Remember me
[Forgot password?] [Register]
[Login]
menu

Is God's moral above humans?

<< First < Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next > Last >>

[Reply] #21
06-10-2015 06:52 PM
Joined: 01-31-2008
Posts: 55,431
offline
Xehanort the Younger
Xehanort the Younger
Not the bald one
Rep: 344

In my honest opinion, I don’t believe that man’s morals and God’s morals could ever be equal nor could man’s morals ever be above God’s. Because to say “above in morals” implies there is a moral standard to abide by. Some sort of code of morality that is designated as “the best one.". If God were totally evil, then what do morals even mean except what we want? Unless we are morally perfect. But of course if the universe is amoral and has no standard then there is no standard better than the other. Sure, there are standards that are better at doing certain things over the other.

For example, in general society’s population wants to live so a moral code of just going around killing hinders that. However, just because we biologically want to survive for the most part doesn’t mean it is “moral” not to kill in an subjective universe. Of course people with subjective moral codes can behave to say under general Christian standard(Most people don’t murder and all that.Obviously there are differences). In a entirely subjective standard, the moral code is simply the whim of the majority(Well more so their ability to enforce it and maintain it up to the point it is worth maintaining).

To get on topic:

I believe God(If he/she/it exists) is either perfectly moral and thus above man in morality or there is no “One is better than the other."(Save for certain sets of circumstances. Like for example if what you want is to “Fuck all the bitches." then obviously the Christian moral code is not good for that.) There either is an objective standard or no standard has any value outside of what the creature(s) decide what is “right” for themselves and what they decide fits a “good standard”

[Reply] #22
06-10-2015 07:36 PM
Joined: 03-27-2013
Posts: 9,157
offline
Rich-616
Rich-616
The Great Uniter
Rep: 79

Depends on what God we’re talking about, since there’s millions of them.

Now the Christian God, or the many others that have committed genocide, I’d say they’re pretty low on the morality pole. There doesn’t have to be a set, universal standard of morality to know that murder is wrong, especially against powerless, innocent people.

If we’re just talking about God as a concept, I would think that it would be a perfectly moral force/entity. Though as an “agnostic” I do believe in a universal force, though more of a force rather than a being like ourselves. I like the saying that “consciousness in the form of man and other beings is the universe (reality) attempting to understand itself." Or something like that.

[Reply] #23
06-11-2015 12:44 AM
Joined: 05-21-2013
Posts: 1,176
offline
Macho
Macho
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 26

To be clear I’m talking about the christian god.

OrganizationXV wrote:

Van Hohenheim wrote: Explain further. What are the justifications and if not based on human opinion then of what?


Well, let’s just say you give a definition on what it is that’s moral or immoral. A common place to draw the line is when you harm another living being in some way. Okay, if that’s what you use to define morality, then you have a starting point. Case by case, you might have to fudge it to some extent, but you still have a semi-objective stance on it in that you know generally what’s right and wrong from that.

If you consider morality to be entirely subjective, then that would mean it’s based entirely on opinion. If the majority believe that punching a dude in the face is bad, then it’s bad whatever the minority believe. If they believe it’s moral, then it is no matter what the minority believe.

If you add God to the mix, it changes things a bit. He’s the supreme authority, so His word would be law in the case of the latter. If He were to, say, drown out the planet and almost wipe out the human race, that’s all well and good because humans' opinions don’t mean shit in the face of Him. If you have a definition of morality that says it’s completely immoral to do that, though, then what he’s doing is wrong. It doesn’t stop Him, but it’s true.


Yes, I see what you mean by if god wishes to kill every new born, then it is good because he is the creator of good and bad. This is of course assuming god is real and not man made.

Let’s go a little deeper, though.

According to the bible, once humans ate from the tree of knowledge, we we’re granted understanding of good and bad. A power/knowledge of a god.


Let’s assume god is real and let’s say he told you to kill you first son or daughter because that is good. Would you be willing to do this good? Or do you consider this bad?

Thus, this leads to my question: Is god’s morality really above humans?


