How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[TAO]

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.

No, you misunderstand what I mean. Essentially, I am implying that your logic is incomplete. Your statement was

"John Doe said so" isn't a valid reason for supporting your views.

However, assuming if John Doe said so isn't a valid reason, what makes what anybody says a valid reason? Furthermore, what makes our saying so a valid reason? Thus, we come to the conclusion that if anybody says anything to say about anything in particular, it is not a valid enough reason to support our views. That is, in your statement, you provided no justification for trusting yourself over John Doe. Note, of course, that I would agree that it is better to trust yourself rather than John Doe, but it is not best to blanket statement and assume everybody knows the exception.

You, of course, may have been implying something different, in intentions to talk about 'experts' and what not, but I was just responding to your statement. You see, whether John Doe said so may be a good enough reason for supporting your view, if and (usually) only if your opponent accepts John Doe as a figure of authority. Very similar to moral argument... a moral premise is good if and (usually) only if your opponent accepts that moral argument as authoritative.

So what I was saying about your statement was that it was incorrect. John Doe could be a good argument in certain cases (note, not valid... validity doesn't have to do with what a statement says). On the other hand, in this scenario, it is ineffective because you don't accept John Doe as an authority on the subject talked about.

[TAO]

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

Appeal to Ignorance.

Just because I can't prove something to you doesn't make it right or wrong.

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.

Incorrect. The steps go like this:

1. I communicate with God

2. I receive the law

3. I understand the law

4. I like the law

5. I accept the law as my moral authority

6. Thus, in my eyes, God is just.

Note: This is what happens with virtually anybody's moral laws, although 'God' might be substituted with something else, like, for instance, 'society', instead.

The 'idea' of good is also one based on opinion elguanteloko... you are trying to act as if there is an objective form of 'good'... there isn't.

[TAO]

I said not for the moment.

This kinda ruins the point of this discussion though... as none of us accept the same definitions. So we will just keep talking past each other. =P Just tellin' ya'.

[LeSellers]

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

I dispute that He has done horrible things even if we believe the scriptures.

Firefighters ofter burn trees and underbrush while fighting a wild fire. Burning trees is a horrible thing in most circumstances. Most, but not all.

When I am driving a nail, my hammer is just as often moving away from the nail as toward it. If you look at the hammer for a brief time while it is moving in the "wrong" direction, would you conclude that I am not driving the nail?

Missing the entire context surrounding what God is doing may lead one to believe His act is horrible, but, in perspective, that act is neither horrible nor immoral; quite the contrary.

His work and His glory are to bring to pass the immortality and Eternal Life of man. That means something.

Lehi

Edited November 30, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ares]

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

Stop belittling other posters. If you have a point to make do it without personal insults or degrading others point of view.

[elguanteloko]

This kinda ruins the point of this discussion though... as none of us accept the same definitions. So we will just keep talking past each other. =P Just tellin' ya'.

Doesn't matter. We agree enough to get to an agreement on another issue (the issue is NOT the definition of morality). If we are discussing whether or not a certain car suspension is more efficient, we don't need to try to define what a suspension is, that would be kind of pointless and impractical.

[altersteve]

Doesn't matter. We agree enough to get to an agreement on another issue (the issue is NOT the definition of morality). If we are discussing whether or not a certain car suspension is more efficient, we don't need to try to define what a suspension is, that would be kind of pointless and impractical.

Yes it is. This entire issue revolves around how you specifically define "morality."

[elguanteloko]

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.

Well, you can actually think about what God said or did. That seems like a second (and only) option besides complete trust in a stranger that tells you stuff about his character. We, supposedly, see God acting in the world and not acting in other things and can form, I would imagine, informed judgments. For example, if I see God allowing 25,000 children to die of poverty related causes, and God exists, then it's obvious that there's at least an apparent conflict between a loving God and these terrible things. God can say whatever he wants but the facts are the facts. If you choose to trust that God is good and that must have good reasons why he allows such evils but he's not telling us (the reasons provided don't work, btw).... that's fine but that's not based on any understanding. You just want to believe he is good and accept that in face of the conflicting facts.

[elguanteloko]

Yes it is. This entire issue revolves around how you specifically define "morality."

Why is it important? I gave reasons why it isn't (and you ignored again) but you can convince me. Succinctly, please. Why should we derail the thread in such a horrible way?

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

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.

..o..k.. Do you want to be more specific other than giving names?

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

please, you need to be much clearer than this.

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.

But you are assuming that God having all the knowledge and power means that God is good in a way you think is good (though you may not see the real reasons for God acting in a particular way but trust that he has good reasons). Why do you assume this?

Plus, saying you simply 'agree' with something isn't explaining anything, either. What is it you agree with you haven't explained. Why is it you accept whatever you agree with you haven't explained either.

[elguanteloko]

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

OK

[elguanteloko]

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

How is this enough, CV, when so many horrible things are happening around us? Sure, I could have been lucky or God could have looked at me with favorable eyes... that's never enough, I would imagine, to say that God (a superpowerful being) is good.

