Is it?

[uruk]

Her suffering is likely the result of someone choosing to do evil , or at least choosing not to do good. Given that there is enough food and medicine in the world to alleviate the sort of suffering you describe, the fact that she suffers is largely the result of human choice in the form of complacency. So perhaps human beings having the choice to help their fellow human beings is a greater good than human beings having no free will but never suffering.

-Bri

How about we change that to an incurable genetic desease. Something that is not caused by man and is incurable by man. like severe Down's syndrome or spina biffida.


So suffering is good because it causes us to help our fellow man. Tell that to the one who's suffering.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The situation I described would not be a matter of God determining the greatest good for the greatest number, but rather God determining that our having free will to choose good over evil is more important than not having evil. His actions could very well be towards that (or any other) end that in fact ARE inherently good even if you don't accept the argument that God might be a consequentialist.

But that is not what the "greater good" solution to the problem concerns. What you are stating here is the typical free will theodicy and that works fine for human evil.

The issue before us, though, is that there are evils that occur in the world that are not the result of human action. If God allows those evils to occur because there may be a "greater good" at play implies that God works in a consequentialist paradigm. He is acting for the "greater good" and allowing those other evils to occur for the greater good.

Because perhaps it is a greater good for people to help each other than to shut themselves off from the world. If the only opportunity for evil to befall you would be from other people, you would likely feel compelled to stay away from other people. Also, it is unclear that the conditions necessary for true freedom of choice to help others is presented only by the evil of human beings.

That can only work in a general sense. That is why I chose the situation that I did. If there are evils that could not have any impact on anyone's decision making then they are true evil. Such evils exist in the world. My screen name is an example. Suffering, great suffering occurs among beings that we do not even see on a regular basis.

Her suffering is likely the result of someone choosing to do evil , or at least choosing not to do good. Given that there is enough food and medicine in the world to alleviate the sort of suffering you describe, the fact that she suffers is largely the result of human choice in the form of complacency. So perhaps human beings having the choice to help their fellow human beings is a greater good than human beings having no free will but never suffering.

-Bri

But, no, not in this example. Of course there is the issue of human complacency, but she is dying completely alone with no witness, no possiblity of intervention from other humans. Yet she still dies. God does not intervene even when no human could possibly.

The argument you propose works in a general sense but the problem I have with it is that it does not work in certain situations. It is those situations that bother me.

Just like with the issue over 'soul building'. We can view evils as soul builders, but there is suffering that cannot possibly build anyone's soul. Like a baby born anencephalic. Or a guy who makes a mistake and has no chance to change his ways because he dies immediately afterwards. What about such situations?

The 'soul builder' argument essentially has God playing the Deist role -- he sets up the conditions for soul building but never intevenes even if no soul building could proceed in a particular instance. How does that fit with an omni-whatever God?

Sorry for the derail, Jetlag, but I really do intend to bring this back to the original point.

 

[slingblade]

Ok, I want to understand with what exactly you do not agree -

Each person has a right to his own point of view

In that spirit, each person has a right to be wrong.

Points of view with regard to existance of gods and their qualities are subjective, a matter of faith
So each person can posit any number and qualities of gods that he wants to, and only check to rule out contradictions

There's this really good book you should check out, especially the chapter on pink invisible dragons in one's garage....

 

[GeeMack]

I think that it is possible that one or more is true, just as it's possible that God exists. That said, there is little evidence that God exists.

[...]

True, there is little evidence that God exists [...]

Seems you're claiming that evidence of God exists, Bri. Yes, you qualified your statement by specifying that "little" evidence exists. But you made the claim nonetheless. Then JetLeg asked...

God is such an abstract concept. What would you consider evidence that God \ god exists?

To which you replied...

JetLeg,

What evidence have you got?

JetLeg's question was fair, but you didn't provide an answer. And I'm curious to know, also. If you have a notion that evidence of God exists, please enlighten us as to exactly what that evidence might be.

Of course, there is as little evidence for the devil as there is for God.

Maybe you have evidence, although little of it, that the devil exists, too? Or are you perhaps using the terminology, "little evidence exists," where you actually mean you aren't aware of any evidence at all existing.

 

[bokonon]

Let's assume as a premise that God exists and is good. If God were also all-knowing, he might not be subject to the same morality that we are since he can forsee all consequences of his actions. However, WE are still subject to morality, and therefore God could not ask us to do something immoral without our knowing for absolute certain that he exists. Therefore, unless you are claiming to have absolute and direct proof of God's existence, God could not command you to do anything immoral.

