How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[elguanteloko]

Simple question. How would you know that God is moral or that his actions are moral in a different way that you would analyze whether my actions are moral or immoral?

Answers that don't work:

-- "He's the Creator of the Universe": Doesn't work because it doesn't follow that because you can create something that you are, therefore, moral or good. It just means you created something... big deal.

--"He's all powerful and all-knowing": Power and knowledge don't mean that the person having these is moral or that anything a powerful and knowing person does is moral.

--"God has done much good in the past": That I have done A,B, and C moral actions in the past does NOT mean my next action D is going to be moral, too.

--"God is good": ....this doesn't work because this is what I'm asking you to prove.

--"God has revealed to me that he is good": The only type of revelation that can even potentially be valid is knowledge and knowledge isn't having had a good feeling or a confirmatory feeling that God is good. This is as valid a reason as saying "I think John is good because he told me he was." ... not very good, is it? If John told you why what he did was good, then that's another story (and what I'm asking about).

--"God has reasons we don't know to do things that seem bad": Sure, but then don't say that you know God is good because you don't. You trust that God is good, but you have no reason for it or understanding. "John is good... I don't know why but I trust he is" isn't much of a reason.

So, how would you show that God's action are good in any way different than trying to determine that my actions are good?

Why is this important? Because if you can't answer the question besides admitting that there is no difference, then this would mean bringing God's opinions as somehow confirmatory that your position is moral can't possibly work and you have to do the work of thinking through the issues yourself.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[William Schryver]

I would argue that the premise of your question is fallacious. In fact, it constitutes a species of petitio principii in that your question assumes an objective basis for morality, separate and independent of the ruling entity of this system in which we presently reside.

Furthermore, you fallaciously prohibit the only logical answer to the question of the origins of morality. Morality is a byproduct of God’s omnipotence. Might makes right. And that same might can, at any time, modify the definition of morality according to his will.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said that thou shalt not kill, -- at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted -- by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

I submit that to divorce the might and will of God from the definition of morality renders the concept meaningless.

[elguanteloko]

I would argue that the premise of your question is fallacious. In fact, it constitutes a species of petitio principii in that your question assumes an objective basis for morality, separate and independent of the ruling entity of this system in which we presently reside.

Not necessarily. We can simply work with best explanations alone without any appeal to objective morals and God still comes out losing and you still have to do exactly the same work as with assuming an objective morality.

Furthermore, you fallaciously prohibit the only logical answer to the question of the origins of morality.

...while, according to you, assuming an objective morality? Strange indeed.

Morality is a byproduct of God’s omnipotence. Might makes right.

Justify this, please. This is a horrible position to hold and, at the very least, you should expect to justify it and illustrate it.

I submit that to divorce the might and will of God from the definition of morality renders the concept meaningless.

Justify this, please.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[thesometimesaint]

Say you lose $10. But I come along and give you $100. Where have you lost anything?

[elguanteloko]

Say you lose $10. But I come along and give you $100. Where have you lost anything?

You guys need to start justifying and being more explicit.

I did lose $10 in the beginning whether or not I won a million afterwards. In total, I won money. And?

[Log]

In fact, it constitutes a species of petitio principii in that your question assumes an objective basis for morality, separate and independent of the ruling entity of this system in which we presently reside.

One of the funny things about begging the question is it seems it's only committed by authors with whom you disagree on the axioms brought to the question. I happen to share his axiom - there is a foundation for morality apart from God - so the question as he has asked it seems well-formed to me.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Log

[elguanteloko]

One of the funny things about begging the question is it seems it's only a fallacy if you disagree with the axioms of the person posing the question. I happen to share his axiom - there is a foundation for morality apart from God - so the question as he has asked it seems well-formed to me.

and it is well-formed to me, also, and I do agree with an objective standard apart from God. I just wanted to show him there is no difference in practice between "what appears by all best accounts to be moral" and "moral" (although in principle there is). That we might be wrong is a possibility but that doesn't change anything since pretty much any position has the same problem. Anyways you still have to justify easily questionable and problematic views, be there a God or not, be there objective morals or not.

Edited November 29, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

Simply put God knows the end from the beginning and as such can put things in a perspective none of us can. Of course E won't accept that answer but who cares!

