God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[aggle-rithm]

If the second is true, then why must there be an independent standard for morality? If God is all-good (which is part of the traditional definition of the Abrahamic God), then the standard of morality would be within God Himself. I.e. What is commanded by God is commanded by God because it is good and just. God knows that it is good and just because God Himself is (by definition) the standard of all that is good and just.

The difficulty comes when God gives us instincts that tell us to be kind and cooperative to one another, if for no other reason than to hedge our bets for future reciprocity, then he sends a she-bear to kill 40 children for making fun of a prophet. We have to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance by rationalizing that such actions MUST be good, even though our God-given instincts tell us they are wrong.

 

[Aridas]

My response to that is, if God can arbitrarily decide what is good and evil, then there is still no objective moral standard because it's based on God's changing whims. God can, and HAS, made murder illegal on Friday but legal on Saturday (e.g. stone the Sabbath breakers to death). Sure, it's a commandment that you shall not murder, but how shall you not murder when God says you shall murder in so many other places and times? If God is this consistent, there's no reason to follow such a capricious monster as a moral exemplar.

Euthyphro's Dilemma is a choice between two unpleasant options, from the start, with both of them being valid solutions to the issue. You can certainly point out why each are unpleasant, but there are ways for the proponents of each to get around the unpleasantness, much as it's generally by adding contrafactual claims.

You are applying human morality to our creator, which may not be relevant, unless it is a universal morality.

More specifically, he's arguing that a "creator" shouldn't just get a get out of jail free pass, just by virtue of being a creator. It's not about any specific morality, it's about consistency of application by an individual who holds the particular positions. Thus, your arguments are completely irrelevant.

 

[Aridas]

No, it is because the definition of the Abrahamic God is "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent". If God wasn't all-good, then He wouldn't be God. An all-good God's laws would be just and good, by virtue of being written by an all-good God.

I'd suggest that you're confusing popular use with definition, when it comes to those traits. The Abrahamic god is frequently attributed those traits, certainly, but nowhere near always, and the lack of those traits make it no less the Abrahamic God.

 

[GDon]

I'd suggest that you're confusing popular use with definition, when it comes to those traits. The Abrahamic god is frequently attributed those traits, certainly, but nowhere near always, and the lack of those traits make it no less the Abrahamic God.

I'm not aware of any of the major Abrahamic religions or sects built from them that don't use all three traits. I'd be interested to hear if there are any -- which ones don't believe that God is omni-good, -knowing and -powerful?

 

[GDon]

The difficulty comes when God gives us instincts that tell us to be kind and cooperative to one another, if for no other reason than to hedge our bets for future reciprocity, then he sends a she-bear to kill 40 children for making fun of a prophet. We have to resolve the resulting cognitive dissonance by rationalizing that such actions MUST be good, even though our God-given instincts tell us they are wrong.

True enough, for those who believe those myths. (It was two she-bears, actually)

 

[Belz...]

No, it is because the definition of the Abrahamic God is "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent". If God wasn't all-good, then He wouldn't be God. An all-good God's laws would be just and good, by virtue of being written by an all-good God.

Ah, but what makes God good ? The definition ? Or his actions ? Because if the latter, it doesn't mesh with the biblical account.

 

[GDon]

Ah, but what makes God good ? The definition ? Or his actions ? Because if the latter, it doesn't mesh with the biblical account.

Definitely, the definition! I think the Euthyphro Dilemma is easily resolvable, based on the definition.

I think a better formulation of it might be: "Is two she-bears ripping apart a large number of children good because God commanded it, or did God command it because it is good to have she-bears ripping apart a large number of children?"

 

[aggle-rithm]

True enough, for those who believe those myths. (It was two she-bears, actually)

Oh, good. One she-bear made the story seem implausible.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Definitely, the definition! I think the Euthyphro Dilemma is easily resolvable, based on the definition.

I think a better formulation of it might be: "Is two she-bears ripping apart a large number of children good because God commanded it, or did God command it because it is good to have she-bears ripping apart a large number of children?"

Child #1 (as he's being ripped apart by she-bears): Guess we shouldn't have laughed at the bald guy.

Child #2: Yes, and it probably wasn't such a good idea to kick those bear cubs around like footballs.

 

[Belz...]

Definitely, the definition!

Except that it isn't the definition of god. It's dogma.

 

[I Ratant]

I recall Kierkegaard having an unusual take on this; he held that following divine command was an imperative by virtue of coming from the creater, but that it was above or beyond mere "morality", and not about "right" or "wrong", which was up to the person themselves to decide.

.
Alla these "commands coming from the creator" have a human source, not a divine source.
Whereat's any examples of the original command?
Considering the source, these should be immortal also.
And reading the 'good book', that human source is frequently insane.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm not aware of any of the major Abrahamic religions or sects built from them that don't use all three traits. I'd be interested to hear if there are any -- which ones don't believe that God is omni-good, -knowing and -powerful?

.
Omniscience and omnibenevilence are impossible criteria.
Knowing the **** humans will experience and letting it happen....

 

[Arnold Martin]

A few years ago I came across a surprising explanation for a lot of things wrong down here on God's green earth

I had started out wondering what was the "greatest sin" from God's point of view

I was expecting a typical list starting with murder , hatred , torture , stealing , lying etc.

To my surprise none of the above apply , We have it upside down

What really ticks God off is when mankind does not recognize Him as Creator

And because of that he then gives us over to do what we want , which of course is a very long list of "sins" as shown below

I am reluctant to post bible but Romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 lays it out better than I can

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[tsig]

.
Alla these "commands coming from the creator" have a human source, not a divine source.
Whereat's any examples of the original command?
Considering the source, these should be immortal also.
And reading the 'good book', that human source is frequently insane.

If god wants to give me a command s/he knows where I live.

 

[Belz...]

What really ticks God off is when mankind does not recognize Him as Creator

Typical artist. All he wants is recognition. Next thing you know, he'll start cosmic world war II.

 

[tsig]

A few years ago I came across a surprising explanation for a lot of things wrong down here on God's green earth

I had started out wondering what was the "greatest sin" from God's point of view

I was expecting a typical list starting with murder , hatred , torture , stealing , lying etc.

To my surprise none of the above apply , We have it upside down

What really ticks God off is when mankind does not recognize Him as Creator

And because of that he then gives us over to do what we want , which of course is a very long list of "sins" as shown below

I am reluctant to post bible but Romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 lays it out better than I can

Paul sounds a bit envious in that passage.

 

[tsig]

A few years ago I came across a surprising explanation for a lot of things wrong down here on God's green earth

I had started out wondering what was the "greatest sin" from God's point of view

I was expecting a typical list starting with murder , hatred , torture , stealing , lying etc.

To my surprise none of the above apply , We have it upside down

What really ticks God off is when mankind does not recognize Him as Creator And because of that he then gives us over to do what we want , which of course is a very long list of "sins" as shown below

I am reluctant to post bible but Romans chapter 1 verses 18-32 lays it out better than I can

S/he needs better PR. "Love me or I'll hurt you" is so out of style.

 

[Correa Neto]

Again, if moral and ethics, within human societies are plastic, relative, subject to change, there's no reason to assume a creator god, simulation software coder or runner, whatever, would share the specific standards we - a small ammount of mankind- have.

Abrahamic theists say god follows these rules (or is their source) because their holy books say so and because they project themselves as well as their hopes and fears in to their god concepts. They may see themselves as children and god as their father. Adults can see porn but a child will get some slaps in the butt for doing so and some more for asking why.

Truth is, if there is one (or more) god or master programmer, it might as well care about us as much as a biologist cares about bacteria at a Petri dish. It might as well set rules, boundary conditions and events the way it wants for whatever reasons it sees fit.

Tired about that city or planet? Not going the way you want or just boring? Here, take a volcano, plague, asteroid hit, whatever. Or stop the simulation and load some save or backup file.

 

[Aridas]

I'm not aware of any of the major Abrahamic religions or sects built from them that don't use all three traits. I'd be interested to hear if there are any -- which ones don't believe that God is omni-good, -knowing and -powerful?

For the currently popular "major" ones? Rather few, I think. It is worth noting that the god(s) of theologians is/are different than the popular claims frequently enough, though, at last check, and a number of them have foregone claiming all three traits. Some certainly do claim all three, of course, but far from all. Some smaller sects like, say the Westboro Baptists and some versions of Calvinism don't really claim all three either. I've heard from a source of limited trustworthiness that Islam claims none of those for Allah, as well. Allah is the most powerful being by far, for example, but not in a way where it even could be valid to challenge Allah against himself. The claim's almost as strong, in other words, but not quite to the level of "omni." Similarly, Baha'i beliefs seem to stop just short of "omnibenevolent." All loving, most compassionate, and so on, but not quite to where they would run into a serious problem with the problem of evil.

To take a step back, though, the "Abrahamic God" is defined by an acceptance in the religion that the god in question revealed himself to Abraham. To repeat, the three attributes that you named are frequently also attributed to that god, but aren't always, and not attributing all three of those to it, or various other frequently attributed traits, are not considered to make it not the "Abrahamic God." Not the exact same version, sure, but that's a petty complaint given the huge range of actual beliefs in Christianity, alone, let alone all the rest of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[MontagK505]

Except that it isn't the definition of god. It's dogma.

That could be said of any definition of God.
Some of these post seem to be focused on the question: If humans create self-aware artificial beings either in a computer simulation or a robot / synthetic human, what ethical obligations do we have toward such? And what about the reverse, would such artificial beings have ethical obligations toward us? This seems a much more relevant question since we may have to deal with this in the not too distant future. (I know, I'm expanding the question beyond it's original parameters ) but all this talk about criticizing / not criticizing God seems pointless, if we are not even sure God exists. We're like ants complaining about the uses of insecticides.