That said, the Bible contains passages where God commands individuals to do things that we would consider immoral. Christians justify this in many ways, including: (1) the person who was commanded had absolute and direct proof of God's existence and therefore knows that the act is moral, or (2) that although the act would be considered immoral in most modern circumstances it was not actually immoral in the specific context of the situation described in the Bible.

I don't think absolute and direct proof of God's existence is sufficient. Take the story of Abraham and Isaac (Ishmael for our Muslim friends). Even if you accept that Abraham had absolute and direct proof of God's existence, he still doesn't have absolute and direct proof of God's goodness. Indeed, when God orders Abraham to murder his son, that seems to me a compelling argument that God is not good. No "higher purpose" is offered to explain the execution, it's just a capricious because-I-said-so command.

It seems to me that Abraham's blind obedience is an immoral act, and cannot be reconciled with all the platitudes about God's gift to man of free will. The story is evidence that social control was a stronger reason than moral guidance for inventing (and perpetuating) the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't have any evidence at all. But it makes no sense to ask for evidence for an immaterial god. Therefore one can posit any number and qualities of immaterial G\god\s that he wants to.

I have a dragon in my garage.


Oh, and there is a teapot orbiting the sun.

 

[Bri]

The point was not what the ends are, the point was acts to get to those ends.

The question is whether or not you can reasonably forsee the consequences of your actions. If you can, then taking into account all of the consequences, it is moral to make a choice based on the best outcome. For God, who could presumably see every consequence of his action, the best choice -- the moral choice -- might appear to be immoral to us who are limited to only seeing relatively immediate consequences.

By our standards no ends justify an immoral act to achieve those ends. A good end does not make the immoral act moral. Just that an immoral act was commited to achieve a good end.

You're stating things backwards. No act in and of itself is moral or immoral. It is only immoral if it is not the best action to perform under a given set of circumstances. Killing someone is immoral in most situations (where it is called "murder"), but not in certain other situations such as self-defense.

But that does make evil good. Evil is still evil.

Like I said, an act in and of itself is not good or evil. It is good or evil depending on the circumstances. Stealing is usually immoral, but probably not immoral if it saves a life.

So having evil around is a consequence of having free will.
Free will is good. And whatever it takes (Having evil around) to get free will is justified. Therefore (having) evil (around) is justified.
But isn't evil mutualy exclusive of good?

No, evil is not mutually exclusive of good. Evil and good can and do coexist. Some would say that evil is necessary for good to exist.

In actuality was is moral and immoral depends on society.
But some argue that god's laws are immutable. whatever god says goes no matter what.

Maybe some believe that God's laws are immutable. Others believe that the laws in the Bible are generalities, based on the most common forseeable circumstances of an action, but may vary depending on the actual forseeable circumstances. For example, I believe that most would agree that many laws can be broken to save a life.

Few believe that the rules that apply to us (which assume that we can't know the full consequences of our actions) also apply to God, since God is all-knowing.

Which means there is a difference between murder and killing. So if god murders does that mean the murder becomes moral because god is committing the murder?

It's a nonsensical question. Since murder is defined as immoral (unjustified) killing, then if God committed murder, it couldn't possibly be moral by definition. Now if you're asking if God kills someone and it seems like murder to us, is it necessarily murder, then the answer is no. Just because it seems like murder to us due to our inability to forsee the full consequences of the action does not mean it's murder. Specifically, the full consequences of the action may serve a greater good that we are not aware of.

So if god kills in self defence the killing will be moral and justified. Who does god need self defence from?

I didn't mean to imply that God kills in self defense? I was providing some examples where killing is justified for us humans. Presumably, there are examples where killing is justified for God as well.

So if god kills for punishment the killing is moral and justified.

Yes, presumably so.

So what transgression does god consider worthy of the punishment of death?

I wouldn't know since I'm not all-knowing, but I imagine that if the consequences lead to a greater good, God might be justified.

So if god kills in a war the killing is justified. who does god war with? and who is getting killed?

Again, I wasn't meaning to imply that God wars with anyone -- it was just an example of a justified killing that would not be considered "murder."

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Sorry, had to leave before I could get to this point.

It isn't necessary to believe in the devil in order to believe in God, but it may be necessary if you want to hang onto a particular conception of God. If God has all the omni attributes that are commonly ascribed and since we have natural evils in the world and since the free will theodicies don't seem to work to explain natural evils (unless you want to accept the Adam and Eve story literally) the best explanation for that type of God with all the evil seems to be the existence of a dark side.

I disagree with the part of your statement in bold, which I've addressed in a previous post. I don't think you can say for certain that natural evil is not necessary for us to have free choice between good and evil, nor that there are no other possible reasons why natural disasters would be necessary for the greater good.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

How about we change that to an incurable genetic desease. Something that is not caused by man and is incurable by man. like severe Down's syndrome or spina biffida.

We can and do search for cures for Down's syndrome and spina biffida. We also ease the suffering of those afflicted.

So suffering is good because it causes us to help our fellow man.

That is one possible explanation.

Tell that to the one who's suffering.

Again, we're talking about the greater good, not the individual person. It is possible that suffering is necessary for the greater good.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The issue before us, though, is that there are evils that occur in the world that are not the result of human action. If God allows those evils to occur because there may be a "greater good" at play implies that God works in a consequentialist paradigm. He is acting for the "greater good" and allowing those other evils to occur for the greater good.

Some theists may very well define God to be consequentialist. That said, perhaps it is for a greater good that people cannot simply hide from other people to be free from evil. That would not be consequentialist. There may be other un-consequentialist reasons for natural disasters as well.

But, no, not in this example. Of course there is the issue of human complacency, but she is dying completely alone with no witness, no possiblity of intervention from other humans. Yet she still dies. God does not intervene even when no human could possibly.

My point here was not about intervention after-the-fact -- it's about prevention. At some point some human being might have prevented her suffering but chose not to. Do you have evidence of an actual example of someone suffering but nobody could possibly have prevented it?

Just like with the issue over 'soul building'. We can view evils as soul builders, but there is suffering that cannot possibly build anyone's soul. Like a baby born anencephalic. Or a guy who makes a mistake and has no chance to change his ways because he dies immediately afterwards. What about such situations?

Soul building is only one possible "greater good" that might result, but both of your examples include such opportunities. The first one for the care taking of the baby, and perhaps for research to prevent anencephaly. The second perhaps might serve as an example to others to not make the same mistake.

But like you, I don't personally find the notion of soul building to be very compelling (others might though). I think it must go beyond simply providing opportunities to make moral choices as the term "soul building" implies. If there was no suffering other than suffering caused by people then everyone must be provided with everything they need -- there would be no competition for resources, there would be no fear of things beyond our control, there would be no incentive to do wrong. Perhaps it is a greater good for us to be able to resist the temptation to do wrong in order to do what is right. That would imply having an incentive to do wrong (otherwise, it's easy to do what is right).

The 'soul builder' argument essentially has God playing the Deist role -- he sets up the conditions for soul building but never intevenes even if no soul building could proceed in a particular instance. How does that fit with an omni-whatever God?

How do you know God never intervenes? Without knowing every consequence of every event, there is no way for us to know whether it lead to a greater good or not, soul-building or otherwise.

Ichneumonwasp, although I believe I understand where you're coming from, I don't think these possibilities can be eliminated and therefore I don't think the existence of an "omni-whatever" God can be disproved. At least, I'm fairly certain that the arguments you're presenting aren't entirely novel and I don't believe the existence of God has been disproved yet.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Seems you're claiming that evidence of God exists, Bri. Yes, you qualified your statement by specifying that "little" evidence exists.

...

JetLeg's question was fair, but you didn't provide an answer. And I'm curious to know, also. If you have a notion that evidence of God exists, please enlighten us as to exactly what that evidence might be.

Perhaps you missed the OP of this thread. JetLeg believes that God exists. Therefore, by qualifying with "little" I was giving him and other theists the benefit of the doubt. I would assume that there may be evidence of the existence of God of which I am unaware (which I might or might not find compelling), which is why I asked JetLeg if he knew of any.

Or are you perhaps using the terminology, "little evidence exists," where you actually mean you aren't aware of any evidence at all existing.