[zerinus]

Well, you can actually think about what God said or did. That seems like a second (and only) option besides complete trust in a stranger that tells you stuff about his character. We, supposedly, see God acting in the world and not acting in other things and can form, I would imagine, informed judgments. For example, if I see God allowing 25,000 children to die of poverty related causes, and God exists, then it's obvious that there's at least an apparent conflict between a loving God and these terrible things. God can say whatever he wants but the facts are the facts. If you choose to trust that God is good and that must have good reasons why he allows such evils but he's not telling us (the reasons provided don't work, btw).... that's fine but that's not based on any understanding. You just want to believe he is good and accept that in face of the conflicting facts.

You are now moving away from the question of whether God is moral or not, to establishing a standard of morality by which you can judge God's actions. Those are two different issues. The problem here may be with your standard, not with God's actions. Who are you to sit in judgement on God's actions anyway? What do you know, compared to God?

[elguanteloko]

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*).

Brother, putting God in a utilitarian light makes him lose in looking as good as it is possible to lose in looking good. I really don't believe you want to go there. Plus, even assuming God is all-knowing and all powerful, it isn't clear that he should be good in our best interests as a utilitarian. Why should he? There might be very knowledgeable people but that doesn't make them good.Saying God is good because he is all-knowing and sees every scenario doesn't follow at all. It doesn't follow that he is a utilitarian. Same with deontological ethics.

In short, God is moral because he is smart and working to optimize the happiness of his children. (bold and underline added by elguanteloko)

OK, brother, THAT is what I want you to justify, don't just state it. A quick reading through the Bible (and at the world around you) will show you that's definitely not clear.

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).

How would you ever know this, Nofear, without using reason and applying it to God in the same way you apply it to John Doe? You say we are not in a position to judge whether or not God acts appropriately.... but then you say we must follow him because... why? Because God wants the best for us... and how will you know this is the case if not by using your understanding? You're a smart guy, brother, don't you see the terrible problem here?

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

You are now moving away from the question of whether God is moral or not,

The question is NOT whether God is moral or not but, how do you determine that he is?

to establishing a standard of morality by which you can judge God's actions. Those are two different issues. The problem here may be with your standard, not with God's actions. Who are you to sit in judgement on God's actions anyway? What do you know, compared to God?

Brother, I'm pretty much not using any standard here. I'm just asking you questions about yours and pointing out what should be problems YOU see.

[elguanteloko]

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

It's the connection between God and morality that is being questioned here, not what morality is. How most people use the world "morality" is fine, Mormons included and we don't need to define it because of it.

[elguanteloko]

However, assuming if John Doe said so isn't a valid reason, what makes what anybody says a valid reason?

...a valid reason to determine that he is good? his actions in light or understanding.

Furthermore, what makes our saying so a valid reason?

Following reason and understanding. It is clear why the reasons provided until now don't work and I show you guys why. Humans differ less than you think in our capacity to reason and understand. It is only when people want to muddy the waters that they forget about reason and start asking questions like this one. The best you can do is all you can do. You might be wrong but it was the best one. If a better one is presented then you adopt it because now you have more understanding and see why your previous view was wrong. Again, you could have been wrong but it was the best you could do. I'm showing you guys why your views are definitely NOT the best ones you can find.

[elguanteloko]

Appeal to Ignorance.

Just because I can't prove something to you doesn't make it right or wrong.

LOL What? I said that because it is self-refuting it doesn't work. Google what self-refuting means.

Incorrect. The steps go like this:

1. I communicate with God

2. I receive the law

3. I understand the law

4. I like the law

5. I accept the law as my moral authority

6. Thus, in my eyes, God is just.

Good! Then that's how you do it and you and I don't disagree about it. That's how it should be, I think.

[zerinus]

The question is NOT whether God is moral or not but, how do you determine that he is?

The question was how do you show that God is moral, not how you determine that He is moral. I have determined for myself that God is moral. But "showing" it to you is a different issue.

Brother, I'm pretty much not using any standard here.

Yes you are. When you talk about the morality of allowing children to die in poverty, you are laying down a standard by which you want to judge God's morality. It is dishonest to deny it. And I suggest you don't try to patronize me in the future. It rubs me the wrong way. If you are here to debate, then debate, and cut out the crap.

I'm just asking you questions about yours and pointing out what should be problems YOU see.

I don't have a standard by which I judge God's morality, and I don't see a "problem" where you see one. I know that God knows things that I don't; therefore His actions will be perfectly moral from His point of view; whereas from my imperfect view they might appear otherwise. That is why I don't try to sit in judgement on the morality of God's actions. I consider all His actions to be moral and just, even though I don't know all the reasons behind them.

[CV75]

How is this enough, CV, when so many horrible things are happening around us? Sure, I could have been lucky or God could have looked at me with favorable eyes... that's never enough, I would imagine, to say that God (a superpowerful being) is good.

The reason that faith has “served me well for as long as I can remember” is enough to show that God is good is provided in the rest of that post. To summarize:

1. My experience (which includes my interpretation of experiences of those around me) is all I have;

2. This experience has more meaning to me that anything else;

3. Doctrine resonates with and supports the validity of my experience;

4. There are no such things in my experience as “more than real” or “more than good”;

5. Faith in people is less complete than faith in God.

Acting without faith has not served me well in my experience.

