/lit/ - Literature

he creates them...for lower beings.

Is God subordinate to The Good?

God follows and disobeys every moral law, even conflicting moral laws, and no moral laws
because God is perfect, he is perfectly moral, immoral, and amoral

>>4767685
So whatever god does is good? Then how can we possibly speak about his actions as good? How is he able to feel sadness at having to kill his whole creation?

>>4767690
So on the one hand, you say he disobeys moral law. This a) implies that there is a moral law higher than God, and b) implies that God is transgressing these moral laws, the definition of "immoral." Then you say he is morally perfect. This doesn't make sense.

>>4767692
>So whatever god does is good?

no, whatever he *says* is good for us is good. he doesn't have to abide by the laws.

>>4767692
I think the issue is the assumption that God experiences human emotion in a way identical to humans.

if there is a god i don't think he would follow laws, rather he would be the laws. so the second option i guess, sort of.

>>4767699
So ultimately there are no morals, only appeals to authority? This makes all talk of "this is good" or "this is bad" into "God says do this". How, then, do you account for atheists speaking of morals? How are there morals outside of religion, even moreso, going counter to religion?

>>4767696
you clearly know nothing about philosophy of religion

>>4767701
If we are going off biblical accounts, before killing everyone in a flood, God experiences, or is said to experience, remorse. God experiences anger with Adam and Eve. If we call into question God's experiencing human emotions, then those stories are reduced to allegories and/or meaningless statements.

>this thread

There must be a higher moral law, one that exists above God, because if we are able to consider the morality of God's actions, then he must exist within the framework of an overarching moral structure. This is the moral realist, theist viewpoint.

On the other hand, we could have a moral nonrealist, atheist viewpoint in which God is merely a mental image in man, and morality is an evolutionary construct.

>>4767679

God damn, OP's pic makes me glad I left the philosophy department behind.

No, moral law's just the stand in until God is born.

>>4767730
So God is yet unborn? Are you the Anti-Nietzsche?

>>4767708
>This makes all talk of "this is good" or "this is bad" into "God says do this".

right, but if you interpret god as Being, this doesn't conflict with anything.

atheists speaking of morals doesn't need to be accounted for. laymen can give medical advice, it's ultimately just noise.

>>4767726
>if we are able to consider the morality of God's actions, then he must exist within the framework of an overarching moral structure.

This isn't logically sound. Just because we consider something doesn't mean it exists. We can falsely apply human morals to God, but that doesn't put the framework above God.

>>4767734
So only religious people are authoritative on morals? You are saying that morals are inherently within the religious over-structure. This is wrong. Religious is a subsection of morals, resides within it; This is because morals can be applied outside of religion. We can speak of morals in a non-religious setting. The multiplicity of religions alone proves the incapability of religion to have a monopoly on morality, simply because religions have conflicting moral statements. If religion was the only authority on morality, moral statements would only be religious statements.

>>4767737
If we are able to apply moral judgments on God, he exists within the framework of morality. It doesn't matter if morality is a human construct, what matters is that God can be judged.

>>4767734
If God is the same as Being, I would think that takes everything out of any moral realist viewpoint because Being is essentially amoral. This would leave morality to the humans, simply statements of what they like and dislike.

All this moral realism is bullshit: All moral statements are simply statements about the preferences of the speaker. "Killing is wrong" becomes "I don't like killing" etc.

I think Spinoza put it best when he said:
> It is thus plain from what has been said, that in no case do we strive for, wish for, long for, or desire anything, because we deem it to be good, but on the other hand we deem a thing to be good, because we strive for it, wish for it, long for it,or desire it.

>>4767741
>>4767745

this logic is nonsense. i can create my own unique system of symbols and use them on anything i like...according to you, this means that everything is subservient to my system of symbols just because i can apply them everywhere.

>>4767768
While I get the feeling that you are trying to use reductio ad absurdum on my statement, I fully agree with what you say. However, I would not use the word "subsurvient" because that implies that things are obligated to obey your moral commands. But the creation of a moral system and the application of it to the world is the same as the world falling under the framework, though in turn the system of the world prevents it from obeying you.

What is the morality of a cell to a human being? - Namely, to exist, to do all it is physically capable of doing. The purpose and intent of the greater system, though it fuels the cell to exist at all, is irrelevent to the cell.

Morality stems from natural neccessity and differs on each macro/micro level. To speak to God, an accumulation of all things in existence, is simply to understand we are to the Whole of Being nothing more than a cell - alive, possibly conscious, but overall infinitesimal in the evolution of all things. As it stamds, what we construe as moral is only moral to us. God has had no say in petty human morality.

>>4767768
Furthermore, this development of "symbols" specifically is what language is. Humans have created various symbolic systems that they apply to the entirety of the universe, and everything is "subservient" to the system, as you say. The only reason that you don't make your own system of symbols is that the advantage lies in a multitude of people using them, which they aren't wont to do with your own personal symbols.

