Morality as a fluid concept for a supreme being; justification for an amoral God

[Overswarm]

Why does him being a poor communicator matter? It has absolutely no bearing on anything. I'm really not sure you understand what's going on.

 

[Cassio]

Why does it entail God is a poor communicator? Thats kind of a jump to make.

As for the thread itself Im not a big fan of the presumptions needed for this, but OS built this argument so that he can't be wrong. My issue with the presumptions is this has the potential to turn morality into something similar to a job you hate and feel dirty doing, but keep up with it for the paycheck you get at the end of the month.

 

[Dre89]

Why does him being a poor communicator matter? It has absolutely no bearing on anything. I'm really not sure you understand what's going on.

Because it contradicts God's omniscience , which means God isn't omniscient. The C God is supposed to be omniscient, meaning it refutes the God you're trying to defend is refuted.

 

[Overswarm]

Why does it entail God is a poor communicator? Thats kind of a jump to make.

As for the thread itself Im not a big fan of the presumptions needed for this, but OS built this argument so that he can't be wrong. My issue with the presumptions is this has the potential to turn morality into something similar to a job you hate and feel dirty doing, but keep up with it for the paycheck you get at the end of the month.

It was specifically designed so I couldn't be wrong. That's how conditional arguments work. The point is to see if I omitted something or if there's something within these confines that I haven't thought of.

"If we assume that the animal in question in incapable of suffering, is it wrong to kill it if it brings no gain to us" brings an argument to the table that is not quite as specific as the one in this thread, but it helps remove aspects of the argument that can be considered a completely different branch.

Or, another popular example: "If you went back in time and saw Hitler and had the opportunity to steal his wallet without getting caught, would you do it? Assume stealing the wallet would change absolutely nothing of the future, but would ruin Hitler's night. Hitler has not yet risen to power." makes several assumptions to prevent discussion on time paradoxes (pointless) and other such trivial things and instead focuses it on retribution. In a "real" situation stealing the wallet might be a good idea or bad idea for other reason, but this focuses only on retribution.

Na mean?

Because it contradicts God's omniscience , which means God isn't omniscient. The C God is supposed to be omniscient, meaning it refutes the God you're trying to defend is refuted.

How does it contradict God's omniscience? You're just saying things with no support to them.

 

[Dre89]

It contradicts his omniscience in that an all knowing being wouldn't communicate to us poorly because they know better.

Humans could have communicated the liquid morality message better, let alone am omniscient being.

 

[Orboknown]

It was specifically designed so I couldn't be wrong. That's how conditional arguments work. The point is to see if I omitted something or if there's something within these confines that I haven't thought of.

then how are we supposed to debate something designed to be undebatable?

 

[Suntan Luigi]

The point is to see if it is actually unbeatable or not.

 

[Orboknown]

ah.sorry for my inability to recognize that
(not being sarcastic at all[seriously])

 

[Overswarm]

It contradicts his omniscience in that an all knowing being wouldn't communicate to us poorly because they know better.

Know better to what?

 

[Dre89]

He would know how to communicate humans better, especially since humans could have communicated the liquid morality message better than he did.

 

[Cassio]

It was specifically designed so I couldn't be wrong. That's how conditional arguments work. The point is to see if I omitted something or if there's something within these confines that I haven't thought of.

"If we assume that the animal in question in incapable of suffering, is it wrong to kill it if it brings no gain to us" brings an argument to the table that is not quite as specific as the one in this thread, but it helps remove aspects of the argument that can be considered a completely different branch.

Or, another popular example: "If you went back in time and saw Hitler and had the opportunity to steal his wallet without getting caught, would you do it? Assume stealing the wallet would change absolutely nothing of the future, but would ruin Hitler's night. Hitler has not yet risen to power." makes several assumptions to prevent discussion on time paradoxes (pointless) and other such trivial things and instead focuses it on retribution. In a "real" situation stealing the wallet might be a good idea or bad idea for other reason, but this focuses only on retribution.

Na mean?

