Atheist arguments and the morality of God.

[Angrboda]

I wonder if I could use that in a court? "I had a good reason, your Honor. I can't tell you what it is, but it's a doozy."

[Mystic]

Because he is the necessary being that has all awesome qualities.

You can support a belief in god using reasonable data and science. However. Once you preach submission and mystic, you have made an unreasonable leap of faith.

That does not mean you can prove it without a doubt. You can't do that today. And those that need this kind of proof are unreasonable anyway. as unreasonable as bible thumpers.

Maybe I can support a god using reasonable data and science. But for sure most of humanity that has believed in God has not believed based upon that data or science.

If you believe belief in God for mystic reasons is unreasonable, then that's up to you. But you haven't proven it to me that it is. Claiming it is so is not proof either.

[Jacob(smooth)]

. The formulation of the very concept of God and related religious doctrines is done by theists. 

There is that atheist perspective again! This, I think is the nub of this whole debate. I think the sentence above is 100% True. But only because I'm an atheist. And from that point of view it makes perfect sense because the inference is man invented (formulsted) God.

As a Christian I would disagree with that. As a Christian I would say that God is the formulation of God. That he has a determinate reality and that our concept of God is simply what we observe of him. I might say things like that we know in part and we understand in part, or that we see through a glass darkly, or that the clay does not shape the Potter.

I might say that God requires our faith and that that means that he knows what he's doing. I might cite an example that a child being vaccinated does not understand that it's for his own good. Etc etc. You'd then get narky with me that a perfectly logical and sound argument (to you) was something I "didn't seem to understand".

Is this sounding familier?

What I'm trying to do here is give y'all an insight into a mindset. My theistic thought patterns are still fresh. I'm not attacking the core position, I'm Questioning whether this argument is going to get anyone there!

[MindForgedManacle]

There is that atheist perspective again! This, I think is the nub of this whole debate. I think the sentence above is 100% True. But only because I'm an atheist. And from that point of view it makes perfect sense because the inference is man invented (formulsted) God.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that theists are the ones whom tell us what God's attributes and such are. I'm not presupposing,atheism here. Even if theism were true it is still the case that theists present a definition of God which can then be evaluated for consistency with itself and other religious doctrines they hold.

As a Christian I would disagree with that. As a Christian I would say that God is the formulation of God. That he has a determinate reality and that our concept of God is simply what we observe of him. I might say things like that we know in part and we understand in part, or that we see through a glass darkly, or that the clay does not shape the Potter.

None of which contradicts what I said.

I might say that God requires our faith and that that means that he knows what he's doing. I might cite an example that a child being vaccinated does not understand that it's for his own good. Etc etc. You'd then get narky with me that a perfectly logical and sound argument (to you) was something I "didn't seem to understand".

These sorts of comparisons always fail outright. A theist comparing God to a parent is a false analogy. For one, the reason a human parent is limited by the intellectual capacity that the child has which the parent has no control over. Given his omnipotence, this is not something God could appeal to.
But worse, human parents CAN explain to their children why they must get a shot. I've a 4-year old brother who got one a couple of months back and he seemed to understand why he had to get it, even if he cried upon getting it.

And there is no such thing as an argument that is logically valid and sound only to one person. If the premises are in doubt, one must have sufficient reasons to rationally doubt them.

Is this sounding familier?

Yep. But familiarity is irrelevant.

What I'm trying to do here is give y'all an insight into a mindset. My theistic thought patterns are still fresh. I'm not attacking the core position, I'm Questioning whether this argument is going to get anyone there!

It's not like I've completely forgotten my mindset when I was a theist. :p But I repeat, are you really claiming that the problem of evil never got theists to doubt God?

[RobbyPants]

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed.

It's not the argument that's flawed but the brain of the person who can ignore their cognitive dissonance and make excuses for the psychopathic, egotistical meglomaniac they call god.

This x100. It's not like the "God is a meanie" arguments will disprove God, but it'd be nice if people were willing to actually try and figure out if his actions are moral instead of assuming they are, working backward from there, and explaining why killing thousands of children in certain circumstances is good.