>>4767782
But in construing what is moral to us we make God be judged and therefore subject to a moral system. The moral system we create is no less applicable than some abstract system inherent in the universe that may or may not exist. In fact, the human system could be considered inherent in the universe because humans themselves are of and not separate from the universe. In this way, all things fall under moral systems.

>>4767786
your argument as far as i understand it is this:

assume existence of god whose moral law is absolute for human beings -> people can use language to apply this moral law to anything they want, including god -> therefore god's moral law applies to god

the problem with your logic is that it is incomplete. you haven't explained how just because humans can judge god using his standards that they somehow apply to him. if god exists, the only authority is him. atheists, religious people, non religious believers can chatter and judge whatever they want. it's just noise when compared to the absolute truth.

>>4767815
My original question was whether there was a moral law over and above God to which he is beholden. My chain of argument goes something like this

assume existence of moral law over and above god, to which god is beholden => moral agents (in this case humans) create moral systems => moral agents use moral systems to pass judgment on everything (themselves, others, animals, inanimate objects, finally god) =>the act of being judged is the same thing as being under a moral law.

God is not necessarily beholden to a moral law but at least subject to judgment according to the rules of the moral law. I suppose my arguments evolved through the thread.

The existence of a moral system implies the existence of moral agents, because they are the only thing to which a moral system applies.

A moral system pre-existing moral agents is preposterous: since moral agents are the only beings capable of understanding morality, they are the only ones capable of promulgating morality.

Therefore, moral systems are created by moral agents.

This moral system is then applied by moral agents to everything.

The existence of a moral system created by moral agents is as close as we can get to a moral system inherent in the universe. As close to the truth of moral realism, so to speak.

Since moral agents exist within the universe, and the moral system only applies to them, and the moral system exists in the universe (by applying to beings existing in the universe (the moral agents)) the moral system is equivalent to an abstract moral law to which everything would be beholden.

Check my logic, /lit/

>>4767850

Yes, it works out, but I will caution you here:

>This moral system is then applied by moral agents to everything.

This to me implies that moral systems are the basis of all value, but I think that we use different systems aesthetically, epistemically, etc. Ethics and aesthetics are usually distinguished in axiology, which is something that you can look into.

>The existence of a moral system created by moral agents is as close as we can get to a moral system inherent in the universe. As close to the truth of moral realism, so to speak.

There is some implication of immanence, which is another thing you can look into.

I'm sure others will go into a full critique of your argument. I just want to encourage you to keep thinking this way, keep coming up with original ideas in philosophy. There is a such thing as a new way of thinking about problems, don't get bound to the same tired schools of thought.

Go present your argument to your professor, damn you.

>>4767850
>>4767894
>samefagging this hard

>>4767903

I'm this guy >>4767894 . Honestly, what the fuck.

You know it's a sorry state of affairs around here when somebody can't give a little bit of criticism that isn't completely destructive.

>>4767679
>'God' the fictional abrahamic character is a hypocrite and the biggest failure in the history of fiction.
Everything he creates turns against him or fails and he has to go out of his way to save those he can. the rest burn in eternal hell fire for pissing him off

>>4767909
It doesn't help that you type exactly the same way as the other anon.

>>4767903
I know you won't believe this, but I'm >>4767850
and >>4767894 seriously is not me. Speaking of which
>>4767894
Thank you very much for your response. I will definitely look into axiology and immanence.

>>4767850
>Since...the moral system exists in the universe (by applying to beings existing in the universe (the moral agents)) the moral system is equivalent to an abstract moral law to which everything would be beholden.

What does the existence of something in the universe have to do with how beholden people are to it?

God doesn't exist.

>>4767943
Epic post.

>>4767934
Because if it did not exist then they would not exist to behold it

>>4767934
I mean that when moral agents pass judgment on things by using their moral system, and this judgment gets applied to everything, it is equivalent to a moral realist abstract moral law by which actions are judged.

I'm not saying that beings have to follow the law, but that their actions are judged by it, and whether the moral system that is being used is "inherent in the universe" or created by moral agents (besides the fact that I thing that a moral system created by moral agents is the same as being inherent in the universe) is irrelevant: actions are judged by it.

>god
>2014

Guys it's not the 17th century anymore. We got science. We don't need invisible sky wizards.

>>4767986
>this is how STEM majors think
A concept can be discussed without instantly having to be agreed to or even believed. I know STEM majors only think in black-and-white, but Humanities majors are capable of a little more than that.

>>4767992
It's entirely irrelevant though. Why not talk about squirrels and their make believe belief systems?

>>4767679
God is the law. The law is his will and there is no right and wrong apart from that nor reason can achieve a comprehension of the right or wrong.
That's why we have revelation and we have the church to interpret it. Obey the Pope and you are doing the good otherwise you are in sin.

