An interesting meta-ethical question brought up in a class I'm taking...

[rumborak]

 Yeah, that.

[ehra]

"What gives God the right" to what, exactly? Come up with a set of rules he thinks people should follow? Like I said before, you could say the exact same thing about any society. Why is it suddenly so offensive if God does what everyone else does themselves?

[Scheavo]

So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics.

Lol, I think Philosophy 101 must be the same across the entire country.

-J

Well, an open forum for discussion is sort of what philosophy is, at least it's what all philosophers engage in.

As for the topic, I think it's an interesting question, but in the end I think it's a result of a bad explanation of creation. Assuming god exists, why would he create the Universe? I don't know if the bible actually addresses this, but I've never heard anyone ever mention a reason. Maybe it was an accident, maybe he's twisted and just wants to mess around with people, or maybe something else entirely. Since there isn't a full explanatino for these kinds of questions, it leaves open the question of what right God has to create life, to make morals, etc.

[El JoNNo]

"What gives God the right" to what, exactly? Come up with a set of rules he thinks people should follow? Like I said before, you could say the exact same thing about any society. Why is it suddenly so offensive if God does what everyone else does themselves?

Well when it comes to society that for the most part is a democratic process and punishment is dished out by a jury of our peers. Another point would be, no matter how bad a punishment may be it will never be as bad as the one the Abrahamic religion's god wills upon others. He is a dictator that rules with an iron fist. No appeals, no leniency and one punishment for all. Eternal unending torture. If you are a murderer, rapist, thief or even a follower of another religion it all leads to one place; hell.   

No one does themselves what this god does. No one.

[ehra]

Our particular society follows the democratic process because someone came up with that idea and other people decided to go with it. The rules made through that democratic process are then enforced through punishment by breaking them.

Ignoring arguments over whether Hell exists or not (probably not), God doesn't "will" anyone to it. If you decide to go with the set of rules he's put out then he lets you into his club, if you don't then he doesn't let you into his club and what happens will happen.

It's the same thing, you're just complaining that the potential/theoretical punishment/consequence of your actions is worse.

[El Barto]

"What gives God the right" to what, exactly? Come up with a set of rules he thinks people should follow? Like I said before, you could say the exact same thing about any society. Why is it suddenly so offensive if God does what everyone else does themselves?

Well when it comes to society that for the most part is a democratic process and punishment is dished out by a jury of our peers. Another point would be, no matter how bad a punishment may be it will never be as bad as the one the Abrahamic religion's god wills upon others. He is a dictator that rules with an iron fist. No appeals, no leniency and one punishment for all. Eternal unending torture. If you are a murderer, rapist, thief or even a follower of another religion it all leads to one place; hell.   

No one does themselves what this god does. No one.

I'd take it beyond that.  He created all of life,  presumably as some sort of weird hobby, like an antfarm or something.  70 billion people who were created merely to boost God's ego?  Some live.  Some get drowned.  Some spend their short lives in wretched poverty.  Some are born into opulence.  Some will have the Earth swallow them up.  Many will spend eternity in hell.  Much of this happens due to inaction on God's part, though he apparently intervenes in all sorts of other stuff.

If we treated dogs the way God has treated his flock, we'd be no better than this guy. 

[El JoNNo]

Our particular society follows the democratic process because someone came up with that idea and other people decided to go with it. The rules made through that democratic process are then enforced through punishment by breaking them.

Ignoring arguments over whether Hell exists or not (probably not), God doesn't "will" anyone to it. If you decide to go with the set of rules he's put out then he lets you into his club, if you don't then he doesn't let you into his club and what happens will happen.

It's the same thing, you're just complaining that the potential/theoretical punishment is worse.

Oh yes lets just throw out the incriminating vital parts not in favour of this god. It's not the same thing, our laws can change ,we make them. We try to at least have variation of punishment from crime to crime not all are considered one and the same. Not all crimes are infinite in our eyes. We do not and cannot punish the dead for eternity.  We also do not make up (for some) intellectually impossible scenarios to follow and then punish people for not following them. Our laws are based on not bringing about harm to others. Simply not believing this god exists is a one way trip to a camp fire.

