Re: Several questions concerning the fall and evil
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:50 pm
Ill start another thread for it.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objectively right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.
Yes it matter what you believe so please you stop muddying the waters - you don't believe is what you believe…MAGSolo wrote:Here you go again muddying the waters. This is not about what I believe. How can you bear witness without providing an argument for why the bible has any authority? I would think anyones first question when being told about Jesus or God should be, "why should that book mean anything special to me?" But to answer your question, I feel that way because nobody has presented a compelling argument, nobody has presented any evidence for why I should feel otherwise. Do you think that belief in spectacular claims should be the default position? Do you believe the Book of Mormon is a sacred and divine text because Mormons claim it is? Would you require evidence for such a claim or just believe it because they claimed it to be so? I dont understand why you needlessly complicate these things. Is it so hard to just admit that you dont have a compelling argument for why the bible has any authority. Obviously if you had one you would have given it by now, so why cant you just say you dont have one?
I disagree, an argument is not a one way road. If I am to account for my logic then you are to account for yours. If I see a problem, I stop and try to solve it out in the beginning, lest it gets in the way when we go on a higher plane of logic. Your only problem is that I called a spade, a spade. I'm going to breakdown one point as may be it was too thick for you.You made an initial attempt and then when I addressed every last one of your attempts and you saw he could no longer defend your position, you backed out of the discussion
The point is simple, subjectivity can not account for goodness or evil, right or wrong and consequently your opinion is flawed because it is presuming on subjective factors. By nature subjective factors have the tendency to be different on a case to case basis. Therefore to base an argument on this and then ask for an objective answer (which you are doing), is futile. Its a moving goal post argument.It could be any number of factors. Environment one was raised in, mental health, overall health, education, any number of factors could come into to play in determining why some people are good and some are not.
So good or bad are simply results of factors and actions and are not grounded realities. You see, this is the exact reason why I do not find subjective morals very impressing. Because in the end they boil down to your own preferences. And at the end of the day what you think about animals and humans and how their actions are equal to be carried out in a comparison as to draw results, is just your opinion, nothing more.
Okay. I dont really get what your point is?
Sure, but of course it is a personal opinion and, as with all personal opinions, your mileage may vary.MAGSolo wrote:So would you like to detail anything particularly notable that led you to believe the Bible had authority ordained by God?
What if the child was a murderer? In African nations an 8 year old kid carries a AK-47, not only to protect but to use it as a weapon when they attack some other tribe. Or lets say that the child was Graham Young http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/seri ... index.html or the Ten year old Mary bell http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/noto ... dex_1.html.I said I would kill everyone who sought to do harm to another human. Under no circumstances would I ever kill a child. I dont have a problem at all with Israel going to war with its enemies and killing enemy combatants and even people caught in the act of doing terrible things. I do not think indiscriminately killing every man woman and child, just because they belong to a nation you are at war with is justified.
Okay MAGSolo you appear to be the only poster using your account. Sorry for any inconvenience.PaulSacramento wrote:Sure, but of course it is a personal opinion and, as with all personal opinions, your mileage may varyMAGSolo wrote:So would you like to detail anything particularly notable that led you to believe the Bible had authority ordained by God?
.
I saw in the bible, compared to the other books about "god and gods" of the ancient world, what was far more correct in regards to how the universe came to be, how the world was and the best possible way to make it better.
I found TRUTH in the bible, what I did not find BUT wanted to find, in other religious writings.
Now, you say "authority ordained by God", but I do NOT see the bible that way.
I see the bible as revealing to Us God's word in human words so that we can begin to understand a bit about God and Us
.
The bible is only PART of how God reveals Himself to us - the other being the universe and via the HS.
MAGSolo wrote:jlay Id like to draw your attention back to the post I made on page 11. There was one specific point I made that I asked you to respond to and you either missed it or purposely chose to ignore it but Ill point it out for you and Id really like to hear what you have to say about it. It seems you did precisely what I predicted you would but I guess there is always the possibility you were in a rush and simply didnt have time to read the entire post. Anyone else feel free to chime in if you want.
So, perhaps we are all deluded into believing there is a God, and that right and wrong objectivley matter. But in your world, this doesn't matter either, since nothing is inherently right or wrong. Yet, here you are saying it does. Does that seem reasonable to you??