Also, anecdotally, it worked for me. A lot of what got me able to let go of naked belief in God was me critically thinking about the actions of a supposedly all-loving god. The best I could come up with was "mysterious ways", "master plans we can't understand" and other hand-wavy dismissals that amount to "I don't know, it doesn't make sense, but I believe anyway".

[Chas]

Maybe I can support a god using reasonable data and science. But for sure most of humanity that has believed in God has not believed based upon that data or science.

If you believe belief in God for mystic reasons is unreasonable, then that's up to you. But you haven't proven it to me that it is. Claiming it is so is not proof either.

It is unreasonable by the very definition of reasonable. You did not reason your belief - you have belief without evidence.

If you make some assumptions and then reason from those, though the reasoning might be perfect, the conclusion is only as good as the assumptions. And you didn't reason those, did you.

[John V]

Somewhat semantic I think. Am I to assume you are appealing to some form of greater good?

No, I'm not. Who are we to know that a god must have certain goals and desires, and that the desire that its creation not suffer, must be the greatest of its goals and desires? That's certainly a possible god, but it's not logically necessary.

[coldwx]

Somewhat semantic I think. Am I to assume you are appealing to some form of greater good?

No, I'm not. Who are we to know that a god must have certain goals and desires, and that the desire that its creation not suffer, must be the greatest of its goals and desires? That's certainly a possible god, but it's not logically necessary.

The problem given was the morality of god, and this answer certainly does not convince me of that. "Who are we to know..." harkens back to answers such as "god works in mysterious ways" that are woefully insufficient. Perhaps you can elaborate? Are you saying god is not omnibenevolent or is not perfectly loving? If the desire or goal of god is not to spare the suffering of his creation, and human definitions of morality usually encompass this paradigm, how else are we to judge god's morality? God gives us the faculties to judge good and evil but does not abide by those himself, then how can we truly say what is right or what is wrong except by our own definition. This would then render our need for reliance on gods morality mute. It appears to me this is not different than "there must be a plan or greater good because we don't know gods reasons" , though I am definitely willing to try to understand the difference.

[John V]

The problem given was the morality of god, and this answer certainly does not convince me of that. "Who are we to know..." harkens back to answers such as "god works in mysterious ways" that are woefully insufficient. Perhaps you can elaborate? Are you saying god is not omnibenevolent or is not perfectly loving?

Of course god isn't omnibenevolent.

If the desire or goal of god is not to spare the suffering of his creation,

He didn't spare his own beloved son from suffering, or his chosen apostles, so it seems apparent that sparing suffering isn't his highest desire.

and human definitions of morality usually encompass this paradigm,

I disagree. Suffering could be reduced greatly by human effort. Most people, as judged by their actions, find their own desires to be much more important than other people's suffering. Most people just pay lip service to suffering, and give just enough to assuage their guilt.

how else are we to judge god's morality?

Correctly assessing our own morality would be a start.

[coldwx]

The problem given was the morality of god, and this answer certainly does not convince me of that. "Who are we to know..." harkens back to answers such as "god works in mysterious ways" that are woefully insufficient. Perhaps you can elaborate? Are you saying god is not omnibenevolent or is not perfectly loving?

Of course god isn't omnibenevolent.

If the desire or goal of god is not to spare the suffering of his creation,

He didn't spare his own beloved son from suffering, or his chosen apostles, so it seems apparent that sparing suffering isn't his highest desire.

and human definitions of morality usually encompass this paradigm,

I disagree. Suffering could be reduced greatly by human effort. Most people, as judged by their actions, find their own desires to be much more important than other people's suffering. Most people just pay lip service to suffering, and give just enough to assuage their guilt.

how else are we to judge god's morality?

Correctly assessing our own morality would be a start.

1. So you are saying there does not exist a all-good, all-loving god? The one christians believe in is just a sadist then. Awesome, we agree and I guess no more conversation on this OP is needed. No reason to look to him for objective morality then.