Which Comes First?

[Ryft]

The flood comes to mind ...

You just earned me twenty bucks. I appreciate that, thank you. As I was typing out my request to you I had a friend sitting beside me; I looked at him and said, "I'll bet you $20 that the one and only example he comes up with is a fundy interpretation of Noah's flood." Way too predictable. It's nothing personal, by the way: had I been talking to Adrian or Eilonnwy or anyone else, I would have made the same bet. And I would have won.

Unfortunately, the example does not work. Even if we grant an actual worldwide flood, that would not serve as evidence that it was God who acted to bring it about. As you already recognize, rain and flooding have natural explanations. But Noah having "knowledge of the flood before it happened" likewise doesn't provide sufficient evidence, and for quite a number of reasons but I'll undercut it with just one proposed counterfactual: a technologically advanced alien race, wanting to preserve the delicate biological experiment they are conducting on this planet, had the technological means to detect the impending flood and warned Noah.

Ergo, a fundy interpretation of Noah's flood fails to serve as evidence of God acting. So I have to reassert the question: "If God acting on reality should leave evidence, what does that evidence look like, such that it would indicate God as the agent to you?"

Yes, I would agree [that nothing exists unless it has spatio-temporal properties]

Then the universe does not exist. (How ever a person chooses to define existence, at minimum it must allow us to say the universe exists. This is why no philosopher worth his salt defines existence in spatio-temporal terms: such a definition self-destructs.)

I agree: if there were a God, he would need to exist outside space and time in order to create space and time. Your definition is correct in that respect. So where that leaves me is, "Why God at all? Why the Christian God?"

This answer will be too succinct by half, but it nevertheless is the answer and can be the starting point of further conversation: "Because the God of Christianity is the only answer that remains constant under every and all considerations, the only answer that provides intelligibility to the entire scope of human experience." (I have spent almost ten years studying several branches of philosophy, and I've also explored approximately two dozen world religions since the late '90s. In other words, I'm not talking out of my ass. I've done the work of testing this, and still continue to test it.)

---

A truly 100% benevolent all-loving God would allow the moral, of course, but why would he also allow so much immorality?

Does the Bible describe God as "100% benevolent all-loving"? No. Ergo, why ask Christians about some deity foreign to their beliefs?

Morality is subjective ... from most of us: killing and raping, etc., is evil or wrong.

If John from Society A has an affair with Jane from Society B at a hotel in Society C, then how is the morality of the act to be judged? Worse yet, if Society A views affairs as immoral, Society B views affairs as moral, and the affair took place in Society C, then your view affirms a logical contradiction: the affair is both moral and immoral at the same time and in the same respect. And logical contradictions are necessarily false. You can either find a new moral theory or assert that morality as a normative principle does not exist (e.g., rape is neither wrong nor good).

[Edwardo Piet]

How much is 'so much immorality'?

The fact that horribly horrific things go on over the world every day.

And my point is, if God is truly good, if he is truly all-loving, truly omnibenevolent, why does he allow any evil at all? Why couldn't he create humans as less imperfect as we are, so everyone's happy? And no one his suffering like shit, despite the fact that many of the people suffering, don't deserve it.

Why would a truly just God make life unfair, why wouldn't he make it fair?

A truly Evil God would only allow Evil.

A truly Good God would only allow Good, right?

For God to allow both, he's either careless, ignorant of others suffering - lacking in empathy - or something to that effect, right?

OR....perhaps there are both good and evil, simply because there is no God to put them there, since they are subjective, and this is an imperfect world? Perhaps?

Good and evil can be explained without God. With God, it's a curious question as to why he'd allow the Evil side.

If God allowed less you would still complain and if He allowed more you would know no difference since it would be a normal amount inthe world.

Why does he allow any? And there's a fucking ton of it in the world. Much suffering goes around the world. Why would a Good God determine that to happen?

The case is that there could have been ALOT more suffering too than there is.

Maybe so, but it's still a lot. And even if it were only a tiny but - and it obviously isn't only a tiny bit - then he's still allowing suffering and pain and Evil. If he's a perfect and perfectly GOOD God, why would he allow any at all? He knows the future and he can do anything, why can't he determine a future where everyone's happy and no one's suffering? Nevermind the fact that if he exists in this reality, then he's determined a lot of people to unfairly suffer an awful lot more than others!

