What a world without God means

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    It's not about what God says, as though it's an arbitrary opinion. It's a revelation of God's nature.
    So it's essentially about what your specific god says. Okay.

    God has spoken - he has revealed truth using words: "saying". It's a revelation of who God is. He is the standard. I keep saying it, and you're acting as though I'm not answering the question.
    Because as "Planta" pointed out earlier, you've essentially gone for the second horn of the dilemma: that God controls what is morally right and wrong, making morality subjective.

    As stated earlier, appealing to his nature doesn't resolve the dilemma. It leads to the question, is his nature good because he says it is or is it good regardless of what he thinks of it? The answers to which are problematic in concerning your God and his/yours cry of "objective morality".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emperor Trajan)
    So it's essentially about what your specific god says. Okay.



    Because as "Planta" pointed out earlier, you've essentially gone for the second horn of the dilemma: that God controls what is morally right and wrong, making morality subjective.

    As stated earlier, appealing to his nature doesn't resolve it either. It leads to the question, is his nature good because he says it is or is it good regardless of what he thinks of it?
    Look, I know. I know. That's why I explained earlier, that you need to allow for the standard to stop somewhere. Otherwise you are shifting the goalpost. Let me explain why this is again.

    If we look at the Euthyphro problem, one option basically says "are things good because the gods say they are?" ie. it is decided arbitrarily.
    the other option says "or are things good, and the gods are simply aware of it?" That is pointing to the idea that there is a standard outside of the gods that they are aware of.
    Now I said that in this second option, if there is a standard outside of the gods, I could easily just say "yes, but why is that standard good?" And I could say that there was the same Euthyphro dilemma for the moral standard. But surely you would allow for the standard to stand alone.
    Well now that I'm saying that that standard is God, not because he says so, he just is, you say "you need another standard to demonstrate why God (the standard) is good."

    Do you see how this is a double standard? (pardon the pun)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Look, I know. I know. That's why I explained earlier, that you need to allow for the standard to stop somewhere. Otherwise you are shifting the goalpost. Let me explain why this is again.

    If we look at the Euthyphro problem, one option basically says "are things good because the gods say they are?" ie. it is decided arbitrarily.
    the other option says "or are things good, and the gods are simply aware of it?" That is pointing to the idea that there is a standard outside of the gods that they are aware of.
    Now I said that in this second option, if there is a standard outside of the gods, I could easily just say "yes, but why is that standard good?" And I could say that there was the same Euthyphro dilemma for the moral standard. But surely you would allow for the standard to stand alone.
    I see where you're coming from.

    Well now that I'm saying that that standard is God, not because he says so, he just is, you say "you need another standard to demonstrate why God (the standard) is good."

    Do you see how this is a double standard? (pardon the pun)
    Putting aside the contention of the appeal to god's nature again (which also brings to question his nature and omnipotence). I could similarly reply back to you (as you did to me) with (assuming morality is independent of God to an external standard) that good is in accordance of the nature of that "standard". I'm sure you'll contend this, this appeal to the "standard's" nature.

    Also I'm curious to know what this "objective morality" of yours, says on many matters (such as slavery, execution of apostates, homosexual relationships, Islam etc) I'm willing to bet they're in conflict with other Christians and other religionists and their take on what's objective morality. How do you know you and your religion hold objective morality and say not that of other sects or Islam?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Because the Mongol Empire was not The Judge. Only God is. I explained this already. This just highlights the fact that you aren't listening.
    Oh, I'm listening. I'm listening for your answers which aren't coming. If morality is objective why is it that Christians used to be comfortable with slavery and capital punishment (even Jesus' objection to stoning was that the stoner must be free of sins, not that the stoning itself was wrong) and now are not comfortable with them, judging them immoral?

    Do the modern Arch of Cant and Pope not agree with Paul and Jesus?

    Why do modern church leaders not agree with mediaeval ones that killing witches and torture of apostates is moral? Where is the objectivity?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When you talk about "objective" morality coming from the mind of a deity, it ceases to be objective- it's still dependent on someone else's thinking. Even if you ignore that and still claim "objective" morality comes from a deity, it gets back to the Euthyphro's dilemma. Ignoring even that you're still left with:
    A deity can command child sacrifice as a moral good, even if the infant goes to hell AS WELL.

    You're surrendering your ability to evaluate moral issues to a fictional being that some other fallible mortal conjured up to cope with the fear of death. But if it helps you cope with the fear of death, fine. As long as you do not mess around with the lives of others, we'll leave you be.

