How Would You Show That God Is Moral?

[elguanteloko]

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.

Well, there would be no difference between only one person in the world knowing the answer but not saying it, to no one knowing the answer. What's your answer? The little girl being sold as a sex-slave agreed to it before she came to earth? Will she be greatly rewarded for having gone through being a sex-slave? You aren't answering anything here. Plus, this problem has all to do with God's morality because of his purposes. If he has evil purposes then he isn't good.

[KevinG]

Don't make the mistake of judging God's morality by the actions of those who disobey God.

God does not cause the suffering of children.

God seeks to prevent the suffering of children through obedience to His commandments.

God respects our agency and does not prevent us from disobeying Him causing harm to children.

If you suggest a moral God should prevent His children from sinning you are in dubious company.

Moses 4:3 Wherefore, because that ^aSatan ^brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the ^cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be ^dcast down; 4 And he became ^aSatan, yea, even the ^bdevil, the father of all ^clies, to ^ddeceive and to blind men, and to lead them ^ecaptive at his will, even as many as would not ^fhearken unto my voice.

It is very telling you would credit God for Satans work and then imply Satans plan is a solution.

Edited November 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[elguanteloko]

Don't make the mistake of judging God's morality by the actions of those who disobey God.

Why not? Should we not judge the police officer who can stop a robbery but doesn't do so? Should we not judge the judge who can convict a murderer with all the evidence but doesn't do so?

God does not cause the suffering of children.

Sure, but read the above and realize why that's of no importance. No one is saying God bombs cities... ok, he probably did in the past but you get the point.

God seeks to prevent the suffering of children through obedience to His commandments.

Then he is doing a very poor job. Think of a police department that has the power to stop all crime right before it is committed... One would expect this department to be pretty darn effective.

God respects our agency and does not prevent us from disobeying Him causing harm to children.

This can't be true because police officers don't take any agency away from you. You already chose to kill X when you have your gun on X's head ready to pull the trigger. A police officer stopping you at that moment isn't taking "free will" from you. Same with God and angels. BTW, the scriptures are full of bad people being prevented from doing harm to the good ones. God could stop, as he did with Abraham, every single person from harming another one unjustly when they are just about to strike and that wouldn't be taking anyone's free will away.

Edited November 30, 2011 by elguanteloko

[KevinG]

So you don't define a moral God as removing our agency, just one that prevents sin or causes instant Karma?

Whats the difference?

[elguanteloko]

So you don't define a moral God as removing our agency, just one that prevents sin or causes instant Karma?

Whats the difference?

If you try to kill X and already have your gun on X's head, you already sinned (and strongly). It is false that the only way to allow people to sin is if they can harm and kill and rape other people. God doesn't need to prevent sin or evil but unjust harm to innocents. Read my last post to you before this one carefully; you didn't. (post # 103)

[KevinG]

If you try to kill X and already have your gun on X's head, you already sinned (and strongly). It is false that the only way to allow people to sin is if they can harm and kill and rape other people. God doesn't need to prevent sin or evil but unjust harm to innocents. Read my last post to you before this one carefully; you didn't. (post # 103)

I read it carefully - it was a flawed argument.

At what degree of seriousness of harm or sin and at what time do you feel a moral God suspends the agency of His subjects?

Your example above seems to indicate before "unjust harm" is done.

Take an example from the Scriptures (LDS Standard Works) where you feel God acted immorally by not stopping unjust harm and we can discuss the real example from our doctrines in stead of some hypothetical gun to the head case.

You should explain how you feel this action of God was immoral and how your idea of a moral God would have acted.

Then we can revisit the idea of eternal justice, agency and morality without resorting to hyperbole or an articficially stunted definition of morality.

For kicks you can still answer my unanswered question - what is the difference from preventing sin (unjust harm) and violating agency?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZZH043pdBM

Edited November 30, 2011 by DaddyG

[Ares]

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.

Don't board nanny- readers can determine what is a good response and what is not.

[CV75]

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

“Whatever” does not merit a response, so you’ll understand if I don’t reply again. But because I’m such a nice guy:

You are simply wrong in this assessment. You asked how faith having served me well is enough to show that God is good. The five ways I listed are not part of showing that God is good, but rather part of how faith serving me well is enough to show that God is good. It is enough because it is all I have and all I have needed. Acting without faith has not served me well in my experience. Perhaps you can re-read them with this in mind:

How (or 5 ways that) faith having served me well is enough to show that God is good:

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

2. This experience has more meaning to me that anything else (hence it is enough);

3. Doctrine resonates with and supports the validity of my experience (“second opinion” or “second witness” confirms that it is enough);

4. There are no such things in my experience as “more than real” or “more than good” (hence my experiences that “God is real” and “God is good” are enough);

5. Faith in people is less complete than faith in God (hence faith in God serving me well is enough).

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?

You must be reading with some serious prejudices and other mistaken assumptions. I have never stated that God favors me. On the contrary, He favors all His children equally. How is God favoring some and not others by His actions or by what He allows to happen? It simply doesn’t work that way, at least in my experience.

"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.

Yes, I believe that all things I experience, including all things I perceive others experiencing, are for my good and theirs. Not sure how I can make this plainer. All evils do affect me directly or indirectly, and God regards all His children equally, so there is no egocentrism about it. Sharing my or others' horror stories would be egocentric. Sharing the end product of my life experience as a whole, along with others', is not egocentric.

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

Well, it does appear that I think my reason works, as do the ways that support how my reason is enough. Are you trying to make a point that a certain perspective on morality is enough for you without producing such a workable alternative?

[zerinus]

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

The most important thing that I have "determined" here is that talking to you is going to be a waste of time.

[Log]

If you try to kill X and already have your gun on X's head, you already sinned (and strongly).

Have you? What is sin?

It is false that the only way to allow people to sin is if they can harm and kill and rape other people.

That statement is itself false.

God doesn't need to prevent sin or evil but unjust harm to innocents.

What is just?

You clearly keep presupposing a standard of judgement, but you have thus far declined to explain this standard.

[bu11fr0g]

elguanteloko,

can you define these for me:

God

"his actions"

moral

where an acceptable answer can come from (reasoning, scriptures, general authority/church doctrine, personal experience, personal religious inspiration, scientific study, cultural norms, majority vote, opinion, emotion, nonreligious authority figures)

[bu11fr0g]

bu11fr0g, on 30 November 2011 - 07:16 AM, said:

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?

Quote

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

please, you need to be much clearer than this.

the wiki articles give a nice review: ethics is "branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc."

meta-ethics is specifically "about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined" i.e. can I determine that an action is good independent of God saying so.

"Virtue ethics describes the character of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology), consequentialism (which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself rather than character), or social context (pragmatic ethics)."

Philosophically, it is rather complicated to determine whether someone is acting in a good way: for example, if God tells Nephi to kill Laban what kind of morality does God have? You can, and I have, spent months reading material on the ethical basis of decisions. I agree with the point that one can more effectively learn moral behavior by studying the scriptures than by studying ethics.

Your epistemology is what you personally deem as an acceptable source for truth. People having different acceptable sources of truth often leads to irreconcilable conflicts. If you can identify what someone will accept as a source of truth then there is a chance for resolution.

[bu11fr0g]

Quote

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.

I do not assume that God having all the knowledge and power means that God is good. Personally, I define God as the source of good and question His characteristics including what limits there might be to His power and why those limits exist.

I don't like the way some things are in this world and don't think that it is the best way for things to be. I work very hard at making the world a better place (admittedly, to my eyes) and find some things in this world unacceptable the way they are now (prostituted children being an easy example; children born to short lives full of severe, unending pain due to rare genetic syndromes is another). The only way that I can conceive that there is any goodness combined with power is that God works it all out in the end through the atonement and judgment or otherwise. At other times, I feel like that evil is the way things are and that God's power is in inspiring people to fight against the tragedies that happen.

Edited November 30, 2011 by bu11fr0g

[Cobalt-70]

That may well be Will's view; I cannot concede, however, that it is a Mormon view, even if it be held by Mormons.

I think it is a Mormon view. Joseph Smith had a rather relativist bent, particularly in the 1840s. He believed that whatever God told him to do was right, even if it violated normal moral or ethical norms. This is reflected in the Book of Mormon as well, in the story of Nephi and Laban.

[Cobalt-70]

You never seem to amaze me; it is as if you have your head firmly planted in the sand and it does not matter what anyone says, you spout the same, tired, errant claptrap. It has no basis in Mormonism except in your own mind. When did Mormonism say God was not omnipotent? What does nx nihilo have to do with omnipotence?

Mormons often use the word "omnipotent," but in Mormon thought this word has a specialized meaning, because Mormons do not believe in God as the sole necessary being, who created the world ex nihilo (meaning that God does not cause the universe's continued existence from moment to moment as an exercise of his divine will). See, e.g., http://signaturebook...ary.org/?p=9426. The Mormon view is well-represented by Rulon T. Burton, who wrote that "God is Omnipotent, yet he works within established parameters. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in contrast to the views of many in Catholicism or Protestantism, does not believe in an utterly transcendent being--a God who recognizes no limitations." http://books.google....epage&q&f=false. John A. Widtsoe stated that God is omnipotent and omniscient "in comparison with humankind." http://books.google....epage&q&f=false. Thus, Mormons do not believe God is omnipotent in the literal, transcendent sense as understood by traditional Christians.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

StormRider, we don't believe in a God who can disobey laws, whereas other religions do. That is why their ideas of God are more 'omnipotent' than ours. That, of course, doesn't make it any more correct. God has to obey some laws to be moral in the first place =). His own laws, in the least case... or maybe more than that =D.

Not only that, but Mormons believe that God was once human, and had to obey a set of pre-existing laws in order to achieve his own exaltation.

[Cobalt-70]

How do you know that is what is "good" for God IS DIFFERENT than how we know what is good for us?

The answer is that how we know what is moral is NOT DIFFERENT for God than for us.

We know what is moral, God knows what is moral and the standards are the same for him as they are for us. If God would "sin" he would no longer be God, right? So the standards are the same, and we know he is moral in the same way we know we are moral.

It depends on how relativistic your theology is. If God is, as Will suggests, "right by might," then we cannot know what is moral for us simply by observing God. We could say that God can, for example, kill babies, give people plagues, cause civilizations to collapse, destroy cities, and commit genocide with impunity, and that it is all moral. But if we try to do the same thing, God will punish us because he is more powerful than us, and is the dictator of our part of the universe.

On the other hand, we could suggest that there is some standard of universal, absolute morality which God must follow. In that case, I think your conclusion would be correct. God could theoretically sin. So either all the atrocities that have been ascribed to him in the Old Testament were not actually God's doing, or this absolute standard of morality is pretty loose, and God would not really punish us for things like genocide, razing cities, striking people dead, etc.

[KevinG]

My challenge still stands. Why don't you take one of those examples out of the scriptures and show how God should have acted in a more "moral" way than He did?

All I'm hearing is accusations made that God breaks His own rules of morality, out of context of course.

[Log]

I think it is a Mormon view. Joseph Smith had a rather relativist bent, particularly in the 1840s. He believed that whatever God told him to do was right, even if it violated normal moral or ethical norms. This is reflected in the Book of Mormon as well, in the story of Nephi and Laban.

Joseph, at the same time, said that the reasons for God's decrees would be shown to be right afterwards. That, in my estimation, is sufficient to divorce Will's view from Mormonism.

[Stargazer]

Well, we clearly can think through the issues ourselves, you know? God didn't taught us about mathematics but we can figure stuff out. Same with logic, science, philosophy, etc. Plus, why in the world would you choose God the moral locus besides you wanting to? Are there good reasons for doing so? If there are, please state them. (which means, btw, what is obvious and should be clear: that you need to think for yourself why God is moral... which is my point)

I have thought about it, myself. Thanks for the advice anyway. God's commandments are my moral focus. God's own morality, of which I know but little, isn't really something I can relate to, fully. But, I have gotten this far in my life, having had a number of semi-close encounters with this being known as God, and these encounters have led me to conclude that He really exists, and has Purpose, of which I am a part, and I trust His morality, whatever it is. I have become convinced that He created this Universe for my benefit. .

Yeah, great technique: "I am a fallible human being who might be wrong about moral judgments. What should I do? I know! Let's let another entity think stuff for me and I can just accept anything he tells me. Yay!

Hey, you got it in one! Congrats!

Oh, brothers, always going for the ad hominem illusions! Do you guys really want to avoid reason so much that you have to be cynical of everyone who asks seriously?

That's an ad hominem? I thought it was a keen observation by yours truly. My mistake. I didn't mean it to be taken as an insult, but as a perception.

My apologies.

[elguanteloko]

Have you? What is sin?

According to Christ I have. Whatever you understand sin to be is fine.

That statement is itself false.

Well, I explained. Simply saying what I said is false isn't supporting your credibility.

What is just?

Whatever you understand by it is fine for the moment being. Now, it's clear that someone here will define, again, justice as "what complies with God's desires" or something like that but that won't help and will lead us, once again, to me questioning your use of justice through the consequences that your definition will bring. If you say morality or justice is X, I don't need to give you what I think is a better definition to show you there are some results of your use of morality or justice that are clearly not very good and counter-intuitive that it should make you think twice. That's all I'm doing here.

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

My challenge still stands. Why don't you take one of those examples out of the scriptures and show how God should have acted in a more "moral" way than He did?

All I'm hearing is accusations made that God breaks His own rules of morality, out of context of course.

I wrote a whole lot to you that you haven't responded to directly. It is rather clear that there is no justification for God allowing such terrible evils as the ones I already mentioned to you. I explained this to you already.

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I have thought about it, myself. Thanks for the advice anyway. God's commandments are my moral focus. God's own morality, of which I know but little, isn't really something I can relate to, fully. But, I have gotten this far in my life, having had a number of semi-close encounters with this being known as God, and these encounters have led me to conclude that He really exists, and has Purpose, of which I am a part, and I trust His morality, whatever it is. I have become convinced that He created this Universe for my benefit.

Well, the whole point of the thread is for you to bring those reasons that convinced you that he created this universe for your benefit. Surprise.

That's an ad hominem? I thought it was a keen observation by yours truly. My mistake. I didn't mean it to be taken as an insult, but as a perception.

My apologies.

The point of an 'ad hominem' is to distract from the points given by someone. An ad hominem may or may not be an attack on one's character but most of the time it is. (there are ad hominem attacks and ad hominem fallacies; both different though they have stuff in common)

Edited December 1, 2011 by elguanteloko

[elguanteloko]

I do not assume that God having all the knowledge and power means that God is good. Personally, I define God as the source of good and question His characteristics including what limits there might be to His power and why those limits exist.

I don't like the way some things are in this world and don't think that it is the best way for things to be. I work very hard at making the world a better place (admittedly, to my eyes) and find some things in this world unacceptable the way they are now (prostituted children being an easy example; children born to short lives full of severe, unending pain due to rare genetic syndromes is another). The only way that I can conceive that there is any goodness combined with power is that God works it all out in the end through the atonement and judgment or otherwise. At other times, I feel like that evil is the way things are and that God's power is in inspiring people to fight against the tragedies that happen.

Brother, believe me, you and I agree more than you may think.

But here's the issue with what you said and I ask you to consider it very seriously, please. If I am a police officer and I allowed a child to be prostituted when, at no cost, I could have stopped it or prevented it, do you think ANY price I pay back will make what I did right? Do you seriously think that I could give that child the most magnificent life after having allowed him to be violated like that and have what I did become ANY better?

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying you can't make retributions for damaged done. I'm saying that no retribution will (obviously) make what happened not happen and the evil I allowed any less evil. I can make reparations now but that doesn't mean what I did was any less wrong and horrible than it was. My point is that God could, possibly, give you an eternal life of bliss and glory for the pains you suffered and that would not mean him allowing such horrible acts was any less immoral.

What do you think?

[Stargazer]

Well, the whole point of the thread is for you to bring those reasons that convinced you that he created this universe for your benefit. Surprise.

Oooh! Surprise! lol

I love my wife. I don't really know why. She asks me about this occasionally, and I cannot come up with reasons. I just cannot imagine life without her, and I hope to be in her company for the rest of eternity. Not a non-sequitor given the topic, because what has convinced me that he created this universe for me is quite similar in some respects. I cannot easily describe this, because even if you were a believer, I don't know if you would "get it." But a series of experiences that I have had has made it quite clear to me that He is there, and He knows who I am. I will not go into details of those experiences, although if you search all my posts you will eventually find that I have described at least a few of them in some detail here. He has not been forceful, but He has been subtle, just enough to allow me a certain amount of plausible deniability, but perceptible enough that I find it hard to deny. I'm sure that if I were sufficiently obstreperous, I could force myself to come to regard it all as coincidence, self-deception, or what-have-you. I hope I never arrive at that point.

I am a bit of an astronomy hobbyist, and when I come to regard what we humans have discovered vis-a-vis the visible Universe, it seems quite obvious to me that He created it for my benefit, in the sense that it is mine to explore, to wonder about, and to have joy concerning. The Big Bang in particular is quite intriguing, for when I contemplate the pre-Big Bang Universe, and realize that there was quite literally nothing, not even space, and then... there was, I cannot imagine how anyone with sufficient education to realize the enormity of this could imagine that it just happened, without any First Cause, that there is no God.

I feel like I can feel His spirit anytime I reach out with mine. It is unspeakable, simply because it cannot be explained adequately. I recall the Taoist saying, "The Tao that can be explained is not the true Tao." This is much what I feel. Words are completely insufficient.

Thus it is no surprise to me at all that you don't get a single thing I'm talking about.

And I hope you will pardon me, but I don't think you even want to. Though I guess I still hold out some hope, else I would not even bother writing.

The point of an 'ad hominem' is to distract from the points given by someone. An ad hominem may or may not be an attack on one's character but most of the time it is. (there are ad hominem attacks and ad hominem fallacies; both different though they have stuff in common)

Well, as I was trying to say, I wasn't attacking you.