Why would a perfect, and perfectly Just God, allow for such an unfair world?

But on your reasoning you can't say that it is a good thing that your are caring anyway, because being caring would have no value of its own.

In my view it's a good thing. The fact that I can care without needing to believe in objective goodness and caring, shows that I'm a good person, and is a more noble reason to being good IMO.

I think it's a much more ignoble reason for being good, to say that you only do it because objective morality exists due to God, and if it didn't, you wouldn't do good and you wouldn't care.

I do good because I am good. Well at least I think I am

I don't need to satisfaction of saying I am good because I do what is said to be objectively good when it isn't even proven to be, and when there's no proof of objective morality whatsoever (hence why I don't believe in it).

Does the Bible describe God as "100% benevolent all-loving"? No. Ergo, why ask Christians about some deity foreign to their beliefs?

I've heard many Christians argue that he is omni-benevolent and all-loving. Most Christians I've experienced in fact.

You may then say they're not true Christians since they don't follow what the Bible actually teaches. Ok, whatever, but they claim to be Christians anyway, and I'll still respond to their arguments.

Morality is subjective ... from most of us: killing and raping, etc., is evil or wrong.

If John from Society A has an affair with Jane from Society B at a hotel in Society C, then how is the morality of the act to be judged?

Irrelevant to my point. I just said it's subjective, how it's 'to be judged' is another matter.

Worse yet, if Society A views affairs as immoral, Society B views affairs as moral, and the affair took place in Society C, then your view affirms a logical contradiction:[...]

I thought you'd know what subjective means ???

I mean that good and evil don't actually exist in reality, only in the minds of people. And indeed, 3 people can all argue over good and evil with completely different subjective opinions on what is "good" and what is "evil". That's exactly what I'm saying, that it's subjective...and that Good and Evil don't actually objectively exist. Where's the contradiction?

the affair is both moral and immoral at the same time and in the same respect.

No, objectively speaking they are neither moral or immoral - from my perspective- subjectively speaking they are only moral or immoral, according to those who view them. That's what I mean by subjective morality. That the concept of what is good and evil, is man made.

And logical contradictions are necessarily false. You can either find a new moral theory or assert that morality as a normative principle does not exist (e.g., rape is neither wrong nor good).

Morality does not exist objectively, I assert that. By existing subjectively I mean that it only exists as an idea in the mind of people...what one person believes to be good, is not the same as what another views it to be.

What is generally considered moral, is due to what society on the whole tends to believe is. It's just a subjective thing. Good and Evil in themselves don't actually exist, indeed.

How can "In my opinion, that is an evil act" or "In my opinion that is a good act" be logically contradicted? They are absolutely meaningless statement other than the fact that that person believes that thing is wrong or right. One might assert that they know that a thing is wrong or right, moral or immoral, or that is just plain is wrong or right, moral or immoral - but they have no evidence of that, and so that doesn't stop the fact there's no reason to believe they can speak objectively on the matter, and that it's not, indeed, just a subjective matter.

EvF

[Tiberius]

by the way: had I been talking to Adrian or Eilonnwy or anyone else, I would have made the same bet. And I would have won.

I'm disappointed in you Arcanus; I thought you knew me better than that. My position is that there cannot possibly be evidence for these beings given that they supposedly exist non-temporally and thus if they could affect our temporal universe, they could do it in such a way as to cover their tracks.

[ecolox]

In my view it's a good thing. The fact that I can care without needing to believe in objective goodness and caring, shows that I'm a good person, and is a more noble reason to being good IMO.

I think it's a much more ignoble reason for being good, to say that you only do it because objective morality exists due to God, and if it didn't, you wouldn't do good and you wouldn't care.

I do good because I am good. Well at least I think I am

I don't need to satisfaction of saying I am good because I do what is said to be objectively good when it isn't even proven to be, and when there's no proof of objective morality whatsoever (hence why I don't believe in it).

You don't believe morality or good and evil exist, but you take pride in labeling yourself a "good person".

You concede that your explanation of morality is meaningless (in reality, to other people, etc).

You're "good" (by your own standards!) to impress yourself and that's noble? This is self-absorption, self-righteous, self-centered...not good, noble, or worthy.

