Abour rejecting God
 

I posted this before, but now I decided to post an OP.
This is strongly related to the thread lestat made about agreeing with Txaq.
This is also related to the thread Sklansky made about handicapping debaters.

If the christian God is proved true, then we should change our morality, we shouldnt go " bah, screw God he has a lot of explaining to do"
The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. In this particular debate: God vs you- on morality
The chances that you are right on that debate is exactly a nice round figure.
As a logical person you should blindly follow what God has to say about morality, should you be absolutely certain of his existence, instead of questioning him.
note that even in a chess debate between kramnik and you, you shouldnt blindly follow him, you should understand that he is most likely to be correct in which move its better but you have to keep in mind that he could be blundering. God ,unlike humans ,doesnt blunder.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thouhgt the whole point was that God got to DEFINE what was right and wrong. So it's not a question of who's right: God makes the rules.

That's what has been claimed in the other threads anwyay.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

If the God of Islam is right then....
If Zeus is right then....
If Vishnu is right then...
I could go on listing hundreds of names here.

If ANY one of the hundreds (thousands?) of Gods that man has or does currently worship is proven true then a lot of things change.

What Christians don't seem to understand is that their conception of God is no closer to being proven true then Vishnu, Loki, Odin, Zeus, Zoraster, etc.

Even if it turns out there is a God meaning a creator... he can still be illogical and imperfect. ie... Christians like to say he's all powerful, perfect, etc. EVEN if we knew there was a God, he would not have to be perfect in any sense.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

Of course God DEFINES morality , so it doenst make sense to reject God becuase of the way he treats gay or whatever.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course God DEFINES morality , so it doenst make sense to reject God becuase of the way he treats gay or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it makes sense to reject God because there is absolutely no reason to believe that he exists.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

If there is consense on atheist that we should blindly accept what the God that is proven right has to say about morality, then my post is kinda meanignless.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font>

How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality.

Of course, I think there should be differing definitions of "god". I used the Christian God just as an example. However, many times (usually?), when I talk about a god it is not the omnipotent/omnisentient being most people are thinking of. Whatever chance there is that this god exists, the probability for a Christian God is many, many times lower.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there is consense on atheist that we should blindly accept what the God that is proven right has to say about morality, then my post is kinda meanignless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have to come to the conclusion that this god is, by definition, "right" about everything..

I don't believe that this is possible

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

I already admitted my OP had that flaw.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

But that is basically the situation. A world with God is so fundamentally different from a world without God that concepts like morality can't be transferred.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font>

How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">The thing is that God is much, much, much more likely to be right than us on whats right and wrong. </font>

How can there be anything less than 100% chance that He is more likely to be right? It's His ball, His game, His reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie.

[/ QUOTE ]
and if god defines good then it can be good to lie [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

Reason #987234 why I'm agnostic.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
Reason #987234 why I'm agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]
a very fine lie [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

Look [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]...

That's technically right. But the 'if reality was different some other conclusion could be correct' objection is always correct.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
Look [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]...

That's technically right. But the 'if reality was different some other conclusion could be correct' objection is always correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I concede that but the premise that god defines right and wrong is just gibberish. There is no reality in which suffering is good in itself.

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

If you start talking about the moral content of actions 'in themselves' you have to draw an arbitrary line since all actions are interactive. But I certainly wouldn't like to argue that this concept of god is not a ridiculous contradiction for any number of other reasons.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you start talking about the moral content of actions 'in themselves' you have to draw an arbitrary line since all actions are interactive. But I certainly wouldn't like to argue that this concept of god is not a ridiculous contradiction for any number of other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean that if god is causing suffering then he can't just decare it good but has to justify it in terms of something else - either a future benefit to the sufferer or benefits to others. Even the nutters who have saints pleasuring themselves in relief at the suffering of others in hell recognise the need to justify the suffering.

Unlike good things, if someone is happy then it needs no further justification. The reverse is true, future downsides or harm to others is necessary to argue that it isn't good.

God cannot change this, he can make it so there's nothing we can do about it but that doesn't make it good.

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

But that's an anthrocentric viewpoint. It's entirely likely that, if there is an objective good out there, defined by god or not, its yardstick and goal is not maximizing human happiness.

That contradiction does arise if you wanted to talk about god declaring suffering 'enjoyable' or similar tho - so point taken.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">There's nothing that says god is honest. It may be impossible that he'd be mistaken - but it's certainly possible he could lie. </font>

Well yeah, but that gets back to the guy pointing a gun at your head and ordering you to give him your money or he'll shoot you. Maybe he'll shoot you anyway, but if you don't give him your money he's sure to shoot you. So what's the most logical thing to do given the alternative?

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">There is no reality in which suffering is good in itself. </font>

This isn't true. Surely you would suffer the loss of your next meal if you knew for a fact it would save 1000 people from starvation. There are different levels of suffering and ours are bound to earthly types. We do not know what else is possible or what merit it has if the Christian God turned out to be true.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
But that's an anthrocentric viewpoint. It's entirely likely that, if there is an objective good out there, defined by god or not, its yardstick and goal is not maximizing human happiness.

