Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

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).

This has gotten a bit long and complicated, so I'd like to ask for some clarification. SteveII, are you saying that god is an objective moral standard? If so, do you mean that everything he does is good and everything he doesn't do is not good? Or is it everything he says to do is good and everything he says not to do is bad. Basically, how do we know what is good and what is bad in your opinion? I'd like to join in the discussion but I'm getting a little lost in the long posts lol!

For ease of reference, I will number my points:

1. God's moral nature (characteristics) is an objective moral standard because it always existed, is unchanging, and each attribute is perfect. In other words, there could be no loving nature greater than God's, no merciful nature greater than God's, no greater justice than God's, etc. 
2. God cannot make decisions or command anything contrary to his nature, so all of God's decisions and commands are moral.  
3. God's commands are the source of our moral values and duties (two different things). 

Notice the moral hierarchy: God's Nature --> God's Commands --> Our values and duties. This is an important distinction that most people are just skipping over.

[TheBeardedDude]

This has gotten a bit long and complicated, so I'd like to ask for some clarification. SteveII, are you saying that god is an objective moral standard? If so, do you mean that everything he does is good and everything he doesn't do is not good? Or is it everything he says to do is good and everything he says not to do is bad. Basically, how do we know what is good and what is bad in your opinion? I'd like to join in the discussion but I'm getting a little lost in the long posts lol!

For ease of reference, I will number my points:

1. God's moral nature (characteristics) is an objective moral standard because it always existed, is unchanging, and each attribute is perfect. In other words, there could be no loving nature greater than God's, no merciful nature greater than God's, no greater justice than God's, etc. 
2. God cannot make decisions or command anything contrary to his nature, so all of God's decisions and commands are moral.  
3. God's commands are the source of our moral values and duties (two different things). 

Notice the moral hierarchy: God's Nature --> God's Commands --> Our values and duties. This is an important distinction that most people are just skipping over.

In other posts you've explicitly said that objective morality preceded your god and that your god can't make objective morals. So from where do these supposedly objective morals come from? If there is something god can't do or doesn't know how to do, then it isn't omnipotent or omniscient. This means that gods abilities are limited. It also means that if objective morality existed before and/or independent of your god, then it would even be suspect as to whether or not your god is eternal. As it suggests that something else existed prior to your god.

[Inkfeather132]

This has gotten a bit long and complicated, so I'd like to ask for some clarification. SteveII, are you saying that god is an objective moral standard? If so, do you mean that everything he does is good and everything he doesn't do is not good? Or is it everything he says to do is good and everything he says not to do is bad. Basically, how do we know what is good and what is bad in your opinion? I'd like to join in the discussion but I'm getting a little lost in the long posts lol!

For ease of reference, I will number my points:

1. God's moral nature (characteristics) is an objective moral standard because it always existed, is unchanging, and each attribute is perfect. In other words, there could be no loving nature greater than God's, no merciful nature greater than God's, no greater justice than God's, etc. 
2. God cannot make decisions or command anything contrary to his nature, so all of God's decisions and commands are moral.  
3. God's commands are the source of our moral values and duties (two different things). 

Notice the moral hierarchy: God's Nature --> God's Commands --> Our values and duties. This is an important distinction that most people are just skipping over.

Ok. What I'm understanding here is that his commands to us are constrained by his nature. So god won't tell us to do anything he wouldn't do himself? And he would not forbid us from doing something that he does?

[Amarok]

If morals proceed god and can't create them then he does not understand them completely.  By what means does he judge them moral . For all he's knows there not moral at all and he's not understanding  them. Who still have not escaped the dilemma you just keep trying to wiggle  around it.

---

None of the 3 things listed escape the dilemma. There just more of the same assertions . Arbitrary definitions  . Arbitrary attributes . It's at least been 10 pages and nothing but the same .

[SteveII]

1. I don't know what your point is.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. It seems you are. 

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

4. Got it. 

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

1. I don't know what your point is.

Thought it was pretty clear. You've not demonstrated that the existence of a god requires morals to be objective.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. 

So your god is not all-powerful or all-knowing? Those are claims made of your god, whether or not you specifically said them here or not is irrelevant.

It seems you are. 

Insults all you have?

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

I did and cited what you said and when. You should read your own posts it seems. In separate sentences and points, you've contradicted yourself. I suspect it is because you don't know how to properly use terms like "infinite." In fact...

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

This cements the fact that you don't know what the word "infinite" means. If you mean to say your god has always existed, the word you're looking for is "eternal."

If you would spend more time on reading comprehension and articulating your point instead of congratulating yourself on how smart you and your pals are, this would be a lot shorter.

1. Still confusing. The existence of God creates a set of objective moral standards. It does not require morals to be objective. There are many other moral systems . I'm sure the cannibals in Africa had some sort of moral code. Khemikal thinks harm is a good system. However, anything short of what I described is not objective. 