You're insane.

[Edwardo Piet]

You don't believe morality or good and evil exist, but you take pride in labeling yourself a "good person".

I never said I took pride. And I don't believe they exist objectively. But I do - obviously - believe they exist subjectively.

You concede that your explanation of morality is meaningless (in reality, to other people, etc).

. No, not to other people. Our own opinions and views effect each other . I think I'm a good person, and so do others. Some people like me more than others. This is all a subjective matter.

You're "good" (by your own standards!) to impress yourself and that's noble?

When did I say this was about impressing myself? Yes by my own standards, and by the standards of those who also believe I am. Where is your evidence for objective morality? This is all a subjective matter as far as I'm concerned. Got any reason for me to believe it isn't?

This is self-absorption, self-righteous, self-centered...not good, noble, or worthy.

In your own subjective opinion. Subjective morality once again.

Now I'd just like to know where you think I gave a sense of self-absorption, self-righteousness and self-centredness in my post.

1. I didn't say I was proud. On the contrary I said I didn't need satisfaction in order to be good. I also said that I thought I was good, I don't claim to now that I am. That's humility not pride, I would think?

2. What do you mean by 'self absorption?' since morality is subjective in my view, because there's no evidence that it's objective - then how can I have or not have any moral beliefs other than in my own subjective way?

3. Self-righteousness? Well, as I said: I'm not claming to know what is or isn't moral or immoral here. On the contrary, I believe it is subjective. You on the other hand believe you know the objective morals, if one of is self-righteous then, it is you. For you are the one claiming to know something that you cannot, and that you have no evidence of whatsoever it seems, insofar as I can tell.

4. Self centreness? When did I speak of morality being about being self-centered? On the contrary, I think morality is about caring for others as well as yourself, and you don't need an imaginary guy in the sky in order to care. Show me otherwise.

5. I believe it is more noble to be good because you're good, and to care because you care, rather than simply being so because you're God made you that way. Because you can care on your own without needing to be protected by the magic guy in the sky.

And is it not a more ignoble reason to be good and to care, if you only do so because your God asks of it? And you can't be good, can't be moral, without him, perhaps?

You're insane.

That is your own subjective opinion. Along with all your morals - and everyone else's, myself included - which you have failed to evidence as being somehow objective as you claim them to be.

And I can't say I'm surprised that you bow down to me when you believe I'm insane. Because you worship God and he's an incredibly insane idea. But once a delusion is so popular, it's almost as if there's no stopping it - for some people... - eh?

EvF

[ecolox]

You don't believe morality or good and evil exist, but you take pride in labeling yourself a "good person".

I never said I took pride. And I don't believe they exist objectively. But I do - obviously - believe they exist subjectively.

You concede that your explanation of morality is meaningless (in reality, to other people, etc).

. No, not to other people. Our own opinions and views effect each other . I think I'm a good person, and so do others. Some people like me more than others. This is all a subjective matter.

You're "good" (by your own standards!) to impress yourself and that's noble?

When did I say this was about impressing myself? Yes by my own standards, and by the standards of those who also believe I am. Where is your evidence for objective morality? This is all a subjective matter as far as I'm concerned. Got any reason for me to believe it isn't?

This is self-absorption, self-righteous, self-centered...not good, noble, or worthy.

In your own subjective opinion. Subjective morality once again.

Now I'd just like to know where you think I gave a sense of self-absorption, self-righteousness and self-centredness in my post.

1. I didn't say I was proud. On the contrary I said I didn't need satisfaction in order to be good. I also said that I thought I was good, I don't claim to now that I am. That's humility not pride, I would think?

2. What do you mean by 'self absorption?' since morality is subjective in my view, because there's no evidence that it's objective - then how can I have or not have any moral beliefs other than in my own subjective way?

3. Self-righteousness? Well, as I said: I'm not claming to know what is or isn't moral or immoral here. On the contrary, I believe it is subjective. You on the other hand believe you know the objective morals, if one of is self-righteous then, it is you. For you are the one claiming to know something that you cannot, and that you have no evidence of whatsoever it seems, insofar as I can tell.

4. Self centreness? When did I speak of morality being about being self-centered? On the contrary, I think morality is about caring for others as well as yourself, and you don't need an imaginary guy in the sky in order to care. Show me otherwise.

