How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[TAO]

....No, that is not the question, mf. Read the OP again. It is very clear if you read it carefully.

Just imagine the following:

You watch a person who you've never seen before those some things that look rather immoral (or moral). Will you just assume any action he does is moral because he tells you he is? Will you think his actions are moral because he has all the guns and can fulfill any threat he makes? Will you think an action he does is moral because he has done other moral things in the past? Etc. Rather easy, brothers.

You will think he is moral or immoral depending on the worldview you describe too.

[webbles]

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?

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.

I don't think there is a different way to determine if God is moral compared to John Doe. And I don't see how your last statement makes it a problem. I believe one of the main reasons for why I'm here on Earth is to become like God. That would mean I've got to learn what is moral or not for myself.

[TAO]

I'm just asking you what that 'evidence' is and try to see if it is good. What is your evidence? how did you get to that conclusion?

You can't provide evidence for something that changes based on who you are talking to. Trying to ask for evidence for 'good' doesn't make any sense unless you tell us 'who' it is that it is 'good' too.

Will you agree with me that "God is good because he told me so" isn't a good reason, correct? I hope you do for your own safety, brother. If you wouldn't accept that from anyone (I hope), why do you think this is a good reason? It isn't.

Nah, I won't. God is good because he showed me he is. Our ideology behind what is good comes from understanding. Without understanding, it is useless, but with understanding, it is powerful. God's moral laws are binding on me because I understand them, and because through my understanding, I see the law as just, thus, I believe God is good.

[TAO]

If we don't have disagreements over what is moral (and I haven't seen any here yet), then there's no need to define it. I would much rather prefer we don't fight over definitions and instead clear the field of our common ground (of which there is a lot, btw). Discussing what definition of 'morality' is better will GREATLY derail the thread and I don't want that.

I am having a disagreement with you over it currently. What is morality? Which moral law is this morality coming from? Who subscribes to this moral law? Why do you prefer this moral law over another? What makes this moral law 'good' and another 'bad'? What is 'good' in the first place? There are many things you have to answer and define before we get started on the bigger question.

[elguanteloko]

You will think he is moral or immoral depending on the worldview you describe too.

We have enough common ground and brains to realize which answers CLEARLY don't work. Probably Mr. X will not agree with us... but, who cares? Let's use reason with what we have and start thinking.

BTW, this is a common trend I've seen of modern religious people: talk about how we can be so easily wrong so much you don't start to think through the issue. or, say how relative cultures are and how much people differ on their views, also, to lose ground and don't get to work.

Watch this:

[elguanteloko]

I don't think there is a different way to determine if God is moral compared to John Doe.

Then we agre, webbles!

And I don't see how your last statement makes it a problem. I believe one of the main reasons for why I'm here on Earth is to become like God. That would mean I've got to learn what is moral or not for myself.

Because it means that saying "God said so" isn't enough reason to think something is moral or not, you have to think through it. Same way saying "John Doe said so" isn't a valid reason for supporting your views.

[TAO]

We have enough common ground and brains to realize which answers CLEARLY don't work. Probably Mr. X will not agree with us... but, who cares? Let's use reason with what we have and start thinking.

All the same, don't dismiss answers so quickly. Sometimes the simple ones can be greatly expanded upon with an extra premise added or whatnot. Even the simple ones need attention. Every alternative needs attention. I've seen too many make the mistake of forgetting the simple things when debating, when they are what everything is based on =P.

BTW, this is a common trend I've seen of modern religious people: talk about how we can be so easily wrong so much you don't start to think through the issue. or, say how relative cultures are and how much people differ on their views, also, to lose ground and don't get to work.

Watch this:

27 minutes long =P.

In any case, I disagree with the video kinda. Humans, may get a large portion of things wrong, but they also get a ton of things right. To me, the essence of human nature is progress, or improvement; to me, that defines what we as humans desire most; to change to the better.

[mfbukowski]

It would seem that some would deny that civilization evolved because it had survival value.

Predatory behavior has a survival advantage? Perhaps a vestige. But predators end up in jail and don't tend to reproduce well

[TAO]

Then we agre, webbles!