2. Omnipotent? Yes. However, that word does not mean can do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings
Omniscient? Yes. God knows everything that can logically be known (including counterfactuals). 

3. You misunderstood. 

5. That is a better word. I will use 'eternal' in the future.

---

For ease of reference, I will number my points:

1. God's moral nature (characteristics) is an objective moral standard because it always existed, is unchanging, and each attribute is perfect. In other words, there could be no loving nature greater than God's, no merciful nature greater than God's, no greater justice than God's, etc. 
2. God cannot make decisions or command anything contrary to his nature, so all of God's decisions and commands are moral.  
3. God's commands are the source of our moral values and duties (two different things). 

Notice the moral hierarchy: God's Nature --> God's Commands --> Our values and duties. This is an important distinction that most people are just skipping over.

Ok. What I'm understanding here is that his commands to us are constrained by his nature. So god won't tell us to do anything he wouldn't do himself? [1] And he would not forbid us from doing something that he does? [2]

1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

---

If morals proceed god and can't create them then he does not understand them completely.  By what means does he judge them moral . For all he's knows there not moral at all and he's not understanding  them. Who still have not escaped the dilemma you just keep trying to wiggle  around it.

---

None of the 3 things listed escape the dilemma. There just more of the same assertions . Arbitrary definitions  . Arbitrary attributes . It's at least been 10 pages and nothing but the same .

I'm going with an omniscient God understands his nature. Then the rest of your post does not apply.

[The Grand Nudger]

For ease of reference, I will number my points:

1. God's moral nature (characteristics) is an objective moral standard because it always existed, is unchanging, and each attribute is perfect. 

None of which matters, not it's having always existed, not it's being unchanging, and not it's perfection.....unless they are -moral- characteristics in the first place. Even then, it simply shows us that god's nature would conform to whatever standard of goodness to which you were referring. Gee, I wonder, what might that standard be.....lol.

In other words, there could be no loving nature greater than God's, no merciful nature greater than God's, no greater justice than God's, etc. 

Why is love good?  Why is mercy good?  Why is justice good?

2. God cannot make decisions or command anything contrary to his nature, so all of God's decisions and commands are moral.  

No, that simply makes gods commands happily correlated with whatever "the good" is, god himself, described thusly..is not a moral agent. It has no moral ability whatsoever, it simply is what it is and cannot be otherwise. The tree that gives us shade. Except, ofc, when they aren't good...and I know, I know, you'll trip over your own dick from now to the end of days to argue that they were, in the end, part of "a greater good"...but the simple fact that an argument is required shows that no, gods commands, in and of themselves...are -not- always moral. With this tiny bit of nonsense..you've removed both gods moral agency and gods moral competency. Good job.

3. God's commands are the source of our moral values and duties (two different things). 

Hit the breaks, lol.  You're mixing up divine command with objective moral foundations?  Do we have a moral duty to do what god asks, when what god asks is evil?  Say, the rape and pillage of a town - and the snatching up of little girls for sex trafficking?  How about genocide?  

Notice the moral hierarchy: God's Nature --> God's Commands --> Our values and duties. This is an important distinction that most people are just skipping over.

I see no importance at all.  Gods nature doesn't seem to be the starting point of the heirarchy even as -you- describe it, you simply refuse to discuss whatever you've used to make such a determination.  

Gods commands are morally...spotty, shall we say..at least according to magic book (feel free to correct the hate-ball at any time?).

Lastly, -my- objective moral values and duties have absolutely nothing to do with your god. Mine have to do with whatever objective standard is used to claim love, mercy, and justice -as- moral facts of a matter.

The silly shit you describe and call a god is a stranger to each and every one, in any case, and so will forever remain a stranger to me. This capricious and arbitrary thing that you've decided to worship fails to explain morality at the outset, and does nothing to establish an objective framework -for- morality even if we assumed it that it existed. Is this thread about ghosts, or objective morality?

[TheBeardedDude]

1. I don't know what your point is.

Thought it was pretty clear. You've not demonstrated that the existence of a god requires morals to be objective.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. 

So your god is not all-powerful or all-knowing? Those are claims made of your god, whether or not you specifically said them here or not is irrelevant.

It seems you are. 

Insults all you have?

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

I did and cited what you said and when. You should read your own posts it seems. In separate sentences and points, you've contradicted yourself. I suspect it is because you don't know how to properly use terms like "infinite." In fact...

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

This cements the fact that you don't know what the word "infinite" means. If you mean to say your god has always existed, the word you're looking for is "eternal."

If you would spend more time on reading comprehension and articulating your point instead of congratulating yourself on how smart you and your pals are, this would be a lot shorter.

