God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[Belz...]

I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't think there's a rational answer to your question. I'm sure there are some very complex philosophical apologetic answers, but no rational ones.

 

[geni]

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right,

You are going to be somewhat disappointed.

and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master.

The power differential needed in order to to that is so much that you are pretty much automatically its master. You may chose not to act on this power but there is little point in pretending it does not exist.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I've heard variations on this argument before. If you say, "Suppose I created a life form, does that give me the right to kill it?"

The religionist would say, "No, you didn't create that life form, God created it through you. God is still the prime creator."

Feel free to substitute child, or world, or universe.

This of course begs the question, and ruins the whole analogy by way of special pleading. Parents do not have the right to murder their children. An architect does not have the right to burn down the house s/he built. I would even argue that it's questionable whether an artist has the right to destroy a work s/he has just created, because once that work is released, it speaks to and belongs to the whole world. It is no longer solely the property of the artist.

Even so, the power to destroy something does not grant you ownership over it, make you its master, or make it morally right for you to destroy it. Humans have more than enough power to destroy the Earth, or at least render it uninhabitable to life. Does that make us owners of everything on the planet? Are we the masters of the Earth? Does that give us the right to destroy the Earth? Hell no.

Might-makes-right might have made sense to tribal communities attempting to enforce their primitive laws, but it's no longer practical or sensible to live that way. Sometimes yes, you do have to use force to solve a problem, but only as a last resort. To adhere to the might-makes-right mentality is to allow the bullies and sociopaths of the world to have their way with the rest of us. It's an irresponsible way to derive one's morals, and it doesn't say much about the people who argue God is right by virtue of being the creator. Are they only moral because they're afraid of what God might do to them? Would they go out and rape, pillage, and murder without the threat of punishment from God?

It just goes to show that maybe there are some people who require this sort of belief in order to function.

 

[Bikewer]

Christian sects have generally added more and more characteristics to their model of God.... Starting out rather simply with God as the creator as in the Old Testament, and gradually adding thought-up things like the typical run of omniscience and omnipotence and all, and when I was a young Catholic, the "All-good, All-merciful, All-just...." and everything else.

There's no rational reason why God should be "all good", indeed the Old Testament paints God as a rather vindictive monster.

The Deist idea was that God created the universe but was unconcerned with it.

 

[arthwollipot]

God is the supreme being. He isn't the arbiter of all that is good because he made the universe. He's the arbiter of all that is good and he made the universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as one is inventing god myths, might as well make the guy godlike.

I think the OP is asking the wrong question. The question should be, why did people invent this particular god?

One frequent theme in god myths is, one must do whatever is expected by said god because one wants favors from said god. If you believe gods are responsible for floods, droughts, disease and who wins the war, you worship said god in order to earn "God's graces."

 

[hgc]

As the all-encompassing Creator, God created the context within which you judge right and wrong. You have free will to believe in the Good that is God or fall for the Lies of Satan that will condemn you to the pit of fire you evil, doubting miscreant for all Eternity!!!

Ahem... Let me rephrase that: I have no Earthly idea how to tell if God is good.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.

This is one of the horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma:

What is good and just is good and just because it is commanded by God.

The other one is that

What is commanded by God is commanded by God because it is good and just.

But both are unsatisfactory because if the first is true then morality is simply arbitrary. If God told you to, say, murder your own son or massacre your neighbours or hand over your daughters to be raped then obviously it is good, despite what we may think, purely because God says so.

If the second is true, then there must be an independent standard for morality outside of God's will suggesting that God is unnecessary for morality.

 

[arthwollipot]

When confronted with Euthyphro's Dilemma, religious people of my acquaintance won't see it as a dilemma at all. They will unhesitatingly say that it's the first. It's good because it is commanded by God. God is the ultimate arbiter of what is good and evil. He gets to do that because he's God.

 

[angrysoba]

When confronted with Euthyphro's Dilemma, religious people of my acquaintance won't see it as a dilemma at all. They will unhesitatingly say that it's the first. It's good because it is commanded by God. God is the ultimate arbiter of what is good and evil. He gets to do that because he's God.

Yes, I think they often do, but that makes it difficult for them to be anything other than literalists when it comes to the Bible and the bizarre moral commandments found in there about many things. It's no use for the same people to then say, well I got a God-given brain to make my own moral decisions with. No, you do not!