    But no, you decided that mooning us with your metaphysical fantasies was in order and here we are
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterJack)
    When you talk about "objective" morality coming from the mind of a deity, it ceases to be objective- it's still dependent on someone else's thinking. Even if you ignore that and still claim "objective" morality comes from a deity, it gets back to the Euthyphro's dilemma. Ignoring even that you're still left with:
    A deity can command child sacrifice as a moral good, even if the infant goes to hell AS WELL.

    You're surrendering your ability to evaluate moral issues to a fictional being that some other fallible mortal conjured up to cope with the fear of death. But if it helps you cope with the fear of death, fine. As long as you do not mess around with the lives of others, we'll leave you be.

    But no, you decided that mooning us with your metaphysical fantasies was in order and here we are
    This. The term, and the concept of, objective morality is in itself subjective.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    This. The term, and the concept of, objective morality is in itself subjective.
    Too often various religionists masquerade their subjective morality (developed by peoples of a bygone era and then set in stone) as 'objective' and even then rival sects and religionists differ on what this 'objective' morality is and appear to modify it as time passes and new problematic issues arise.

    In along with the Euthyphro dilemma bringing up problems with 'God' and 'objective morality'. The topic of what a yet to be proven deity views to constitute as right or wrong (arising from their scriptures) is up to fallible humans and their subjective and conflicting interpretations. At the end of the day, It's up to humans to decide what is morally right and wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.russell)
    It is complicated, I have to say though I wholeheartedly disagree with not basing your happiness on your life because your life can be taken away from you. What sort of a statement is that?,
    It's not big deal. If your life is taken from you, you won't need happiness as you'll be dead. lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladymusiclover)
    It's not big deal. If your life is taken from you, you won't need happiness as you'll be dead. lol
    Yeah - I agree with you, my original comment was a reply to someone else
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BefuddledPenguin)
    Everlasting and eternal are synonymous, in order for something to last forever, it has to have always existed. If it only lasted since birth or conception, then it is neither eternal or everlasting. Thrift is actively discouraged in the new testament. It is almost socialist in nature.
    It's also very anti-family the following are from Matthew:
    10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
    10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

    It's quite clear that to be a true catholic (or christian generally) you have to actively cause suffering to your own family. The dogma actually requires violence, even in the supposedly more peaceful new testament.

    Just watch this:


    The real question is: What would a World with God look like? The answer would clearly be human extinction.
    They are not synonymous. Eternal has always be defined as having no beginning and no end, with everlasting able to mean either, its a flexible notion with regards to beginnings. Also, but not as central, being eternal has commonly been tied to the notion of timelessness, while everlasting has been argued to be within time.

    Are you serious about that exegesis for Matthew?! Here's a commentary on the verse;

    ‘Sons against fathers, daughters against mothers’– what on earth could he mean? Rejecting parents and children – not peace on earth, but a sword – can this be Jesus himself ? What’s going on? How can we get our minds around these strange sayings? Of course, the New Testament also has a good deal to say about caring for one another within the family. And I know that some have misguidedly taken passages like these as a licence to neglect their own dependants and spend all their time on ‘the Lord’s work’. But these are stern and uncomfortable words which we can’t ignore. They echo down the years into the Christian church of today. Think of St Francis, leaving his wealthy home despite his father’s fury, to go and live a simple life of imitating Jesus as much as he could – and setting an example that thousands still follow today. Think of those who have faced terrible dangers for the sake of the gospel and have had to send their families to a place of safety elsewhere, while they have stayed to look after a church because there wasn’t anyone else to do it. Jesus doesn’t say here that everyone who follows him will find themselves split off from their families; certainly not. Indeed, many of the apostles, in the days of the early church , took their spouses with them on their travels (1 Corinthians 9.5). But Jesus is once again talking about priorities, and is making remarkable and quite drastic claims. He isn’t saying (as some have tried to pretend that he was saying) that what matters is following God in your own way. He is saying, loud and clear, that what matters is allegiance to him: allegiance to Jesus must come at the top of every priority list. We can see, as the story unwinds, how difficult this was even for those who knew him personally: Peter denied him , Judas betrayed him, the rest all ran away and hid. But the challenge remains, embracing everything, demanding everything, offering everything, promising everything.

