Abrahamic "god"?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

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.

Well O.K. I am happy to rephrase it so it sounds less esoteric and more scientifical if you wish but the point is if morality wasnt based in or reflection of reality it would be impractical and as such useless while no doubt the opposite is true. In fact its more real to human existence then the physical reality itself for many men can go on living with physical disability than they are willing to endure permanent psychic/mental ret@rdation. Man will give up their lives to fight a tyran or will take their lives when they do not feel psychologicaly satisfied inspite of being physicaly well.

 

[Mise]

Why?

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?

If it were head and shoulders the best wheel ever, and performed the equivalent of wheel miracles, then yeah I might think that it was the ultimate wheel.

If I have literally no other explanation for why I am here, or why anything is here, and then some god-like figure comes along and parts the sea and floods the planet and magicks up fish sandwiches out of nothing, I might think that this god could have created the universe, and could be the answer to all my questions. Lacking any other possible explanation for how things came into existence, or why the weather is sometimes good and sometimes crap, or any of the other questions that are typically answered with "God", I might look at the one example of an entity that has controlled nature to its own will and created something out of nothing and think "yeah, that's probably what did it".


EDIT: Perhaps I'm taking your first post too strictly? I took it to mean that (a) those miracles happened as they are described in the bible, (b) there is no "scientific" explanation for them, i.e. they're not magic tricks or advanced technology: they were in fact miracles, and (c) I know that both (a) and (b) are true.

If all 3 parts of that are true then yeah I'd believe that the being is God. However, if any single part wasn't true, then I'm not sure my argument holds.

 

[El_Machinae]

You're not interpretating too strictly. You're answering the question about the the wheel the same way.

I don't see how finding something stupendous implies that it's the ultimate. All I see is a powerful supernatural entity.

I mean, the evidence provided is also sufficient to suggest that a 30th level wizard is trying to be worshipped as a god.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You're not interpretating too strictly. You're answering the question about the the wheel the same way.

I don't see how finding something stupendous implies that it's the ultimate. All I see is a powerful supernatural entity.

I mean, the evidence provided is also sufficient to suggest that a 30th level wizard is trying to be worshipped as a god.

Or powerful aliens. Or people traveling from the future, or whatever really even a way to manipulate beliefs using drugs +suggestion + lots of time to screw with memories (Mandela effect?) or something.

As you suggest in OP the examples provide don't really provide enough evidence to support the claim, even if we take them as actual evidence.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't see how finding something stupendous implies that it's the ultimate. All I see is a powerful supernatural entity.

This is a very good point but what is of immediate importance isnt if something is ultimate but if its potent and if it does allow for necessary progress and expansion. Abrahamic God conception is a real God even though not the ultimate God-reality but in relation to the type of a semibarbaric consciousness of its time it has helped to brought about needed development within the semitic society.

 

[Berzerker]

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.

Life has an objective design and I'd think morality - if it exists - would be based on that design. And objectively, killing and even murder seem to be both 'moral' and essential. Maybe might does make right? On the other hand, the design includes mental capacities for greater intelligence and empathy leading to creatures breaking free from 'instinct'.

 

[timtofly]

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 would be more like a neccessary reaction, as opposed to a human conception. If there is objective morality, it does not seem neccessary on a God level.

I would argue that if morality was conceived or even merely evolved, it would need no objective aspect. If we are evolving, are we heading toward objective morality or away from it?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would argue that if morality was conceived or even merely evolved, it would need no objective aspect. If we are evolving, are we heading toward objective morality or away from it?

1. We are still evolving. There is no "if" about it.

2. If we end up in a static state where nothing ever changes and nobody ever has an original thought, I suppose "objective morality" might be possible. But since that's not likely to happen, and everyone has their own idea of what is moral and what isn't, you're not likely to see "objective morality" happening any time soon.

 

[warpus]

If we are evolving, are we heading toward objective morality or away from it?

Biological evolution aside, our civilization and the societies within are continually evolving and updating their moral code and compass. That's why for instance women can now vote in a lot of places, whereas not too recently that was just not done. As we change, so does our morality.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

1. We are still evolving. There is no "if" about it.

There is no doubt that the Helenic civilizations have been more evolved in number of aspects than the medieval ones. So I think there is actualy an "if" to the evolutionary movement...

 

[timtofly]

1. We are still evolving. There is no "if" about it.

2. If we end up in a static state where nothing ever changes and nobody ever has an original thought, I suppose "objective morality" might be possible. But since that's not likely to happen, and everyone has their own idea of what is moral and what isn't, you're not likely to see "objective morality" happening any time soon.