That contradiction does arise if you wanted to talk about god declaring suffering 'enjoyable' or similar tho - so point taken.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes that's the point. Although they are not clearly defined the meanings of 'suffering' and 'good' conflict. Anyone can declare suffering to be good but they're just using words in a different way not actually changing reality.

[it doesn't matter if the goal isn't to maximise human happiness does it?. Whatever the goal is, it would either justify suffering in its cause or make suffering irrelevent]

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

I don't follow your meaning with that analogy...?

Are you talking about going to hell? If so it's true that you'd be going regardless or his honesty, either by disregarding his dictates or by disregarding his dictates and sinning. But I wasn't meaning to suggest otherwise - just that god announcing something doesn't make it true, even if he does get to define truth.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">There is no reality in which suffering is good in itself. </font>

This isn't true. Surely you would suffer the loss of your next meal if you knew for a fact it would save 1000 people from starvation. There are different levels of suffering and ours are bound to earthly types. We do not know what else is possible or what merit it has if the Christian God turned out to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the "in itself" kick in sometime?

luckyme

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't matter if the goal isn't to maximise human happiness does it?. Whatever the goal is, it would either justify suffering in its cause or make suffering irrelevent]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the same problem - drawing arbitrary distinctions in human action. A world that was 'all good' by this definition would contain no action at all, it'd just be a brain in a vat receiving pleasant electrical impulses.

I 'suffer' a cramped flight to go somewhere I want to go. If I viewed the flight in isolation it'd be bad, if I viewed the trip overall it'd be good. But the flight has no meaning and in fact makes no sense without reference to the destination, even just in terms of language, nevermind experience.

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">There is no reality in which suffering is good in itself. </font>

This isn't true. Surely you would suffer the loss of your next meal if you knew for a fact it would save 1000 people from starvation. There are different levels of suffering and ours are bound to earthly types. We do not know what else is possible or what merit it has if the Christian God turned out to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I would 'suffer' the loss of the meal but its good for the reasons you gave not in itself.

It illustrates the point that to say suffering is a good thing it has to be justified in terms of benefits to others or future benefits to yourself.

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it doesn't matter if the goal isn't to maximise human happiness does it?. Whatever the goal is, it would either justify suffering in its cause or make suffering irrelevent]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the same problem - drawing arbitrary distinctions in human action. A world that was 'all good' by this definition would contain no action at all, it'd just be a brain in a vat receiving pleasant electrical impulses.

I 'suffer' a cramped flight to go somewhere I want to go. If I viewed the flight in isolation it'd be bad, if I viewed the trip overall it'd be good. But the flight has no meaning and in fact makes no sense without reference to the destination, even just in terms of language, nevermind experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not the flght that should ve viewed in isolation but the suffering. You wouldn't 'suffer' the experience of a cramped flight except in expectation of something that made it worthwhile.

That brain in the vat world would be fairly good just not neccesarily maximally good. We still await DS cantoring along with his proof.

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">It illustrates the point that to say suffering is a good thing it has to be justified in terms of benefits to others or future benefits to yourself. </font>

But why do you consider it inconceivable that God has plans that you/we are not privvy to? Or that He has an understanding of things that you don't, or that doesn't make sense to you now, but might in a million years from now?

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">It illustrates the point that to say suffering is a good thing it has to be justified in terms of benefits to others or future benefits to yourself. </font>

But why do you consider it inconceivable that God has plans that you/we are not privvy to? Or that He has an understanding of things that you don't, or that doesn't make sense to you now, but might in a million years from now?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider that inconceivable at all. It seems hard to conceive that my support matters in the least for this plan but its at least as likely that withholding my support for seemingly unjustified suffering is what god wants for this plan.

chez

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

<font color="blue">It seems hard to conceive that my support matters in the least for this plan </font>

Why is that so hard to conceive? If you are indeed His child, why wouldn't He want you to obey Him just as you might want of your child?


<font color="blue">but its at least as likely that withholding my support for seemingly unjustified suffering is what god wants for this plan. </font>

Do you really believe that even if the bible turned out to be true, that it is just as likely God is lying?

Re: Abour rejecting God
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems hard to conceive that my support matters in the least for this plan

Why is that so hard to conceive? If you are indeed His child, why wouldn't He want you to obey Him just as you might want of your child?


[/ QUOTE ]
who wants obedience from children? Is that really want you want from yours to the extent that you eternally damn them for thinking for themselves?


[ QUOTE ]
but its at least as likely that withholding my support for seemingly unjustified suffering is what god wants for this plan.

Do you really believe that even if the bible turned out to be true, that it is just as likely God is lying?

[/ QUOTE ]
em you just changed the premise but why should I think god is lying when he tells me that eternal damnation for an honest lack of belief is a very bad thing.

chez