I agree that this is a bit of an issue. The problem is that I dont think the Bible or God are good barometers of what is objectively right or wrong, good and evil. There are numerous things in the bible that God decreed that I dont think are good or right, so I think there is an issue with using God as the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. Remember the story of Uzzah in 2 Samuel; how God commanded that no one touch the ark, and as the men were traveling the ox started to cause the ark to tip over and Uzzah reached out his hand to steady it and God became angry and struck him dead on the spot? No malicious intent at all, just seeking to prevent the ark from falling over but because God commanded it not to be touched and he touched it, he struck him dead instantly. I wonder how God expected them to get the ark back up without touching it if it had tipped over. Now I imagine you will gloss over this, claim thats not what the text meant or bow out outright as Neo did when I showed him the numerous passages of God commanding that children be killed. But let me be clear that I think this clearly shows that neither the bible or God are good objective measuring sticks for what is good and what is not. If you you dont answer anything else in this post I would like to see your response to this specific thing.
This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).jlay wrote:You see, you continue to smuggle in objective morality. OK, account for it. For morality to be objective, can man be its source? No. So either morality is objective and there is a moral law giver. Or, morality isn't objective, yet for some reason you live like it is. Since you keep envoking a standard by which you judge the god of the bible.
Beany, that is because we have a fundemental different view of morality. I would not say objective morality is from a law giver 'creating' morals. I would say God is omni-benelvolent. Not that this is a trait god simply has, but that His being and his goodness are one and the same.Beanybag wrote: This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).
Hmmm? Is that objectively true?Morals have an inherently subjective presence
We are waiting.........Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man
I've not found a satisfying answer to the Euthyphro's dilemma, however. Either God is subject to morals or they are subject to him. This cannot be escaped by saying that God IS morality because then God could not be more than morality. If morality is a part of God or part of his nature, then that is an aspect of God that would either be subject to him or he would be subject to. You can't get around this without putting God outside of logic but then God can exist and not exist since he would no longer be subject to the law of non-contradiction.jlay wrote:Beany, that is because we have a fundemental different view of morality. I would not say objective morality is from a law giver 'creating' morals. I would say God is omni-benelvolent. Not that this is a trait god simply has, but that His being and his goodness are one and the same.Beanybag wrote: This doesn't sound like a good understanding of morality.. A moral law giver creates subjective morals (the morals are subject to that being) - but the subjective morals are highly authoritative to the point that you can say they are objective. This doesn't make them objective though, since (by what I assume your answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is) they are subject to a being. He might be the wisest, most perfectly good being, in which case there'd be good reason to think his morality is the best morality, but it is still subjective necessarily. Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man. Morals have an inherently subjective presence (they require subjects or subjective beings) but can still be addressed in an objective way (much like psychology can still be objective despite necessary subjective restrictions like whether or not someone feels pain).
Jac has already covered a lot of this turf in another concurrent thread. Yes, humans do create rules that are subjective. Such as the military example I used. (It isn't inherently evil for one not to make their bed.) My point isn't that all things between god and the military are analogous. Such are analogies. The point was that our failure to understand a standard doesn't negate the standard.
No, it's funny that you were able to misunderstand what I meant by good - our language does pack a lot of meaning into the word, so it's an understandable misunderstanding (oxymoron, but true). I was simply making a qualitative judgment about your moral understanding, not a moral judgment. Likewise, I could say that you did not have a good understanding of my meaning, which is not a moral judgment but a qualitative one.Further, it is hillarious, as well as self-defeating that you started your statement, "this doesn't sound like a GOOD understanding of morality." You just lit the fuse that blows up your entire statement. Well done.
I'd say so. I'll demonstrate it through a propositional argument.Hmmm? Is that objectively true?Morals have an inherently subjective presence
I'm not willing to accept this burden of proof and am willing to let this be an open-ended question. If you would like to prove the negative, I'm willing to listen.We are waiting.........Objective morality can be accounted for in different ways, or can be partially objective with only the existence of man
Perhaps you understand your presumptions, but you seem to have ignored what was just said. You restate the flawed premise. "If morality is a PART of God."I've not found a satisfying answer to the Euthyphro's dilemma, however. Either God is subject to morals or they are subject to him. This cannot be escaped by saying that God IS morality because then God could not be more than morality. If morality is a part of God or part of his nature, then that is an aspect of God that would either be subject to him or he would be subject to. You can't get around this without putting God outside of logic but then God can exist and not exist since he would no longer be subject to the law of non-contradiction.