Surviving the rapture (hypothetical)

[sourmìlk]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right.

It doesn't mean he did so correctly. His moral code is not necessarily a good moral code.

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right, and arguing against him is like arguing that a square has three sides.

If somebody shows me that a square can have three sides, my mind will be well and truly blown.

Wait, square WITH three sides...

[Zamfir]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right.

It doesn't mean he did so correctly. His moral code is not necessarily a good moral code.

But what grounds do you have to assume that you know better? Given that he created the world, created you, and granted you free will in the first place? Every thought you have ever had or will have on morality is already known to him.

[sourmìlk]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right.

It doesn't mean he did so correctly. His moral code is not necessarily a good moral code.

But what grounds do you have to assume that you know better? Given that he created the world, created you, and granted you free will in the first place? Every thought you have ever had or will have on morality is already known to him.

Knowledge != critical thinking. God's hypothetical moral code is not conducive to human happiness, therefore it is idiotic. Even if God thinks otherwise, it doesn't matter.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

It really isn't, since the point isn't that God is right because of his might, but because he was the one who defined the concept of right.

It doesn't mean he did so correctly. His moral code is not necessarily a good moral code.

What the fuck does that even mean?

[Izawwlgood]

It matters when you get hypothetically cast into hell. A hell you don't believe in, by a God you don't believe in. That is to say, you're ignoring the facts that would be right in front of your face at that point in time.

If the system is created so that non-believers of the divine are 'wrong', and believers of the divine are 'right', than arguing with the divine that they are wrong is rather idiotic.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

The punishment is irrelevant. This is a matter of semantics, and nothing else.

[Zamfir]

The punishment is irrelevant. This is a matter of semantics, and nothing else.

God clearly doesn't agree with you there, since he created the punishment anyway.

@ sourmilk, you talk about happiness. While God is offering you eternal bliss, if you only stop thinking about Justin Bieber when you are touching your wiener, and you go to eternal pain when you go your own way. How is your way then conducive to human happiness?

[gmalivuk]

Just because there's a very powerful being who punishes nonbelievers doesn't mean said being is able to declare what is morally right or wrong. That's a claim about the nature of morality, not the nature of God, and is really independent of what the being can or can't do to us.

I agree that it would be rather silly to tell the being to its face that you think its rules are stupid, but some of you seem to be arguing that you'd also be wrong to even continue *thinking* its rules are stupid.

[sourmìlk]

The punishment is irrelevant. This is a matter of semantics, and nothing else.

God clearly doesn't agree with you there, since he created the punishment anyway.

@ sourmilk, you talk about happiness. While God is offering you eternal bliss, if you only stop thinking about Justin Bieber when you are touching your wiener, and you go to eternal pain when you go your own way. How is your way then conducive to human happiness?

God could make it so that, by fulfilling a moral code contributing to human happiness on earth, we make it into heaven. Instead, he makes it so that by fulfilling a moral code that is counterproductive to human happiness, we get to heaven. The former is more conducive to happiness.

[Izawwlgood]

If God appeared and stated, say, that women were inferior to men and should remain at home, I'd disagree, but probably wouldn't tell God so.

If God appeared and stated, say, that those who don't believe in God are going to Hell, I'd find myself believing in God, and I'd think you'd be an idiot for not following suit.

[gmalivuk]

Who said anything about believing in God? I thought the argument was about whether God's rules were good ones.

[sourmìlk]

If God appeared and stated, say, that those who don't believe in God are going to Hell, I'd find myself believing in God, and I'd think you'd be an idiot for not following suit.

Okay. that doesn't mean that god is reasonable in demanding my belief and worship.

[Zamfir]

Just because there's a very powerful being who punishes nonbelievers doesn't mean said being is able to declare what is morally right or wrong. That's a claim about the nature of morality, not the nature of God, and is really independent of what the being can or can't do to us.

I agree that it would be rather silly to tell the being to its face that you think its rules are stupid, but some of you seem to be arguing that you'd also be wrong to even continue *thinking* its rules are stupid.

He knows your thoughts too.