I am Necessary Evil wrote: [
How can you easily argue in favor of God if there’s subjective morality? Almost every atheist I know would disagree with this.


I’ll try and explain. I trust you have knowledge of the bible, correct? There are rules and commands by god that contradict each other. One moment he says “eye for an eye” and the next Jesus is saying “turn the other cheek”. Clearly, there is no objective moral here. Thus debunks an objective universal moral. But if you were to argue that god’s moral is subjective then it would be consistent with the bible, of course you would also have to add that god’s good changes so often. This would be a more intelligent stand to take for theist.


IaNE wrote: If morality is subjective, what’s the purpose of God for morality.


That’s a question for you to answer.

IaNE wrote:
If anything, if there’s objective morality, then the Theist can argue that God, being the supreme transcendent being of absolute love, is also the supreme transcendent being of absolute goodness, and as the being of absolute goodness, He is the standard for morality and without him, there’s no source or foundation for objective moral standards.


Yes, but then he would have the duty to prove that god decides what is contradictory, as well.

IaNE wrote:
I’ve read Sam Harris and other atheist try to explain that there is objective morality, but their explanation leads me to believe there really isn’t objective moral values and standards. In fact Harris states that the flourishing of human well being is that standard. But how exactly do we know that what u define as the flourishing of human well being is in fact the same as my definition. You see, subjective morality, if it exist (that is to say if there’s no such thing as objective morality) almost completely falsifies A supreme transcendent being of moral goodness. Because why would such a thing exist if there’s no need for the standard of objective morality.


That’s, again, not for me to answer. Whether you believe that proving objective moral doesn’t exist disproves god, is all up to the argument you’re willing to make.

As I told someone here already, according to the bible humans are aware of right and wrong. Yet, some have different views on whether something is good or bad. This makes it impossible to debate on there being an universal objective moral.

IaNE wrote:
Also to answer your question,I would think the Theist believes God’s morals to be above that of humans. After all, the belief is that God is perfectly good and humans aren’t


Well that theist has all his work ahead, in such a case.



Judicator wrote: In my honest opinion, I don’t believe that man’s morals and God’s morals could ever be equal nor could man’s morals ever be above God’s. Because to say “above in morals” implies there is a moral standard to abide by. Some sort of code of morality that is designated as “the best one.". If God were totally evil, then what do morals even mean except what we want? Unless we are morally perfect. But of course if the universe is amoral and has no standard then there is no standard better than the other. Sure, there are standards that are better at doing certain things over the other.

For example, in general society’s population wants to live so a moral code of just going around killing hinders that. However, just because we biologically want to survive for the most part doesn’t mean it is “moral” not to kill in an subjective universe. Of course people with subjective moral codes can behave to say under general Christian standard(Most people don’t murder and all that.Obviously there are differences). In a entirely subjective standard, the moral code is simply the whim of the majority(Well more so their ability to enforce it and maintain it up to the point it is worth maintaining).

To get on topic:

I believe God(If he/she/it exists) is either perfectly moral and thus above man in morality or there is no “One is better than the other."(Save for certain sets of circumstances. Like for example if what you want is to “Fuck all the bitches." then obviously the Christian moral code is not good for that.) There either is an objective standard or no standard has any value outside of what the creature(s) decide what is “right” for themselves and what they decide fits a “good standard”



Very well put. Yes, we would first need to establish a purpose to which we then base our beliefs on.

One thing I’m not sure I agree on is the amoral universe you propose. For the sake of this argument let’s say god doesn’t exist, thus no objective moral as you say. Does this mean there is no moral at all as you imply? Morality is a concept and as long as there is some that thinks of this concept, then it exist as a subjective moral.

If we apply your idea to numbers (as they too are a concept) I think we would agree on the same conclusion I got, no?

Do you forget that murder was a moral general christian standard in the past? We must not forget this.