    The absolute demand of Jesus brings us back to where we were in the Sermon on the Mount. It isn’t the case that there are some fine ideals in the mind of God, and that Jesus just happens to teach them a bit better than most people. Nor is it the case that Jesus came to show the way through the present world to a quite different one, where we will go after death. No: Jesus came to begin and establish the new way of being God’s people, and not surprisingly those who were quite happy with the old one, thank you very much, didn’t like having it disturbed. He didn’t want to bring division within households for the sake of it. But he knew that, if people followed his way, division was bound to follow. Actually, the passage about sons and fathers, daughters and mothers, and so on, is a quotation from one of the Old Testament prophets (Micah 7.6). In this passage, the prophet predicts the terrible divisions that would always occur when God was doing a new thing. When God acts to rescue his people, there are always some who declare that they don’t need rescuing, that they are comfortable as they are. Part of the reason for quoting this passage here is to say: don’t be surprised if this happens now; this, too, is part of your tradition! Your own scriptures contain warnings about the great disruptions that will happen when God finally acts once and for all to save you. That’s why Jesus’ challenge, to the disciples themselves and, through them, to the Israel of his day, had to be so sharp – and often has to be just as sharp today, where people still naturally prefer comfort to challenge. But the challenge of Jesus’ sayings is matched by the remarkable promises he makes to those who accept them and live by them . He will ‘own’ us before his father in heaven. Those who lose their lives will find them. And, at the end, the remarkable chain reaction of those who serve their fellow human beings out of love for Jesus. Give a cup of cold water to one of Jesus’ least significant followers, and you’re giving it to Jesus himself; whatever you do for Jesus, you do, not just for Jesus, but for God (‘ the one who sent me’). If Jesus’ people today could relearn this simple but profound lesson, the church might once again be able to go out with a message to challenge and change people’s hearts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    Because the Mongol Empire was not The Judge. Only God is. I explained this already. This just highlights the fact that you aren't listening. I even gave you the illustration of an executioner earlier!

    God wiped out lots of people in a big flood. He didn't murder those people. He carried out judgement on them, where they paid with their lives. The kind of judgement we all deserve if we're honest. Thank goodness for Jesus though, we get to escape that.
    If god knew that those people were going to sin and he'd have to kill them anyway then why exactly did he create them? What was the point? I'm being honest and I don't think I deserve that judgement.Why is the punishment for sinning hell, regardless of the magnitude of sinning?It is far worse to murder someone than to steal something.So why is the punishment the same?Don't you think its much more likely that hell doesn't really exist?Its just a myth made up to scare people into doing what the church says.Heaven likewise doesn't exist.That was invented because people dont want to believe that after death they just die.They want to believe that they will see everyone again.Doesn't mean it is true.Life is a beautiful thing,but its also a sad thing.The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    If god knew that those people were going to sin and he'd have to kill them anyway then why exactly did he create them? What was the point? I'm being honest and I don't think I deserve that judgement.Why is the punishment for sinning hell, regardless of the magnitude of sinning?It is far worse to murder someone than to steal something.So why is the punishment the same?Don't you think its much more likely that hell doesn't really exist?Its just a myth made up to scare people into doing what the church says.Heaven likewise doesn't exist.That was invented because people dont want to believe that after death they just die.They want to believe that they will see everyone again.Doesn't mean it is true.Life is a beautiful thing,but its also a sad thing.The two are not mutually exclusive.
    You know you're stating a load of subjective opinions about what's fair and not fair, the gravity of sin etc. You cannot demonstrate objectively why people don't deserve hell. You can't even describe hell. You can't demonstrate why it's morally wrong to create people you know you will give deserving punishment. All you can say is "I wouldn't do that!" But you're not God! The bible does talk about bringing glory to himself, demonstrating his attributes, showing love to people, saving people. But you can always ask the question why about these ideas. Why does he want to bring pleasure or glory to himself in this way? We don't know ultimately.

    "Why is the punishment the same?" We don't believe it is. We believe the punishment will be in accordance with what people have done - the bible says that more than once. But we don't know the exact details of what the punishment will be. It will involve eternity rather than a finite period of time and then you get to be with God. It will be painful - we don't know the kind of pain. I would assume it will have all the things we love on this planet taken away, like for example love, entertainment, talents, beauty etc. But I speculate. Not much is known about hell. People will get what they deserve (unless their sins are put on Jesus instead, of course).

