The "Horrific God" Charge

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't any if Jeffery Dahmer created the universe so questions along that
line are just your pure fiction.

Kelly

Assuming for a moment that such a thing exists...

What about creating the universe implies the creator has good morals?

Your argument is that anything the universe creator does is moral by definition.
For this to mean anything other than might makes right you have to claim that the universe
creator has a greater understanding of morality and of foreseeing all the consequences and
repercussions of it's actions than we do/can have.

However, there is nothing about the act of building the universe that implies or requires morals
of any stripe.
In fact if you postulate god to be a singular entity that has been sitting on it's own for eternity
before making this universe then morals (codes of behaviour to do with interacting with others)
might well be an anathema to god, they didn't apply because god has never previously had another
to interact with. Would explain why he acts like a spoiled kid (according to the biblical description).

Unless you can come up with a bullet proof reason why god would have to have a moral code worthy
of following to be able to create the universe then you have nothing other than might makes right as
your reason for following gods supposed moral code.

Which is no reason at all.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't any if Jeffery Dahmer created the universe so questions along that
line are just your pure fiction.

Kelly

Questions along that line are hypothetical, and they are in the business of clarifying the scope and implications of your view.

As far as I can tell, according to your view, it is permissible/just/right/etc for the creator of the universe to do whatever he wants with his creation. So, it should follow that Jeffrey Dahmer's actions were just and right, supposing it happened to be the case that Jeffrey Dahmer created the universe. When Dahmer was sentenced, you should hope they at least paused to consider if he was in fact the creator of the universe, since, if so, that would cast radically different light on the case, according to your view. Please point out any misunderstandings I have here.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I do not see anything outside of God that would make that "right" the only
just reasons I see for people ending another's life is due to war, law, justice,
self-protection, some measure of medical mercy which is a fuzzy line, I'm sure
there may be other reasons none come to mind now. With God since God
setup the universe and all that is in it, He is ...[text shortened]... commands from God are to love God and each other
they break them at heart of it all.
Kelly

Okay, then I am confused. You stated before that all God's actions are just and right on the face of it. When I then bring up an example, though, you cannot think of any reasons that serve to justify the action on the face of it. So, why would you assert that the action is just and right on the face of it if you do not see any reasons that make it just and right on the face of it? When you imply that God's directing the slaying of babies was just and right on the face of it, what exactly do you mean?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Assuming for a moment that such a thing exists...

What about creating the universe implies the creator has good morals?

Your argument is that anything the universe creator does is moral by definition.
For this to mean anything other than might makes right you have to claim that the universe
creator has a greater understanding of morality and of ...[text shortened]... right as
your reason for following gods supposed moral code.

Which is no reason at all.

You are clearly confused.

My kids fancy the Harry Potter stories. I don't see why. There are economies at play which I can't begin to keep straight. It is my contention that the author wanted to mimic the works of Tolkien and Lewis with their fantasy worlds, but lacked a cogent moral currency that made any sense of the world she'd created. Because of this lack, situations designed to represent tension simply read like anything mundane: different but no distinction.

God, by definition, is good. Why? Because that is what He calls it. If God called murderous treachery leading to sadomasochistic cannibalism good, guess how we'd all be spending our afternoons?

There is a disconnect between what you think is good and the actions recorded in the Bible. That's front page news, right there. How many people in the course of human events would EVER call a massive, world-wide flood that wipes out all but eight humans, good? Gosh, it's almost as though there is another currency at play, don't you think?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are clearly confused.

My kids fancy the Harry Potter stories. I don't see why. There are economies at play which I can't begin to keep straight. It is my contention that the author wanted to mimic the works of Tolkien and Lewis with their fantasy worlds, but lacked a cogent moral currency that made any sense of the world she'd created. Because o ...[text shortened]... s, good? Gosh, it's almost as though there is another currency at play, don't you think?

ok ignoring the nonsense, because, well it's nonsense...

you are saying.
"God is good because god says that he is so.

And anything god says is good must be considered so."

which boils down to "because I say so", where I is god.

This is the least satisfactory or convincing argument possible.

This also hits Eurthyphro dilemma territory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

The idea that god could define anything as being moral is obliterated by secular morality.

It is possible to make definitive moral statements based on reason and evidence alone which preclude
ever labelling "sadomasochistic cannibalism as good".

If god parted the sky tomorrow and in a booming voice decreed that "sadomasochistic cannibalism was
a good thing" we would respond "no it bloody isn't, go back to your cloud you blithering idiot."

If it isn't (and it isn't) possible for god to arbitrarily define morality then morality exists externally to god
and thus god can be judged with respect to it, and be found wanting.

Given your incoherent rambling about the potter novels for no apparent reason I would say it's you that is confused.

Originally posted by googlefudge
ok ignoring the nonsense, because, well it's nonsense...

you are saying.
"God is good because god says that he is so.

And anything god says is good must be considered so."

which boils down to "because I say so", where I is god.

This is the least satisfactory or convincing argument possible.

This also hits Eurthyphro dilemma territory. htt ...[text shortened]... t the potter novels for no apparent reason I would say it's you that is confused.

which boils down to "because I say so", where I is god.

This is the least satisfactory or convincing argument possible.
So unsatisfactory, apparently, that you employ the same yourself. Once you have removed God's ability to call good 'good,' you transfer the same power to yourself. Now, what you call good shall be 'good,' so help you, um, you.

