READ (COMPLETELY) FIRST. In this debate we will specifically discuss the role of evil in the world, how it exists, why is exists, how it was created, was it created and God's inability or lack of desire to stop it. The first of our topics will be the Euthyphro Dilemma. "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" This topic will be the point of our first discussion. It will start with the second post and continue to the LAST POST on the FOURTH PAGE. There will be NO posts allowed on the fifth page onward that respond to any point prior to the last post on the fourth page. It will be deleted immediately otherwise. If you are unsure about the debate or plan on making small "gotcha" posts, understand that your post takes up the time and place of someone who may have a more valid and cohesive argument. I ask you to please, "butt out" if you are unable to respond with a strong, solid point. The second of our topics will be the Problem of Evil. First spoken by Epicurus. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Another Form of the Argument. 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good 3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils. 4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence. 5. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence. 6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil. 7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists. 8. Evil exists (logical contradiction). This will continue from the 5th page onward. After the LAST post on the NINTH page both arguments will be allowed to be discussed simultaneously or individually depending on what the debate calls for. Please follow the rules and have fun.
So to get back on the topic we are supposed to be debating. All we have to do is examine the qualities of God to find the answer. Since God is omniscient, he knows the difference between right and wrong(assuming they exist objectively). Then we take his omnibenevolence and see that he would want good to happen, even if you don't think he isn't omnibenevolence, he isn't just downright malicious and would still want at least some good to happen. So since he knows what is right and wants what is right to happen, he will order what is morally right because it is morally right.
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" Assume: -God is "all-good" -Therefore, nothing god has done could be morally wrong -Murder (in the commandments) is immoral God (as written in the bible) has killed people by supernatural means. Therefore god follows moral relativism, and things are only moral because they are commanded by god, seeing as he appears to "set the standard". That's assuming you believe that what is commanded by god is moral in the first place, and that you believe in morality.
If you select the first option you are saying that God is secondary to morality and good, while it may be intrinsically followed by him, it does not flow from him. If you choose the second you are using circular reasoing. You are saying, "God's nature is good, therefore good is God's nature." which does nothing to inform us of the nature of God or the nature of morality, I might add. The first thing to note is that being moral then would amount to nothing more then doing what god would do. Aside from having only a circular answer to what god's nature/goodness is, we cannot explain why god would do what he does rather then what he would not do. God's nature is essentially a collection of random actions he is willing to perform. Any attempt to posit an underlying constancy, rhyme or reason to this collection is to assert that there is an intrinsic goodness independent of god and his nature, to which he is subservient. If we ask "would god commit murder" and a Christian says "no, because that is bad" what they are actually saying that: murder is bad, bad is the opposite of good, good is god's nature, god's nature is what he will do, therefore badness is what god will not do. However, this amounts to nothing more then a baseless assertion of "No, god would not do that because god would not do that". Remember, "goodness" is nothing more then what god would do, for reasons that are completely incomprehensible. "he will order what is morally right because it is morally right." Therefore, objective morality is an outside source other than god. Without god morality would still exist. Your words.
I would like to add that the easiest way to find morality, a moral compass so to speak, would be to do what God says. It's a lot easier to just read the teachings in the bible and use them as a moral compass than to try and think up what moral things are yourself. Especially since we cannot really know everything there is to know about morality, only God can. I guess in simplest terms what I'm trying to say is: Therefore, objective morality is an outside source other than god. Without God morality would still exist. However, without God we would have one heck of a time figuring it out for ourselves.
Yes! So you are willing to concede that morality was not created by god and that morality was in existence for just as long as god?
It's not necessarily circular. Let's assume that God created the laws of nature... they could have been arbitrarily made. But God could have created morality based on what's best in the resulting situation of the laws of nature which he made up. Commanded by God because it's moral: --> morality = arbitrary Moral because it's commanded by God: --> laws of nature = arbitrary -------->morality = not arbitrary I think the answer to the problem of evil lies in the assumption that God is all-benevolent. Why would he be? Granted, I rarely take the Bible as the source of my understanding of God. It's not to say that God wills evil, because evil doesn't exist at all. Neither does good. God may very well create situations, but our perception of their good and evil values are our own. A flood that kills thousands of people is seen as an evil only from the point of view of a human. It's well documented that the modern Bible is as subject to all the imperfections that one would expect of a thousands of years old text, arising out of political manipulation, multiple authors, multiple sources, translations, retranslations, etc. Some Christians claim that the Bible has been "protected" by God and that it is flawless, but that is an argument of convenience. They need this to be true in order to have their unquestionable source. Sorry this is completely off topic but just look at how long this list is.