__________________


“If I don’t, then who will!“-Goku
Im your huckleberry.- Doc Holiday
From me to you. Choke on it.- Kid Trunks

[Reply] #24
06-11-2015 01:47 AM
Joined: 01-31-2008
Posts: 55,431
offline
Xehanort the Younger
Xehanort the Younger
Not the bald one
Rep: 344

I should word it like this, if there is no objective morality and the universe is just an amoral thing then the only morality that exists is basically a subjective standard. I’m not saying societies can’t run without God or an objective standard rooted in to us to be successful and thrive but what I am saying is that there is no moral superior or inferior save in relation to moral codes of the individual or society. There is nothing about an amoral universe that can say “murder is wrong” or “rape is wrong." but at the same time nothing says they are right either. They just are. I would say in this hypothetical amoral universe what we call morality would simply be superstition.

For the Christian God to be below or equal to us in morality one would have to appeal entirely on a subjective standard. In which case it holds the weight of an opinion and regardless of one’s disagreements subjectively it ultimately wouldn’t matter. It would be like arguing that a triangle doesn’t have 3 sides since in your view 3 should actually be 4.

or one would have to appeal to a different and “higher” or equal to objective standard. Like just for argument’s sake, let’s say there is a “Super God” who is above the Christian God and it’s morals above his as far as moral standard goes. And if our standard lined up with his more than God did we would be morally superior. But that would lead in to more problems when proposing a “Super God”. So I think appealing to “equal footing” objective standards is better. Like comparing Christianity to Islam for example.

[Reply] #25
06-11-2015 04:20 AM
Free of Sin
Guest

God is not above morals, but as the judge he has the right to kill sinners.

[Reply] #26
06-11-2015 01:07 PM
Joined: 03-25-2011
Posts: 13,322
offline
Jurassic DIO
Jurassic DIO
Fabulous lizard man
Rep: 147

Van Hohenheim wrote: I wouldn’t simplify such a complex matter into just two categories.

If we choose subjective morality then you can easily argue in favor of god.

Object morality will naturally have an infinite amount of paradoxes.

But I think we can all agree on some basic moral principles. Like killing new borns.is morally bad.


I agree that it is bad, however, some people out there disagree. As for the question, it seems idiotic to believe that whatever a mighty being does will always be right.


__________________

[Reply] #27
06-11-2015 01:11 PM
Joined: 03-25-2011
Posts: 13,322
offline
Jurassic DIO
Jurassic DIO
Fabulous lizard man
Rep: 147

Oh, the christian god. I don’t think you can create a worse fictional character in terms of morality. No being can be more evil than a pure psychopath megalomanical sadomasochist genociding monster. Both Allah and YHVH are tied imo.


__________________

[Reply] #28
06-11-2015 01:39 PM
Joined: 05-23-2013
Posts: 10,693
offline
Hanbei
Hanbei
~Falling Headfirst into Hell~
Rep: 56

There’s a trope called the Omniscient Morality License, where you can pretty much do whatever you want because you know it will end well because of your omniscience.

Assuming I explained it right.

[Reply] #29
06-11-2015 01:46 PM
Joined: 01-24-2011
Posts: 4,164
offline
Anime18
Anime18
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 154

Van Hohenheim wrote: I’ve heard people argue that God can do as he pleases because, well he’s god he’s allowed to do anything he wants.

Do most theist agree with this?



*But the question comes up......who created God?*





bet you can’t answer that huh.......smh



__________________

[Reply] #30
06-11-2015 04:26 PM
how can anybody expect
Guest

godlike beings (from our human perspective) to consider us on their moral level, with how we treat species like cattle? after all, we are godlike beings to cattle, and look at how we treat them? their pain and suffering, means nothing to us

or on an even greater scale, a godlike being to us, may look at us with the same morals that we look at bugs. how can we expect anything different, when most people are perfectly fine with killing bugs like nothing? or toying with them and torturing them? godlike beings to us, may have a moral relationship to us very much akin to how, say an eight year old child plays with bugs