God most certainly does force his will onto people, compulsory love or burn! That is not forcing?  

"What gives God the right" to what, exactly? Come up with a set of rules he thinks people should follow? Like I said before, you could say the exact same thing about any society. Why is it suddenly so offensive if God does what everyone else does themselves?

Well when it comes to society that for the most part is a democratic process and punishment is dished out by a jury of our peers. Another point would be, no matter how bad a punishment may be it will never be as bad as the one the Abrahamic religion's god wills upon others. He is a dictator that rules with an iron fist. No appeals, no leniency and one punishment for all. Eternal unending torture. If you are a murderer, rapist, thief or even a follower of another religion it all leads to one place; hell.   

No one does themselves what this god does. No one.

I'd take it beyond that.  He created all of life,  presumably as some sort of weird hobby, like an antfarm or something.  70 billion people who were created merely to boost God's ego?  Some live.  Some get drowned.  Some spend their short lives in wretched poverty.  Some are born into opulence.  Some will have the Earth swallow them up.  Many will spend eternity in hell.  Much of this happens due to inaction on God's part, though he apparently intervenes in all sorts of other stuff.

If we treated dogs the way God has treated his flock, we'd be no better than this guy. 

Well put.

Even further beyond that. When god does take action it is mostly to harm his ants and he does the drowning himself. 

[ehra]

"What gives God the right" to what, exactly? Come up with a set of rules he thinks people should follow? Like I said before, you could say the exact same thing about any society. Why is it suddenly so offensive if God does what everyone else does themselves?

Well when it comes to society that for the most part is a democratic process and punishment is dished out by a jury of our peers. Another point would be, no matter how bad a punishment may be it will never be as bad as the one the Abrahamic religion's god wills upon others. He is a dictator that rules with an iron fist. No appeals, no leniency and one punishment for all. Eternal unending torture. If you are a murderer, rapist, thief or even a follower of another religion it all leads to one place; hell.   

No one does themselves what this god does. No one.

I'd take it beyond that.  He created all of life,  presumably as some sort of weird hobby, like an antfarm or something.  70 billion people who were created merely to boost God's ego?  Some live.  Some get drowned.  Some spend their short lives in wretched poverty.  Some are born into opulence.  Some will have the Earth swallow them up.  Many will spend eternity in hell.  Much of this happens due to inaction on God's part, though he apparently intervenes in all sorts of other stuff.

If we treated dogs the way God has treated his flock, we'd be no better than this guy. 

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  


Given enough time, again, similar things could be said about people. We're already working on growing people new limbs and fuck me if creating intelligent life doesn't eventually become an achievable goal. The funny part is that I can imagine it being largely religious people that would have an issue with that happening.

[ehra]

Oh yes lets just throw out the incriminating vital parts not in favour of this god.

I haven't read up on it in awhile, but I'm pretty sure the "hell" refered to in the bible was a dump. Not that I expect you care giving your condensing as fuck tone.

It's not the same thing, our laws can change ,we make them.

So? God could potentially change his mind if he wanted to, but then you'd complain about that too. What does that have to do with anything?

We try to at least have variation of punishment from crime to crime not all are considered one and the same. Not all crimes are infinite in our eyes. We do not and cannot punish the dead for eternity.  We also do not make up (for some) intellectually impossible scenarios to follow and then punish people for not following them. Our laws are based on not bringing about harm to others. Simply not believing this god exists is a one way trip to a camp fire.

Again, what does this have to do with what I'm saying; that they're just a set of rules that someone (God) came up with and people deciding to follow them? They're the same thing, you're complaining that his rules aren't the same and don't work the same as someone else's. I really don't see what what you're talking about has to do with this topic.

God most certainly does force his will onto people, compulsory love or burn! That is not forcing?  

Read my post you just replied to.

[El Barto]

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  

Who said anything about letting them do whateves they want?  This is my way or the highway. 