Then why even talk about objective morality? If it is an impossibility, how did it even enter into the human thought process?

That is why I asked. Was objective morality something that was, and is now lost? Or did it never happen? I doubt it will ever happen, as long as human can think for themselves.

 

[El_Machinae]

The existence of objective morality is independent of our ability to perceive it. I cannot look at some circles and tell which is more circular, because of the limits on my eyes. But that doesn't change one will be the most circular without actually being perfectly circular.

And even though perfect circles are impossible, it's not a 'surprise' that we have a conception of them.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Then why even talk about objective morality? If it is an impossibility, how did it even enter into the human thought process?

That is why I asked. Was objective morality something that was, and is now lost? Or did it never happen? I doubt it will ever happen, as long as human can think for themselves.

Re-read my post. You have your ideas of what you think is moral. I have my ideas of what I think is moral. We probably agree on many of them, but there are some I know we don't agree on (based on years' worth of arguments on this forum). That, right there, is evidence that morality is not "objective" because if it was, we would be in 100% agreement on all of it, and so would all the other 7.whatever billion people on this planet.

Now if Berzerker's aliens should happen to turn up, they probably would not be in 100% agreement with all of us, so that's pretty much it for objective morality.

For that matter, even my cat and I don't agree on objective morality. She's a bully when it comes to sharing with other cats, or at least she was a bully with Chloe (my cat who died in March). I believe that it's moral to share food. Maddy believes that it should all be for her, as much as she wants, as often as she wants.

The existence of objective morality is independent of our ability to perceive it. I cannot look at some circles and tell which is more circular, because of the limits on my eyes. But that doesn't change one will be the most circular without actually being perfectly circular.

And even though perfect circles are impossible, it's not a 'surprise' that we have a conception of them.

I think you're confusing objective morality with objective reality. Nobody is disputing whether or not one circle is more moral than another.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

1. We are still evolving. There is no "if" about it.

 

[Berzerker]

everyone has their own idea of what is moral and what isn't, you're not likely to see "objective morality" happening any time soon.

is murder moral if I say it is?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I would say murder is inefficient.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

is murder moral if I say it is?

I think to murder an opressor or such may very well be a moral thing to do.

 

[Mise]

You're not interpretating too strictly. You're answering the question about the the wheel the same way.

I don't see how finding something stupendous implies that it's the ultimate. All I see is a powerful supernatural entity.

I mean, the evidence provided is also sufficient to suggest that a 30th level wizard is trying to be worshipped as a god.

It doesn't imply that they are the ultimate, of course not. I said originally that my argument isn't that it necessarily follows that the wheel is the ultimate wheel or the god is the ultimate God. I said it was the best candidate for the ultimate (which is uncontroversial I think), and, further, that this justifies a belief that they are probably the ultimate. It's not a super-strong belief, and it's certainly not a belief that can't be swayed with additional evidence. For instance, if there was another candidate for that position, or if the miracles were exposed as mere technology rather than innate abilities, I might begin to doubt it. But it is nonetheless a reasonable belief.

So there are two differences between what you are talking about and what I'm talking about.

1) Modality: You're arguing that "unparalleled supernatural powers" does not imply "creator of all things". I agree. However, I argue not about strict implication, but about possibility: "unparalleled supernatural powers" implies "possibly creator of all things". There's a caveat on the second part, and that caveat is meaningful, useful, and significant.

2) Belief: I argue that, in order to believe (reasonably) that they are the "creator of all things", one merely needs (a) the possibility that they are the creator of all things, and (b) that there are no better alternatives for "creator of all things". I don't think this is unreasonable, and we do this literally all the time. I believe that my parents are my parents not because I've taken a DNA test, but because there really are no better alternative candidates for the position of "parent" in my life. It would be unreasonable to doubt that my parents were my parents, even though we don't really have any super-strong logical evidence such as a DNA test. They might be imposters, and we might just go along with it because they have all the power, but we still believe it at the same time, don't we? We simply wouldn't be able to get on in life if there weren't a form of "belief" that required lower evidential standards than that of scientific proof; such a form of "belief" is what I'm talking about here.

 

[Berzerker]

I think to murder an opressor or such may very well be a moral thing to do.

So murder is moral if I say it is, or when an oppressor is murdered by their victim? The two are not the same...

 

[Samson]

If God did what is ascribed to him in the start of the bible, I would say that alone gives him a pretty good claim to "God" as understood by most people.

Spoiler Genesis 1 (creating everything) :

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.