[Reply] #31
06-11-2015 04:30 PM
Joined: 02-09-2013
Posts: 6,476
offline
Han Solo
Han Solo
Knight of Candor
Rep: 120

how can anybody expect wrote: godlike beings (from our human perspective) to consider us on their moral level, with how we treat species like cattle? after all, we are godlike beings to cattle, and look at how we treat them? their pain and suffering, means nothing to us

or on an even greater scale, a godlike being to us, may look at us with the same morals that we look at bugs. how can we expect anything different, when most people are perfectly fine with killing bugs like nothing? or toying with them and torturing them? godlike beings to us, may have a moral relationship to us very much akin to how, say an eight year old child plays with bugs



i think problem wit you argument is generalize human because even though cow is mistreat most people would not mistreat cow like that

for proof yesterday i find cricket in my room but instead of kill it i sweep it into garage


__________________

gokumonji wrote: ^Ignore this guy.

Creeping Death wrote: I know you wanna reply, but pls dont reply to the guy above ^

[Reply] #32
06-11-2015 05:50 PM
Joined: 05-21-2013
Posts: 1,176
offline
Macho
Macho
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 26

Judicator wrote: I should word it like this, if there is no objective morality and the universe is just an amoral thing then the only morality that exists is basically a subjective standard.


Okay, so that’s where you were going.

Chib wrote:
I’m not saying societies can’t run without God or an objective standard rooted in to us to be successful and thrive but what I am saying is that there is no moral superior or inferior save in relation to moral codes of the individual or society.


I don’t think I said nor implied that, but if I did then forget I said that because that’s not where I was going.
I actually agree, thus far.

Chib wrote:
For the Christian God to be below or equal to us in morality one would have to appeal entirely on a subjective standard. In which case it holds the weight of an opinion and regardless of one’s disagreements subjectively it ultimately wouldn’t matter. It would be like arguing that a triangle doesn’t have 3 sides since in your view 3 should actually be 4.


I disagree. Subjective morality can have some concrete bases behind it, it all depends on the purpose of an individual based on our natural instincts.

For example, what is our purpose? To live and reproduce, correct? Anything that hinders that basic principle is immoral (of course this is just the very basic principle and other factors can change this).

Arguing against facts is nonsensical, but arguing on a more complex matter that is not 100% exact is not insane. We all know that a triangle has 3 sides, but we can disagree on what morals we have and why we do or what morals are best and why.

Chib wrote:
or one would have to appeal to a different and “higher” or equal to objective standard. Like just for argument’s sake, let’s say there is a “Super God” who is above the Christian God and it’s morals above his as far as moral standard goes. And if our standard lined up with his more than God did we would be morally superior. But that would lead in to more problems when proposing a “Super God”. So I think appealing to “equal footing” objective standards is better. Like comparing Christianity to Islam for example.


I don’t think adding an extra step is necessary, but that’s an interesting thought/idea.


__________________


“If I don’t, then who will!“-Goku
Im your huckleberry.- Doc Holiday
From me to you. Choke on it.- Kid Trunks

[Reply] #33
06-11-2015 05:54 PM
Joined: 05-21-2013
Posts: 1,176
offline
Macho
Macho
UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 26

TheBlackDragonz wrote: There’s a trope called the Omniscient Morality License, where you can pretty much do whatever you want because you know it will end well because of your omniscience.

Assuming I explained it right.


I can see many flaws in this argument, if were talking about the christian god. Maybe I can make a case even against a deist god, but I don’t know, lol.

Anime18 wrote:

Van Hohenheim wrote: I’ve heard people argue that God can do as he pleases because, well he’s god he’s allowed to do anything he wants.

Do most theist agree with this?



*But the question comes up......who created God?*


It’s obvious who did.