[ehra]

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  

Who said anything about letting them do whateves they want?  This is my way or the highway. 

Why is it ok for people to have that view but not God?

Someone doesn't follow a society's set of rules and they're either shunned or punished: Accepted, normal behavior.

God lets people who follows his rules into heaven, the rest go to wherever: Where the fuck does he get off?

[El JoNNo]

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  

No, he does not allow us to do whatever. Remember that hell thing? Love or eternal torture.

Given enough time, again, similar things could be said about people. We're already working on growing people new limbs and fuck me if creating intelligent life doesn't eventually become an achievable goal. The funny part is that I can imagine it being largely religious people that would have an issue with that happening.

It would be ironic wouldn't it. If we humans created A.I. and made it do our bidding, made it love us, made it perform sacrifices, made it choose who it should love among it's own kind, made half it's population to be deemed inferior. Created it with a defect and commanded it to overcome it or else it would face our wrath. Imagine that.... hmm we would be big jerks now wouldn't we.

I haven't read up on it in awhile, but I'm pretty sure the "hell" refered to in the bible was a dump. Not that I expect you care giving your condensing as fuck tone.

I'm aware of that. It is also a place of eternal torture. As for my tone, you are trying to argue that a being that tortures people forever is at all good.

So? God could potentially change his mind if he wanted to, but then you'd complain about that too. What does that have to do with anything?

The bible says he is unchanging. Plus right now he still has that hell thing going on. So at this point it doesn't really matter he still plans on torturing people forever.

Again, what does this have to do with what I'm saying; that they're just a set of rules that someone (God) came up with and people deciding to follow them? They're the same thing, you're complaining that his rules aren't the same and don't work the same as someone else's. I really don't see what what you're talking about has to do with this topic.

Well he treats finite crime with infinite torture, creates you sick and commands you to be well and orders you to love him. Our laws are based on our own well being. Not really sure what you don't understand. Ours are democrats his are autocratic. You really don't see the distinction?

Read my post you just replied to.

Read it once, you're wrong he does.

[El JoNNo]

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  

Who said anything about letting them do whateves they want?  This is my way or the highway. 

Why is it ok for people to have that view but not God?

Someone doesn't follow a society's set of rules and they're either shunned or punished: Accepted, normal behavior.

God lets people who follows his rules into heaven, the rest go to wherever: Where the fuck does he get off?

The rest go to hell.

[j]

So, over the summer, I'm taking a philosophy 101 class. My teacher isn't really a teacher, per se, and believes that philosophy should not be taught, rather a classroom should be an open forum with certain discussion topics.

Lol, I think Philosophy 101 must be the same across the entire country.

-J

Well, an open forum for discussion is sort of what philosophy is, at least it's what all philosophers engage in.

Yeah I know, it just seems so flaky and "typical" of the field (philosophy + higher education), almost like a parody of itself at this point.

With regard to the discussion at hand, I'm not sure why we're making so many assumptions about God, such as his criteria for damnation/salvation and what they entail, his motivations for creating humans, his level of responsibility for whatever, his degree of power/omniscience, etc.  And if given the latter, like Ehra pointed out, I'm not sure why we're assuming that we should be capable of understanding the endgame--or any aspect of the mind--of an omniscient being with infinite wisdom and understanding.

It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God: any reasonable person knows it could go either way.  It's just childish to define a specific "version" of God and then angrily and vehemently reject it based on what you (not directed at anyone particularly), a feeble ignorant human, think is unjust, stupid, or pointless.  Or what you think he should or shouldn't have the "right" to do.  Just as childish as a religious fundamentalist zealot spewing nonsense rhetoric.

And if you take away those assumptions about God's "laws" and his punishment and supposed idea of justice, it's hard to make a case against what Ehra's been saying.  Perceived "arbitrariness" of something doesn't necessarily mean it is so, and doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing to be gained from it.

-J

[ehra]

So giving everything life and letting them do whateves is the equivalent of putting a bunch of starved dogs into a ring and making them kill each other? Nice argument you've got there.  