1. Still confusing. The existence of God creates a set of objective moral standards. It does not require morals to be objective. There are many other moral systems . I'm sure the cannibals in Africa had some sort of moral code. Khemikal thinks harm is a good system. However, anything short of what I described is not objective. 

2. Omnipotent? Yes. However, that word does not mean can do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings
Omniscient? Yes. God knows everything that can logically be known (including counterfactuals). 

3. You misunderstood. 

5. That is a better word. I will use 'eternal' in the future.

---

Ok. What I'm understanding here is that his commands to us are constrained by his nature. So god won't tell us to do anything he wouldn't do himself? [1] And he would not forbid us from doing something that he does? [2]

1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

---

If morals proceed god and can't create them then he does not understand them completely.  By what means does he judge them moral . For all he's knows there not moral at all and he's not understanding  them. Who still have not escaped the dilemma you just keep trying to wiggle  around it.

---

None of the 3 things listed escape the dilemma. There just more of the same assertions . Arbitrary definitions  . Arbitrary attributes . It's at least been 10 pages and nothing but the same .

I'm going with an omniscient God understands his nature. Then the rest of your post does not apply.

I'm tired of you being an insulting dickhead. Fuck off with your self-righteous pseudointellectual bullshit


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[Amarok]

1.Having a nature does not define the nature as good . Let alone defining it as the greatest good

2. Always having said nature does not resolve the original issue

3. Being restrained by said nature does not resolve the issue

4. Good as jorm pointed good is not a nature it's actions.

5. All the characteristics you attach to your god are arbitrary as duck .And can be subdivide into arbitrary categories.

---

1.Having a nature does not define the nature as good . Let alone defining it as the greatest good

2. Always having said nature does not resolve the original issue

3. Being restrained by said nature does not resolve the issue

4. Good as jorm pointed good is not a nature it's actions.

5. All the characteristics you attach to your god are arbitrary as duck .And can be subdivide into arbitrary categories.

Lastly I don't care what god your going with it does not change the  outcome  as was already pointed out .So my point is still relevant

[Inkfeather132]

Ok. What I'm understanding here is that his commands to us are constrained by his nature. So god won't tell us to do anything he wouldn't do himself? [1] And he would not forbid us from doing something that he does? [2]

1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

[Astonished]

If you would spend more time on reading comprehension and articulating your point instead of congratulating yourself on how smart you and your pals are, this would be a lot shorter.

1. Still confusing. The existence of God creates a set of objective moral standards. It does not require morals to be objective. There are many other moral systems . I'm sure the cannibals in Africa had some sort of moral code. Khemikal thinks harm is a good system. However, anything short of what I described is not objective. 

2. Omnipotent? Yes. However, that word does not mean can do anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings
Omniscient? Yes. God knows everything that can logically be known (including counterfactuals). 

3. You misunderstood. 

5. That is a better word. I will use 'eternal' in the future.

---

1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

---

I'm going with an omniscient God understands his nature. Then the rest of your post does not apply.

I'm tired of you being an insulting dickhead. Fuck off with your self-righteous pseudointellectual bullshit


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

*Applauds* Finally, someone realizes it's fruitless to argue with that dipfuck. When a person clearly does not understand their own intellectual failings, trying to educate them is hopeless.

Not going to specifically respond to any of what was going on the last handful of pages, but here's some shit I just feel like ranting about:

Free will does not exist. Free will requires the consent of those being granted free will and none were consulted about whether they wanted to exist to participate in this experiment or not. Informed consent also factors in, namely that we would have to all have perfect, unquestionable understanding of every facet of existence, including our creator and afterlife, and we have none of that, ergo if there are eternal consequences of a positive or negative nature, our ignorance of that inhibits our ability to make an informed choice about anything. Not to mention knowing that there IS a carrot-and-stick coercion is a direct violation of free will. Leaving us to figure out 'right' and 'wrong' on our own without regard to any external consequences would be the only true test of free will. So anyone using free will as an excuse for anything can shove it so far up their ass it could be used as a baby Xenomorph.

The only way in which an agent could be objective is if their actions never differed regardless of circumstance, and the identity of the agent committing one action or another was irrelevant. Because god says one thing and does another, that is clearly not objective (and flatly hypocritical). Fairness is also an issue that I personally find damning about the whole thing, as no god of any loving capacity would play favorites or even be capable of doing such, and yet that's practically all we see in that ham-handed stone-age tabloid. Also making love entirely conditional, what the fuck does that say about the nature of this insecure demon? Make the right capitulations or you don't get love or mercy...this is proof fucking positive that the heavily religious have no idea what the fuck love is, let alone morals. Fuck right off with that shit.

I would think that settles the damn matter but I'd bet dollars to donuts some asshole is going to ignore it or play some mental gymnastic game to make it sound like something they can actually argue.