If god is real, god is amoral.

Author: RationalMadman
Morality
Philosophy
theism
theology
deism

Posts

Total: 255
#31
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
That's like asking how the definition of an adjective constitutes possessing the adjective if one repeatedly behaves in the way of the definition.
No, it's not. You would have to demonstrate how his being "real" is contingent on the absence of any and all moral metrics. But you have not defined any, much less make explicit which God to whom you're referring.
#32
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
God knowingly made the brains, bodies and life events of each individual that commits the crimes against humanity that Double_R describes.
By that very same metric, God has also made the brains, bodies, and life events of each individual who have never committed a crime, who contribute large amounts of time and labor to their communities, and live content lives. Again, you would have to establish how inaction or non-interference establishes amorality.
#33
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Society's tend to do that.

Also parents create their children basically and our children constantly do things that aren't in alignment with us. So to say because God is a creator ( though I think gods and  the Creator are two things) but basically everything that happens is within their wishes isn't exactly accurate. 
#34
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Society's tend to do that.
Societies are inconsistent, so if morality is defined by an inconsistency then morality at its nature doesn’t really make any sense.
#35
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Societies are inconsistent and some things are sometimes acceptable by societies and sometimes they're not.  I certainly think there are universal concepts that should be considered evil but I'm one person the trouble is getting everyone else to agree to those and sometimes they're just not going to. A good example for instance would be say something like circumcision. Most people would agree that female circumcision completely impairs a woman from ever having normal sex again and therefore is bad. About half the people would say that male circumcision is altering male genitalia when they're a baby and that's bad. I certainly consider one to be a heinous crime that completely restricts someone's sexual enjoyment and the other one I I feel as a religious practice that doesn't hinder a man from enjoying sex. So that's the problem you run into there's certainly people that would argue with me that both are wrong and then I'm an a****** for thinking circumcision should be allowed for men and not for women. They're certainly cultures that would argue that it's okay to do the women because women are second class or because it's their religious practice. And that's the problem you run into within morality depending on where is society's at they may find it something immoral that another society doesn't. In the US there's even smaller groups of people that might consider something appropriate where another group might not. The United States has decided that one of the main ways they determine what's right and wrong are rights. 
#36
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I certainly think there are universal concepts that should be considered evil but I'm one person the trouble is getting everyone else to agree to those and sometimes they're just not going to.
But that’s the question though, is a universal concept defined by peoples ability (or lack thereof) to agree or is it about a fact being true regardless of what others may or may not think about it?
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
No, it wouldn't. You would have to demonstrate how a lack of interference or inaction constitutes amorality.
If he's the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything then it is logically impossible for him to have created anything without knowing what the outcome would have been and deciding to create it that way anyway.
#38
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
I don't believe in a god of punishment. I don't believe that there's a hell. That's probably why I don't believe in the long run that the universal moral principles technically sort of matter. Don't matter to me personally and they obviously matter to you personally but for people they don't matter to that puts them in some sort of ranking system on the other side but there's always the potential to work back up. I don't know if that makes any sense but.
#39
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I don't know if that makes any sense but.
It doesn’t but your uncertainty of that I guess is a step in the right direction.
#40
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
If he's the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything then it is logically impossible for him to have created anything without knowing what the outcome would have been and deciding to create it that way anyway.
I understand; that is, however, not the basis of my objection. As pointed out to RationalMadman: if God is responsible for all the bad outcomes, by that very same measure, God is also responsible for all the good outcomes. How is that indicative of an "amoral God"?


Topic's author
#41
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 565
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
By that very same metric, God has also made the brains, bodies, and life events of each individual who have never committed a crime, who contribute large amounts of time and labor to their communities, and live content lives. Again, you would have to establish how inaction or non-interference establishes amorality
That is amorality...
#42
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
It makes sense to me I don't know that I'm conveying it properly to you. 
#43
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
but for people they don't matter to that puts them in some sort of ranking system
Why would you have a system if nothing matters to you?
#44
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
You know what no one said nothing matters to me especially me so just pissed off if you don't want to have a conversation.
#45
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You know what no one said nothing matters to me especially me so just pissed off if you don't want to have a conversation.
Then please clarify whatever it is that your saying and I’m not pissed off by any stretch.
#46
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
Not that I care about religious topics much, but I thought I'd post here.

You will not find a logical argument to dismiss a contingent reality with an amoral god, however there is no logical necessity for god to be amoral.

If such an amoral god existed, he would not understand human morality.

A truly amoral person is a sociopath unable to connect with the states of others, but capable of cooperating for their needs and wants.

An indifferent god would not be amoral, but he would simply be uncaring about human affairs. 

I think it wise to assume that substance is morally neutral. Therefore, god is only responsible for the maintenance of reality, but he isn't accountable for
the interactions of substance in reality and the choices from free-will.  





#47
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,319
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
If god is real, god is amoral.
This is a reasonable statement.



Is it right or wrong to initiate a Universal sequence of events?

How would a GOD know?

Perhaps this is not the first time......So either, without consideration GOD hasn't bothered to modify things, or GOD has modified things, only with consideration for it's modifications but with disregard for the outcomes of it's modifications.

Of course we like to think that we are a special outcome and therefore should receive special consideration.

But we might just be one of many standard outcomes.


If only GOD wasn't incommunicado, we could just ask it.

So perhaps we do just make this stuff up.

Or perhaps GOD is amoral.
#48
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
If god is real, god is amoral.

Does anybody disagree?
I’ll disagree for the hell of it. There’s nothing else interesting to ponder and dispute in the philosophy or religious forums.

To be sure, is it god or God?

#49
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
If God exists, God would have nothing to do with morality, God just stays there and well, stays there. 
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,281
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I understand; that is, however, not the basis of my objection. As pointed out to RationalMadman: if God is responsible for all the bad outcomes, by that very same measure, God is also responsible for all the good outcomes. How is that indicative of an "amoral God"?
Is it your position that a god could be both moral and amoral at the same time in the same sense?
#51
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Intelligence_06
If God exists, God would have nothing to do with morality, God just stays there and well, stays there. 

Then who defines morality?
#52
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
If there can be good purpose derived from suffering and evil, then that wouldn't mean that god is amoral. If god is limited in how he can interact with creation then that's also another way God isn't to blame... of course that would require re examining what it means, God's power
#53
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,149
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

We know that The K-T Asteroid Hit Earth 66 Million Years Ago and killed all the Dinosaurs. Why was God amoral about Dinosaurs?
#54
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,149
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activities that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in non-humans. For example, many species of non-humans develop long lasting kinship ties—orangutan mothers stay with their young for eight to ten years and while they eventually part company, they continue to maintain their relationships. Less solitary animals, such as chimpanzees, baboons, wolves, and elephants maintain extended family units built upon complex individual relationships, for long periods of time. Meerkats in the Kalahari desert are known to sacrifice their own safety by staying with sick or injured family members so that the fatally ill will not die alone. All animals living in socially complex groups must solve various problems that inevitably arise in such groups. Canids and primates are particularly adept at it, yet even chickens and horses are known to recognize large numbers of individuals in their social hierarchies and to maneuver within them. One of the ways that non-human animals negotiate their social environments is by being particularly attentive to the emotional states of others around them.

Gen 8:20-21
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and choosing from every clean animal and every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar.

21 When the LORD smelled the sweet odor, the LORD said to himself: Never again will I curse the ground because of human beings, since the desires of the human heart are evil from youth; nor will I ever again strike down every living being, as I have done.

#55
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
-->
@FLRW
I doubt dinosaurs had "thoughts" on the matter.

I think language, connecting signs and symbols with meaning, is a good indicator that sentient things might be able conceptualize morality. However, I think it is probably limited to humans. 
#56
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@CoolApe
I think language, connecting signs and symbols with meaning, is a good indicator that sentient things might be able conceptualize morality. However, I think it is probably limited to humans. 
 Morality is the distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Humans learn largely from positive and negative interactions with the world, like many other relatively high functioning animals. If a human gets raised by wild animals like monkeys, would you say they don’t have morality?
I consider morality inter-subjective. 
#57
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,149
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@CoolApe
 doubt dinosaurs had "thoughts" on the matter.
Yes, but they had "feelings" on the matter.
#58
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@FLRW
Morality is the domain of the rational being, not the feeling one. A tiger can not be good or evil, so to with a dinosaur. So, I struggle to understand what, precisely, you are trying to say when you ask "Why was God amoral about Dinosaurs?" How can one concern themselves with to good and evil of a species that such concepts don't apply?
#59
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 81
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
-->
@Reece101
@FLRW
Morality seen in most animals might be instincts, not morals. 

An argument can be made that chimpanzees and monkeys do make conscious moral decisions.

I think morals are based on feelings, but you must be consciously aware that your making moral value judgments to be a moral agent.

As "MorningStar" pointed out dinosaurs don't have concepts of good and evil. Therefore, they are not moral agents.

I think the science for determining if animals have morals is shaky at best because we're applying a human concept to animals and expecting them to base decisions along those lines.

#60
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,149
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Some naturalists presented insects as moral beings. Some chose to focus on a few charismatic species—notably bees, which had long been admired as sociable, productive creatures who were helpful to humans. But  Jeanette Samyn points to a different take on the value of insect life presented by Louis Figuier, a French writer who interpreted science for a popular audience. His 1868 book The Insect World fascinated and repulsed readers with descriptions of astonishing insect behavior. He ascribed conscious choice, industriousness, and sociality to the bugs. In some cases, he did this by anthropomorphizing them—describing a flea laying eggs as a “foreseeing mother,” for example. But often, the value he found was totally independent of human ethics, lying simply in their status as living creatures that play a part in the web of natural life. For example, he praised the “marvelous…industry, patience, and dexterity” and “biological intelligence” of parasitic fleas, ticks, and lice.