5. I believe it is more noble to be good because you're good, and to care because you care, rather than simply being so because you're God made you that way. Because you can care on your own without needing to be protected by the magic guy in the sky.

And is it not a more ignoble reason to be good and to care, if you only do so because your God asks of it? And you can't be good, can't be moral, without him, perhaps?

You're insane.

That is your own subjective opinion. Along with all your morals - and everyone else's, myself included - which you have failed to evidence as being somehow objective as you claim them to be.

And I can't say I'm surprised that you bow down to me when you believe I'm insane. Because you worship God and he's an incredibly insane idea. But once a delusion is so popular, it's almost as if there's no stopping it - for some people... - eh?

EvF

You're really dedicated to repetition and hot air. Summary response:
Morality, really, is tied to a type (or types) of growth within humans (e.g. motivational; if I treat people morally I boost their spirits). There is a real way to encourage this growth, even though humans are complex (some confused) and a true way may seem difficult to imagine (with so many possible circumstances).

It's absurd to think that there isn't a real way to treat yourself and people - even if some people are different or even corrupted. To say morality is subjective is to say that it is meaningless. It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better (vanilla or chocolate). That doesn't make sense and it disallows you from calling the murderer wrong, but most importantly it disallows other people from telling you that you're wrong.

[Ryft]

I'm disappointed in you, Arcanus. I thought you knew me better than that. My position is that there cannot possibly be evidence for these beings, given that they supposedly exist non-temporally and, thus, if they could affect our temporal universe they could do it in such a way as to cover their tracks.

Well that supposes God in fact covers his tracks, which the question did not suppose (as Rhizo had framed it). And no, I did not know you took such a position. But now I find myself wondering how one gets from a premise that "God could" to a conclusion that "God did." Is there anything in the Bible that gives us warrant to think God in fact covers his tracks? Or does such a position require us to take from the Bible that God acts upon reality, and from somewhere else that he covers his tracks?

---

I've heard many Christians argue that he is omni-benevolent and all-loving. Most Christians I've experienced, in fact.

Unless you've heard Solarwave himself posit that God is "a truly 100% benevolent all-loving" being, you are still asking him to answer for a foreign belief. While it is true that such a being as your description would never allow "so much immorality," what reason do you have for supposing that Solarwave believes in that sort of being in the first place? In other words, why are you asking Jones to answer for a belief that Smith asserted? Because that belief is something Christianity itself teaches? But how do you know that? Because you talked to Smith who self-identified as a Christian and he asserted that belief? But it is very faulty reasoning to base the conclusion that Christianity teaches X simply on the fact that Smith asserted X (i.e., the belief may have come from somewhere else). When I hear Smith asserting some belief about God, I ask him where that belief comes from. If he says the Bible, I ask him to show me. If he cannot, or if he says the belief came from somewhere else, or he says it's his own idea, then what "Smith believes" has not been shown to be what "Christianity teaches." The belief may be Smithian, but it is Christian only if Christianity teaches it, which is proven from sources that are universally recognized and affirmed across Christianity, among which the Bible is foundational.

If you want to ask Solarwave about his beliefs, make sure your question involves beliefs that Solarwave himself asserts. That means doing the intellectually honest work of finding out what his beliefs are, instead of imposing on him beliefs other people asserted. If you want to ask him about his Christian beliefs, it means doing the intellectually honest work of finding out if those beliefs are what Christianity actually teaches, instead of making naïve assumptions. Just because some people you talked to who professed to be Christians asserted a particular belief, that does not by itself mean the belief is Christian. A belief is Christian only when it is something Christianity teaches.

Good and evil don't actually exist in reality ... Where's the contradiction?

Nowhere. You avoided the contradiction by your horrifically indefensible delusion that normative ethics do not even exist.

Objectively speaking, they are neither moral nor immoral. From my perspective, subjectively speaking, they are only moral or immoral according to those who view them.

Can you explain to me how "subjectively speaking" can manage to say anything "objectively speaking"?

Morality ... only exists as an idea in the minds of people. What one person believes to be good is not the same as what another views it to be.

