Abrahamic "god"?

[warpus]

Is any of this sufficient evidence to believe that it's describing "God"? Capital G, God. The author of morality. The founder and cause of the entire universe.

No, that's why it takes faith and not rationalism, to accept this being as the ultimate being.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

You don't understand, some of those folks have personal experience of communicating to the Lord.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not sufficient evidence, no, but wouldn't you say that they were the best candidate?

Why?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's not sufficient evidence, no, but wouldn't you say that they were the best candidate?

Why?

If I find a wheel on the ground, and it's a pretty awesome wheel, why would I think it's the ultimate wheel possible?

Included among those is the creation of the entire universe. Creation of the universe is an act that's pretty worthy of love.

If I understand, the miracle described is that Moses (or whoever) was given a vision of the creation of the universe by his god. But, even if we want to expand the miracles to 'I created your universe', is that still sufficient evidence to believe that the god is the author of morality. Sure, worthy of fear if you're pragmatic. But does the creator of this universe actually deserve high praise, and the moniker "God"?

 

[BvBPL]

Yeah. If you’ll accept a simple syllogism. Good is worthy of love. God is font of all that is good; absent His act of creation, there would be no good. Ergo, God is worthy of love because it is only because of Him that good exists.

 

[Synobun]

Yeah. If you’ll accept a simple syllogism. Good is worthy of love. God is font of all that is good; absent His act of creation, there would be no good. Ergo, God is worthy of love because it is only because of Him that good exists.

It is also because of Him that bad exists. That is the problem with attributing the universe to one singular being; all the good is packaged with the bad, and giving credit only for the good while treating the bad as circumstantial happenstance is questionable at best.

 

[BvBPL]

If we are again accepting the miracles as written, it is because of the error of Adam and Eve that humanity experiences the bad.

 

[Synobun]

If we are again accepting the miracles as written, it is because of the error of Adam and Eve that humanity experiences the bad.

So God is a narcissist? Why would we want to love that? Our childhood traumas fit that bill well enough.

A Narcissist's Prayer

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...
You deserved it.

Humanity wouldn't be experiencing any bad, regardless of the errors of this Adam and Eve, if God didn't make it so. Putting that blame on two humans who didn't know better is absurd and bankrupt of reason.

To be more on the nose, we cannot credit God with the good if we are not allowed to credit him with the bad as well. They are both direct actions on his part.

 

[Hrothbern]

Is any of this sufficient evidence to believe that it's describing "God"? Capital G, God. The author of morality. The founder and cause of the entire universe.

As direct answer: The old testament, the realm of the Abrahamic God, is imo devoid of advanced morals.

But that is not all to it:
Say you created the universe and keep in contact with some humans there,
How would you present yourself ?

How much of a credible overlord would you be in the eyes of your people if you do not obliterate all enemies of yourself and your chosen people.
History is still in the era of tribes competing for the few pieces of good, arable soil and genocides or the later invention of mass deportations are the tools at hand.

How many room for advanced morals is there besides demanding that humans honor and obey you as God, honor and obey their parents, do not steal, are not jealous on properties of their neighbours and do not speak wrong about their neighbours. The good and evil.
Those morals were pretty much mainstream among other civilisations. Our current enlightened set of morals would not be competitive in that ferocious environment and as such not competitive credible.

When virtues emerge in history like in ancient Greece and Rome, things change.
The new testament picks that up. To some degree in the gospels, but the philosophical description more so in the letters of the Apostles, who also start referring to the old testament to root their modern moral insights, as if they were always there.
The early Catholic Church builds up a whole set of sins and virtues as guidelines for morality, meanwhile crushing everything that could endanger them.
If you would attack modern theologists on the morality of the old testament, they start almost immediately with the new testament, that is needed to interpretate the old testament.

So in a sense the morality question is too much time-bound to be asked.
The issue thrown up that God is not consistent over time.

And why would God need to be consistent ?
If you believe and have faith, that is just another mystery of God.
It was already in the 2nd century AD (needed) that Tertullian formulated faith as the ultimate cornerstone and ratio & logic overruling principle of Christianity.

 

[warpus]

If we are again accepting the miracles as written, it is because of the error of Adam and Eve that humanity experiences the bad.

Adam and Eve were both created by God and he knew exactly what was going to happen as a result. As such the outcome was planned by God 100%, and so we experience the bad as well as the good because of God. (Given the premise that this God exists, etc.)

 

[El_Machinae]

If we are again accepting the miracles as written, it is because of the error of Adam and Eve that humanity experiences the bad.

Again, as far as I know, the miracle described is that Moses was given a vision of Adam and Eve's creation. Moses is like Muhammed, a witness to a vision. I am believing that he was given the vision. We already know that the creation event didn't happen as described.

The miracles I'm believing are the ones that are described from the availability of witnesses - the burning bush, the parting of the sea, the five loaves and two fishes.

That said, I can believe that a 'god' can create a fallible creation. But can God? Or does the Bible merely describe a god? But, even further, is the creation of the universe evidence that the creator is also the author of morality?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

That said, I can believe that a 'god' can create a fallible creation. But can God? Or does the Bible merely describe a god? But, even further, is the creation of the universe evidence that the creator is also the author of morality?

What is fallible? Human imperfection or imperfection in nature are just an intermediary evolutionary steps. Is matter fallible becouse it doesnt evidently posses the presence of life or is animal at fault becouse it doesnt have the ability of logical thinking? Why then would be man at fault that he fails to perfectly adhere to higher morality? In my view to perfectly fulfil morals is to transcend them becouse just like animal is inframoral and most of the universe is simply non-moral the future of men and his perfection lies beyond morals and God/god is also in that direction. Morality just like intelect is necessary but only an intermediate stage in evolution as its a creation of human mental nature for harmony and progress of mental being.
God is beyond morality just like he is beyond the half-light of truth which we call reason and intelect but the human-animal needs to walk long way in the dark of the senses and half lights of reason before it can arrive in the wider vistas of existence beyond morality.

 

[timtofly]

Again, as far as I know, the miracle described is that Moses was given a vision of Adam and Eve's creation. Moses is like Muhammed, a witness to a vision. I am believing that he was given the vision. We already know that the creation event didn't happen as described.

The miracles I'm believing are the ones that are described from the availability of witnesses - the burning bush, the parting of the sea, the five loaves and two fishes.

That said, I can believe that a 'god' can create a fallible creation. But can God? Or does the Bible merely describe a god? But, even further, is the creation of the universe evidence that the creator is also the author of morality?

First off, "we already knew"; what does that mean and is it a true statement? For it to be true, we would have to be there before or immediately after the event. Claiming we know what has happened in the past is about as foolish as making up a god and claiming things about it.

Second, "the author of morality"; is not morality relational? How does one author a relationship? Good and evil are not manufactured. They are results of a created existence, and we can only guess what it would be like to have one or the other, or neither. If this being was incapable of experiencing either, does that necessitate no knowledge of either?

Are you arguing that a being could not imagine, much less set in motion such an existence? Then you have to accuse that being of holding to such imaginations, even before such a being imagined them. It seems to me the universe is not bound by morals. Morals seem to be more in the rationality of beings capable of processing thought, and then if each individual is not bound to think in a standard non deviating format. If we all had the same thoughts, would morality even matter, no matter how immoral it technically may be?

The issue with God, is why hold humans to a moral standard at all, if they are given freedom of thought? That is the whole issue with fascism. Either you let humans think for themselves, or you take that ability away, out of fear, they will turn against you.

All the points you are raising against God, are just turning God into a human and limiting this being to a human thought process.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not disputing that God is beyond morality. I think that's a fair axiom.

Do you have sufficient evidence to believe that the Biblical god is the actual God? Not even 'believe', but even 'strongly suspect'?

 

[Berzerker]

I dont see much morality in nature or the Bible, just a bunch of suffering and death for the most part

is the creation of the universe evidence that the creator is also the author of morality?

Who else? Maybe just not our morality, I dont like killing other life forms to continue living. Dont hate the player I guess, but I do have questions for the game designer.

 

[warpus]

What about the possibility that an ultimate being created the universe, but objective morality doesn't exist?

So maybe there isn't an author of morality because morality might not really exist.

 

[timtofly]

What about the possibility that an ultimate being created the universe, but objective morality doesn't exist?

So maybe there isn't an author of morality because morality might not really exist.

I strongly suspect this is the answer to that->

I'm not disputing that God is beyond morality. I think that's a fair axiom.

Do you have sufficient evidence to believe that the Biblical god is the actual God? Not even 'believe', but even 'strongly suspect'?

Because the representation of God by the people in the Bible indicate God is no more concerned about morals for the sake of this being, but more for the existence of humans.

God is cold and calculating to those who reject. Allegedly tolerable and distant to those who accept.

I think every account from the past was written though with the flavor of how humans viewed God, not necessarily how this being allegedly revealed itself. Even when Samuel commanded Saul to destroy every man woman and child, because God said so, it can not be misconcepted that Samuel was making it all up. Even king Saul expected to "hear" from God, and still disobeyed the order given. Did Saul not go ahead with it because he was upset at God, or because he just wanted to do things his own way?

If morality is based on the ability to think on one's own, then Law is the guide to point out the pitfalls of thinking on one's own. The Law is no better at solving the problem because it forces some people to go against their internal thought processes. The God of the Bible solved the problem by not holding humans accountable, while at the same time not forcing them to accept the solution.

It is pretty clear that humans are more than willing to hold other humans accountable, and even want to eradicate those who refuse to tow the acceptable moral line. I grant it that God could just be a wishful dystopia. Even the point where it is pointless to have individual perfection without being at odds with each other. That is why we would have to be gods just to grasp that fact. That perfection is a thing to grasp, seems strongly to suggest it is a reality.

 

[warpus]

I strongly suspect this is the answer to that

I mean yeah, it's obvious what you think of that given your belief system.

However, both options are equally plausible in terms of what we know about the Universe so far. As far as we know morality is an entirely human made thing. Whether an ultimate being exists or not, that might not influence the existence of objective morality one way or another.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I mean yeah, it's obvious what you think of that given your belief system.

However, both options are equally plausible in terms of what we know about the Universe so far. As far as we know morality is an entirely human made thing. Whether an ultimate being exists or not, that might not influence the existence of objective morality one way or another.

Morality isnt a human made thing anymore than the human physical or emotional existence is. The need for morality is simply a response of majority of men to the more or less consciously recognised need for a higher law of existence than that based on animal life. It directly implies that there is something above animal-vital existence not necessarily the God-existence quite yet but something which perhaps leads to that or something which is instinctively felt by most humans to be their higher destiny and which is without the moral discipline unatainable.

 

[warpus]

But all you've done is assembled words in ways that make them look like proper sentences and arguments. Yeah it sounds good to some ears perhaps, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

You are in some ways right that some men (and women) desire to have a source of morality. But that doesn't make it so. I desire many things and they never come to pass.