To you I say, go back to your cloud, you blithering douche bag, er, idiot.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]which boils down to "because I say so", where I is god.

This is the least satisfactory or convincing argument possible.
So unsatisfactory, apparently, that you employ the same yourself. Once you have removed God's ability to call good 'good,' you transfer the same power to yourself. Now, what you call good shall be 'good,' so help you, um, you.

To you I say, go back to your cloud, you blithering douche bag, er, idiot.[/b]

No, it's what WE call good. WE being the society in question.

Watch the lecture I posted the links to for the explanation of what I mean.

Also which part of using "evidence and reason" did you not understand?

This negates your because I say so rejoinder.

Incidentally if I can't call you an idiot I see no reason to allow you to do so to me.
Somebody report him to the mods please.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are clearly confused.

My kids fancy the Harry Potter stories. I don't see why. There are economies at play which I can't begin to keep straight. It is my contention that the author wanted to mimic the works of Tolkien and Lewis with their fantasy worlds, but lacked a cogent moral currency that made any sense of the world she'd created. Because o ...[text shortened]... s, good? Gosh, it's almost as though there is another currency at play, don't you think?

If God called murderous treachery leading to sadomasochistic cannibalism good, guess how we'd all be spending our afternoons?

You should take this as some sort of reductio against the idea that whatever it may be that God calls good, is thereby good.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]If God called murderous treachery leading to sadomasochistic cannibalism good, guess how we'd all be spending our afternoons?

You should take this as some sort of reductio against the idea that whatever it may be that God calls good, is thereby good.[/b]

Bizarro-good. Almost the complete opposite of the word's meaning.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There isn't any if Jeffery Dahmer created the universe so questions along that
line are just your pure fiction.

Kelly

it's hypothetical reasoning which examines the implications and flaws of your view and it's a perfectly valid point of argument.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You are clearly confused.

My kids fancy the Harry Potter stories. I don't see why. There are economies at play which I can't begin to keep straight. It is my contention that the author wanted to mimic the works of Tolkien and Lewis with their fantasy worlds, but lacked a cogent moral currency that made any sense of the world she'd created. Because o s, good? Gosh, it's almost as though there is another currency at play, don't you think?

God, by definition, is good. Why? Because that is what He calls it. If God called murderous treachery leading to sadomasochistic cannibalism good, guess how we'd all be spending our afternoons?
Your open ended question here shouldn't necessarily have the "obvious" answer. Indeed I'm sure "God" calls praising "Him" in church and recruiting more followers goodReveal Hidden Contentbut I strongly doubt it's the case that the majority of people who call themselves Christians slavishly follow that course of action (and of course those of another religion, or atheists are (obviously) even less likely to do what is "good" in this respect). Moreover, given the claims of the Bible, defining whatever "God" does to be good divorces the word from it's commonly accepted meaning; i.e. if we are to accept that god really is defined by such a trait then that comes with the caveat that this word, as you mean it, has no currency with us. Indeed you might as well replace "good" by "jash".

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Bizarro-good. Almost the complete opposite of the word's meaning.

Hey, nice to see you again!

Yes, please add this entry to the bizarro dictionary.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it's hypothetical reasoning which examines the implications and flaws of your view and it's a perfectly valid point of argument.

The point is what if Jeff makes a universe according to Jeff's will the way that
Jeff wants, he then does what Jeff wills and wants so so Jeff is happy.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
Assuming for a moment that such a thing exists...

What about creating the universe implies the creator has good morals?

Your argument is that anything the universe creator does is moral by definition.
For this to mean anything other than might makes right you have to claim that the universe
creator has a greater understanding of morality and of ...[text shortened]... right as
your reason for following gods supposed moral code.

Which is no reason at all.

I've said that the creator gets to do what the creator wants.
I've said that unlike man God isn't trying to figure out anything and wondering
what will happen next if things go abc or xyz. So seeing the beginning from the
end gives God a perspective that is beyond that of mortal man.

I told you the greatest two laws brought down by God to man both revolved
around love, not might makes right. So love as it isn't worked out but instead
human selfishness is has a spoiled quality to it. God is working out our failures
towards something must better, and those that want no part of it get their
way too.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
I want to make a few “sideboard” comments:

First, Bennett’s reductio applies to a god who fits the two Os. Any theist can drop either O and escape the reductio. Many are unwilling to do so. But it is only that god who cannot exist as a conclusion of the reductio; as a nondualist, I find plenty of other reasons to reject the notion of the god of em through. When I get to the end, I’ll order the next volume.

Be well, all my friends!

Second, LJ points out that this whole thing depends on a “sufficiently literal” reading of the biblical texts. It has long been an annoyance to me how literalism is so predominantly asserted as the proper norm, and all others get marginalized as “spinning”, often for the purpose of making god “look better”. But this literalism-as-norm, by both theists and atheists, is a modern phenomenon that does not hold up under either literary criticism (my general approach) or, I think, historical criticism

I must annoy the dickens out of you.

Does a "literalist" mean one does not plainly recognize that the 66 books of the Bible include plenty usage of ie.

parables
quotations of parables
allusions to myths
poetry
quotations of secular poetry
references to canonical books
references to noncanonical books
references to pagan poetry
symbollism
reference to symbolism employed by pagans ?

I think I take a "literal" approach yet I can clearly see as Hebrews says "God, having spoken of old in MANY portions and in MANY ways to the fathers in the prophets, ..." (Heb. 1:1)