God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[Belz...]

Since belief in a mythical deity is irrational from a logical point of view [snip]

I don't think belief in gods is irrational per se. I think it's irrational now, with the knowledge that we have, but three-four thousand years ago, when humans knew nothing, it wasn't a half-bad explanation for the stuff we experienced.

 

[Belz...]

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".

Except if the programmer realises that, somehow, the people in the simulation are really sentient and intelligent.

Let's say I wake up one morning and realise that I have the power to create universes. I create one and watch what happens, and play around with it a bit. Then I realise that some of the creatures in it have developed consciousness. Do I have the right of arbitrary life and death over them ? I would think not. Now, assume that instead of waking up in my bed in this universe, I do so in the void because there is nothing in existence but me. Do I magically gain that right, now ? I am, by any definition, god at this point, but the only parameter that changed is that there is no universe prior to me. I don't think I have that right, and I don't think god, if he existed, would.

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.

I disagree. I think we are more than justified to judge even our creator if he steps outside of what we consider to be the bounds of morality.

 

[punshhh]

Except if the programmer realises that, somehow, the people in the simulation are really sentient and intelligent.

Let's say I wake up one morning and realise that I have the power to create universes. I create one and watch what happens, and play around with it a bit. Then I realise that some of the creatures in it have developed consciousness. Do I have the right of arbitrary life and death over them ? I would think not. Now, assume that instead of waking up in my bed in this universe, I do so in the void because there is nothing in existence but me. Do I magically gain that right, now ? I am, by any definition, god at this point, but the only parameter that changed is that there is no universe prior to me. I don't think I have that right, and I don't think god, if he existed, would.



I disagree. I think we are more than justified to judge even our creator if he steps outside of what we consider to be the bounds of morality.

You appear to be suggesting an absolute or universal morality? Why would you do that?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Could you expand on that ?

Geni is confusing "victorious" with "right". The winner isn't necessarily the one in the right.

 

[Belz...]

You appear to be suggesting an absolute or universal morality?

You appear confused.

Where in my post did you read anything ressembling that ?

 

[turingtest]

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.

That doesn't make them rational answers, it just makes them the logic of fanfic.

 

[Aridas]

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,

Because it's an easy answer, just like "God did it."

presumably because, as the creator of the universe, god knows best,

Generally, if the god in question actually is believed to be the creator of the universe and that god knows best, it's an "and," not a "because."

or at least, being powerful enough to kill anyone who disagrees, should be obeyed.

Kill, torture, make one's life and afterlife worse than the person in question can imagine... and everything on the "positive" side of the spectrum, too. You missed lots of options there. Both carrot options and stick options.

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,

The Old Testament adds a lot more than that, long, long before the first Christian sects.

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.

I hazily remember that much of the justifications for those were found in Psalms, for example, and again, I'd suggest that some of those predate the Christian sects, though not by as much as a number of the other traits attributed to YHWH.

 

[Belz...]

Because it's an easy answer, just like "God did it."

Easy, or perhaps because it plays into the theist's need for submission ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

They tend to get a bit uncomfortable again when one then points out that it was therefor perfectly moral to split your daughter's skull open with a rock if you caught her in bed with her boyfriend, and that the reason they don't have to do that now (according to the standard "new covenant" apologetic) has nothing to do with such an act being cruel and hateful, but rather with an arbitrary decision by God to change the rules. If God later changes his mind again and demands such bloody violence against one's own children, then, by God, it must be perfectly moral to do so.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I like this version best:

Brilliant!

 

[Correa Neto]

If we assume morals are relative and bound to any given culture, then there are no reasons to suppose god must be bound to human moral codes.

Sure, this brings problems for one too many theologies. All- loving and other attributes must be thrown away. Aztec and Maya theologies would be among the ones without these issues.

Unless of course god is a human construct which reflects a given culture's moral standards.

 

[I Ratant]

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, [/STRIKEdictated 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.

.
FTFY.
The "original" texts have yet to surface... probably too sodden by the Flood waters to float, so we're left with human "interpretations" of what the current authors think their version of god would have said.
And a bloody minded sadist that guy is, in all the versions of the books.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
And the bad parts too!
Astigmatism, rheumatism, dwarfism, acephalic babies, Republicans...

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
I see that story as pressure on Abraham by the folks in his tribe, after they've lost sons to his knife,... "Say Abe, how come your sons aren't good enough to cut their hearts out?".... And Abe takes a toke and decides that "Yes, god says kill me a son. One of yours."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Then you missed my point. You want an answer to a meaningless question because the belief didn't evolve from any kind of rational contemplation. The belief didn't arise from a philosophical point of view which is the question you are asking.

It's like asking if child who is throwing a temper tantrum because he is overly tired if really wants the toy you just took away from him. The tantrum is not a reasoned action about the toy.

 

[MontagK505]

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?

If you turned them off, they would be unaware. It's if they never existed. You could restart the program and they would be unaware they were ever off. I don't see any ethical problem. Of course the issue gets more complex when you create artificial beings that are acting in our world.

 

[MontagK505]

Except if the programmer realises that, somehow, the people in the simulation are really sentient and intelligent.

Let's say I wake up one morning and realise that I have the power to create universes. I create one and watch what happens, and play around with it a bit. Then I realise that some of the creatures in it have developed consciousness. Do I have the right of arbitrary life and death over them ? I would think not. Now, assume that instead of waking up in my bed in this universe, I do so in the void because there is nothing in existence but me. Do I magically gain that right, now ? I am, by any definition, god at this point, but the only parameter that changed is that there is no universe prior to me. I don't think I have that right, and I don't think god, if he existed, would.



I disagree. I think we are more than justified to judge even our creator if he steps outside of what we consider to be the bounds of morality.

We might think so. But the designer might not care. You can judge all you want, but all the programmer has to do is push the reset button.

From my perspective there is an ethical issue about creating beings that can think and feel and then treating them as property. But, I'm not a God. An actual God might not be able to see the issue. (which means it's not a real God because it's not omniscient) Looking at the state of our world. the God that created it has to be really sadistic.

 

[Good Lt]

Why not posit that it's right because Zeus created everything instead of the arbitrary "god?"

Why do you all hate Zeus?

 

[I Ratant]

Reading up on the dude, he's more human than that other younger guy of the Hebrews!

 

[Humots]

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 read an interesting variation of this tale, by an SF author.

After stopping Abraham from killing his son, God tells Abraham " You have passed my test."

Abraham then says to God "And you have passed my test. I had to find out what kind of God you were, and I was willing to kill my son to do it. If you had not stopped me from killing my son, I would have spit in your face and turned my back on you."

That's probably not the exact words, but I think I have the idea right.