Put it his way: suppose your own morality, and it differs from the prescribed one. Could you expect others to take note of your morality, given that the supreme creator of all just said you are wrong? A morality that cannot be expected to be followed would be something related, but different from what we call morality.

Also , the eternal punishment would be an aspect of reality, as real and fundamental as any aspect of the world as we know it. Saying 'if you break the rules you go to hell' would be as true as physical laws, as logic even. The morality implied by those rules would not be quite what we call morality either, but it would have a real meaning that arguably surpasses our current based-on-nothing views of morality.

[gmalivuk]

Also , the eternal punishment would be an aspect of reality, as real and fundamental as any aspect of the world as we know it. Saying 'if you break the rules you go to hell' would be as true as physical laws, as logic even. The morality implied by those rules would not be quite what we call morality either, but it would have a real meaning that arguably surpasses our current based-on-nothing views of morality.

Why? As you say, it would be like a physical law. But no one thinks there's a moral component to the statement, "If you jump from a great height, you'll die on impact."

[Izawwlgood]

Who said anything about believing in God? I thought the argument was about whether God's rules were good ones.

There may have been some confusion then; I was under the impression both were up for discussion, and sourmilk was positing that in the face of God revealing them self and saying 'non-believers shall be smoted', sourmilk would remain a non-believer because that's a stupid rule.

[sourmìlk]

Who said anything about believing in God? I thought the argument was about whether God's rules were good ones.

There may have been some confusion then; I was under the impression both were up for discussion, and sourmilk was positing that in the face of God revealing them self and saying 'non-believers shall be smoted', sourmilk would remain a non-believer because that's a stupid rule.

I may or may not remain a non-worshiper.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

I thought that the situation seemed to be that in the case of the existence of some God (some being with the usual Omni's ect.) would his will be considered moral imperatives?

I mean the answer seems fairly obvious. Do we not acknowledge the hypothetical plausibility of maltheisitic (evil by your otherwise existing moral standards) as we dot he existence of an omni-benevolent one? Given this, we can conclude that a prospective God can exist anywhere on our own moral spectrum and thus cannot simply be afforded Omni-benevolence by virtue of his role as creator or other attributes. I mean it's a very simple is/ought distinction. He may be the Supreme Ruler of All, but that doesn't make his rule or this fact moral let alone a font for the source of our own morality.

[Zamfir]

Also , the eternal punishment would be an aspect of reality, as real and fundamental as any aspect of the world as we know it. Saying 'if you break the rules you go to hell' would be as true as physical laws, as logic even. The morality implied by those rules would not be quite what we call morality either, but it would have a real meaning that arguably surpasses our current based-on-nothing views of morality.

Why? As you say, it would be like a physical law. But no one thinks there's a moral component to the statement, "If you jump from a great height, you'll die on impact."

No, but we do mostly fit morality around such things. If someone chooses to jump, we do not consider the dying as an immoral, wrong outcome.

That creates a double-sided limitation to morality. Any morality vaguely based on happiness or utility for people (eithter individuals or larger groups) would have to submit to the divine commandments, in the same way that such a morality cannot prescribe you to cut your arm off for example.

But on the other side,there would be no place left for a morality that claims to go deeper, that claims that people have to sacrifice parts of a pleasant life for higher, more just principles. After all, the creator of the world would know such principles as good as anyone, and he tells you that there are none expect his rules.

Of course, you could still have your own morality anyway, but it becomes sort of pointless, the way discussing angels on a pin is pointless for us in our none-rapture world.

[Soralin]

Well what's more important to you, what you consider to be right, or what god considers to be right? What if there's a god that considers pain and suffering to be good, and causing them to be the right, and therefore rewards those who do the right thing of causing pain and suffering with the reward of a good afterlife (i.e. one of pain and suffering). And conversely, who considers happiness and pleasure to be evil, and causing them to be wrong, and therefore punishes those who do the wrong thing of causing happiness and pleasure, with the punishment of a bad and evil afterlife (i.e. one of happiness and pleasure).

