Does morality require a god?


EricE
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EricE said:

While I don't doubt your ability to complete the equations, there is no way to actually demonstrate the probability of the supernatural through fractals, a bayesian analysis, or any other technique, because the equation is fundamentally flawed. One cannot demonstrate the probability or likelihood of something for which we have no examples of happening. 

What is the probability that leprechauns exist? Well, if I give the fact that rainbows exist a +1 in favor of leprechauns, then they become possible or probable. 

 

You assume that G-d is supernatural – I would submit that such a theory of G-d is flawed.  That anything that occurs without explanation at the time would be seen or thought to be supernatural.  I do not believe in a supernatural G-d and that anything that dose happen can be made to happen by engaging the same parameters.  I see no reason to assume that G-d has done or will do anything that has not happened or cannot happen within the laws and principles in which things that do and can occur do occur.

The problem is not if G-d does or does not exist as much as it is that we have a correct and true understanding of the attributes of G-d and the means by which G-d can and does act.  Rarely do I debate the existence of G-d with someone rejecting the idea that has a grasp of evolving intelligence and what is possible.  My point is that given today what we know of the universe that the possibility of an intelligence greater than mankind is likely and probable.  Coupled with the fact that intelligence is known to evolve – by logical induction there is no limit in time to how far intelligence can evolve.

Fractals and Chao Theory are used to prove that endangered species that are allowed to become extinct will alter a complex system even when things are not directly engaged.   Do you understand – or do you require more explanation.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Traveler This will work much better if you don't call me dumb in every post, don't you think?

Your response didn't solve the flaw I pointed out in the probability equation, namely that you cannot determine the probability of something for which you have no example of it happening. 

The fact that intelligence exists in us does not open the door to claim there is a higher intelligence, because you have no example of intelligence evolving past human intelligence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Thanks for making me an exception. I appreciate that. 

I understand how you must feel being in the minority and having everyone misunderstand/gang up on you. It must be extremely frustrating.

I don't mind the gang up part  (I'm on LDS.net after all), it's the misaccusations and disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Feelings weren't hurt, but it becomes impossible to have a discussion with someone condescending and arrogant.  So, I bow out since nothing I (or apparently several other people) say will be acceptable to you.

Well you haven't argued against anything I've said yet, only against things I haven't said. But ok. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post, which doesn't seem to have been noticed considering some of Eric's complaints about people not trying to respond to the original question.

Morality MUST come from a source external to humanity.  Otherwise morality is subjective and therefore meaningless.  It's that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Morality MUST come from a source external to humanity.  Otherwise morality is subjective and therefore meaningless.  It's that simple.

One might argue that it just makes it Subjective to God's opinion. But luckily I believe in an intelligent and all knowing God that wants what's best for me, so that's not a problem for me. But I know plenty of people who don't think God is very smart, and may have a problem with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, EricE said:

@Traveler This will work much better if you don't call me dumb in every post, don't you think?

Your response didn't solve the flaw I pointed out in the probability equation, namely that you cannot determine the probability of something for which you have no example of it happening. 

The fact that intelligence exists in us does not open the door to claim there is a higher intelligence, because you have no example of intelligence evolving past human intelligence. 

Are you implying that there is no evidence of evolving intelligence?  and thus no proof that intelligence superior to man is possible?   If so consider the fact that the level of intelligence that humans currently display did not exist 50,000 years ago would indicate that intelligence is evolving and that is the point.  If it is evolving that is proof that sorne intelligence greater than man's is likely and probable.   The logical assumption is that if evolution is taking place that somewhere in this universe; intelligence has evolved more than here on earth - do you reject this logic?  From a theological point of view the concept is line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Also the LDS concept of "eternal progression". 

So I will ask a simple question - do you believe in evolution?  And is evolution an isotropic principle of our universe?  Do you believe man is the highest possible intelligence in this universe?  Do you believe that the intelligence of man has evolved (advanced) in the last 2,000 years? –at least from a technological standpoint?

 

Sorry if I seem to be talking down but because you are making assumptions without asking questions - I feel that I must explain in the simplest of terms.   How well do you understand fractals and Chaos Theory?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Morality MUST come from a source external to humanity.  Otherwise morality is subjective and therefore meaningless.  It's that simple.