Who said anything about letting them do whateves they want?  This is my way or the highway.  

Why is it ok for people to have that view but not God?

Someone doesn't follow a society's set of rules and they're either shunned or punished: Accepted, normal behavior.

God lets people who follows his rules into heaven, the rest go to wherever: Where the fuck does he get off?

The rest go to hell.

What does the severity of the" punishment" have to do with what I'm talking about?

-------------------

I'm aware of that. It is also a place of eternal torture. As for my tone, you are trying to argue that a being that tortures people forever is at all good.

Ignoring your misrepresentation of him, that may be my personal opinion but it wasn't what I was "arguing" in this thread.

For fuck's sake, read the first post in this thread then read my post replying to it. Then read my reply to the "what gives him the right" question. None of what I'm talking about even has anything to do with whether his rules are even "right" or "wrong."

[El JoNNo]

With regard to the discussion at hand, I'm not sure why we're making so many assumptions about God, such as his criteria for damnation/salvation and what they entail, his motivations for creating humans, his level of responsibility for whatever, his degree of power/omniscience, etc.  And if given the latter, like Ehra pointed out, I'm not sure why we're assuming that we should be capable of understanding the endgame--or any aspect of the mind--of an omniscient being with infinite wisdom and understanding.

The bible makes the assumptions, not I. I don't think anyone arguing against "God's law" has made any assumptions on death. Merely responses to claims made by the bible and Christians.

It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God: any reasonable person knows it could go either way.  It's just childish to define a specific "version" of God and then angrily and vehemently reject it based on what you (not directed at anyone particularly), a feeble ignorant human, think is unjust, stupid, or pointless.  Or what you think he should or shouldn't have the "right" to do.  Just as childish as a religious fundamentalist zealot spewing nonsense rhetoric.

Rejecting it is not childish. Not believing in a god concept that is convoluted and one which many of it's claims have either not been proven or are proven false is just that not believing. Arguing over what we should and shouldn't have the right to do is what drive change and helps better ourselves. Sorry you are sounding like a hippy at this point. Sorry if that is insulting.  

And if you take away those assumptions about God's "laws" and his punishment and supposed idea of justice, it's hard to make a case against what Ehra's been saying.  Perceived "arbitrariness" of something doesn't necessarily mean it is so, and doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing to be gained from it.

This says nothing. Of course if take away the main points against someone it is hard to prove them wrong.

[El JoNNo]

I'm going to bed...

[Ħ]

J is correct.

[ehra]

The bible makes the assumptions, not I.

This discussion isn't supposed to be about any specific religion. As far as I understood, it's a discussion about a theoretical logical issue regarding any generic omniscient deity and morality/laws. We may as well be talking about Ilúvatar for all the difference it makes to the discussion.

[73109]

What in the bloody blue fuck happened to my thread?

[Adami]

What in the bloody blue fuck happened to my thread?

Something happened? Are you saying that whatever happened wasn't supposed to happen? Are you saying that you had a specific plan in mind when you made this thread? Are you saying we should have stuck to that original plan? Are you saying it was a rule?



What in gods name gives you the right to make those decisions??!??!?!

[73109]

You know Adami, I like you.

[73109]

You know Godwin's Law right?

I am going to come up with my own.

Gruber's Law. The farther along a discussion goes in the P/R section of DTF, the closer the odds are to 100% that the discussion will morph into the standard God/No God argument.

[ehra]

Not on topic, but I'd like to add another one that's getting really annoying, you can name it whatever:

The further along a discussion about Obama goes on in the P/R section of DTF, the closer the odds are to 100% that someone arguing against him will be accused of racism.

[73109]

How dare you be so blatently racist! Pshh!

[Scheavo]

What in the bloody blue fuck happened to my thread?

Something happened? Are you saying that whatever happened wasn't supposed to happen? Are you saying that you had a specific plan in mind when you made this thread? Are you saying we should have stuck to that original plan? Are you saying it was a rule?



What in gods name gives you the right to make those decisions??!??!?!

This is perhaps the most brilliant thing I've seen posted on this forum.

[j]

With regard to the discussion at hand, I'm not sure why we're making so many assumptions about God, such as his criteria for damnation/salvation and what they entail, his motivations for creating humans, his level of responsibility for whatever, his degree of power/omniscience, etc.  And if given the latter, like Ehra pointed out, I'm not sure why we're assuming that we should be capable of understanding the endgame--or any aspect of the mind--of an omniscient being with infinite wisdom and understanding.

The bible makes the assumptions, not I. I don't think anyone arguing against "God's law" has made any assumptions on death. Merely responses to claims made by the bible and Christians.

Where and why did the bible and Christianity even come into play in this discussion?  Assumptions.

It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God: any reasonable person knows it could go either way.  It's just childish to define a specific "version" of God and then angrily and vehemently reject it based on what you (not directed at anyone particularly), a feeble ignorant human, think is unjust, stupid, or pointless.  Or what you think he should or shouldn't have the "right" to do.  Just as childish as a religious fundamentalist zealot spewing nonsense rhetoric.

Rejecting it is not childish. Not believing in a god concept that is convoluted and one which many of it's claims have either not been proven or are proven false is just that not believing. Arguing over what we should and shouldn't have the right to do is what drive change and helps better ourselves. Sorry you are sounding like a hippy at this point. Sorry if that is insulting.  

  Hippy, that's a new one!  For me, at least.

The Christian God, which apparently we started to discuss at some point to the exclusion of other ideas of God, is said to be omniscient.  You're arguing against all of these other commands and laws of God on the basis that they are unethical or whatever, but you're ignoring God's supposed omniscience in this scenario, which creates the possibility that it is all just beyond your understanding.  Sounds like a cop-out (and it is one, in a lot of contexts), but it's a part of the picture.  And given that assumption, it's childish and presumptuous to think that your understanding and concepts of justice, good, and evil are the same as those of an infinitely wise being.  Like I said, it's the same as religious zealots claiming their views to be absolute truth.

And if you take away those assumptions about God's "laws" and his punishment and supposed idea of justice, it's hard to make a case against what Ehra's been saying.  Perceived "arbitrariness" of something doesn't necessarily mean it is so, and doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing to be gained from it.

This says nothing. Of course if take away the main points against someone it is hard to prove them wrong.

Those are the "main points" against your interpretation of the Christian God's rules, per your assumptions.  That's not quite the same thing.

-J

[El Barto]

With regard to the discussion at hand, I'm not sure why we're making so many assumptions about God, such as his criteria for damnation/salvation and what they entail, his motivations for creating humans, his level of responsibility for whatever, his degree of power/omniscience, etc.  And if given the latter, like Ehra pointed out, I'm not sure why we're assuming that we should be capable of understanding the endgame--or any aspect of the mind--of an omniscient being with infinite wisdom and understanding.

It has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God: any reasonable person knows it could go either way.  It's just childish to define a specific "version" of God and then angrily and vehemently reject it based on what you (not directed at anyone particularly), a feeble ignorant human, think is unjust, stupid, or pointless.  Or what you think he should or shouldn't have the "right" to do.  Just as childish as a religious fundamentalist zealot spewing nonsense rhetoric.

And if you take away those assumptions about God's "laws" and his punishment and supposed idea of justice, it's hard to make a case against what Ehra's been saying.  Perceived "arbitrariness" of something doesn't necessarily mean it is so, and doesn't necessarily mean there is nothing to be gained from it.

-J

Well, logically it's hard to argue that.  For all we know, he might have created humanity as a necessary ingredient in the recipe for Uncle Yahweh's Tollhouse Cookies.  Yet playing the what-if game seems to be pretty well hard-wired into us, so we do the best we can.  In my case, I'm merely observing the current, popular American notion of the going's on from my own point of view, and from that stand point he comes across as pretty dickish.  Personally, I wouldn't mind an explanation.