God's Love

[brewer]

God is within us all so when I love myself that is God loving me.

God is within the universe so the universe being happy is just part of God being happy.

God is everywhere.

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

Wut?

[LadyForCamus]

This should be fun. Two theists arguing over who has the most god inside of them.

[Abaddon_ire]

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

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

Well, now we know you are not a deist.

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

---

God is within us all so when I love myself that is God loving me.

God is within the universe so the universe being happy is just part of God being happy.

God is everywhere.

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

Wut?

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

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

---

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

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

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

Your problem is that you can't and you project that disability of yours  onto everyone else.

[The Grand Nudger]

So can the people who make the claim, and they know that. That's the worst part, aside from it being a variant on calling people sub humans for not believing in their stupid fucking gods.

You know, little shit like that. Seems to me that the implication works a whole lot better the other way, and that claim is a demonstration of that point. Any person who makes it has lost a huge chunk of their credibility as a moral agent, or even a sensible one.

[Abaddon_ire]

So can the people who make the claim, and they know that.  That's the worst part, aside from it being a variant on calling people sub humans for not believing in their stupid fucking gods.  

You know, little shit like that.  Seems to me that the implication works a whole lot better the other way, and that claim is a demonstration of that point.  Any person who makes it has lost a huge chunk of their credibility as a moral agent, or even a sensible one.

Oh yes. 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. It is far more descriptive of themselves than they have worked out.

[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.

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

Yep. I am quite willing to debate objective morality with an honest operator. That is not our OP by any measure. We already know he lied about being a deist.

ETA: Although perhaps he actually does not know what a deist really is.

[The Grand Nudger]

I figure he's just mistaken. He can be mistaken about what term best describes his beliefs in a way that he can't be mistaken about an internal experience common to humanity...unless he simply does not possess such an experience, ofc.

There's a word for that, and it isn't "utilitarian".

[Abaddon_ire]

I figure he's just mistaken.  He can be mistaken about what term best describes his beliefs in a way that he can't be mistaken about an internal experience common to humanity...unless he simply does not possess such an experience, ofc.

There's a word for that, and it isn't "utilitarian".

Could be, but he is absolutly not a deist. Unless he is using some quixotic personal definition that nobody knows but him. He could be a pantheist, panenthiest, but he likely doesn't know what those are either.

Were I pressed to guess, I would suggest a theist that eschews the "normal" churches (if one can call them normal), an uncoventional theist, if you will.

However, there is no way to tell because he ain't saying anything much.

All we do know is that he claims to be a deist, yet his god also informs morality. These are incompatible claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

He's already touched on this, as well. He doesn't realize that such a state of affairs would be intervention in the sense meaningful to deism and theism.

If I had to guess, he thinks that when people use those terms to communicate the difference between different types of gods, it means something like finding our lost car keys for us. If I wanted to get really specific, and especially given his comments on what must be good and why, he's not just any theist, he's a maltheist. He believes in a god that any competent moral agent would recognize as evil.

Harm amuses his god, and it's in this sense and this sense only that he then decides to call any existent harm "good".