    Look, at the end of the day, we've got good reason to believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. We've got good reason to believe the bible is true. So we just follow Jesus, we recognise our sin, and we have our sins forgiven. I can't give you reasons why sin deserves punishment. All I can do is state that God cares about justice, and God made us with an understanding of the desire for justice too.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    You know you're stating a load of subjective opinions about what's fair and not fair, the gravity of sin etc. You cannot demonstrate objectively why people don't deserve hell. You can't even describe hell. You can't demonstrate why it's morally wrong to create people you know you will give deserving punishment. All you can say is "I wouldn't do that!" But you're not God! The bible does talk about bringing glory to himself, demonstrating his attributes, showing love to people, saving people. But you can always ask the question why about these ideas. Why does he want to bring pleasure or glory to himself in this way? We don't know ultimately.

    "Why is the punishment the same?" We don't believe it is. We believe the punishment will be in accordance with what people have done - the bible says that more than once. But we don't know the exact details of what the punishment will be. It will involve eternity rather than a finite period of time and then you get to be with God. It will be painful - we don't know the kind of pain. I would assume it will have all the things we love on this planet taken away, like for example love, entertainment, talents, beauty etc. But I speculate. Not much is known about hell. People will get what they deserve (unless their sins are put on Jesus instead, of course).

    Look, at the end of the day, we've got good reason to believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. We've got good reason to believe the bible is true. So we just follow Jesus, we recognise our sin, and we have our sins forgiven. I can't give you reasons why sin deserves punishment. All I can do is state that God cares about justice, and God made us with an understanding of the desire for justice too.
    Your logic doesn't work.You are basically saying that if God says its good then it is good.So if god said the holocaust was ok then that would make it ok by your standards.No.It would still be wrong.We don't get morals from God.And just because God doesnt exist does not make them subjective.Humans know its wrong to hurt other people because most of us have a conscience.We can place ourselves in other peoples shoes.Morals come from human empathy and our conscience not god.Humans have evolved to be sensitive to others pain,its the only way we could survive by sticking together.

    What good reason do you have to believe in Jesus? All you have to go on is a book and what your parents and teachers told you.Is that really good evidence? You are just afraid to ask these questions because if you do you might find out that there is nothing there.Heaven is quite obviously made up to placate the human fear of death.I would love to believe that when I die I will be in paradise with everyone I know.There are people I would love to see again for 5 minutes a year maybe.But just because we'd like it to be true does not mean it is.Its better to look reality in the eye than to persist in delusion however satisfying.Its better to appreciate what we actually have right now.The fact that me and you and everyone we know, exist.That wont happen ever again even if a trillion years pass.You have one life.Make the most of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    We've got good reason to believe the bible is true.
    Have we? Perhaps you can tell me whether plants were created before Adam (on day 3) or after Adam? And while you are at it, is the Bible telling the truth when it relates in Samuel that David endured three years of famine, or when it relates in Chronicles that he endured seven years of famine?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pride)
    You know you're stating a load of subjective opinions about what's fair and not fair, the gravity of sin etc. You cannot demonstrate objectively why people don't deserve hell. You can't even describe hell. You can't demonstrate why it's morally wrong to create people you know you will give deserving punishment. All you can say is "I wouldn't do that!" But you're not God! The bible does talk about bringing glory to himself, demonstrating his attributes, showing love to people, saving people. But you can always ask the question why about these ideas. Why does he want to bring pleasure or glory to himself in this way? We don't know ultimately.

    "Why is the punishment the same?" We don't believe it is. We believe the punishment will be in accordance with what people have done - the bible says that more than once. But we don't know the exact details of what the punishment will be. It will involve eternity rather than a finite period of time and then you get to be with God. It will be painful - we don't know the kind of pain. I would assume it will have all the things we love on this planet taken away, like for example love, entertainment, talents, beauty etc. But I speculate. Not much is known about hell. People will get what they deserve (unless their sins are put on Jesus instead, of course).

    Look, at the end of the day, we've got good reason to believe Jesus was who he claimed to be. We've got good reason to believe the bible is true. So we just follow Jesus, we recognise our sin, and we have our sins forgiven. I can't give you reasons why sin deserves punishment. All I can do is state that God cares about justice, and God made us with an understanding of the desire for justice too.
    Name one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Name one.
    I think the New Testament is a largely historically accurate collection of documents (when the genre is history).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whitewell)
    I think the New Testament is a largely historically accurate collection of documents (when the genre is history).
    Despite the fact that it describes a mass infanticide that, according to historical consensus, almost certainly did not take place, supposedly perpetrated by a king who is known to have died several years before, a highly implausible account of a census that could not have happened as described, a completely fictitious genealogy for Jesus and contradictory accounts of how Jesus was brought up in Nazareth?
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 11, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Does your body insecurities make you avoid PE or exercise?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.