(July 12, 2017 at 11:55 am)JackRussell Wrote: And worse yet, we are supposed to believe that God does intervene when it suits him;

Indeed. Theists call it a miracle, yet miracles only occur under special apologist circumstances.

(July 12, 2017 at 11:38 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 10:56 am)mordant Wrote: Irrelevant. Nothing happens without god either permitting it or causing it, and nothing is outside his ability to prevent, so he is still ultimately responsible for the mayhem. If a burglar comes into my house and slits my children's throats while I passively watch, I can't claim I'm a good father, using as an excuse that I'm not interfering in the burglar's free will.

Your analogy is lacking. So while God does permit evil, it is only because it is a by-product of a much greater goal: free will. Without free will we would have just been happy puppets always following a predefined path. God instead wanted people to *choose* to obey, love and worship Him as well as having loving, respectful, etc. relationships with others (none of which is possible without free will).

Then why is this suddenly not a problem in heaven? Why, in heaven, will you not be "happy puppets following a predefined path"?

(July 12, 2017 at 11:38 am)SteveII Wrote: You seem to think that God should intervene and prevent evil things from happening. It does not seem to me that we could have a world where we have free will and not have suffering because every wrong choice we made that resulted in suffering (however small) would be met with a supernatural intervention. Such a state of affairs would result in a complete lack of morally sufficient freedom --effectively eliminating free will. So it would seem that a world in which everyone had free will but no possibility of suffering would not be able to be actualized.

Not at all. People could still choose to do good, where there'd be no intervention needed.

You don't seem to believe that your god is truly all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Because if he's all those things he could have done, or could do, any of the following:

1) Construct humans that are capable of following his ruleset
2) Construct a ruleset that humans are capable of following
3) Have at least a puny human standard of rule enforcement that focuses on rehabilitation and reconciliation and restoration to a productive member of the kingdom of god, rather than on punishment, up to and including infinite punishment for finite transgressions.
4) Insure that, as is supposedly his desire, none should perish, but all should come to repentance. In other words, universal reconciliation.

All of this and more is possible for a tri-omni god, without breaking the slightest sweat. All of this and more can be done while still satisfying the requirements of his righteousness, since god can make any arbitrary set of laws and definitions he wants. Indeed, it could all be done without violating your sacred and indispensable free will that somehow no longer matters to you in heaven.

Of course, the notion that god will be sullied by contact with this thing-in-itself called "sin" is a separate debate, I'm just allowing it here for the sake of argument.

It is somewhat amusing, in that Steve's god's moral status is crumbling under the weight of Steve's own inane propositions about both morality, and what god can or cannot do pursuant to it's nature. 

 One wonders how, for example....if god -can't- do evil because of it's nature...it somehow managed to do enough evil to require a consideration of extenuating circumstance? Nevermind how inept gods attempt to hit the bullseye was...all of us make mistakes...but how did this situation come to be in the first place, if it's impossible? If it were truly impossible, whenever a god was faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral choices (again, as we all are from time to time)..it would be moribound by inability to act, even in service of it's own self-interested goals and schemes...omni-impotence.

(July 12, 2017 at 10:26 am)Lutrinae Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 10:19 am)SteveII Wrote: Oh, I see. You think everything is God's plan. It is my view that you have to distinguish between God effecting his plan of redemption and his promises to those that believe within a world of free will and sin vs. the effects of free will and sin.

Behind that curtain of word salad which resides the supposed omni-everything, and theists are all too fond of extrapolating on god's unknowable nature.

 IMO, it seems like the common variable in humanity's vast experiences of this reality, god belief in particular, is the human mind itself.  Now, if the human mind, something which could arguably be labeled as unknowable (at least for now), is the primary source of our experiences, then is it not sensible to suspend declarative statements about what constitutes the nature of reality until humanity has a better understanding of itself and the external reality that it occupies? To put it another way, is it sensible to take a theorem about integers that one does not completely understand and assume that he or she can always apply it to the set of real numbers?  Hence, perhaps a healthy dosage of agnosticism and a constant questioning of one's particular starting points is the key to learning more about ourselves along with gaining a more accurate understanding of reality as it is.

I think that people often oversell the mystery of the mind in order to manufacture ambiguity about some other thing or concept.  There is, for example..very little in whatever mystery there is of mind that leads to ambiguity in an objective morality based upon harm.  Similarly, I think that we do know is suffoicient to comment upon reality, in that if things were some other way - hidden from us, no amount of additional knowledge -within- that bubble would lead to a cogent comment on what it -outside- that bubble, what may lie beyond that veil, as it were.