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think there's a rational answer to your question. I'm sure there are some very complex philosophical apologetic answers, but no rational ones.

Since belief in a mythical deity is irrational from a logical point of view, and since it must therefore follow that it is also irrational to believe that the laws and morals supposedly laid down by this mythical deity are good, merely because the mythical deity allegedly created the universe, then logically, I think you must be right.

There can be no rationality when it comes to goddidit!

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes, I think they often do, but that makes it difficult for them to be anything other than literalists when it comes to the Bible and the bizarre moral commandments found in there about many things. It's no use for the same people to then say, well I got a God-given brain to make my own moral decisions with. No, you do not!

This is the point of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was perfectly ready to kill his son, just because God told him to. Since everything that God does is good by definition, there is no evil in killing your own son if it is done at God's command.

 

[Brainache]

This is the point of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was perfectly ready to kill his son, just because God told him to. Since everything that God does is good by definition, there is no evil in killing your own son if it is done at God's command.

I like this version best:

 

[MontagK505]

I'm curious about why some theists (many, in fact) believe that god's laws are just and good by simple virtue of being written by god, presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best, or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Why is that ? I happen to think that might doesn't make right, and that creating a world, or a life, doesn't make one its master. I don't get that way of thinking, and I'd like some insight on that.

Thank you in advance.

I'm not sure if I can give any insight, but consider the analogy of a game designer that writes software. The world is virtual in that it's existence is only 1's and 0's being manipulated according to a program. We don't question the right of the game designer to set the rules of the game or change them at his/her whim. In the case of the game designer "might does make right".
If we postulate that our world and us are the virtual creation of a "super designer" then yes, might does make right. Once you accept the idea of any supernatural designer / programmer then anything goes. Reason, logic, justice, etc. has no intrinsic meaning because it's nothing more than code running inside some sadistic God's computer. That's the basic problem with supernatural beliefs.

 

[punshhh]

I don't think there's a rational answer to your question. I'm sure there are some very complex philosophical apologetic answers, but no rational ones.

There are perfectly rational answers, all that is required is to realise that the mythology developed that way as a way for humanity to represent and understand certain philosophical ideas, which are not easy to explain or grasp.

 

[angrysoba]

This is the point of the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was perfectly ready to kill his son, just because God told him to. Since everything that God does is good by definition, there is no evil in killing your own son if it is done at God's command.

Well, I am sure that like just about every other thing connected to religion there are bound to be competing interpretations about this.

Other interpretations would be that the other horn of the dilemma applies and God was testing Abraham's loyalty as a mafia boss might. Or the fact that God later says he was joking might suggest that killing Isaac would have been wrong.

However, if your interpretation is correct I think that would trouble some religious believers.

 

[Belz...]

You are going to be somewhat disappointed.

Could you expand on that ?

The power differential needed in order to to that is so much that you are pretty much automatically its master. You may chose not to act on this power but there is little point in pretending it does not exist.

That doesn't answer my question. Or, are you saying that might _does_ make right by the mere virtue of being unstoppable ?

 

[Belz...]

I think the OP is asking the wrong question.

No, it's exactly the question I'm looking for an answer to.

 

[angrysoba]

I'm not sure if I can give any insight, but consider the analogy of a game designer that writes software. The world is virtual in that it's existence is only 1's and 0's being manipulated according to a program. We don't question the right of the game designer to set the rules of the game or change them at his/her whim. In the case of the game designer "might does make right".
If we postulate that our world and us are the virtual creation of a "super designer" then yes, might does make right. Once you accept the idea of any supernatural designer / programmer then anything goes. Reason, logic, justice, etc. has no intrinsic meaning because it's nothing more than code running inside some sadistic God's computer. That's the basic problem with supernatural beliefs.

I suppose this is similar to Nick Bostrom's idea of the simulation argument.

If it was discovered that that advanced computer simulations could accurately make new worlds in which conscious beings indistinguishable from us in many ways lived, and I happened to be the creator of such a world, could I be justified in saying, "Right, I'm bored now and I'm going to switch off my laptop!" Or would I be ethically bound to keep the programme running ad infinitum?