Yes, that's exactly how I'm using it. I don't know of any evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I don't think absolute and direct proof of God's existence is sufficient. Take the story of Abraham and Isaac (Ishmael for our Muslim friends). Even if you accept that Abraham had absolute and direct proof of God's existence, he still doesn't have absolute and direct proof of God's goodness. Indeed, when God orders Abraham to murder his son, that seems to me a compelling argument that God is not good. No "higher purpose" is offered to explain the execution, it's just a capricious because-I-said-so command.

Yes, you're right. I think we are to assume in the story told by the Bible that Abraham has direct knowledge of God's existence and goodness. That is not to say that the Bible is therefore true or is written by God -- I am only saying that it is not necessarily internally inconsistent in that regard.

It seems to me that Abraham's blind obedience is an immoral act, and cannot be reconciled with all the platitudes about God's gift to man of free will. The story is evidence that social control was a stronger reason than moral guidance for inventing (and perpetuating) the Abrahamic religions.

I disagree. As told in the Bible, Abraham has direct knowledge of God, and he might therefore reasonably assume that the action God is requesting of him is for the greater good.

Of course, I don't think any human being in our world has direct knowledge of God or even if God exists, nor can anyone possibly know for a fact whether an act is for the greater good, and therefore we must act for the more immediate forseeable good.

-Bri

 

[uruk]

The question is whether or not you can reasonably forsee the consequences of your actions. If you can, then taking into account all of the consequences, it is moral to make a choice based on the best outcome. For God, who could presumably see every consequence of his action, the best choice -- the moral choice -- might appear to be immoral to us who are limited to only seeing relatively immediate consequences.

Then where does the idea that "the ends do not justify the means" come from? It does not matter what the ends are or what the outcome is. A benevolent end does not justify immoral acts to that end. It's not a matter of foreseeing consequences, it's the actions taken.

You're stating things backwards. No act in and of itself is moral or immoral. It is only immoral if it is not the best action to perform under a given set of circumstances. Killing someone is immoral in most situations (where it is called "murder"), but not in certain other situations such as self-defense.

But murder is always immoral by definition under any circumstances. killing in self defence is not murder by definition. It is two different definitions.
So the act of murder is always immoral by definition.

Like I said, an act in and of itself is not good or evil. It is good or evil depending on the circumstances. Stealing is usually immoral, but probably not immoral if it saves a life.

Stealing is still an immoral act by definition wether it saves a life or not. The life was saved via an immoral act. Do you see the point I am making?
The outcome was good for the life saved but the act was bad for the one whom the item was stolen from.

No, evil is not mutually exclusive of good. Evil and good can and do coexist. Some would say that evil is necessary for good to exist.

Can an act be good and evil at the same time in the same circumstance?

Silly question. Since murder is defined as immoral (unjustified) killing, then if God committed murder, it couldn't possibly be moral by definition. Now if you're asking if God kills someone and it seems like murder to us, is it necessarily murder? The question is no. Just because it seems like murder to us due to our inability to forsee the full consequences of the action does not mean it's murder. Specifically, the full consequences of the action may serve a greater good that we are not aware of.

Well it different for god. God created us and is ultimately responsible for the circumstances that we are in. Don't you think it odd that god would create the circumstances where it becomes neccessary for him kill somebody? If god is by definititon all knowing and can forsee the bigger picture, you figgure he could get things done without doing things like killing his own creations. odder still is the idea that he creates someone for the sole purpose of killing personaly later on.

Did I imply that God kills for self defense? I was providing some examples where killing is justified for us humans. Presumably, there are examples where killing is justified for God as well.

A justified killing is not a murder by definition.

I wouldn't know since I'm not all-knowing, but I imagine that if the consequences lead to a greater good, God might be justified.

Unless you buy the idea that the ends do not justify the means thingy

Again, I wasn't meaning to imply that God wars with anyone -- it was just an example of a justified killing that would not be considered "murder."

-Bri

I agree.

 

[uruk]

We can and do search for cures for Down's syndrome and spina biffida. We also ease the suffering of those afflicted.

Yea, we have correct god's mistakes.

Again, we're talking about the greater good, not the individual person. It is possible that suffering is necessary for the greater good.

-Bri

See here's the deal. You are going to suffer unimaginable pain and horror and then your going to die a slow excruciating, humiliating death. But hey, everybody else benefits.
It must suck to be that guy.

 

[Bri]

Then where does the idea that "the ends do not justify the means" come from?

The same place as "too many cooks spoil the broth" or "never judge a book by its cover" I would imagine. As far as I know it's a saying, not a quote from the Bible. It's a good one though, and it's almost always true given that we cannot fully predict the consequences of our actions.

But murder is always immoral by definition under any circumstances. killing in self defence is not murder by definition. It is two different definitions.
So the act of murder is always immoral by definition.

Yes, I agree. The act isn't "murder" -- the act is the taking of a human life. If it's not justified, it's called "murder." But the act of taking a human life is not immoral (i.e. murder) all by itself -- it is only murder under a given set of circumstances in which it isn't justified.

Stealing is still an immoral act by definition wether it saves a life or not. The life was saved via an immoral act. Do you see the point I am making?
The outcome was good for the life saved but the act was bad for the one whom the item was stolen from.

I disagree. To the contrary, not stealing would be immoral if stealing was the only way to save a human life. True, stealing would be "bad" for the person being stolen from, but the overall act would be moral for the person doing the stealing. I do see the point you're making, and it may only be semantics, but you have to agree that the moral choice in this case would be to steal in order to save the life and the immoral choice would be to not steal and allow someone to die.

Can an act be good and evil at the same time in the same circumstance?

According to your definition above, yes. According to mine, good and evil are probably two ends of a continuum. In other words, an act falls somewhere between "absolute good" and "absolute evil" and is considered a "moral" act if it is as far to the good side as forseeably possible given the circumstances.

Well it different for god. God created us and is ultimately responsible for the circumstances that we are in.

Not if he allows us to have free will. If we have free will, we are largely responsible for the circumstances we are in (particularly those aspects of our circumstances that were within our control).

Don't you think it odd that god would create the circumstances where it becomes neccessary for him kill somebody? If god is by definititon all knowing and can forsee the bigger picture, you figgure he could do things without doing things like killing his own creations.

I believe I understand your point. When you talk of God killing someone, you're actually talking about human death and suffering as the result of a natural disaster or a circumstance that is beyond human control (since we don't see any obvious evidence of smiting by God these days), right? Your argument is that surely God could create a world in which there is no death and no suffering that is beyond our control. But that world might very well defeat the purpose of our having free will. If there is no suffering, then there is no incentive to do wrong and it would be easy for everyone to do right. But it's possible that the greater good is achieved by our having the opportunity to exercise our free will to choose to do right in the face of temptation to do wrong.

odder still is the idea that he creates someone for the sole puorpose of killing personaly later on.

Example, please. Where did this idea come from? Presumably, if God kills someone it is for a greater purpose -- not for the sole purpose of killing them for no reason whatsoever.

A justified killing is not a murder by definition.

That was my point.

Unless you buy the idea that the ends do not justify the means thingy

For God, yes the ends may very well justify the means, given that he knows exactly what the ends will be. For human beings who cannot know beforehand exactly what the consequences of our actions will be, the ends don't always justify the means.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

I simply said that there is no evidence for God, and you don't seem to dispute that.

Nonetheless, why would it make no sense to ask for evidence of an immaterial God? Can't an immaterial God interact with the world, and thereby provide evidence of his existence?

Sure, one can posit as many immaterial gods as one likes. Yet there is little evidence for any god.

Just because God could exist doesn't mean God does exist. The same can be said about leprechauns.

-Bri

Which evidence would convince you that a god exists? (I am qurious to the others' answers as well). What exactly is the evidence you are not finding, of what nature?

 

[JetLeg]

Your right to your point of view ends when it has a negative impact on my state of being.

For proof of god(s) I will require evidence that is physical not philosophical in nature. If the only place you can prove the existence of god(s) is in your mind you have to realize that is the only place they exist.

Let's distinguish between a political right to a point of view and an intellectual right to a point of view. As far as I understand, you say that I have a political right to any point of view, that you don't want the government to imprison anyone for their thoughts. However, an intellectual right to a point of view is means that a certain point of view has any merit at all. If one would think that G.W. Bush is the father of Bill Clinton, he would have a political right to this point of view, but not an intellectual right - it would be just stupid.

Do you think I have an intellectual right to hold whatever opinions with regards to the supernatural that I want to?

 

[jond]

Let's distinguish between a political right to a point of view and an intellectual right to a point of view. As far as I understand, you say that I have a political right to any point of view, that you don't want the government to imprison anyone for their thoughts. However, an intellectual right to a point of view is means that a certain point of view has any merit at all. If one would think that G.W. Bush is the father of Bill Clinton, he would have a political right to this point of view, but not an intellectual right - it would be just stupid.