Because it means that saying "God said so" isn't enough reason to think something is moral or not, you have to think through it. Same way saying "John Doe said so" isn't a valid reason for supporting your views.

If we extended that logic, anybody saying or thinking anything wouldn't be a good enough reason to think something is moral or not, which isn't... a preferable scenario.

Nah, I would say, "God said so" is good enough for a personal reason. It is not good enough for a universal statement of truth though.

EDIT: G'night y'all =).

Edited November 30, 2011 by TAO

[elguanteloko]

You can't provide evidence for something that changes based on who you are talking to. Trying to ask for evidence for 'good' doesn't make any sense unless you tell us 'who' it is that it is 'good' too.

Well, you are giving reasons why something I disagree with you is wrong so this is self-refuting. Try again.

God's moral laws are binding on me because I understand them, and because through my understanding, I see the law as just, thus, I believe God is good.

Great! So you agree with me. You see the law as just and, therefore, that's how you determine God is just. NOT because God said it, NOT because God has done good things in the past, etc.

[elguanteloko]

I am having a disagreement with you over it currently.

I said not for the moment.

[elguanteloko]

Humans, may get a large portion of things wrong, but they also get a ton of things right. To me, the essence of human nature is progress, or improvement; to me, that defines what we as humans desire most; to change to the better.

...that's what the point of the video is, genius. commenting on videos you haven't watched is not very wise, TAO.

[elguanteloko]

If we extended that logic, anybody saying or thinking anything wouldn't be a good enough reason to think something is moral or not, which isn't... a preferable scenario.

it really is tiring having to correct every outrageous thing you say without taking the time to understand. No, this doesn't follow from what I said. Not believing everything John Doe says about his personality doesn't mean you can't think about whether something John Doe did is moral or not.

[zerinus]

So, because he told you he was good? Do you seriously think this is a good reason, zerinus?

Yes. We can only know as much about God as He chooses to tell us. We have no other reliable source of information about God than God. We have no other option but to accept what God tells us about Himself.

[bu11fr0g]

I think that the answer can be found in the reasoning behind ethics and in epistemology. Aristotles book Ethics is a good place to start. Wiki "virtue ethics" and "meta-ethics" as a start.

The second problem is a desire for an answer from a particular epistemolgical background.

In short, the answer to the original post is that good exists and I define God as good or derive that God is good based upon an epistemology I agree with. This often for me also requires me to at times disagree with God's position but accept my position is inferior because of my incompleteness.

[bu11fr0g]

In other words

Define God

Define "his actions"

Define moral

And define where an acceptable answer can come from.

Then I can answer the "simple" original question.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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 don't know...he (it seems) done horrible things if we are to believe the scriptures.

[CV75]

OK, so faith is your answer. In other words, you don't know but you trust that what he's doing is good. Why do you have faith that God's actions are good, though? You just want to believe?

I want to (continue to) believe because that has served me well for as long as I can remember.

I don’t think I can reliably indentify the inception of such belief in God (or the where-why-how). In retrospect I can only surmise that I always had belief in ways that I was developmentally unable to express; almost instinctual. Perhaps the beginning of it has to do with prenatal experiences with the effects of coming to life, or infantile experiences with parental love, and then experiencing that same power independently of my parents or mustering it up myself. At some point belief in God dawned upon me consciously and in ways that I can articulate. I would say this occurred one I found doctrines (such as the “Light of Christ” and “Faith”) that resonated with my experiences.

Faith in God does not only involve trust that what God is doing is good, since what is being done must first have to be real, and God has to be real. Also, faith also does not come out of thin air, but builds upon knowledge and experience (for example, the pre-natal and infantile experiences I described above). Two other doctrines off the top of my head that get into this are of the light being manifest from the beginning (showing God’s existence) and nurturing the seed of faith.

This is why having faith that God is doing good and having faith that another person is doing good are two different things. The definition of faith cannot be exactly the same for both, since God and His works are perfectly and completely original and real and people and their works are not.

To sum it up, I have faith that God’s actions are good because my personal experience and doctrines that offer insight into those experiences define Him as real and His actions as “good”. This is not the same kind of faith I have that other people's actions are good; it is not possible to have faith in something that is not fully real or fully good.

[Nofear]

I don't know...he (it seems) done horrible things if we are to believe the scriptures.

I rather suspect God operates under a kind of utilitarianism (good/moral are whatever actions maximize the overall "happiness"). Utilitarian ethics can indeed create what we intuitively feels are very odd moral scenarios. I defer to God's moral perspective not because of his omnipotence (as proposed by William Schryver) but because of his omniscience. Because we lack perspective humans cannot and should not attempt to operate under the same moral guiding principles. Rather, I suggest we ought operate under a form of deontological ethics (good is that which stems from a duty or adherence to a rule). Specifically, we define good as whatever God tells us to do (and all humanity has access to this via the Light of Christ*).

In short, God is moral because he is smart and working to optimize the happiness of his children. We are good only inasmuch as we sustain and further his efforts. Furthermore, we are not in a position to judge whether or not God acts appropriately but we must trust (i.e. have faith).

* It is also my opinion that it is only after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that their bodies acquired sensory perception of the Light of Christ. As such, ethics was effectively beyond their capacity.

[LeSellers]

I admit to not having read the entire topic. That said, I ask, "What is 'morality'?"

Until we define what the target is, we're shooting in the dark—a monumental waste of time.

Lehi

[webbles]

Because it means that saying "God said so" isn't enough reason to think something is moral or not, you have to think through it. Same way saying "John Doe said so" isn't a valid reason for supporting your views.

When I was a child, I trusted my parents that they were moral. They were my moral reference and so at that stage, I could justifiable say "My parents said so". I'm an adult now and I know that they are fallible. But the many years of living with them has given me trust in them. I've seen them do things that I thought were unmoral at the time but have now learned more about it and accept them to be moral. There are still situations in life that I've never encountered but they have. In those situations, since I trust my parents, I believe I can justifiably say "My parents said so" until I've personally lived them or until I've taken the time to reason them out.

I see the same with God. I'm still just a child compared to Him. In the situations that I don't understand or haven't taken the time to figure out for myself, I trust God that He's moral and so I feel justifiable in saying "God says so".

This doesn't mean that I can say "God says so" and expect others to accept that definition. In those cases, I need to be able to explain why it is moral according to the moral law (which I believe is absolute and universal and one that God obeys). And if I can't explain it, then I rarely bother to be involved in any such discussion (except maybe to learn and see the different sides).

But the "God says so" definition is relevant in a religious discussion, because God is explicitely in the discussion and so He can be invoked. It would be the same as a discussion wth my siblings and being able to say "Our parents say so". In that context, we all agree with the authority and so can invoke it.

Edited November 30, 2011 by webbles

[Jaybear]

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?

Great question.

The answer is that they don't know. They have faith/belief, but not real knowledge that God is moral. It is their faith in God's pure morality that allows believers to ignore, dismiss the evidence to the contrary. At the same time, believers are quick to judging the morality of mere mortals based on their words and actions.

[CV75]

Great question.

The answer is that they don't know. They have faith/belief, but not real knowledge that God is moral. It is their faith in God's pure morality that allows believers to ignore, dismiss the evidence to the contrary. At the same time, believers are quick to judging the morality of mere mortals based on their words and actions.

Where faith is based on / derived from knowledge that exists in the form of experience, it certainly can be said that one knows.

[altersteve]

I admit to not having read the entire topic. That said, I ask, "What is 'morality'?"

Until we define what the target is, we're shooting in the dark—a monumental waste of time.

Lehi

Exactly. That's exactly why this discussion will never get anybody anywhere. It's just another one of those stupid, boring philosophical discussions that Christians and atheists love to beat each other over the head with. The debate goes on and on for hours, making no real progress whatsoever, with both constantly bringing up points that really have nothing to do with anything at all, until they become frustrated and start acting like pathetic little children, only wanting to be right instead of opening their minds a little and making a sincere attempt to actually learn something.

Yawn. Next.

[TAO]

...that's what the point of the video is, genius. commenting on videos you haven't watched is not very wise, TAO.

That's why I said '27 minutes'. I was implying I didn't watch the entire thing, but only watched the first few minutes.

If one wants to summarize the points in the video, that'd be cool. But I can't watch it... I have too many things to do =P. College it busy! XD