God right by virtue of being the creator ?

[Giordano]

I just noticed that a lots of posts in this thread just got moved to AAH, presumably due to lack of relevance to the OP. To stay relevant, I therefore emphasize that "god" is by no means consistent in "his" morality by the statements and actions in either the Old and the New Testament. So the use of this "creator" as an unchanging source for moral standards appears highly questionable. However, if the creator can change his mind, then one is arguing that "his" changing morals can define right from wrong, but only as of this moment in time. Of course I do not believe in god or the right of a creator to define morality at all.

 

[MikeG]

It doesn't appear that there is any point commenting in this thread because any post which doesn't accept the OPs begging of the question seems to end up dumped. Beautifully crafted question which allows no debate on the principle........therefore I'm outta here.

 

[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, 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.

.
He doesn't. His believers in the real world take on that task, apparently to be certain those "heretics" get what is their due... which exposes a lack of faith in the ability of their god to everlastingly torment those heretics in the hereafter.

 

[dlorde]

I'm not sure that discussing whether an hypothetical creator has the right to do something is useful - such an entity can do whatever it likes within its powers, and it's creations, assuming they are capable of independent thought, can judge its actions as they wish.

The OP does, as has been mentioned, bear resemblance to one horn of the Euthyphro dilemma - the problems that arise from the idea that right or wrong, and good or bad, are so by God's fiat. In a general sense, it makes right/wrong and good/bad arbitrary, which is awkward and generally leads to GWIMW (god works in mysterious ways).

For the Christian God, it seems to be a case of do as I say, not as I do, which is also awkward for a God whose nature is good and which necessarily acts according to its nature.

 

[I Ratant]

The problem at the core is the dude is speechless.
The crazies that speak for him... so they say.. are the root of all evils relative to religion.
The distancing of the god(s) from true interaction with humanity, as evidenced by the lack of anything resembling any interaction is a good reason to not believe that anything like a god exists.
Anyone located that woman shaped pillar of salt, for instance?

 

[smartcooky]

The problem at the core is the dude is speechless.
The crazies that speak for him... so they say.. are the root of all evils relative to religion.

And not surprising, since religion itself is nothing more that a construct of human intelligence, stemming from a time (probably about 50,000 years ago) when that intelligence, greater though it was when compared with that of other animals that existed contemporaneously, was nevertheless below the level needed to grasp the reality of what it saw and experienced in nature; the stars in the sky, the rising and setting of the sun & moon, the planets, the weather etc were beyond the understanding of palaeolithic humans. Such phenomena would have been naturally attributed to something all powerful and outside of their control.

 

[MikeG]

........when that intelligence, greater though it was when compared with that of other animals that existed contemporaneously, was nevertheless below the level needed to grasp the reality of what it saw and experienced in nature;...........

There are many different sources that say this is a misunderstanding of human intelligence. The claim is that intelligence is the same now as it was 100,000+ years ago, but cumulative knowledge is obviously on a vastly different level. [/derail]

 

[punshhh]

And not surprising, since religion itself is nothing more that a construct of human intelligence, stemming from a time (probably about 50,000 years ago) when that intelligence, greater though it was when compared with that of other animals that existed contemporaneously, was nevertheless below the level needed to grasp the reality of what it saw and experienced in nature; the stars in the sky, the rising and setting of the sun & moon, the planets, the weather etc were beyond the understanding of palaeolithic humans. Such phenomena would have been naturally attributed to something all powerful and outside of their control.

I don't see the connection, surely the earliest god concepts where derived through contemplation of our existence, not contemplation of the mechanisms involved in how it works, which would be thought of as nature or the natural order of things.

My cat and my chickens, exhibit intelligence in numerous ways, but I see no idolatry.

It seems to me that what you refer to is a later development. A perversion followed as a consequence of the development of early civilisation and living in larger groups than what we evolved to live in.

 

[punshhh]

We are moral creatures. That's why and how we are qualified.

But we don't understand that being, or notional being we are supposed to be criticising.

Actually, your premise allows the conclusion: if we observe that everything is predetermined, then we can conclude that everything is until we have further data.

As a provisional conclusion, I suppose. Again, we don't understand what we are drawing conclusions about.

 

[Belz...]

But we don't understand that being, or notional being we are supposed to be criticising.

If you see a man eating a baby he's just strangled in his crib, do you think knowing hiw abuse at the hands of his own father would help judge him ? True, knowing more is good but it's not always required. The point is that as moral creatures we have the ability to judge.

 

[MikeG]

But we don't understand that being, or notional being we are supposed to be criticising.......

We invented it. I think that is enough understanding to qualify for the right to discuss it. Anyway, since when did anyone have to understand anything before they were allowed to discuss it?

 

[I Ratant]

And not surprising, since religion itself is nothing more that a construct of human intelligence, stemming from a time (probably about 50,000 years ago) when that intelligence, greater though it was when compared with that of other animals that existed contemporaneously, was nevertheless below the level needed to grasp the reality of what it saw and experienced in nature; the stars in the sky, the rising and setting of the sun & moon, the planets, the weather etc were beyond the understanding of palaeolithic humans. Such phenomena would have been naturally attributed to something all powerful and outside of their control.

.
I've said something along those lines... Early religions began when a sharp hunter-gatherer with a gift of gab noted he didn't have to hunt and gather if he entertained the fellow cavemen with his fanciful stories. They'd give him some of their gathered food in exchange for the stories... some of which would be practical explanations of how to live, and others fanciful flights to explain the "unknown" things that went bump in the night.
I know a couple of these tale-spinners, and it is a delight to listen to them go off into the wild blue yonder, explaining about things they may have never even heard of, until someone asks a question about it. They can go on and on, and the better ones are entertaining as well as mouthy.

 

[I Ratant]

We invented it. I think that is enough understanding to qualify for the right to discuss it. Anyway, since when did anyone have to understand anything before they were allowed to discuss it?

.
Yes!

 

[Giordano]

But we don't understand that being, or notional being we are supposed to be criticising.

I don't have to understand even a real being to not buy into the moral laws they ask me to follow. Especially if they never explain the rationale for those laws and the laws violate my own sense of morality.

 

[Craig4]

I did answer it—it is logical to honour the One who has shown such enormous ability as to create the worlds, to abide by the laws he has set out, so that all people can live in harmony.

As I said laws are to govern people—so a system exists to punish those who transgress! The purpose of laws is primarily to protect.

So God has given laws that will enable those who obey to enter his holy presence. Those who disobey will be shut out of his presence and spend eternity in solitude.

Don't care. When has your god submitted himself and his laws for my approval? When did your god gain the consent of the governed? I will write in my diary, in pen, any appointment your god may wish to make to present his ideas. Until then, there is no consent of the governed and your god's "laws" mean nothing.

 

[tsig]

Don't care. When has your god submitted himself and his laws for my approval? When did your god gain the consent of the governed? I will write in my diary, in pen, any appointment your god may wish to make to present his ideas. Until then, there is no consent of the governed and your god's "laws" mean nothing.

Being god means you never have to ask for consent or say you're sorry.

 

[smartcooky]

There are many different sources that say this is a misunderstanding of human intelligence. The claim is that intelligence is the same now as it was 100,000+ years ago, but cumulative knowledge is obviously on a vastly different level. [/derail]

It may depend on your definition of "intelligence", or it maybe that "intelligence" isn't the word I was looking for. Perhaps "awareness" might be more what I was meaning.

Thing is, early man must have seen the stars and wondered what they were. The would have noticed that the star patterns in the sky gradually changed with the seasons. Its not too big a step for them to recognise that certain patterns in the sky foretold of changes in the seasons. In the Northern Hemisphere, Scorpius (one of the easiest constellations to recognize) rising in the east in the middle of the night signified the coming of Spring. Again, it is not too great a step (in the absence of any other explanation as to why this should be) for them to attribute it to something or someone powerful and outside their own control.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

We invented it. I think that is enough understanding to qualify for the right to discuss it. Anyway, since when did anyone have to understand anything before they were allowed to discuss it?

I think you hit the nail on the head. One does not have to fully understand the depth and breadth of a topic to begin discussing it, just as one does not have to fully understand a piece of technology, work of literature, code of ethics, etc. in order to begin using it.

I also want to reiterate, as others have, that our lack of complete understanding about the universe does not equal a justification to sneak made-up gods into the equation.

 

[MontagK505]

And not surprising, since religion itself is nothing more that a construct of human intelligence, stemming from a time (probably about 50,000 years ago) when that intelligence, greater though it was when compared with that of other animals that existed contemporaneously, was nevertheless below the level needed to grasp the reality of what it saw and experienced in nature; the stars in the sky, the rising and setting of the sun & moon, the planets, the weather etc were beyond the understanding of palaeolithic humans. Such phenomena would have been naturally attributed to something all powerful and outside of their control.

I would respectively suggest ignorance would be a more accurate term. As the individuals knowledge of the way the universe works improves, religious ideology has less influence.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Combatting brutality

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."

I think one reason for the rise of the Christian religion was in reaction to the Roman conqueror and the mindset of brutality. The idea of placing value on what I would usually attribute to the feminine side of our race. Many of the other ideas of God are similar to hero worship and their own experience of what Royals expected of their subjects. The concept of individual freedom and value of an individual life had not as yet evolved. You can still see countries with brutal dictators and their cheapening of their subjects. We are in a new era in which many human rights are taken for granted and so the old idea of a perfect creator and Lord and master are out of tune. I think we need a religion that recognizes the hole in the doughnut so to speak about our knowledge of creation and build upon what we do know.