__________________


“If I don’t, then who will!“-Goku
Im your huckleberry.- Doc Holiday
From me to you. Choke on it.- Kid Trunks

[Reply] #34
06-11-2015 07:47 PM
Joined: 06-04-2015
Posts: 534
offline
colorles
colorles
Regular
Rep: 15

Han Solo wrote:

how can anybody expect wrote: godlike beings (from our human perspective) to consider us on their moral level, with how we treat species like cattle? after all, we are godlike beings to cattle, and look at how we treat them? their pain and suffering, means nothing to us

or on an even greater scale, a godlike being to us, may look at us with the same morals that we look at bugs. how can we expect anything different, when most people are perfectly fine with killing bugs like nothing? or toying with them and torturing them? godlike beings to us, may have a moral relationship to us very much akin to how, say an eight year old child plays with bugs



i think problem wit you argument is generalize human because even though cow is mistreat most people would not mistreat cow like that

for proof yesterday i find cricket in my room but instead of kill it i sweep it into garage



your humility is humbling

[Reply] #35
06-11-2015 11:09 PM
Joined: 03-25-2011
Posts: 13,322
offline
Jurassic DIO
Jurassic DIO
Fabulous lizard man
Rep: 147

TheBlackDragonz wrote: There’s a trope called the Omniscient Morality License, where you can pretty much do whatever you want because you know it will end well because of your omniscience.

Assuming I explained it right.


As matas just said, this trope does not work he with the christian. Considering how he is “omnipotent”, there would be unlimited ways in which he can create a world where everything ends well without having to commit genocide lol.


__________________

[Reply] #36
06-12-2015 01:09 PM
Joined: 05-23-2013
Posts: 10,693
offline
Hanbei
Hanbei
~Falling Headfirst into Hell~
Rep: 56

Pride The Solo King wrote:

TheBlackDragonz wrote: There’s a trope called the Omniscient Morality License, where you can pretty much do whatever you want because you know it will end well because of your omniscience.

Assuming I explained it right.


As matas just said, this trope does not work he with the christian. Considering how he is “omnipotent”, there would be unlimited ways in which he can create a world where everything ends well without having to commit genocide lol.

Ah, fair enough.

Just wanted to mention it since I wasn’t sure if it applied.

[Reply] #37
06-12-2015 01:31 PM
Just a moment
Guest

TheBlackDragonz wrote:

Pride The Solo King wrote:

TheBlackDragonz wrote: There’s a trope called the Omniscient Morality License, where you can pretty much do whatever you want because you know it will end well because of your omniscience.

Assuming I explained it right.


As matas just said, this trope does not work he with the christian. Considering how he is “omnipotent”, there would be unlimited ways in which he can create a world where everything ends well without having to commit genocide lol.

Ah, fair enough.

Just wanted to mention it since I wasn’t sure if it applied.



It does still apply as the fact is God has made limitations on his own creations. the Bible states that he made humans to have free will and the like ergo he cannot directly control them. Ergo it can be argued that his change in policies and the like are due to the fact that it changes with time to yield the best outcome. As he knows what will happen but he does not wish to force things to happen and thus the whole 'divine plan' thing comes into play.

[Reply] #38
06-12-2015 02:23 PM
leik
Guest

God would not create morals he wouldn’t follow

[Reply] #39
06-12-2015 02:53 PM
Joined: 06-24-2012
Posts: 12,907
offline
OrganizationXV
OrganizationXV
Reclaiming what's lost
Rep: 113

Han Solo wrote:
for proof yesterday i find cricket in my room but instead of kill it i sweep it into garage


That sounds like a slow, painful death for an insect that can’t escape.

[Reply] #40
06-12-2015 03:17 PM
Joined: 06-04-2015
Posts: 534
offline
colorles
colorles
Regular
Rep: 15

OrganizationXV wrote:

Han Solo wrote:
for proof yesterday i find cricket in my room but instead of kill it i sweep it into garage


That sounds like a slow, painful death for an insect that can’t escape.



if you are to assume that an insect cannot escape a dwelling, then how did said insect get into the dwelling to begin with?

Edited 06-12-2015 03:19 PM by colorles

<< First < Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next > Last >>

New Reply
Name (guest):

For faster posting and no restrictions: [Login] [Register]

Message:


 
 

[More Options] [New Topic]
Moderated by: Phobetius, Zeroextra, - FS -, Admins, Superusers [All moderators]
The Lounge Forums ©Silicon.dk ApS 2012 - Privacy Policy - Disclaimer - FAQ - Contact