Ultimately, -our- reality will always lie within that bubble, for better or for worse, even if there is some exterior in a meaningful..rather than semantic, way. If we ought to be agnostic about what is within by reference to what -may be- without..we may as well be agnostic about the sun rising in the morning. The concept of knowledge, about moral facts of any matter or anything else, becomes incoherent, when we insist upon impossible qualifying standards, or refer to the incompleteness of our knowledge. There is no logical requirement of full knowledge, in the first place.

As an example - would you insist that there is some reason for agnosticism...that it is "sensible" to withhold judgement on any proposed fact that harm...in this reality, is harmful? Will we learn something today, or tomorrow, or 100 years in the future about our minds....that would alter that assessment? In that same vein, is there something that we will learn about mind that will make these logically competing human claims about godhead any less self-contradictory? Do we not already know enough -about those things- to rule them out definitively and authoritatively?

(July 12, 2017 at 12:10 pm)mordant Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 11:38 am)SteveII Wrote: Your analogy is lacking. So while God does permit evil, it is only because it is a by-product of a much greater goal: free will. Without free will we would have just been happy puppets always following a predefined path. God instead wanted people to *choose* to obey, love and worship Him as well as having loving, respectful, etc. relationships with others (none of which is possible without free will).

Then why is this suddenly not a problem in heaven? Why, in heaven, will you not be "happy puppets following a predefined path"?

(July 12, 2017 at 11:38 am)SteveII Wrote: You seem to think that God should intervene and prevent evil things from happening. It does not seem to me that we could have a world where we have free will and not have suffering because every wrong choice we made that resulted in suffering (however small) would be met with a supernatural intervention. Such a state of affairs would result in a complete lack of morally sufficient freedom --effectively eliminating free will. So it would seem that a world in which everyone had free will but no possibility of suffering would not be able to be actualized.

Not at all. People could still choose to do good, where there'd be no intervention needed.

You don't seem to believe that your god is truly all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Because if he's all those things he could have done, or could do, any of the following:

1) Construct humans that are capable of following his ruleset
2) Construct a ruleset that humans are capable of following
3) Have at least a puny human standard of rule enforcement that focuses on rehabilitation and reconciliation and restoration to a productive member of the kingdom of god, rather than on punishment, up to and including infinite punishment for finite transgressions.
4) Insure that, as is supposedly his desire, none should perish, but all should come to repentance. In other words, universal reconciliation.

All of this and more is possible for a tri-omni god, without breaking the slightest sweat. All of this and more can be done while still satisfying the requirements of his righteousness, since god can make any arbitrary set of laws and definitions he wants. Indeed, it could all be done without violating your sacred and indispensable free will that somehow no longer matters to you in heaven.

Of course, the notion that god will be sullied by contact with this thing-in-itself called "sin" is a separate debate, I'm just allowing it here for the sake of argument.

On what basis do you say we lose free will in heaven?

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything. It means can do anything logically possible to do. 

1. You would have to show that a world is actually possible (not just logically possible) where everyone has free will yet never chooses wrong. It is no longer a matter of logically possible, because you have now made it contingent upon a variable that God, by definition, does not control.
2. The "ruleset" is not arbitrary or could have been some other way. It is based in the nature of God (which has always been the same). Part of that nature is also holiness and justice kicks in when confronted with a moral failure. These attributes must be satisfied in order for the relationship to be repaired.
3. Failure to repair that relationship mean separation from God. The whole plan of redemption is all about rehabilitation and reconciliation. 
4. God provided a FREE method of repair, but cannot force us to take it (free will and all).

(July 10, 2017 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 10, 2017 at 1:33 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: If a god exists, its mere existence can't logically define morality. Might doesn't make right. No one being defines the morality of every single living thing because rules and laws aren't morals. [1] Morality doesn't have an "opt-out" option either. So either the god that supposedly exists is subject to the same moral principles, or it is doesn't behave morally considering the stories attributed to it. [2]

What then is more likely? 1) humans assigned the morals/rules/laws that they wanted to govern their society to a god so as to try and assign their morals/rules/laws to some sort of unquestionable authority? or 2) a god exists but created a set of objective moral standards that aren't actually able to be objective in practice and that change through time in such a way so as to conform to the evolution of moral values through time? [3]

1. That's completely wrong.  If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. All questions then have an explanatory ultimate. Without it, all you have is subjective morality. No one made any 'might makes right' argument. 

2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.

3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards. They would not be objective. The first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Lastly, moral values have not evolved--then they would have been subjective and again, you would be stuck with the first horn of the dilemma. If you are going to lay out the options for the opposing view, you should understand it.

Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?

---

(July 10, 2017 at 4:36 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: "If God's actions are constrained by his infinite nature..."

By definition, something that is infinite is unconstrained. Your god has paradoxical qualities

Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning. 

By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.

---

(July 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm)JackRussell Wrote: Morality is tied to wellbeing, a VERY strong component of that is harm. Secular morality, well done, seeks to reduce harm and increase wellbeing. It ain't easy, but morality by divine fiat, that includes immorality by modern standards, fails ever time.

Good luck with your bible, I prefer an honest discussion about difficult stuff.

Isn't well being just a scientific measurement? That is decidedly a non-moral measurement and use of the word good and not a matter of moral value. Seems to be you are just redefining the word good in non-moral terms. With the redefinition, you cannot ask the question "is the pursuit of human well-being good?" because you would really be saying "is the pursuit of human well-being the pursuit of human well-being?". 

Secondly, such a foundation of morality does nothing for the what ought to be question, What, if any, are our obligations? Science can tell us how we are but it does not tell us what it wrong with how we are. It cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to the pursuit of human well-being.

1. That's completely wrong.  If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. <- this argument is this argument -> 'might makes right' argument. 

You've not demonstrated that objective morality must exist if a god exists. 

2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.

Then your god is not infinite if it is bounded by anything. And we aren't bound by god's commands since we are able to make our own decisions and choices.

3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards.

There are things that exist that your god does not control and/or did not create? Then your god is not all-powerful nor all-knowing. If it could not create a set of objective moral standards then it is also not all-powerful or all-knowing. Your god is losing power very quickly from the way you keep describing it.

Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?

Because people are generally stupid. Believing in objective morality but being unable to show that objective morals exist, suggests to me that they don't exist despite the desperate attempt people make to special plead them into existence (which is especially interesting if in their special pleading they end up defining their god into obscurity, as you've done).

Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning. 


By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.

If your god is infinite in any way, then it is not bounded or constrained. You don't know what infinite means and you're making your argument look like even more BS than it is as a result.

(July 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: Omnipotence does not mean can do anything. It means can do anything logically possible to do. 

Is it logically possible, in your opinion, for god to do evil?  How then, did god manage to do evil?  It seems as though you are not content to adhere to this fun little qualifier.  It seems silly, to me, to take this seriously when you are demonstrably speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:1. You would have to show that a world is actually possible (not just logically possible) where everyone has free will yet never chooses wrong. It is no longer a matter of logically possible, because you have now made it contingent upon a variable that God, by definition, does not control.

Why would anyone have to show that?  I, lowly human worm that I am, have created a ruleset that my own children are capable of following.  To do otherwise is to ensure their failure by my decree... and then blame -them- for it.  

Quote:2. The "ruleset" is not arbitrary or could have been some other way. It is based in the nature of God (which has always been the same). Part of that nature is also holiness and justice kicks in when confronted with a moral failure. These attributes must be satisfied in order for the relationship to be repaired.

What is holy in silence in the face of inequity?  Where is the justice in not providing help insomuch as you can?  Are the police supposed  to watch as crimes are committed before their very eyes..."because justice"?  You bullshit us alot about moral failure, but strangely refuse to acknowledge the moral failures of your own god.  Yes, these attributes -must- be satisfied for the relationship to be repaired...but the onus is not -and cannot be- entirely upon man to do so.  Your god needs to get his shit together. That's how relationships work.  

Quote: 
3. Failure to repair that relationship mean separation from God. The whole plan of redemption is all about rehabilitation and reconciliation. 

Then god should stop being a petulant child, blaming everyone else for all of his own failures...seen timelessly, even by himself, from before the very first moment of time.  

Quote:4. God provided a FREE method of repair, but cannot force us to take it (free will and all).

This supposedly free method of repair does nothing to atone for gods own sins, gods own failure to live up to those standards by wich human beings will, supposedly, be judged. This, I think, is possibly the most pointless aspect of it all...since vicarious redemption of a sinner does nothing to make whomever he has wronged whole in the first place, nor is there any cogent moral explanation as to how it could do so even for the sinner themselves. It is evil, piled atop a mountain of evil, demanding that the pot apologize to the potter both for having been so poorly made, and for having such a capricious master in the first place.

There is no holiness in this. There is no justice. There is no mercy. There is no atonement, no redemption. There is no morality to be found, in any of it.

It's a sales pitch. Act now, while supplies last, offer not valid in all states, subject to restrictions. What the fuck? At what point did it seem like a good idea to you to peddle this shit in response to comments on objective morality and gods status as a moral agent?

(July 12, 2017 at 1:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote: Omnipotence does not mean can do anything. It means can do anything logically possible to do. 

Is it logically possible, in your opinion, for god to do evil?  How then, did god manage to do evil?  It seems as though you are not content to adhere to this fun little qualifier.  It seems silly, to me, to take this seriously when you are demonstrably speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote:1. You would have to show that a world is actually possible (not just logically possible) where everyone has free will yet never chooses wrong. It is no longer a matter of logically possible, because you have now made it contingent upon a variable that God, by definition, does not control.