The second sentence does not evidentially support the first sentence; i.e., competing views about X do not prove that X has no objective reality. Trying to use an epistemological argument to reach an ontological conclusion is horribly flawed reasoning by several orders of magnitude. Moreover, pointing out that two people have competing views about X has no relevance to evaluating the truth value of either. Remember, "morality has no objective reality" is a conclusion to be proved, not assumed. Such a conclusion is true under your view but it is false under my view. So which view is true? Does assuming the truth of your view serve as a valid refutation of mine?

Generally speaking, mankind intuitively experiences and expresses an objectively real morality (e.g., we say things like "rape is wrong"). We have your view, which explains the existence of competing views but cannot explain objective morality and therefore denies it; and we have my view, which likewise explains the existence of competing views but also explains objective morality. Which one better accounts for the intuitive experiences and expressions of general mankind?

What is generally considered moral is due to what society on the whole tends to believe is.

So you would have to think that reformers such as William Wilberforce and Susan Anthony were immoral people because, for example, society on the whole upheld the slave trade and believed women were inferior, which were actually moral positions. If majority means right, then they were wrong. Nicely done.

They are absolutely meaningless statements, other than the fact that some person believes a thing is wrong or right.

In other words, you think rape is not wrong. And if most people disagree with you, then you think this position of yours is immoral.

[theVOID]

You don't believe morality or good and evil exist, but you take pride in labeling yourself a "good person".

I never said I took pride. And I don't believe they exist objectively. But I do - obviously - believe they exist subjectively.

You concede that your explanation of morality is meaningless (in reality, to other people, etc).

. No, not to other people. Our own opinions and views effect each other . I think I'm a good person, and so do others. Some people like me more than others. This is all a subjective matter.

You're "good" (by your own standards!) to impress yourself and that's noble?

When did I say this was about impressing myself? Yes by my own standards, and by the standards of those who also believe I am. Where is your evidence for objective morality? This is all a subjective matter as far as I'm concerned. Got any reason for me to believe it isn't?

This is self-absorption, self-righteous, self-centered...not good, noble, or worthy.

In your own subjective opinion. Subjective morality once again.

Now I'd just like to know where you think I gave a sense of self-absorption, self-righteousness and self-centredness in my post.

1. I didn't say I was proud. On the contrary I said I didn't need satisfaction in order to be good. I also said that I thought I was good, I don't claim to now that I am. That's humility not pride, I would think?

2. What do you mean by 'self absorption?' since morality is subjective in my view, because there's no evidence that it's objective - then how can I have or not have any moral beliefs other than in my own subjective way?

3. Self-righteousness? Well, as I said: I'm not claming to know what is or isn't moral or immoral here. On the contrary, I believe it is subjective. You on the other hand believe you know the objective morals, if one of is self-righteous then, it is you. For you are the one claiming to know something that you cannot, and that you have no evidence of whatsoever it seems, insofar as I can tell.

4. Self centreness? When did I speak of morality being about being self-centered? On the contrary, I think morality is about caring for others as well as yourself, and you don't need an imaginary guy in the sky in order to care. Show me otherwise.

5. I believe it is more noble to be good because you're good, and to care because you care, rather than simply being so because you're God made you that way. Because you can care on your own without needing to be protected by the magic guy in the sky.

And is it not a more ignoble reason to be good and to care, if you only do so because your God asks of it? And you can't be good, can't be moral, without him, perhaps?

You're insane.

That is your own subjective opinion. Along with all your morals - and everyone else's, myself included - which you have failed to evidence as being somehow objective as you claim them to be.

And I can't say I'm surprised that you bow down to me when you believe I'm insane. Because you worship God and he's an incredibly insane idea. But once a delusion is so popular, it's almost as if there's no stopping it - for some people... - eh?

EvF

You're really dedicated to repetition and hot air. Summary response:
Morality, really, is tied to a type (or types) of growth within humans (e.g. motivational; if I treat people morally I boost their spirits). There is a real way to encourage this growth, even though humans are complex (some confused) and a true way may seem difficult to imagine (with so many possible circumstances).

It's absurd to think that there isn't a real way to treat yourself and people - even if some people are different or even corrupted. To say morality is subjective is to say that it is meaningless. It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better (vanilla or chocolate). That doesn't make sense and it disallows you from calling the murderer wrong, but most importantly it disallows other people from telling you that you're wrong.