The law cannot be achieved intellectually, only through obedience and thus Euthyphro dilemma does not apply.

>>4767986
>>4767998

Spirit moves through all things

>>4767986
is there a science which tells you what is morally good and bad?

>>4768025
yep

>>4767992
>>4768016
>>4768025
>responding to this low quality bait

he even said sky wizards, that's a meme phrase

>>4767737
LMFAO.

>Just because we consider something doesn't mean it exists.

-_- What about God?

>>4767992
God is logically impossible. Learn some formal logic and try to understand pic related.

>>4768031
>Sam Harris
fedorafedorafedorafedorafedora alert

>>4767679

God doesn't exist.

>>4768036
What is so funny, tough guy?

>>4768042
I've never seen Sam Harris wear a fedora.

>>4768048
No, I mean someone citing Sam Harris is a fedora.

>>4768042
>>4768048
>>4768052

Well, we made it pretty far into a religion thread without the word "fedora" being used. Way to go guys, ya fuckin' blew it.

>>4768052
What does it mean to "be" a fedora?

>>4768045
The double standards of that post.

Tough Guy? lmfao

>real thread randomly deteriorates into god isnt real fedora etc bullshit in a matter of minutes

the americans are awake

If religion is real then why did god fuck niggers so hard?

Thanks God.

He creates them. He has complete oversight and his good is created by rules to ensure the people move in the best direction possible.

>>4768060

Nailed it.

As an atheist I'm an expert at formal logic.

Let me explain for the simpletons:
If god doesn't exist, obviously atheism is the right choice. If god exists and wants to be worshipped, he knows exactly how to convince us of his existence. However he hides all evidence of his existence, he never interacts and he places so much evidence for evolution and big bang into this universe that we have no other choice than explaining everything scientific without god. Therefore it would be god's will that we deny his existence and become atheists. By not being atheists the christfags are in fact acting against god's will and are therefore heretics who are gonna burn in hell.

Conclusion: Rationally atheism is the only tenable stance. Logic wins once again.

>>4768081
>If god exists and wants to be worshipped, he knows exactly how to convince us of his existence.

Unless, of course, there was a fall out of favor between God and Man and Man exists on Earth to see if they can be redeemed.

>>4768092
God doesn't need to test us. He is by definition omniscient. Therefore he knows all decisions we are gonna make in the future.

>>4768097
Why yes, which is why he assumed a law that can guide the people into perfection. Tests can be used as tools rather than trying to understand the people tested better.

>>4768097
>This is what people who know nothing about Abrahamic religion actually believe

Which god?

>>4768113
Barong, of course. Who else would we talk about?

>>4768081
>implying all theists are christian and believe in fatcore americanservative values
>implying an omnipresence can take action or have a will without betraying its omnipresence
>implying it can't transcend logic anyway
>implying you don't live with your parents

please anon, the only rational conclusion is if god exists you wouldn't know, and if god didn't exist you wouldn't know. After that it's a matter of faith.

>>4768111
God is be defnition perfect and therefore his creation is perfect. He doesn't need to test anything. He's not a shitty software developer who makes conceptual errors.

>>4768125
Creation WAS perfect until humanity got #shrekt by Reason.

>>4768125
Why must his creation be as him?

>therefore his creation is perfect

Perfection is in intent. How do we know God's intent in creating man?

>>4768133
If god is omniscient and omnipotent then why didn't he stop the first humans from eating the apple of sin? The only explanation is because he WANTED it to happen. God wants us to sin.

I personally think this world is perfect for testing the morality of humans.

Honestly if God made himself blatantly known, the test wouldn't be as perfect.

Since god is man made he follows the same moral law as those who made him up

>>4768133
This guy knows

You're my brother and I love you

As a biologist...it seems to me that "god" loves insects(beetles to be specific). Maybe beetles are his chosen species and we're just other animals added for scenery.

>>4768140
God wants us to choose righteousness in the face of temptation to sin. Without the possibility of sin there is no righteousness (Adam and Eve were perfect but not "good people" before the fall, they were as children).

So God KNEW we would often sin, but WANTED us to experience the act of choosing to do right.

>>4768140
genesis is mythology

>>4768147
I think minds come to achieve grace by learning to choose morality. So it's not merely a test, but it amounts to the same thing.

>>4768190
Do you think Jesus would want you browsing 4chan?

>>4768161
As a physicist it seems to me that God loves patterns. Maybe the self-consistent laws of reason are God's chosen creation, and the knowable universe is just a spec in the background.

>>4768168
My nigga right there. Have art.

>>4768203
"Art"

>>4768168
>Talking about a literal Adam and Eve

oh boy.

>>4768203
>art

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>4768217
"Art"

>>4767690
Will you look at that. Double think in action.