Now, would you do what god considers to be the right thing in this scenario, simply because god thinks it, or is there something more important to you than what god thinks? Actually, any god who punishes and rewards with more of what you do to others, with multiple afterlives, would result in exactly the same scenario, regardless of the god. It wouldn't matter what god's morality was, in any case, you'd end up in an afterlife that was just like how you treated others, the only thing that would change would be if that god thinks that it's a reward or a punishment, or something in-between, which wouldn't actually change anything at all for you.

[lutzj]

If we assume an omnipotent God, his moral code is the correct one by definition. He could change the laws of physics if He wanted to. If the Absolute Master of the Universe says that something is true, then it is true because He said it.

[TheMaskedGecko]

This has definitely gone off topic. While the discussion of God's morals is interesting it is also tangential. I'll rephrase the question in an attempt to underail the thread before a mod looks this way.
If there were massive earthquakes and ( I'm told) zombies and we were given 100 or so days before the world dissapears, how would humanity fair and what, if anything, could we do?

[skeptical scientist]

No, but we do mostly fit morality around such things. If someone chooses to jump, we do not consider the dying as an immoral, wrong outcome.

True, but while we can choose our actions, we cannot choose our beliefs. (No matter how much you want to believe that the sky is green, you will never be surprised when you go outside, look up, and see a blue sky.*) If there is an omnipotent being who hides his own existence to the extent that the rational thing is to doubt his existence, and then punishes all who doubt his existence with eternal torment, then that being is completely amoral.

If we assume an omnipotent God, his moral code is the correct one by definition. He could change the laws of physics if He wanted to. If the Absolute Master of the Universe says that something is true, then it is true because He said it.

Why? What it the omnipotent God is actually satanic, and simply wants to inflict as much misery on humans as possible. If such a being commanded us to torture one another, would that make it moral? Would such a being itself be moral?

*Unless you're in Seattle in November.

[Soralin]

This has definitely gone off topic. While the discussion of God's morals is interesting it is also tangential. I'll rephrase the question in an attempt to underail the thread before a mod looks this way.
If there were massive earthquakes and ( I'm told) zombies and we were given 100 or so days before the world dissapears, how would humanity fair and what, if anything, could we do?

Jerryrig together one-way missions to mars as fast as we can, and get as much there as possible (I mean, if it is just the world disappearing, there are other worlds. )

[sourmìlk]

If we assume an omnipotent God, his moral code is the correct one by definition. He could change the laws of physics if He wanted to. If the Absolute Master of the Universe says that something is true, then it is true because He said it.

all powerful != all knowing != capable of critical thought != omnibenevolent

[Izawwlgood]

I'm curious about something sourmilk; are you claiming that benevolence is related to any of those?

[Soralin]

I'm curious about something sourmilk; are you claiming that benevolence is related to any of those?

!= means "not equal" (see also)

[Dark Avorian]

Okay, this entire argument is stupid as pointed out pages ago. We cannot say that an omnipotent god (and by the way, an Omnipotent god can do anything, thus he is omniscient) is wrong because we cannot even define wrong beyond what he allows us to. We are parts of his toys, except he made the toys, and he made the substances that made the toys down to the very basic steps. He is all powerful and unfathomable. He is the only being who has any true say in the meaning of the world, our definitions of morality do not work because he made us this way, morality is not even a sensible concept except for the fact that he instilled it in us. There is no way we can judge it.

[sourmìlk]

Okay, this entire argument is stupid as pointed out pages ago. We cannot say that an omnipotent god (and by the way, an Omnipotent god can do anything, thus he is omniscient) is wrong because we cannot even define wrong beyond what he allows us to. We are parts of his toys, except he made the toys, and he made the substances that made the toys down to the very basic steps. He is all powerful and unfathomable. He is the only being who has any true say in the meaning of the world, our definitions of morality do not work because he made us this way, morality is not even a sensible concept except for the fact that he instilled it in us. There is no way we can judge it.

Sure there is. We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness. All-knowing does not mean omnibenevolent, nor does it mean capable of critical thought.

[Izawwlgood]

I'm curious about something sourmilk; are you claiming that benevolence is related to any of those?

