Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I'm bored and need to kill time while video encodes at work, so here we go:
First, the ground rules:
Morality - synonymous with "good" or "right"; positive.
Immorality - antonym to "good" or "right; negative. Presumably the opposite of Morality but not necessarily so in the case of specific action but rather intent in regards to a circumstantial position
Amorality - Indifferent towards Morality
God - Christian God, for all intents and purposes of this discussion
Supreme Being - a being that can be considered "above" in every aspect in that he is the creator of the objects questioning his morality; we cannot be considered on an equal plane as a Supreme Being as we are, nor can we biologically or technologically reach this level for the intents of this discussion. He is the creator of our existence and as such will always have this above us.
Nothing above is particularly extraordinary.
The title can be translated as:
Good as an ever-changing concept for a supreme being; justification for an indifferent God
I've seen many people come into an argument about the existence of God and say things like:
Simple enough.
There are a bunch of ways to attack that argument. My particular argument for today is:
For a Supreme Being that has created existence morality is by default an exercise in meta-ethical relativism which naturally extends a normative morality to our own existence. However, our normative morality does not effect the meta-ethical relative morality for the Supreme Being in any direct context.
As such, morality can change for the Supreme Being regardless of actions regarding us or our opinions as such and our normative morality can only be changed by his decree. In a word, his morality is by definition liquid since he is the defining aspect of morality if he is the creator, while ours is rigid as we are the created.
Because of this, any attempt at discrediting God's acts (referenced earlier) as immoral are simply judging him from the perspective of our normative morality. In actuality, due to his being a Supreme Being, his actions are moral by definition regardless of any discrepancies with our OWN moral code; at worst God is amoral from our perspective.
An analogy would be someone playing a video game and creating their own rules. Imagine playing a game in which you decide killing is wrong. The characters in the game know this. You see one of the characters kill and, to punish him, you kill him. Have you committed an immoral act?
I don't see how anyone could possibly attribute your rules that you've given to characters in the game to yourself. One could make that argument but it's pretty damning and implies some heavy stuff.
A potential except to the meta-ethical morality of a Supreme Being would be if the Supreme Being actually had a creator himself, but for the purposes of this exercise I'd like to use the concept of God, meaning he'd be the only Supreme Being in question.
First, the ground rules:
Morality - synonymous with "good" or "right"; positive.
Immorality - antonym to "good" or "right; negative. Presumably the opposite of Morality but not necessarily so in the case of specific action but rather intent in regards to a circumstantial position
Amorality - Indifferent towards Morality
God - Christian God, for all intents and purposes of this discussion
Supreme Being - a being that can be considered "above" in every aspect in that he is the creator of the objects questioning his morality; we cannot be considered on an equal plane as a Supreme Being as we are, nor can we biologically or technologically reach this level for the intents of this discussion. He is the creator of our existence and as such will always have this above us.
Nothing above is particularly extraordinary.
The title can be translated as:
Good as an ever-changing concept for a supreme being; justification for an indifferent God
I've seen many people come into an argument about the existence of God and say things like:
A righteous God couldn't possibly kill every first born in Egypt!
How could God be good and let evil into the world?
The basic gist being that if God is benevolent at all times, but allows or directly DOES bad things, this is an inherent contradiction in his presentation and as such God cannot exist as a being that is benevolent at all times.Why would God summon freaking BEARS to kill a bunch of teenagers?!
Simple enough.
There are a bunch of ways to attack that argument. My particular argument for today is:
For a Supreme Being that has created existence morality is by default an exercise in meta-ethical relativism which naturally extends a normative morality to our own existence. However, our normative morality does not effect the meta-ethical relative morality for the Supreme Being in any direct context.
As such, morality can change for the Supreme Being regardless of actions regarding us or our opinions as such and our normative morality can only be changed by his decree. In a word, his morality is by definition liquid since he is the defining aspect of morality if he is the creator, while ours is rigid as we are the created.
Because of this, any attempt at discrediting God's acts (referenced earlier) as immoral are simply judging him from the perspective of our normative morality. In actuality, due to his being a Supreme Being, his actions are moral by definition regardless of any discrepancies with our OWN moral code; at worst God is amoral from our perspective.
An analogy would be someone playing a video game and creating their own rules. Imagine playing a game in which you decide killing is wrong. The characters in the game know this. You see one of the characters kill and, to punish him, you kill him. Have you committed an immoral act?
I don't see how anyone could possibly attribute your rules that you've given to characters in the game to yourself. One could make that argument but it's pretty damning and implies some heavy stuff.
A potential except to the meta-ethical morality of a Supreme Being would be if the Supreme Being actually had a creator himself, but for the purposes of this exercise I'd like to use the concept of God, meaning he'd be the only Supreme Being in question.