I agree the logic was well built/isnt wrong. I also dont see any significant omissions. Everything seems rather simple and straightforward, so my statement was mostly out of confusion by the odd attempts to poke holes that dont exist.

I'd say the argument could bring about some distasteful conclusions, but from reading your comments it doesnt seem as though you've ignored this.

 

[Dre89]

There are holes in the argument when you look at what it's trying to defend (Christian God) and what it's claiming (liquid morality).

I've shown these two properties are incompatible.

OS- people don't understand exactly what you want us to debate. We show problems with your argument and you just say 'it assumes X' or 'that's not relevant'.

 

[Cassio]

Your hole:

Premise 1: God doesnt effectively communicate his liquid morality
Premise 2: God knows he should communicate his liquid morality to us.
1. God is incapable of effectively communicating his liquid morality
Conclusion: God is not omniscient

Your second premise raises lots of red flags, but the ultimate red flag is that we're already at the conclusion that God's morality is liquid. Meaning the premise doesnt fit within the confines of his argument.

If there were any other 'holes' I missed requote and Ill take a look. Honestly I dont agree with OS's argument but it looks very logically sound.

 

[Dre89]

Um how doesn't it fit?

Event accepting the conclusion that God's morality is liquid, that means he cant be omniscient.

This renders the whole argument pointless because it's designed to defend the C God, which is supposed to be omniscient.

Now he can't say 'well the argument assumes God is both omniscient and has liquid morality' because in the case of the C God they are contradictory, and you'd be just making your argument more and more invincible so that it can't be proven wrong.

How is that not relevant?

If that's not relevant, then there's nothing to debate, because you guys will just say 'it's not relevant'. The argument assumes too many controversial conditions to be productive in any way. I might as well try and disprove the C God with an argument that assumes the Bible isn't the word of God.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Dre., OS isn't arguing in favor of the Christian god. Not in this thread, anyways...

 

[Cassio]

Because as soon as you say what god should or should not be doing, youre making a moral judgement. And in OS's argument God defines all moral judgements. Meaning what he should or should not be doing is determined by Him and only Him.

Now if God is omniscient, defines moral judgements, and has chosen to not communicate with us, then it follows that hes determined not communicating with is what he should be doing. Hence the contradiction that "God knows he should communicate with us".

As for controversial conditions/conclusions I agree, personally I think the concept of fluid morality is controversial among other things. Precisely why I've stated this argument isnt my cup of tea.

 

[Dre89]

BPC- The liquid morality argument exists only to defend the C God. Plus he never contested my claim that he's defending the C God.

Cassio- You're forgetting that the C God communicates to us that he has a static morality, meaning he wants us to believe that's what he has, or he's poor at communicating with humans.

Now you can try to make explanations for this, but the bottom line is any explanation will give God traits the C God isn't meant to have, and the LM argument serves no purpose other than to defend the CG.

 

[Eyada]

Hmm. Interesting.

Putting aside my intractable disbelief of all your premises, I have some clarifying questions to ensure that my mental picture of your proposed Universe is accurate. Which follow up questions need to be asked depend on your answer to this first one, so I'll just post the one question for now:


(1) In your Universe, is it the case that:

(A) Morality is part of God's essence; as in, it is part of him.

or

(B) Morality is an independent thing, separate from God, which is created and defined by God.

 

[Cassio]

Eyada I was wondering that too, but given the argument I think its alright to assume that we don't know unless OS includes it as a premise. Meaning both would have to be considered.

Cassio- You're forgetting that the C God communicates to us that he has a static morality, meaning he wants us to believe that's what he has, or he's poor at communicating with humans.

Now you can try to make explanations for this, but the bottom line is any explanation will give God traits the C God isn't meant to have

It wouldnt be that he's poor at communicating, it would be that he chose to communicate unclearly or incorrectly. Meaning hed retain his omnisience

LM argument serves no purpose other than to defend the CG.

In this case of course.

 

[Dre89]

But if the miscommunication is intentional, then he is being deceiptful, another trait the C God isn't supposed to have.

This is my point, it's a two horn dilemma. Any explanation of a certain property of phenomena entails God having a property the C God isn't supposed to have.

 

[Overswarm]

Who says God can't be deceitful?

 

[Dre89]

Who says God can't be deceitful?

Christian theology, which is what the LM argument is trying to defend.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Dre., why do you say that this "miscommunication" is deceitful? Maybe it is the best way to communicate and keep people's free will intact?

 

[Dre89]

Sorry, but why would God need to communicate the wrong kind of morality?

All that does is make people less likely to believe in him.

 

[Cassio]

Youre asking questions that dont need to be answered for this argument. A lot of them fall under the category of "God knows better"/"God knows the answer and we dont". As a superior being, God is able to comprehend many things we do not.

Also I dont really think Christian Theology says God cant be deceitful. I'm also not sure it can be considered real deceit in the first place if its simply ommission.

 

[Dre89]

Youre asking questions that dont need to be answered for this argument. A lot of them fall under the category of "God knows better"/"God knows the answer and we dont". As a superior being, God is able to comprehend many things we do not.

Also I dont really think Christian Theology says God cant be deceitful. I'm also not sure it can be considered real deceit in the first place if its simply ommission.

It's not ommission.

Ommission would be not revealing a property he has that doesn't conflict with his other ones eg. his sense of humour.

If he says he has a liquid morality, but in fact has a static morality, then he's lying to us, because they're conflicting.

So now you have a God who is lying to us, but you want us to trust everything else his theology says as true. And this is assuming this miscommunication is intentional, instead of just a lack of omniscience, niether of which can be proven. Not only does either one give God properties than are undesirable for the C God, but even if the theology isn't totally undone at this point, the theology differs greatly whether you interpret the lie as deliberate or unintentional.

 

[Suntan Luigi]

Sorry, but why would God need to communicate the wrong kind of morality?

All that does is make people less likely to believe in him.

I thought you were talking about something else, my bad.

 

[Cassio]

It's not ommission.

Ommission would be not revealing a property he has that doesn't conflict with his other ones eg. his sense of humour.

If he says he has a liquid morality, but in fact has a static morality, then he's lying to us, because they're conflicting.

So now you have a God who is lying to us, but you want us to trust everything else his theology says as true. And this is assuming this miscommunication is intentional, instead of just a lack of omniscience, niether of which can be proven. Not only does either one give God properties than are undesirable for the C God, but even if the theology isn't totally undone at this point, the theology differs greatly whether you interpret the lie as deliberate or unintentional.

Was it ever clearly stated that had static or liquid morality?

That aside, I think the full context of superior being is not being used and deceit is being used to broadly here. Because there are definitely situations where those who would lie would still be trustworthy. Ill illustrate this through an example.

Consider a child thats told orange juice is good for him. This child then decides that drinking a gallon of orange juice is a good idea. The parent seeing this informs the child that drinking too much orange juice is bad. When the child asks why, the parent responds "if you drink too much orange juice youll turn into an orange". Assume that if asked by an adult the parent would be capable of giving an adequate answer, the child is simply incapable of comprehending the truth himself. Should the parent then be considered an untrustworthy individual to the child?

Not only does either one give God properties than are undesirable for the C God, but even if the theology isn't totally undone at this point, the theology differs greatly whether you interpret the lie as deliberate or unintentional.

Well, this doesnt have to do with it being desirable. In fact I think Ive explicitly said it can create situations that are undesirable. The point is that the logic being used is sound. However lacking omniscience would make it more than undesirable, it potentially creates a contradiction. Being deceitful doesnt create a contradiction to my knowledge but certainly can be argued (separately) to be distasteful. Also in debate or any legitimate argument really the strongest argument is always used by default.

 

[Dre89]

He implies his morality is static by claiming he possesses certain virtues eg. being loving, merciful, just, personal etc.

Now according to liquid morality, these are only few properties of essentially an infinite he could have, so why would he mention these properties, when he can be anything he wants?