Morality IS subjective, this is evidenced entirely by the fact of slavery - something that was once considered morally acceptable (even in the Bible) is now considered extremely immoral, perhaps even evil. This demonstrates that our morals can, and have, changed over time, thus, not objective.

"It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better"

Oh... My... God...

Let me put this REALLY simple for you... so you can understand..

We, mankind, are social animals and as such we need each other to survive. It is obvious, and evident, that murder does not make for an efficient society, so in turn we (and all other social animals) evolved an innate sense of social efficiency to allow us to most effectively work together and thus, to survive.

Our evolved social morality is not however, absolute, and in order to protect ourselves from divergence in what is the moral standard accepted by consensus, we form Law and Order to protect the society and it's moral standards as a whole from the moral standards of the few, leading us to what is the pinnacle of society, democracy. If morals were absolute then no system of governance would ever be required as the innate morals we all posses would never conflict with an opposing moral standard (because no such standard would exist)

While we are on the subject of Morality and God, i would like to bring to everyone's attention the Piranha and the fact that they are morally superior to us... This most bloodthirsty, savage of creature has NEVER been seen to harm one of it's own kind, something that sadly cannot be said of our own species.

I am curious, Christians, as to how you reconcile the fact of the Piranha's moral superiority with the idea of Humans being created in God's image under his absolute moral standard?

[Violet]

Objective morality would mean that anarchy was morally viable... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Our reality is based greatly on location, which is our point of view. As such, reality is subjective: it is seen differently by everything that can 'see'. Morals are no different.

[ecolox]

Morality IS subjective, this is evidenced entirely by the fact of slavery - something that was once considered morally acceptable (even in the Bible) is now considered extremely immoral, perhaps even evil. This demonstrates that our morals can, and have, changed over time, thus, not objective.

Slavery still occurs commonly and is considered morally acceptable (wage laborers, prisoners, etc). Sure, racist, forced, inescapable slavery is widely considered wrong...but it always was by morally aware people. The practice of kidnapping people and putting them into slavery (southern slavery of blacks) is specifically objected to by the Bible (e.g. the story of Joseph, son of Jacob - he was forcefully sold into slavery by his brothers).

Change worthy of disproving objective morality not been shown. Perhaps you have described a shift in popular opinion, but using that to argue against objective morality would be a fallacy.

"It's as though to murder or not to murder is equivalent to deciding which flavor of ice cream is better"

Oh... My... God...

Let me put this REALLY simple for you... so you can understand..

Please do.

We, mankind, are social animals and as such we need each other to survive. It is obvious, and evident, that murder does not make for an efficient society, so in turn we (and all other social animals) evolved an innate sense of social efficiency to allow us to most effectively work together and thus, to survive.

It is obvious that murder does not make for an efficient society? There are many subscribers of evolution who believe that selective murder would make for more efficient society. They claim that some people should be sterilized (or that their babies be murdered/aborted) and others who are not productive to society should be eliminated (elderly, infirm, etc). It is obvious to them that you are wrong, so it seems you two are at a deadlock. You'll have to come up with a better argument I suppose.

Our evolved social morality is not however, absolute, and in order to protect ourselves from divergence in what is the moral standard accepted by consensus, we form Law and Order to protect the society and it's moral standards as a whole from the moral standards of the few, leading us to what is the pinnacle of society, democracy. If morals were absolute then no system of governance would ever be required as the innate morals we all posses would never conflict with an opposing moral standard (because no such standard would exist)

People like to bend/twist the rules for their own pleasure, so this argument falls on its face as well. You fail to account for selfishness - something contradictory to morality, which can, at times, be quite forceful and sly.

While we are on the subject of Morality and God, i would like to bring to everyone's attention the Piranha and the fact that they are morally superior to us... This most bloodthirsty, savage of creature has NEVER been seen to harm one of it's own kind, something that sadly cannot be said of our own species.

I am curious, Christians, as to how you reconcile the fact of the Piranha's moral superiority with the idea of Humans being created in God's image under his absolute moral standard?

Piranha's are morally neutral - amoral, not superior - due to a lack of conscious rationality - the ability to understand the difference between morality and immorality and choose. That's, at least, how I reconcile your claim.