumes you are bringing up the command to kill that God does, according to the OT, command the Israelite to do, yes?

But you're still dodging. Is the outcome positive because you followed God's command or is it positive because it resulted in the least amount of harm and suffering and the most amount of happiness and thriving. I am not trying to bring up any commandment, I am trying to get you to understand that an action is not moral because God commands it, but that God commands it because it is moral.

You are trying to make a distinction where there IS NO distinction because you are putting human limits on God.
You can't define an action as moral or not UNLESS you have an absolute moral "set point", something that defines right and wrong, correct and incorrect, moral and immoral.
And for a Christian, that is God.
So, you ask, is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral?
The issue is that you are making a quanitifying error because you are presuppossing that there is a difference, and there isn't.
Is water wet because it is wet or because it is water?

I am currently employed and paying off some debts and hopefully saving up some money so I can get my masters in philosophy

Don't quit your day job! Probably a lot of guys with masters in philosophy that are currently working as greeters at Wal-Mart - that is - IF they are working.

Philip wrote:

I am currently employed and paying off some debts and hopefully saving up some money so I can get my masters in philosophy

Don't quit your day job! Probably a lot of guys with masters in philosophy that are currently working as greeters at Wal-Mart - that is - IF they are working.

I plan on getting my doctorate eventually and probably teaching. I know I won't ever make much money with it, but that's okay, I enjoy it.