It's also coincidental that the properties he mentions happen to be ones humans consider virtuos. Mentioning certain properties implies a static nature. At no point does he say his properties are subject to change, and that he can change his morality at any point.

 

[Overswarm]

He implies his morality is static by claiming he possesses certain virtues eg. being loving, merciful, just, personal etc.

Not to interrupt the flow of you two, but "loving", "merciful", "just", and other such traits are by their nature not static, evenmoreso when those traits are referring to a morality that is defined by the very being being described.

 

[Dre89]

Not to interrupt the flow of you two, but "loving", "merciful", "just", and other such traits are by their nature not static, evenmoreso when those traits are referring to a morality that is defined by the very being being described.

But when God says he is loving to humans, we're going to naturally assume he means the human definition of love, seeing as he doesn't specify he means an alternate, liquid type love.

And any term must be static to a certain degree, otherwise there'd be no point to the term. Love is a static term in that certain actions are considered loving, and certain actions are unloving. It's static in that it's not as if the holocaust will somehow change to be a loving act.

So when God says he's loving, we assume he means he does loving acts, or has a loving nature. However, he does acts which fall under the unloving category to humans. There's no point saying God is loving because the term loses all meaning if he's entitled to do acts which fall under the unloving category.

It's like saying the term 'killer' can refer to someone who kills people, but also to people who haven't killed people, or the term 'virgin' can refer both to people who have had sex and people who haven't. The terms simply lose all meaning at that point, as what gave them meaning were static definitions.

 

[Orboknown]

so the only major loophole i can think of is if Nietzsche was right and the supreme being was no longer living.

 

[Dre89]

Not sure how you got that.

Plus, I don't think he actually meant God died, and that's prettuy stupid if he did.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Morality is subjective, not all humans value another human's life. Throughout history, people have done whatever they want to get what they want. Another example of morality being subjective is the huge differences in laws between countries...

 

[Dre89]

Um people doing different things doesn't mean morality is subjective, that just means people have done immoral things or have had different things about morality. That does nothing to show morality is subjective.

That's the whole point behind the concept of morality, being able to do the wrong thing. That's why most moral objectivists believe animals don't have morality, because they can't do the wrong thing.

That's like saying people don't have free will because different people make different choice all the time.

Personally, I find that most moral relativists are people who don't have any understanding or notion of meta-ethics.

 

[Overswarm]

But when God says he is loving to humans, we're going to naturally assume he means the human definition of love, seeing as he doesn't specify he means an alternate, liquid type love.

I'm just gonna stop you right there; we don't "naturally assume" anything, especially in the case of a being such as God. We're especially not going to assume he means the "human definition of love", and most especially not assume he means this century's definition as opposed to others.

 

[Dre89]

Pretty sure genocide isn't in any century's definition of love.

So let me get this straight, you don't think that an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God, who communicated this message specifically to humans meant the human definition when he said these things?

Well then, why did he mention these virtues, if he meant something completely different, and these traits are just a couple of a million to him, and aren't any more important than the rest to him?

Where is it ever specified he has a lm?

It's just backwards reasoning. It's Christians just trying to dodge the argument of evil.

In fact, given the circumstances, the only reason to believe in this lm, seeing as nothing points to it, is if you believe God must necessarily exist, and because static morality is implausible.

It's pointless because these arguments are supposed to justify belief in God, not assume his existence for their own justification.

 

[Overswarm]

Dre, you just find it impossible to come into an argument without a load of baggage.

 

[Cassio]

^have to agree with that, at least as it pertains to this argument. Kinda why I had to stop responding .

so the only major loophole i can think of is if Nietzsche was right and the supreme being was no longer living.

Actually a fairly good point.

 

[Dre89]

Baggage? Analysing an argument and seeing the bigger picture isn't baggage.

FYI, I used to be a devout Christian, and have a decent understanding of Christian philosophy and theology. I frequently defend religion, to the point that many people think I'm religious. Plus I go to a Catholic uni. So it's not as if there's any bias on my behalf.