!= means "not equal" (see also)

Yes, I know, which is why I'm asking if

all powerful != all knowing != capable of critical thought != omnibenevolent

implies that all powerful, all knowing, or capable of critical thought has anything to do with whether or not the being is benevolent. Which he answered.

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness. All-knowing does not mean omnibenevolent, nor does it mean capable of critical thought.

I wonder then how you would react to the revelation of an omnipotent God that is malevolent.

[sourmìlk]

implies that all powerful, all knowing, or capable of critical thought has anything to do with whether or not the being is benevolent. Which he answered.

Yeah, there's no relationship. One does not imply the other.

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness. All-knowing does not mean omnibenevolent, nor does it mean capable of critical thought.

I wonder then how you would react to the revelation of an omnipotent God that is malevolent.

I would be very sad.

[lutzj]

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness.

Is that really the best way to gauge the value of a moral code? Even hardcore utilitarians consider other factors (health, for example) in addition to happiness. On top of that, if God rewards people who listen to Him with access to Heaven (infinite happiness), and punishes those who do not with Hell (infinite unhappiness), then a moral code that consists of "do whatever God says" will naturally be the most conducive to human happiness.

[sourmìlk]

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness.

Is that really the best way to gauge the value of a moral code? Even hardcore utilitarians consider other factors (health, for example) in addition to happiness.

Okay, so group things like health into their. Basically, a moral code should benefit humans.

On top of that, if God rewards people who listen to Him with access to Heaven (infinite happiness), and punishes those who do not with Hell (infinite unhappiness), then a moral code that consists of "do whatever God says" will naturally be the most conducive to human happiness.

Right, but that doesn't mean that what God says is necessarily most beneficiary to humans.

[skeptical scientist]

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness.

Is that really the best way to gauge the value of a moral code? Even hardcore utilitarians consider other factors (health, for example) in addition to happiness. On top of that, if God rewards people who listen to Him with access to Heaven (infinite happiness), and punishes those who do not with Hell (infinite unhappiness), then a moral code that consists of "do whatever God says" will naturally be the most conducive to human happiness.

Except that you aren't applying the same moral code to god, when the whole point of sourmilk's line of thinking is applying a moral code to god's actions to determine whether they are moral (benevolent god) or immoral (malevolent god). If god punishes certain people with eternal torment, he fails the moral code, and is therefore malevolent rather than benevolent.

[Dark Avorian]

Okay, this entire argument is stupid as pointed out pages ago. We cannot say that an omnipotent god (and by the way, an Omnipotent god can do anything, thus he is omniscient) is wrong because we cannot even define wrong beyond what he allows us to. We are parts of his toys, except he made the toys, and he made the substances that made the toys down to the very basic steps. He is all powerful and unfathomable. He is the only being who has any true say in the meaning of the world, our definitions of morality do not work because he made us this way, morality is not even a sensible concept except for the fact that he instilled it in us. There is no way we can judge it.

Sure there is. We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness. All-knowing does not mean omnibenevolent, nor does it mean capable of critical thought.

Wait a minute...

Sure there is. We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness.

We can judge a moral code by how conducive it is to human happiness.

We can judge a moral code

judge a moral code

...

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Saying that God is immoral is like accusing someone of cheating at Calvinball

[sourmìlk]

Saying that God is immoral is like accusing someone of cheating at Calvinball

No, it's like saying calvinball is a stupid game.

[Izawwlgood]

Saying that God is immoral is like accusing someone of cheating at Calvinball

No, it's like saying calvinball is a stupid game.

Which is hilarious when he's throwing you into hell.

[sourmìlk]

Saying that God is immoral is like accusing someone of cheating at Calvinball

No, it's like saying calvinball is a stupid game.

Which is hilarious when he's throwing you into hell.

Doesn't mean he's reasonable in doing so.

[Soralin]

Saying that God is immoral is like accusing someone of cheating at Calvinball

No, it's like saying calvinball is a stupid game.

Which is hilarious when he's throwing you into hell.

If you're getting thrown into hell because of the game, that seems like a very good justification for calling it stupid.