I'm going with the "it's moral as commanded by god part of the statement because of the fact that In our society, killing is immoral, as states in the bible, however the al quida(spelling) belive that killing is moral, because they belive In Allah. Both the propel In first world countries and the terrorists belive in there only being one god, so, I have come up with two conclusions: conclusion A, one of us is wrong, or conclusion B there is no god because god would not give two different religious groups two completely different morals because that would mean that god is all ok with terrorism and killing innocent people makng himself immoral to his own judgement. If that is not what you meant by the first topic, then I am sorry but it is 2 am where I lve and it's takin me nearly two hours to think this through and type it on my iPod.
1) Killing is innately immoral in most societies. The bible has nothing to do with it. 2) You know very little about Christianity if you think it innately preaches against murder, and very little about Islam if you think that it justifies murder. Both are subject to interpretation, and you can find literally any meaning from their texts.
Because something is not arbitrary as long as it is based on one thing, at a minimum. Morality didn't spring forth from the laws of nature, they were written based on observations of the laws of nature. The system may be arbitrary as a whole. But the components of the system are different from each other... morality and the laws of nature are two different things. If morality is based on something, than it is not arbitrary. Edit: I can go deeper into what I mean by the Laws of Nature, and the implications and validity of my assumption that they were created by God, but I'll leave it be for now.
Post Above 1. Morality was written based on observations of the laws of nature. 2. Morality does not spring forth from nature. First Post 1. Morality is arbitrary if and only if it is already moral when God commands it. 2. Morality is not arbitrary because God commanded it. 3. God created the laws of nature, which can be assumed to be arbitrary. 4. Morality is the best possible result of the laws of nature which are arbitrarily made. --------- If I am to use your second post you assume morality is based on observation and that morality does not spring forth from nature. Observation is necessarily subjective and therefore arbitrary (as is "best"). If I am to use your first posts you assume morality is a natural result of an arbitrary creation. Assuming that because something is a natural result it is not arbitrary an all knowing being would have knowledge of how to make the laws of nature so that morality naturally followed to his liking. Both responses do nothing for the debate. God commanding morality. God commanding an action because it is moral. Choose.
What's the difference? That doesn't seem to be a good summary of what I said, to me. Here's something I can work with: No, arbitrary and subjective are not the same thing. Arbitrary is another word for random. Subjective means that it is subject to person-to-person differences in opinion and interpretation. It's less ideal than objective, but it's not random. Can God's interpretations really be called subjective? I haven't assumed out omniscience yet.
Does it matter? Either way he is commanding moral things. They are like the same thing anyway as you can substitute "morality in the first one into the second and they mean the same thing. God commanding morality. God commanding morality because it is moral.
Well the reason it matters is because the first implies that morality is arbitrary and circular. Whereas the second shows that god is not the source of morality, it shows that you don't need religion or a god to be moral (now whether or not he exists is another thing!), and it shows that what is good simply is intrinsically and not because someone had to tell you it was good. There are major philosophical ramifications. @Predicide - I'm going to bed, brb tomorrow. And arbitrary does not mean random silly head. BTW: Forge Hub Dialogues are going up tomorrow. And I have no idea how to spell that lol. PPS: Your rank just changed to something much shittier than the old rank...god help us...
It's meaning is much closer to "random" than "subjective". Can we agree to that bit of semantics? Let's throw out this distinction because it's very confusing. I think it would be better to use -Commanded because Moral -Moral because Commanded I still feel my points have been mischaracterized. I never argued for "moral because commanded". I only argued that "commanded because moral" wasn't circular. None of this is the same as the problem of evil.
If God created diseases, they would kill people, which is immoral. The argument against this is that he chooses which people to catch the disease, and who lives and who dies (assuming there is a god and he is omnipotent), this would make God a "judge" as it were, to who was deserving to live and die (for whatever reason). This can mean that anything God decides to "kill" does not adhere to morality, OR it can me that God does not adhere to morality IF morality came first. So, in conclusion, If God commanded morality because it was moral, then God does not necessarily have moral support on all of his "decisions" BUT if God chooses what is moral, then we can conclude ALL of his decisions are moral, which can lead to killing (if the victim does not deserve to live) can be moral. If we assume that God never makes mistake, then he commanded the moralities. He came first.
One of the many gifts that our God has given us is freedom of choice and opinion. We can choose to deny the existance of God, as well as decide that God is the ultimate Truth. The point I am trying to make is that God commands morality, rather than behavior because it is moral. God has given us freedom, and in our modern era has not commanded anyone to make a decision because it is decreed to be moral, rather God has given us the choice to make our actions depending on what we know is moral. Breaking this down, God gives us ultimate freedom by giving us the keys to (insert term of extra-sexual ownership here) kingdom, by telling us we can follow what is "moral" because it has been commanded, allowing us to reach trancendance though morality. Def. of moralty: conformity to the rules of right conduct. Therefore in ultimate simplicity, the Ten were given to us as a means to reach goodness and well-being, not because it is the "right" thing to do so, but because it is the rule.
I don't see it. There is this thing morality it originates at a point, being God, and comes to us, another point. Two points make a line.----------------------------------------------------------------------------