[Sky]

Simple question. How would you know that God is moral or that his actions are moral in a different way that you would analyze whether my actions are moral or immoral?

I’m not so sure this is a simple question. I get the impression that you don’t really believe in God in the first place; therefore, any answer coming from a believer is probably futile. Tell us… what answers would you consider acceptable?

But I will try to give you an answer anyway… Study the scriptures and the words of living prophets and pray. Experiment on the word. Don’t overcomplicate things too much. Exercise faith. Be humble. Gain a testimony of God’s commandments by living them. It works.

[elguanteloko]

I’m not so sure this is a simple question.

lol Well, the question is, the answer might not be. I do think both are rather simple, though.

I get the impression that you don’t really believe in God in the first place; therefore, any answer coming from a believer is probably futile. Tell us… what answers would you consider acceptable?

.....what? Don't bring the "You won't understand because you don't believe in my answer" excuse. That has no place in reasonable discussion. If this is all you have to offer then go away, please.

But I will try to give you an answer anyway… Study the scriptures and the words of living prophets and pray. Experiment on the word. Don’t overcomplicate things too much. Exercise faith. Be humble. Gain a testimony of God’s commandments by living them. It works.

...sure it does. Now please go.

[elguanteloko]

Simply put God knows the end from the beginning and as such can put things in a perspective none of us can. Of course E won't accept that answer but who cares!

It's not only that I won't accept this as an answer, I'm telling you why (but apparently you didn't care to read why this doesn't work).

Again. That God can see everything (the all-knowing argument I said doesn't work) does NOT mean his actions are moral. I may know things you don't but I may use this knowledge occasionally for immoral actions.

[Sky]

lol Well, the question is, the answer might not be. I do think both are rather simple, though.

.....what? Don't bring the "You won't understand because you don't believe in my answer" excuse. That has no place in reasonable discussion. If this is all you have to offer then go away, please.

...sure it does. Now please go.

You didn’t like my answer, so now you are going to intimidate me into silence? But thanks for confirming that virtually any answer from a believer’s perspective is not good enough for you.

[Kiviuq]

I’ve heard it said that God only has power based on the principles of righteousness. This seems to imply that righteousness (and morality by extension) exists independent of God and that God is constrained somehow to function within some larger context.

No, I don’t have an answer to your question, I’m just exploring a bit.

[mfbukowski]

So, how would you show that God's action are good in any way different than trying to determine that my actions are good?

They are not different.

All morality conforms to natural law which places the value of life and life affirmation at the center of the moral code. In other words, what is "moral" is what leads to the best expression of the survival of the species.

Some formulations of these principles are found for example in maxims like the "golden rule". I think life itself, or its creator, however you want to say that, creates these rules of optimal survival of the species.

So in one language game, God creates natural laws, and is in turn subject to them himself, using religious language.

In other terms, life seeks to continue maximize its own survival. We in turn call that a "natural law" because we are just a tad prejudiced toward living and living well. So Man is the measure of all things. In other words, the Man of holiness organized these natural laws.

It is just a question of picking the language game which works best for the description you want to create.

[mfbukowski]

I’ve heard it said that God only has power based on the principles of righteousness. This seems to imply that righteousness (and morality by extension) exists independent of God and that God is constrained somehow to function within some larger context.

No, I don’t have an answer to your question, I’m just exploring a bit.

I see this as saying pretty much what I say using a different linguistic context. What we call the "principles of righteousness" are those principles which maximize the easiest and most pleasant type of principles of survival we can experience as humans.

God himself, as a member of the same species we are, is also constrained by these same principles, we can term "natural law" if we like.

[mfbukowski]

A moral life is more peaceful and conducive to long term survival of the species than an immoral life.

If we are drinking and driving, our lives will not be pleasant or long. We will not survive long. If we cheat on our wives, life gets complicated- divorce, children out of wedlock, fewer two-parent families, children raised not as well or efficiently as they might be etc.

All these "sins" lead to a shortened life and a less than optimal life style. That is the meaning of "the wages of sin are death".

We are saved from these sins by expelling them from our lives- in other words, by "repentance and righteous living". "The natural man is an enemy to God". We must overcome our more base impulses and live in a "civilized" way which is what is required for the optimal society.