In summary, faith (and the knowledge it is based upon) is the best I have to go by, so it is enough to show me that God is good. With this frame of reference, all the horrible things I experience are for my good, which is yet another doctrine (Ether 12:27; D&C 122:7).

Is this the same conversation that one might have for understanding why God allows bad things to happen, or does things that appear on the surface or from a limited perspective to be bad?

[LeSellers]

It's the connection between God and morality that is being questioned here, not what morality is. How most people use the world "morality" is fine, Mormons included and we don't need to define it because of it.

God defines morality, and He obeys His own laws.

Thus, God is moral, by definition.

However, you have said that there are horrible things going on in the world and that is why you are questioning His morality. That being the case, it is most assuredly germane to define morality, lest, as I and others have said, a colossal waste of time.

Lehi

[elguanteloko]

The question was how do you show that God is moral, not how you determine that He is moral. I have determined for myself that God is moral. But "showing" it to you is a different issue.

and I already said these two amount to the same thing in this discussion because if you determined that God is moral then you can explain why God is moral. If you say you just determined it through a cool spiritual experience, then say that.

Yes you are. When you talk about the morality of allowing children to die in poverty, you are laying down a standard by which you want to judge God's morality. It is dishonest to deny it. And I suggest you don't try to patronize me in the future. It rubs me the wrong way. If you are here to debate, then debate, and cut out the crap.

I'm just saying they look like obvious problems and they are to 100% of Christians and Mormons I've talked to. Start talking about it and engaging the discussion and you'll see it, too... but you aren't because you keep asking useless questions that derail the thread.

I don't have a standard by which I judge God's morality, and I don't see a "problem" where you see one.

So, why do you accept God as good if you have no standard? Just because?

I know that God knows things that I don't; therefore His actions will be perfectly moral

If you stop asking these derailing questions and bother to read the thread you'll realize this is exactly what is under discussion. BTW, you are giving here your standard (a pretty strange at that): If something knows things you don't, then its actions will be perfectly moral. How does this sound to you when it is made explicit? Take the time to think it through and tell me if it works.

from His point of view; whereas from my imperfect view they might appear otherwise. That is why I don't try to sit in judgement on the morality of God's actions. I consider all His actions to be moral and just, even though I don't know all the reasons behind them.

Then, how do you know he wants what's good if you don't know his reasons? For example: "I allow evil in the world because I like to see people suffering" wouldn't be a good reason for us. There are bad reasons and, how do you know God's reasons are good if you don't know them? Surely, you must know something. Mention that something you do know and we'll discuss it here (you mentioned some already and I'm discussing it already).

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

God defines morality, and He obeys His own laws.

Thus, God is moral, by definition.

You need to differentiate between what words name and words or definitions (type-token distinction). I can define today "dog" in a way that means what we today call "computers" and that's one thing. Another thing is that my computer is now what we normally call dogs (i.e. my computer has now four legs and is furry). Please take the time to think about this distinction and why you are confusing the two in what you just said.

However, you have said that there are horrible things going on in the world and that is why you are questioning His morality.

Killing children is horrible whether or not it is moral. Again, I'm not bringing any moral standards here, I'm just asking questions about yours. This thread should be a deep personal journey to you, brothers. Take the ride, don't be afraid.

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Deborah]

If you choose to trust that God is good and that must have good reasons why he allows such evils but he's not telling us (the reasons provided don't work, btw).... that's fine but that's not based on any understanding. You just want to believe he is good and accept that in face of the conflicting facts.

Not true. You may have no understanding but that doesn't mean some of us don't but it has to do with an understanding of the eternal nature of life, the purpose of this life and the agreements we made before coming here. Those may be things accepted on faith but they also create understanding of the trials of this life and why bad things happen that have nothing to do with God's morality but rather with his purposes.

[elguanteloko]

The reason that faith has “served me well for as long as I can remember” is enough to show that God is good is provided in the rest of that post. To summarize:

Well, this obviously isn't true since you mention several other things that are part of showing that God is good... but whatever.

1. My experience (which includes my interpretation of experiences of those around me) is all I have;

2. This experience has more meaning to me that anything else;

3. Doctrine resonates with and supports the validity of my experience;

4. There are no such things in my experience as “more than real” or “more than good”;

5. Faith in people is less complete than faith in God.

Acting without faith has not served me well in my experience.

Once again, how is "God favoring you" a good enough reason to think of someone as good when you see so much suffering and killings, bombings, rapes, etc around you?

In summary, faith (and the knowledge it is based upon) is the best I have to go by, so it is enough to show me that God is good. With this frame of reference, all the horrible things I experience are for my good, which is yet another doctrine (Ether 12:27; D&C 122:7).

"For your good"? Is a boy being sold as a slave in India good for you? If not, then think about the countless other evils that don't affect you and approach the question from a less egocentric point of view.

Is this the same conversation that one might have for understanding why God allows bad things to happen, or does things that appear on the surface or from a limited perspective to be bad?

It's just an example for you to think whether your reasons work or not.

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko