Christians and Their Homework!

[The Valkyrie]

stretch: Humans have more that 5 senses and you can't argue a god into existence.

Odin!

[stretch3172]

Human well being is good precisely because it is humans that are the moral agents here. It is our society that we want to organize and our judgements about well being that are controlling.

Since right and wrong is all about how humans interact with each other, it seems quite reasonable that we are the ones that get to decide the issue. Tp push it off on another, even a deity, is to deny our ability to think and care enough to figure it out. To the extent it is subjective, there will be disagreements and discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing. To the extent that everyone agrees even where most agree), there is no issue.

As for deities being good. If they exist and their goal is human well being, then they can supply a viewpoint to be discussed. But they (it, he"r, she) is not the ones for whom the morality is created: we create morality for human societies because we are human.

And no, simply creating the universe would not convey moral authority. Where the creator;s goals are different from human goals, we as humans are the ones making the decisions about for our morality. Again, even a good, 'perfect' deity would still only provide advisory information, not deciding authority. That comes from us.

Yes we are indeed the moral agents, and as such we already have an intuitive sense of what's ethical and what's not, which seems to be what you're alluding to. I also accept that human well-being is fundamental to morality, but where we must disagree is at the point concerning who has the right to "decide the issue." According to Christianity, God created all of creation "from Him and through Him and for Him" (Rom 11:36). I must bite the bullet and say that God created mankind for Himself and therefore has the authority to legislate morality, while we remain free to consider it rationally and better understand it for ourselves. I don't think we need God to behave like decent, moral people, but God does play a role in how we can properly understand and apply ethical principles.

[GrandizerII]

"A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions."

What about "increasing human well-being" makes it "good"? This is a real question because if there is no real, objective moral standard, then that's an entirely unfounded presupposition on which a great deal of your view of ethics rests.

Perhaps the answer (or part of it) is in the question itself ("increasing human well-being"). I could ask you something similar: What about "God adhering to some moral standard" makes the moral standard "good" (or "real" and "objective")?

"it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being."

There are a million possible hypothetical scenarios in which murder could indeed promote human well being, especially when you consider well-being both qualitatively and quantitatively. While you are correct that such cases can be very rare, the fundamental issue remains. For instance, if you could somehow save a whole room full of dying patients with the organs of one innocent, healthy patient, should you? If not, why? It seems that your ethical philosophy is ultimately subjective because the very concept of "well being" is subjective. There is no real underlying reason to say that anything is right or wrong except the ones we invent for ourselves.

I personally wouldn't, basically because it doesn't feel right for me to intentionally kill a healthy human being (though it is a dilemma, and me not killing the healthy patient would mean letting a whole room of patients die when I could've saved them). Anyhow, how would you solve such a dilemma given your view? Does the standard God adhere to provide a clear solution to this dilemma? And is the solution clearly given to you?

[stretch3172]

You made the claim; I'm asking you to justify it. You can't claim that two things are the same and then attack the idea without justification. What if what I find online about the FSM contradicts the presuppositions in your head about the FSM you don't believe in? What if your concept of the FSM differs from the Christian God in such a way that certain deductive and inductive arguments favor one over the other? Things are rarely quite as simple as they seem.

The FSM is a version of Russell's Teapot. A response to "You can not prove there is no god!" "You can not prove there is not a tea pot in orbit on the other side of the sun". 

Currently, The Church of the FSM is a parody of religion and funny as hell.

Ah ok cool. At least I was somewhat close!

---

"A good person is one that attempts to increase human well being through their own actions."

What about "increasing human well-being" makes it "good"? This is a real question because if there is no real, objective moral standard, then that's an entirely unfounded presupposition on which a great deal of your view of ethics rests.

Perhaps the answer (or part of it) is in the question itself ("increasing human well-being"). I could ask you something similar: What about "God adhering to some moral standard" makes the moral standard "good" (or "real" and "objective")?

"it is also clear that murdering someone does NOT promote human well being."

There are a million possible hypothetical scenarios in which murder could indeed promote human well being, especially when you consider well-being both qualitatively and quantitatively. While you are correct that such cases can be very rare, the fundamental issue remains. For instance, if you could somehow save a whole room full of dying patients with the organs of one innocent, healthy patient, should you? If not, why? It seems that your ethical philosophy is ultimately subjective because the very concept of "well being" is subjective. There is no real underlying reason to say that anything is right or wrong except the ones we invent for ourselves.

I personally wouldn't, basically because it doesn't feel right for me to intentionally kill a healthy human being (though it is a dilemma, and me not killing the healthy patient would mean letting a whole room of patients die when I could've saved them). Anyhow, how would you solve such a dilemma given your view? Does the standard God adhere to provide a clear solution to this dilemma? And is the solution clearly given to you?

For your first question, there are two possible answers: (1) the standard is good because God adheres to it, or (2) God adheres to it because it is good. This is the famous "Euthryphro question" as given by Plato. There are good arguments for either case, but the main point is that said moral standard is in fact good, and as such we should hold to it. 

This fits well into your second question. I would agree with your decision for the simple reason that outright murder is forbidden by God (cf. Rom 13:9). I would consider the consequence of the other patients' deaths as a horrible, unintentional effect from my correct decision to avoid committing murder.

---

*My bold*

But to use the possibility that there is more to reality than our sensory/cognitive arrays can sift out .. to justify believing in just one outlandish thing in particular out of all the outlandish things people have ever believed.  That seems like some pretty reckless believing, no disrespect intended.  Then to decide -with your still limited sensory/cognitive arrays- that a particular book carries an important message from that very outlandish thing, complete with marching orders for how to live your life.  Boy, for a guy as smart as you that must be difficult to swallow.

You're absolutely right. That argument is meant only to convey the idea that belief in an entity such as the Christian God is feasible, not to show why Christianity is superior to any other spiritual system. To do that, we need more specific arguments. Unfortunately, I don't have time to lay out the ones I hold to at the moment, but I personally think certain versions of medieval cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments do a pretty good job of showing not only that a God exists, but that this God must also have certain specific attributes (i.e. intelligence, power, a will, etc.), which makes Him quite different from most other spiritual entities. From there, we would have to turn to even more specific arguments for the authority of Scripture to justify Christianity against other belief systems. It gets incredibly complicated, but it's a fun topic nevertheless.

[GrandizerII]

For your first question, there are two possible answers: (1) the standard is good because God adheres to it, or (2) God adheres to it because it is good. This is the famous "Euthryphro question" as given by Plato. There are good arguments for either case, but the main point is that said moral standard is in fact good, and as such we should hold to it.

Right, so what's the problem again with saying "a standard is [objectively] good because it promotes human well-being or human flourishing or whatever"? And what's unique about God that objective morality must be related to him in any way? I'm still not seeing the need for a grounding in the divine for any form of objective morality.

This fits well into your second question. I would agree with your decision for the simple reason that outright murder is forbidden by God (cf. Rom 13:9). I would consider the consequence of the other patients' deaths as a horrible, unintentional effect from my correct decision to avoid committing murder.

You're seriously going to reference the Bible for your morality? That's one very questionable source to get all your morality answers from. It's the same Bible in which murder is commanded by God. I'm not sure "outright murder is forbidden by God" sounds right.

[downbeatplumb]

Most don't assume there is no god, we just go with what the evidence tells us.

Since nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist then anything that requires the supernatural to be a thing is a t best unproven but more likely complete hogwash.

That's a fair point. But consider this: our five senses are obviously quite limited compared to those of other animals. Similarly, all quantitative, empirical measurements must be based on a limited number of significant figures because our scientific instruments are only accurate to a certain mathematical degree. There's no problem with going in favor of evidence, but our "evidence" is based on our extremely limited means of perceiving reality. To believe in spiritual reality is simply to believe that something exists that transcends our ability to perceive it by natural means. Sure, that's not a proof in itself, but you could argue that it's likely.

---

There is simply no reason to believe in something until it can be shown to exist.
Dark energy is something that explains observations but has never been proven to exist. The observations that it explains may in fact have other causes that we don't know of and our view of the universe will adjust if that happens.
The gods people believe in have the opposite affect on people any fact that contradicts the existence goes through several phases for the theist, initially they deny/oppose it, then they try to twist its meaning, they change the facts to match their beliefs they do not change their beliefs to match the facts.
So is a god likely. No.

[polymath257]

Human well being is good precisely because it is humans that are the moral agents here. It is our society that we want to organize and our judgements about well being that are controlling.

Since right and wrong is all about how humans interact with each other, it seems quite reasonable that we are the ones that get to decide the issue. Tp push it off on another, even a deity, is to deny our ability to think and care enough to figure it out. To the extent it is subjective, there will be disagreements and discussions. I don't see that as a bad thing. To the extent that everyone agrees even where most agree), there is no issue.

As for deities being good. If they exist and their goal is human well being, then they can supply a viewpoint to be discussed. But they (it, he"r, she) is not the ones for whom the morality is created: we create morality for human societies because we are human.

And no, simply creating the universe would not convey moral authority. Where the creator;s goals are different from human goals, we as humans are the ones making the decisions about for our morality. Again, even a good, 'perfect' deity would still only provide advisory information, not deciding authority. That comes from us.

Yes we are indeed the moral agents, and as such we already have an intuitive sense of what's ethical and what's not, which seems to be what you're alluding to. I also accept that human well-being is fundamental to morality, but where we must disagree is at the point concerning who has the right to "decide the issue." According to Christianity, God created all of creation "from Him and through Him and for Him" (Rom 11:36). I must bite the bullet and say that God created mankind for Himself and therefore has the authority to legislate morality, while we remain free to consider it rationally and better understand it for ourselves. I don't think we need God to behave like decent, moral people, but God does play a role in how we can properly understand and apply ethical principles.

And that is where I strongly disagree. Even *if* there is a GOd that created the universe, the fact that I am a conscious being in a society of conscious beings gives me and us the power to decide, not God.

For example, suppose that at some point we are able to create artificial intelligence. Would we have the right to dictate what rules an AI society would have for themselves? I'd say no, resoundingly.

If we can use our intellect to arrive at ethical principles that work for us, that is all that is required. Pleasing a deity just because that deity made us is a very poor basis for morality.

[Mister Agenda]

Why don't you look it up?  I'm not your fucking secretary.

You made the claim; I'm asking you to justify it. You can't claim that two things are the same and then attack the idea without justification. What if what I find online about the FSM contradicts the presuppositions in your head about the FSM you don't believe in? What if your concept of the FSM differs from the Christian God in such a way that certain deductive and inductive arguments favor one over the other? Things are rarely quite as simple as they seem.

Asking him to explain it in a very snide tone. How unoriginal.

[Whateverist]

*My bold*

But to use the possibility that there is more to reality than our sensory/cognitive arrays can sift out .. to justify believing in just one outlandish thing in particular out of all the outlandish things people have ever believed.  That seems like some pretty reckless believing, no disrespect intended.  Then to decide -with your still limited sensory/cognitive arrays- that a particular book carries an important message from that very outlandish thing, complete with marching orders for how to live your life.  Boy, for a guy as smart as you that must be difficult to swallow.

You're absolutely right. That argument is meant only to convey the idea that belief in an entity such as the Christian God is feasible, not to show why Christianity is superior to any other spiritual system. To do that, we need more specific arguments. Unfortunately, I don't have time to lay out the ones I hold to at the moment, but I personally think certain versions of medieval cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments do a pretty good job of showing not only that a God exists, but that this God must also have certain specific attributes (i.e. intelligence, power, a will, etc.), which makes Him quite different from most other spiritual entities. From there, we would have to turn to even more specific arguments for the authority of Scripture to justify Christianity against other belief systems. It gets incredibly complicated, but it's a fun topic nevertheless.

I for one won't press you to do any of that. It is pretty clear that a determined and clever person can find a way to justify almost anything. But thanks for being willing to converse on the level.

[stretch3172]

Yes we are indeed the moral agents, and as such we already have an intuitive sense of what's ethical and what's not, which seems to be what you're alluding to. I also accept that human well-being is fundamental to morality, but where we must disagree is at the point concerning who has the right to "decide the issue." According to Christianity, God created all of creation "from Him and through Him and for Him" (Rom 11:36). I must bite the bullet and say that God created mankind for Himself and therefore has the authority to legislate morality, while we remain free to consider it rationally and better understand it for ourselves. I don't think we need God to behave like decent, moral people, but God does play a role in how we can properly understand and apply ethical principles.

And that is where I strongly disagree. Even *if* there is a GOd that created the universe, the fact that I am a conscious being in a society of conscious beings gives me and us the power to decide, not God.

For example, suppose that at some point we are able to create artificial intelligence. Would we have the right to dictate what rules an AI society would have for themselves? I'd say no, resoundingly.

If we can use our intellect to arrive at ethical principles that work for us, that is all that is required. Pleasing a deity just because that deity made us is a very poor basis for morality.

I grant God the authority, not only because I was created for the purpose of His glory, but also because He understands morality itself better than I ever could. Like a captain's superior knowledge of sailing and navigation qualifies him to legislate orders for his crew to follow, God's perfect knowledge makes Him better qualified to legislate principles of morality to people. However, God does not take away our freedom to obey or ignore Him. Suppose your hypothetical AI society was grossly ignorant of moral principles and systematically cheated, raped, tortured and killed one another (assuming they are sufficiently advanced to do this). Wouldn't our superior knowledge of morality qualify us to suggest better ways for them to improve their society and give them the freedom to accept or reject them?