This life is simply the best that humans can have. That is why living morally "works" and is "true". It defines itself that way. It is considered "moral" and "civilized" because it is the best lifestyle humans have

These become what we can call "moral absolutes" because they absolutely always work for the survival of the species.

Edited November 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[elguanteloko]

You didn’t like my answer, so now you are going to intimidate me into silence? But thanks for confirming that virtually any answer from a believer’s perspective is not good enough for you.

There are believers' answers that are good attempts. Yours is not. Actually, you didn't even attempt to answer the question and that's why it is so bad. Don't be intimidated just either answer the question or don't post here.

[elguanteloko]

I’ve heard it said that God only has power based on the principles of righteousness. This seems to imply that righteousness (and morality by extension) exists independent of God and that God is constrained somehow to function within some larger context.

No, I don’t have an answer to your question, I’m just exploring a bit.

hey, that's totally fine!

[elguanteloko]

They are not different.

Cool!

[altersteve]

We cannot prove that God is good, but God can. That's the only answer I, or anyone, can give. I know it's an answer you will reject, but I really don't care. This is why I really dislike philosophical discussions like this, because they never get anywhere. Nothing anyone says will convince anyone on the other side, so why bother?

Basically, if the gospel is true, then God is good. And the only way to know if the gospel is true is by asking God. That's not something a non-Mormon can understand, though, so there's no need to continue this.

Edited November 29, 2011 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

This is why I really dislike philosophical discussions like this, because they never get anywhere. Nothing anyone says will convince anyone on the other side, so why bother?

In other words, they are not much different than "non-philosophical" discussions?

The "why bother" becomes more of a global question then in my mind. That's why I am participating less.

[elguanteloko]

We cannot prove that God is good, but God can. That's the only answer I, or anyone, can give. I know it's an answer you will reject, but I really don't care.

ok, is there something strange you guys ate this morning? Because it seems amazing to me some of you keep on thinking I am merely a stubborn child who rejects answers he doesn't like.... do you guys know what a REASON is? My OP is full of them and I expect the same of you. I don't reject your answers because I want to, I reject them because they don't work and I tell you why.

This is why I really dislike philosophical discussions like this, because they never get anywhere. Nothing anyone says will convince anyone on the other side, so why bother?

No wonder when it is OBVIOUS you don't know how to use reason when you explain your opinions. It isn't enough to say a "No" to everything the other person says, bud, you have to explain.

I gave reasons you don't appear to have bothered to read them or to identify them as reasons.

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Concise-Introduction-Logic-Book-Only/dp/0840034164/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8

Basically, if the gospel is true, then God is good. And the only way to know if the gospel is true is by asking God. That's not something a non-Mormon can understand, though, so there's no need to continue this.

Oh, dear guacamole!!!

"Why is God good?"

"Because the Gospel says God is good"

"Why do you believe the Gospel?"

"Because God told me it is true and God is good and wouldn't lie."

OK, next time I come to your house and show you a book I wrote that says I am going to make you rich if you give me all your savings, let's see you apply this reasoning.

I do understand this and that's why it seems ridiculous and terrible terrible reasoning.

[Cobalt-70]

I think the perspectivse of elguanteloko and Will Schryver are both quite Mormon, but elguanteloko's is probably more so than Will's which is still certainly Mormon, but incorporates, to some extent, classical Christianity and relativism.

Elguaneteloko asks the question of whether God's actions are moral. This question only has meaning within religions such as classical Mormonism, Paganism, and Gnosticism, where there are either multiple gods, or God is subject to law. Classical Mormonism asserts that there are laws and standards in the universe that operate above God, and that God is "not above the law." Therefore, there are standards, such as morality, by which God can be judged. Thus, there is a possibility, however hypothetical, of a God who chose wrongly--of a God, for example, that followed Lucifer's plan, or who could in theory, to use the words of the Book of Mormon "cease to be God." It is a God governed by law: he may always, in practice, follow the law, but he is nevertheless bound thereby. This perspective is one of the things we share with Paganism and Gnosticism. The writings of Elder John A. Widtsoe, http://books.google....ientist&f=false, classically reflect the high water mark of this view, but they are also found in the writings of Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, as well as, at least sometimes, Joseph Smith (although you might argue that Smith vacillated between Widtsoe's view and a more relativist view, perhaps something similar to the view that Will is expressing).