Why would anyone have to show that?  I, lowly human worm that I am, have created a ruleset that my own children are capable of following.  To do otherwise is to ensure their failure by my decree... and then blame -them- for it.  

Quote:2. The "ruleset" is not arbitrary or could have been some other way. It is based in the nature of God (which has always been the same). Part of that nature is also holiness and justice kicks in when confronted with a moral failure. These attributes must be satisfied in order for the relationship to be repaired.

What is holy in silence in the face of inequity?  Where is the justice in not providing help insomuch as you can?  Are the police supposed  to watch as crimes are committed before their very eyes..."because justice"?  You bullshit us alot about moral failure, but strangely refuse to acknowledge the moral failures of your own god.  Yes, these attributes -must- be satisfied for the relationship to be repaired...but the onus is not -and cannot be- entirely upon man to do so.  Your god needs to get his shit together. That's how relationships work.  

Quote: 
3. Failure to repair that relationship mean separation from God. The whole plan of redemption is all about rehabilitation and reconciliation. 

Then god should stop being a petulant child, blaming everyone else for all of his own failures...seen timelessly, even by himself, from before the very first moment of time.  

Quote:4. God provided a FREE method of repair, but cannot force us to take it (free will and all).

This supposedly free method of repair does nothing to atone for gods own sins, gods own failure to live up to those standards by wich human beings will, supposedly, be judged.  This, I think, is possibly the most pointless aspect of it all...since vicarious redemption of a sinner does nothing to make whomever he has wronged whole in the first place, nor is there any cogent moral explanation as to how it could do so even for the sinner themselves.  It is evil, piled atop a mountain of evil, demanding that the pot apologize to the potter both for having been so poorly made, and for having such a capricious master in the first place.

There is no holiness in this.  There is no justice.  There is no mercy.  There is no atonement, no redemption.   There is no morality to be found, in any of it.

It's a sales pitch.  Act now, while supplies last, offer not valid in all states, subject to restrictions.  What the fuck?  At what point did it seem like a good idea to you to peddle this shit in response to comments on objective morality and gods status as a moral agent?

I like this question:
Is it logically possible, in your opinion, for god to do evil?
Primarily because of this statement from Steve: 
God could not create a set of moral objective standards.

I like it because it suggests 2 things:
1) this god can absolutely be immoral since there are objective moral standards that exist independent of it. Bible gives plenty of examples of it being an evil asshole too
2) it also implies that there is something greater than this god that created the moral standards that this god is apparently beholden to (they wouldn't be objective moral standards if the god wasn't beholden to them)

This god is starting to sound lamer and weaker by the minute 

(July 12, 2017 at 1:12 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(July 10, 2017 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. That's completely wrong.  If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. All questions then have an explanatory ultimate. Without it, all you have is subjective morality. No one made any 'might makes right' argument. 

2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.

3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards. They would not be objective. The first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Lastly, moral values have not evolved--then they would have been subjective and again, you would be stuck with the first horn of the dilemma. If you are going to lay out the options for the opposing view, you should understand it.

Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?

---

Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning. 

By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.

---

Isn't well being just a scientific measurement? That is decidedly a non-moral measurement and use of the word good and not a matter of moral value. Seems to be you are just redefining the word good in non-moral terms. With the redefinition, you cannot ask the question "is the pursuit of human well-being good?" because you would really be saying "is the pursuit of human well-being the pursuit of human well-being?". 

Secondly, such a foundation of morality does nothing for the what ought to be question, What, if any, are our obligations? Science can tell us how we are but it does not tell us what it wrong with how we are. It cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to the pursuit of human well-being.

1. That's completely wrong.  If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. <- this argument is this argument -> 'might makes right' argument. 

You've not demonstrated that objective morality must exist if a god exists. 

2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.

Then your god is not infinite if it is bounded by anything. And we aren't bound by god's commands since we are able to make our own decisions and choices.

3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards.

There are things that exist that your god does not control and/or did not create? Then your god is not all-powerful nor all-knowing. If it could not create a set of objective moral standards then it is also not all-powerful or all-knowing. Your god is losing power very quickly from the way you keep describing it.

Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?

Because people are generally stupid. Believing in objective morality but being unable to show that objective morals exist, suggests to me that they don't exist despite the desperate attempt people make to special plead them into existence (which is especially interesting if in their special pleading they end up defining their god into obscurity, as you've done). [4]

Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning. 


By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.

If your god is infinite in any way, then it is not bounded or constrained. You don't know what infinite means and you're making your argument look like even more BS than it is as a result. [5]

1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability.  

in·fi·nite
ˈinfənət
adjective
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

God cannot violate his nature (for one thing, since his nature is perfect, violating it would be an imperfection). He also cannot do anything that is logically impossible. You are right, we have been given free will so we are not 'bound'. However that is the standard we will be measured against--our boundary for morality. 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.