18 minutes ago, rpframe said:

One might argue that it just makes it Subjective to God's opinion. ........ But I know plenty of people who don't think God is very smart, and may have a problem with that.

100% agree with rpframe. Having an external source of morality becomes problematic when the very nature of that source is highly disputed, and therefore subjective. It's also problematic when moral codes that assume immortal parameters are thrust upon those who don't share such beliefs regarding immortality. The only solution, then, is to establish a universal moral code with religion removed from the equation. If the religious want to add to it, fine. But general morality must come from a place of theological neutrality. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Godless said:

100% agree with rpframe. Having an external source of morality becomes problematic when the very nature of that source is highly disputed, and therefore subjective. It's also problematic when moral codes that assume immortal parameters are thrust upon those who don't share such beliefs regarding immortality. The only solution, then, is to establish a universal moral code with religion removed from the equation. If the religious want to add to it, fine. But general morality must come from a place of theological neutrality.

Agreed. In practice in a secular world, you have to base moral principles on something more measurable than God's will. And I thinks its definitely possible to have a good approximation in the moral code that way.

But this doesn't change the fact that I still believe that absolute morality(truth) is equivalent to God's will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Godless said:

100% agree with rpframe. Having an external source of morality becomes problematic when the very nature of that source is highly disputed, and therefore subjective. It's also problematic when moral codes that assume immortal parameters are thrust upon those who don't share such beliefs regarding immortality. The only solution, then, is to establish a universal moral code with religion removed from the equation. If the religious want to add to it, fine. But general morality must come from a place of theological neutrality. 

The external source is problematic...  But any internal code is equality problematic for the exact same reasons....  Therefore your solution of a universal moral code lacks any kind of workable framework on which to build.

You can't get people to agree on God... nor can you get people to agree morality, because all morality is.. is God by another name... Another arbitrator of right and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The external source is problematic...  But any internal code is equality problematic for the exact same reasons....  Therefore your solution of a universal moral code lacks any kind of workable framework on which to build.

You can't get people to agree on God... nor can you get people to agree morality, because all morality is.. is God by another name... Another arbitrator of right and wrong.

I completely agree, morality always has some sort of basis upon which you measure the rightness or wrongness of something. Choosing a basis is inherently arbitrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Godless said:

100% agree with rpframe. Having an external source of morality becomes problematic when the very nature of that source is highly disputed, and therefore subjective. It's also problematic when moral codes that assume immortal parameters are thrust upon those who don't share such beliefs regarding immortality. The only solution, then, is to establish a universal moral code with religion removed from the equation. If the religious want to add to it, fine. But general morality must come from a place of theological neutrality.

Others have answered this but I'll add my 2 cents' worth.

So from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in God then yes, a morality based on religion is just as subjective as any other... But that's my point.  From an atheistic worldview any moral code is subjective.  So what's the point of calling it morality if it's no better or worse than the next guy's?  What does it matter if a moral framework came from God, Richard Dawkins or random letter arrangement in your breakfast cereal?

It doesn't.

So the notion of morality itself  then becomes an illusion, a construct used to constrain behavior for the good of the community.  But then it's really no different than a law that isn't enforced by the Government.

So for morality to have any meaning at all it cannot originate from humans.  It must come externally.  Now if that means it comes from God, space aliens or the mystical spirits of the waterfall it's at least an anchor that isn't subject to the whims of human culture.

20 years ago, it was generally considered immoral for people of the same sex to sleep together.  Say that now and suddenly you're a homophobe.  Humans are fickle.  We need morality precisely because it mitigates the shifting around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"good of the people" 

That's the problem.  Which people?  All people?  Just you? The Chosen People?  White people?  The unborn?

Morality is very dependent on what your end goals are, and they are different for virtually every individual, and every clan.  But if there is a god, and he has a plan for humans, then his morality will fit his goals, just as with anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So proud of ourselves.

 

Proof positive...again...

"It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

So proud of ourselves.

qqqqqqqqqqqq.jpg.ed8f605cdb83911774577a9

Proof positive...again...

"It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it."

Well, at least he provided all of us a compliment, we all know how to "tap-dance," other than having two left feet. ;) , but let's be honest, does his post somewhere else really shock anyone with his response. Cyber high fives for everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rpframe said:

Just want to point out that I feel like discussing evidence of a God is a different thread topic.

I'll admit though that I didn't stay perfectly on topic either.

That's true. But the original topic I started with led us here, I think. We've established that morality doesn't not require a god, which took us to why then is god moral if he acts in seemingly immoral ways, which can't be argued against unless first the existence of a god is established. That's not convoluted in any way, right? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post, which doesn't seem to have been noticed considering some of Eric's complaints about people not trying to respond to the original question.

Morality MUST come from a source external to humanity.  Otherwise morality is subjective and therefore meaningless.  It's that simple.

I didn't see this earlier. Sorry about that.

I think trying to boil down morality to something "simple" is part of the problem. Morality isn't simple, it's a complex framework that constantly changes through discussion and debate as we continue to learn more.

This idea of things being moral because they were dictated to you by an authority figure, is in itself immoral. Moral edicts are not moral systems to live by. When a god supposedly says, "thou shalt not steal," that means nothing. It is a worthless dictate without understanding why.

For example, if you take two children to a restaurant and they both go crazy, throwing water and screaming, etc., both need to learn not to do that. But if one child is sat down and given just the god-like carrot or stick (don't do that again or no dessert, or if you don't do that again you'll get dessert), and the other child is talked to and discussed why misbehaving like that was the wrong way to act and how it affected others, which child actually has a moral understanding of their actions? Both children may now behave at the restaurant. But the one with the understanding is more likely to behave because they understand why behaving in one way is better and how their actions affect others, while the other child is only going to behave as long as their parents are there so the reward or punishment is looming.

Human beings are social animals, and just like other social animals we have an innate sense of simple morality. I argued above that this secular morality was based on well-being. The well-being of individuals, the society, and the species. As time goes by, and our understanding of the world grows, we are able to expand and improve our morality through discussion, and debate. That is why secular morality has led us out of the days of slavery, and chips abuse, and other inhumane practices that we have learned to discard. And that's what makes secular morality a superior moral system, rather than mere moral edicts.

It may be comforting to think of morality as something simple, as "I just have to do what an authority figure tells me to do." But morality is not simple, and should not be treated so.

As for any god who willingly burns children to death, endorses slavery, commits and commands genocide, who (like a mob boss) threatens me with eternal torture (whether the LDS version or the standard Christian hell) if I don't worship and praise him when he's provided no actual evidence he even exists? I would call that god a moral thug, and one unworthy of my praise because I'm more moral than he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Are you implying that there is no evidence of evolving intelligence?  and thus no proof that intelligence superior to man is possible?   If so consider the fact that the level of intelligence that humans currently display did not exist 50,000 years ago would indicate that intelligence is evolving and that is the point.  If it is evolving that is proof that sorne intelligence greater than man's is likely and probable.   The logical assumption is that if evolution is taking place that somewhere in this universe; intelligence has evolved more than here on earth - do you reject this logic?  From a theological point of view the concept is line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Also the LDS concept of "eternal progression". 

So I will ask a simple question - do you believe in evolution?  And is evolution an isotropic principle of our universe?  Do you believe man is the highest possible intelligence in this universe?  Do you believe that the intelligence of man has evolved (advanced) in the last 2,000 years? –at least from a technological standpoint?

Sorry if I seem to be talking down but because you are making assumptions without asking questions - I feel that I must explain in the simplest of terms.   How well do you understand fractals and Chaos Theory?

I was not implying there's no evidence of evolving intelligence, however there is no evidence of intelligence that has evolved beyond man. Is it possible that somewhere out in the universe? I don't know, I can't say that it's impossible. But just because something is impossible, that does not make it possible. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that something is probable, if you have no examples of that thing ever happening. We predict when an earthquake is probable, because we have evidence of earthquakes happening previously. We know when it's likely to rain (unless you're the local tv weatherman!!), because we have evidence of it raining period. We have no examples of a god happening previously, nor do we have examples of intelligence beyond man, so we cannot with any reliability demonstrate the probability of such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share