Will's perspective is still Mormon, but also classically Christian and relativist:

I would argue that the premise of your question is fallacious. In fact, it constitutes a species of petitio principii in that your question assumes an objective basis for morality, separate and independent of the ruling entity of this system in which we presently reside.

Furthermore, you fallaciously prohibit the only logical answer to the question of the origins of morality. Morality is a byproduct of God’s omnipotence. Might makes right. And that same might can, at any time, modify the definition of morality according to his will.

I submit that to divorce the might and will of God from the definition of morality renders the concept meaningless.

In the traditional Christian view, God creates and sustains the universe ex nihilo, which means that God's mind and will precede all, and without them there is no existence and no law. Under this perspective it would be absurd to ask whether God is moral, because there is no scale with which to measure God. There are no standards that precede God, and morality is by definition the mind and will of God.

Will's view borrows from this classical Christian view (within the context of a plural god theology). But it differs from classical Christianity in that Will's view is inherently relativist. Because Mormons can't quite believe in a truly omnipotent God, or one that creates the universe ex nihilo, Will is saying that because God is the most powerful being in (at least our part of) the universe, his will is defined as morality for us, and therefore it makes no sense to ask whether God is moral. God, in other words, is the dictator of our part of the universe. Though not in an ex nihilo sense of traditional Christianity, he is the law, even if theoretically, another god might act differently. There is no absolute standard of morality to which God is bound. Morality is simply what God, in his might, defines it to be: morality by fiat.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[rodheadlee]

Simple question. How would you know that God is moral or that his actions are moral in a different way that you would analyze whether my actions are moral or immoral?

So, how would you show that God's action are good in any way different than trying to determine that my actions are good?

Why is this important? Because if you can't answer the question besides admitting that there is no difference, then this would mean bringing God's opinions as somehow confirmatory that your position is moral can't possibly work and you have to do the work of thinking through the issues yourself.

Because He gave his Only Begotten Son to the world, that we might live eternally in His presence. Would you give your son's life so that I might have eternal life?

Edited November 30, 2011 by rodheadlee

[elguanteloko]

Elguaneteloko asks the question of whether God's actions are moral.

Not at all. I'm asking epistemological questions here (how we evaluate God's actions as either moral or immoral), not whether God is moral or not.

This question only has meaning within religions such as classical Mormonism, Paganism, and Gnosticism, where there are either multiple gods, or God is subject to law. Classical Mormonism asserts that there are laws and standards in the universe that operate above God, and that God is "not above the law." Therefore, there are standards, such as morality, by which God can be judged. Thus, there is a possibility, however hypothetical, of a God who chose wrongly--of a God, for example, that followed Lucifer's plan, or who could in theory, to use the words of the Book of Mormon "cease to be God." It is a God governed by law: he may always, in practice, follow the law, but he is nevertheless bound thereby. This perspective is one of the things we share with Paganism and Gnosticism. The writings of Elder John A. Widtsoe, http://books.google....ientist&f=false, classically reflect the high water mark of this view, but they are also found in the writings of Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, as well as, at least in the 1840s and some hints prior to that, Joseph Smith.

Will's perspective is still Mormon, but also classically Christian and relativist:

In the traditional Christian view, God creates and sustains the universe ex nihilo, which means that God's mind and will precede all, and without them there is no existence and no law. Under this perspective it would be absurd to ask whether God is moral, because there is no scale with which to measure God. There are no standards that precede God, and morality is by definition the mind and will of God.

Will's view borrows from this classical Christian view (within the context of a plural god theology). But it differs from classical Christianity in that Will's view is inherently relativist. Because Mormons can't quite believe in a truly omnipotent God, or one that creates the universe ex nihilo, Will is saying that because God is the most powerful being in (at least our part of) the universe, his will is defined as morality for us, and therefore it makes no sense to ask whether God is moral. God, in other words, is the dictator of our part of the universe. Though not in an ex nihilo sense of traditional Christianity, he is the law, even if theoretically, another god might act differently. There is no absolute standard of morality to which God is bound. Morality is simply what God, in his might, defines it to be: morality by fiat.

I'm sorry but, were you attempting to answer the question? Thanks for the information and all but...

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko