Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would the Creator's moral code be anything less than objectively authoritative?
For the same reason that if I have a pet dog I can get the dog to do things through my authority and power it, but merely because I have authority does not make those decisions objectively good. At best, to describe my decisions as something "good" I'd have to have some reason to describe them as "good." Authority is not a reason.
The creator could be describe as objectively right in a might-makes-right kind of way, but so could I, if I had a pet dog, to that dog. I don't think anyone would argue that would be right in an ethical sense though.
I don't know why a creator's moral code would be objectively authoritative. The creator could get me to do whatever it wanted if it wished. It could determine that things are right to it, but it gave me the capacity to disagree, if it exists and so while it could have designed a universe in which it chose the only right and wrong, if a creator exists, I would say it seems to have not created that type of a universe.
For the same reason that if I have a pet dog I can get the dog to do things through my authority and power it, but merely because I have authority does not make those decisions objectively good. At best, to describe my decisions as something "good" I'd have to have some reason to describe them as "good." Authority is not a reason.
Not quite. That's comparing apples to oranges. You didn't create your dog. You are merely taking care of him/her. If you had created him, and created the rest of the universe, you would be able to define what good and bad behavior is. But you didn't. You merely exist as a creature within the world.
Quote:
The creator could be describe as objectively right in a might-makes-right kind of way, but so could I, if I had a pet dog, to that dog. I don't think anyone would argue that would be right in an ethical sense though.
Except that this isn't about "might makes right". This is about Creator defining.
Quote:
I don't know why a creator's moral code would be objectively authoritative. The creator could get me to do whatever it wanted if it wished. It could determine that things are right to it, but it gave me the capacity to disagree, if it exists and so while it could have designed a universe in which it chose the only right and wrong, if a creator exists, I would say it seems to have not created that type of a universe.
And around and around we go. Honestly? Whether or not you believe the Creator is able to define morality is irrelevant because the fact is, NEITHER CAN YOU. So whatever form of morality you come up with, it's merely begging the question. I'm asking for you to define WHY we must believe YOUR mode of morality over any other form?
If God's authority is objective can you explain age of sexual consent to us. It is different in different countries and even in various states and provinces and has changed over time. If morality is objective and not subjective why does this change over space and time? And exactly what does the Bible or God state about the age of consent for sexual activity? I am not asking about pre marital sex as that is an entirely different topic. In the Bible what is the minimum age that a girl, woman, boy or man can consent to sex (marriage)?
If God's authority is objective can you explain age of sexual consent to us. It is different in different countries and even in various states and provinces and has changed over time. If morality is objective and not subjective why does this change over space and time? And exactly what does the Bible or God state about the age of consent for sexual activity? I am not asking about pre marital sex as that is an entirely different topic. In the Bible what is the minimum age that a girl, woman, boy or man can consent to sex (marriage)?
Romans 13. God gives human government the ability to determine legality of some things. The age of sexual consent is something that God allows the culture to determine, above the age of puberty. Biblically, a man or woman is an adult at puberty.
I fail to see how that has a bearing on the discussion.
Romans 13. God gives human government the ability to determine legality of some things. The age of sexual consent is something that God allows the culture to determine, above the age of puberty. Biblically, a man or woman is an adult at puberty.
I fail to see how that has a bearing on the discussion.
Then let me explain it to you. We as societies determine that it is a moral objective to protect our children and to allow them to be children as long as we do. The entire age of consent concept and what age that will be then is something that we do without God's help. Sure you can cop out by saying that God allows it but it is true that we can do that with or without God's permission. So societies are able to protect children and we, without your god or anyone else's god (which in my mind are just as true as your god is, or just as not true) and it is in your mind only our opinions that make these laws. Same as speed limits on highways or most other things that we live by. So we set what is moral as far as sex with children, and we set what the punishments for violating theses laws shall be and we, atheists and super religious folks alike, are as a society accept these laws (other than those who break the law).
So we can set laws on things that your God did not think as of important as the rules against picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and these laws are not viewed as just an individual's opinion. We get our morality from laws and our morality is also inputted to create the laws, which is why laws change over time.
But as I said earlier you even but in the setting of laws you must insert your God and that any discussion with you one must have to accept your assertion that there is a God, it is your God and he behaves in the way you claim, before any discussion can even occur. In fact there is actually no discussion with you because you dismiss outright anything that does not fit your worldview of your God.
I've NEVER suggested that atheists can't be good, moral people. I would challenge you to provide a link to any post of me making such a statement.
What I HAVE said is that while an atheist can do things we consider to be moral, or that God has defined as moral, the atheist has no way to objectively identify what is and is not morality.
The difference between morality and George Clooney is that it's easy to identify who is and is not George Clooney. We know what George Clooney is and is not, who and who he is/not. Do you have a similar way of judging what morality is and isn't?
As I said, it may not be what you mean, but it is certainly what you are saying. Either way, I am moving on from it, as it provides nothing to the discussion.
You don't like the George Clooney thing? Okay, I'll change it a bit.
If it is my opinion that aliens are real, and have infiltrated our government, and you think that is not true, then certainly your opinion would be more valid.
If it is my opinion that Jimi Hendrix was awesome, and your opinion is that he wasn't, then certainly my opinion is more valid.
Just kidding on the last one, but the point remains. Not all opinions are equal. If you say they are, you are either lying to us, or to yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
There you go again begging the question. That is the closest that I've seen anyone coming to defining morality. You get that certain things are wrong. That is good. Now I'm asking how you can know that? WHY would we want to use your standard of "if it hurts it's bad" morality? WHY would we assume that? I have yet to see anyone answer that simple question.
Because I'm not an idiot? It is obscenely simple when you break it down.
The better question, is why WOULDN'T you want to use that standard? I mean, I get why you don't, because if you used that standard you wouldn't be able to hate on all the people you think your God hates, but for everyone else, it should be that simple. I am not assuming anything. Things that hurt the masses is bad, things that don't are good, or at the very least acceptable. (A little too much of a simplification, but still)
Then let me explain it to you. We as societies determine that it is a moral objective to protect our children and to allow them to be children as long as we do. The entire age of consent concept and what age that will be then is something that we do without God's help. Sure you can cop out by saying that God allows it but it is true that we can do that with or without God's permission. So societies are able to protect children and we, without your god or anyone else's god (which in my mind are just as true as your god is, or just as not true) and it is in your mind only our opinions that make these laws. Same as speed limits on highways or most other things that we live by. So we set what is moral as far as sex with children, and we set what the punishments for violating theses laws shall be and we, atheists and super religious folks alike, are as a society accept these laws (other than those who break the law).
So we can set laws on things that your God did not think as of important as the rules against picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and these laws are not viewed as just an individual's opinion. We get our morality from laws and our morality is also inputted to create the laws, which is why laws change over time.
But as I said earlier you even but in the setting of laws you must insert your God and that any discussion with you one must have to accept your assertion that there is a God, it is your God and he behaves in the way you claim, before any discussion can even occur. In fact there is actually no discussion with you because you dismiss outright anything that does not fit your worldview of your God.
You STILL haven't answered the question of how you can determine what is morality and what isn't. You can claim society can determine it, but your argument lacks. What about another society deciding otherwise?
As I said, it may not be what you mean, but it is certainly what you are saying. Either way, I am moving on from it, as it provides nothing to the discussion.
You don't like the George Clooney thing? Okay, I'll change it a bit.
If it is my opinion that aliens are real, and have infiltrated our government, and you think that is not true, then certainly your opinion would be more valid.
If it is my opinion that Jimi Hendrix was awesome, and your opinion is that he wasn't, then certainly my opinion is more valid.
Just kidding on the last one, but the point remains. Not all opinions are equal. If you say they are, you are either lying to us, or to yourself.
I completely agree. Not all opinions are equal. But you have no way to determine what opinion is CORRECT in regards to morality.
Quote:
Because I'm not an idiot? It is obscenely simple when you break it down.
The better question, is why WOULDN'T you want to use that standard? I mean, I get why you don't, because if you used that standard you wouldn't be able to hate on all the people you think your God hates, but for everyone else, it should be that simple. I am not assuming anything. Things that hurt the masses is bad, things that don't are good, or at the very least acceptable. (A little too much of a simplification, but still)
So...again. We have you begging the question. You are once again assuming that it's the "correct" standard with absolutely no proof for such. Yo usa yit is....because it is. You are now resorting to the logical fallacy of ad hominem, to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you is an icky doo-doo head.
I completely agree. Not all opinions are equal. But you have no way to determine what opinion is CORRECT in regards to morality.
And neither would you, yet you claim you do know which is correct. So which one is it Vizio? Can no one determine what is correct? Can only you determine that? What gives?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
So...again. We have you begging the question. You are once again assuming that it's the "correct" standard with absolutely no proof for such. Yo usa yit is....because it is. You are now resorting to the logical fallacy of ad hominem, to suggest that anyone that disagrees with you is an icky doo-doo head.
STILL waiting....
There may be no proof it is the correct standard, but there is plenty of proof it SHOULD be (If you assume it isn't ), regardless of what your God (or you) supposedly thinks. By the way, there is no proof your standard (or your God's) is the correct one either, regardless of whether you say so or not. Can you tell me why my standard is not the correct one? It is better than your God's, so be careful when you answer!
It is true that people may believe certain things are moral or not moral, but as I said above, not all opinions are equal. If your opinion is that raping people is good, then your opinion is trash, and certainly not equal to those who say it is wrong.
I also don't see how I am resorting to ad hominem, since I never suggested that "anyone that disagrees with me is an icky doo-doo head". What I said in my post was factual, not an attack. You wouldn't want to follow my line of thinking, because you believe it contradicts your God, which means you wouldn't be able to attack the people you believe he dislikes.
And neither would you, yet you claim you do know which is correct. So which one is it Vizio? Can no one determine what is correct? Can only you determine that? What gives?
No. I don't claim to be able to determine what is and is not moral. I'm not that arrogant. Have you paid attention at all to what I've said?
Quote:
There may be no proof it is the correct standard, but there is plenty of proof it SHOULD be (If you assume it isn't ), regardless of what your God (or you) supposedly thinks. By the way, there is no proof your standard (or your God's) is the correct one either, regardless of whether you say so or not. Can you tell me why my standard is not the correct one? It is better than your God's, so be careful when you answer!
Hallelujah! You just admitted it! You have no proof that what you have is the correct standard!
Your argument amounts to "it works". I have yet to see anyone explain why "it works" is the correct standard other than personal preference.
STILL waiting....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), regardless of what your God (or you) supposedly thinks. By the way, there is no proof your standard (or your God's) is the correct one either, regardless of whether you say so or not. Can you tell me why my standard is not the correct one? It is better than your God's, so be careful when you answer!
