God's Love

[UtilitarianDeist]

Well, now we know you are not a deist.

I am a deist.

Would you care to share what flavour of theist you are?

I don't follow a religion.

It's the usual theist lie that morality is impossible without god.

Trivially easy to prove wrong, but they keep repeating it.

I don't claim that morality is impossible without God. I only claim that objective morality can be justified via God.

Actually, that is a flat out lie. I can easily make sense of good without any god at all. So can most here.

I'm talking about on the metaethical level.

---

Without FSM you can't even make sense of 'good'.

fify

if the FSM existed and created the universe then it too would be the only way to get objective morality.

---

Without God you can't even make sense of 'good'.

I make sense of good without God on a daily basis. 

On the metaethical level? Are you a moral realist?

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't be, and in fact grounding morality in god can never be anything other than subjective by definition.

[UtilitarianDeist]

Anyone making that claim is admitting that they would be entirely happy to rape, murder and pillage if an imaginary being was not stopping them.

God causes people to do everything. Rapists and murders are caused to be rapists and murders and non-rapists and non-murderers are caused to be non-rapists and non-murders. Everything is caused and God is the causer.

Well, everything except existence itself, that is. I mean that there is a deterministic causal chain between events and that chain and those events are just another part of God. As are we.

---

He's already told us that rape, murder and pillage must be good, since it happens, and what happens can only be what gods want, and whatever gods want is good.

Some people would say that if everything is good then that's identical to nothing being good and that it's pretty much moral nihilism. So I don't understand why you would focus in on a specific subset of things that you deem to be awful. I'm talking about on an objective level. I accept that humans and society consider some things to be good and some things to be bad on the subjective level and they deem themselves to be better off with 'x, y or z'.

The way I see it is: to say that everything is good is just to say that we are in the best possible world. And if determinism is true we must be in the best possible world because if determinism is true we're in the only possible world.

Sure, it could also mean that we're in the worst possible world too. Hence my point about nihilism.

But if my views are correct then it's still objectively the case that God gets what he wants. And to me that's what good is. That's all.

[Simon Moon]

Well, now we know you are not a deist.

I am a deist.

Maybe you don't know what the definition of deism is, then.

Your post numbers 394 and 396 on this thread, would define you as a theist. The fact that you don't claim to have a religion, does not mean you are a deist.

Deism - Belief in a god who created the universe but does not govern worldly events, does not answer prayers, and has no direct involvement in human affairs.

But you seem to be describing a god that does intervene with regards to love and morality, and in your post just above this one, the god you claim exists "causes people to do everything. Rapists and murders are caused to be rapists and murders and non-rapists and non-murderers are caused to be non-rapists and non-murders. Everything is caused and God is the causer".

This is no deist god you are describing.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

He's already told us that rape, murder and pillage must be good, since it happens, and what happens can only be what gods want, and whatever gods want is good.

Some people would say that if everything is good then that's identical to nothing being good and that it's pretty much moral nihilism.  So I don't understand why you would focus in on a specific subset of things that you deem to be awful. I'm talking about on an objective level. I accept that humans and society consider some things to be good and some things to be bad on the subjective level and they deem themselves to be better off with 'x, y or z'.

The way I see it is: to say that everything is good is just to say that we are in the best possible world. And if determinism is true we must be in the best possible world because if determinism is true we're in the only possible world.

Sure, it could also mean that we're in the worst possible world too. Hence my point about nihilism.

But if my views are correct then it's still objectively the case that God gets what he wants. And to me that's what good is. That's all.

Some people say many things, but the things that you've said indicate that you are a moral subjectivist.  If you'd like to be a moral nihilist, I can help you with that too.

There is no good, and no bad.  It doesn't matter what a god wants or how happy it makes a god, because nothing makes anything good or bad to begin with.

Objectivist? Got you covered. Regardless of what a god does or doesn't want, things are truly good or truly bad.

Objectivity, subjectivity, and error theory are all cognitive propositions that make antithetical claims. God objectively wanting what it wants means jack outside of subjectivity.

[brewer]

I only claim that objective morality can be justified via God.

Would you expand on that claim. What deist god has provided specifics on human morality?

[Bucky Ball]

God causes people to do everything. Rapists and murders are caused to be rapists and murders and non-rapists and non-murderers are caused to be non-rapists and non-murders. Everything is caused and God is the causer. 

You really ought to look up the definition of "deist", (which clearly you're not).

Also

I don't claim that morality is impossible without God. I only claim that objective morality can be justified via God.

Morality, as propounded by (all) the gods, has CHANGED many times in the course of history.
Anyone who knows anything about the history of religions knows there is no objective morality even possibly justified by a god.
It CHANGED all the time.

[Abaddon_ire]

I am a deist.

Maybe you don't know what the definition of deism is, then.

Apparently, he doesn't. He is going for pantheism or panentheism perhaps, or some other flavour, but it sure a hell ain't deism.

Your post numbers 394 and 396 on this thread, would define you as a theist. The fact that you don't claim to have a religion, does not mean you are a deist.

Deism - Belief in a god who created the universe but does not govern worldly events, does not answer prayers, and has no direct involvement in human affairs.

But you seem to be describing a god that does intervene with regards to love and morality, and in your post just above this one, the god you claim exists "causes people to do everything. Rapists and murders are caused to be rapists and murders and non-rapists and non-murderers are caused to be non-rapists and non-murders. Everything is caused and God is the causer".

This is no deist god you are describing.
[/quote]

[Bucky Ball]

"The most natural position for deists was to reject all forms of supernaturalism, including the miracle stories in the Bible. The problem was that the rejection of miracles also seemed to entail the rejection of divine providence (of God taking a hand in human affairs), something that many deists were inclined to accept. Those who believed in a watch-maker God rejected the possibility of miracles and divine providence. They believed that God, after establishing natural laws and setting the cosmos in motion, stepped away. He didn't need to keep tinkering with his creation, and the suggestion that he did was insulting. - Wike

[Abaddon_ire]

Notice that Johan ceases to post when another god-botherer turns up. This is part of his standard MO.