Do you think I have an intellectual right to hold whatever opinions with regards to the supernatural that I want to?

You have an "intellectual right" to believe anything you want. You have the right to be stupid. Just keep it to yourself, and don't try to make me believe in your fairy tales.

As for your analogy of GW Bush being Clinton's father: have your heard about David Icke? He writes books about how they're both (as are the British Royal Family) reptilian aliens. Now, he's got no evidence to back it up, but that doesn't stop him from writing this nonsense. The problem is that there are people who believe it. And if they start acting on those beliefs... Reality is a good thing. You should check it out sometime.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Some theists may very well define God to be consequentialist. That said, perhaps it is for a greater good that people cannot simply hide from other people to be free from evil. That would not be consequentialist. There may be other un-consequentialist reasons for natural disasters as well.

But, doesn't that strike you as odd? IF our rule is supposed to be the golden rule, and if that rule originates in God, then why is God a utilitarian? That just seems odd to me.

My point here was not about intervention after-the-fact -- it's about prevention. At some point some human being might have prevented her suffering but chose not to. Do you have evidence of an actual example of someone suffering but nobody could possibly have prevented it?

Yes, I know your point. But there are instances in which no one can intervene in human suffering. We know this because we find their bodies later. Take hikers who go off on their own, fall, break a leg and die a few days later. Autopsy shows that death was not immediate. But no intervention. Of course you can always say -- they made the trip of their own free choice. So choose any large scale pandemic - say the Black Death, where peole died in agony, where entire towns were wiped from the map. No one could intervene because no one was left when the last two people died. Such suffering is not a true exception. It is rather mundane.

Soul building is only one possible "greater good" that might result, but both of your examples include such opportunities. The first one for the care taking of the baby, and perhaps for research to prevent anencephaly. The second perhaps might serve as an example to others to not make the same mistake.

That makes no sense for the 14th century BCE. Do you honestly want to argue that the long history of human suffering serves the purpose of 21st century medical research? That's why God made it happen?

How do you know God never intervenes? Without knowing every consequence of every event, there is no way for us to know whether it lead to a greater good or not, soul-building or otherwise.

Because we find their bodies after the fact and can reconstruct what most likely occurred.

The conclusion of "there is no way for us to kow whether it lead to a greater good or not" is where I was heading and how this turns back to the OP. If we can truly not know how this fits together, then I maintain that we cannot use evidence to disprove God or any conception of God. The argument eliminates the possibility of evidence being used either for or against God. And this raises the issue of relevancy.

Ichneumonwasp, although I believe I understand where you're coming from, I don't think these possibilities can be eliminated and therefore I don't think the existence of an "omni-whatever" God can be disproved. At least, I'm fairly certain that the arguments you're presenting aren't entirely novel and I don't believe the existence of God has been disproved yet.

-Bri

I don't pretend for a second that this is a new argument. I wanted only to hear your opinion on where the argument leads. It seems to me that we reach the same conclusion -- correct me if I am wrong -- that we end up stuck with some form of fideism. But that essentially means that the argument is successful because it begins with a premise about God - that he is omni-everything. And it seems to end with -- well we can't tell. So, it seems to me that the original premise -- God is all good, all powerful, etc. cannot be used as a starting point. We are left with "well we don't know for sure".

 

[Bri]

Which evidence would convince you that a god exists? (I am qurious to the others' answers as well). What exactly is the evidence you are not finding, of what nature?

I think I see where you're coming from now, JetLag. I may have misunderstood the OP before.

If God is all-powerful, he could certainly convince me of his existence (otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful). Short of that, if he were to appear before the world and performed miracles under controlled conditions that everyone could plainly see with their own eyes, I imagine that I would (eventually) be convinced.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP though.

It is fairly clear in the stories written in the Bible that Abraham had special knowledge of God, and therefore was acting for God. As written, it was reasonable for Abraham to assume that the outcome would be for the greater good, and it was therefore moral for him to do as God asked. The responsibility of the consequences would be God's, knowing that Abraham would obey.

If you're asking whether a Christian would believe that everything God asked Abraham to do would be moral for them to do on their own, it's possible that some Christian might believe that. Logically it wouldn't make sense unless they had special knowledge of God as Abraham does in the Bible, and God specifically asked them to do it. I don't know of any Christians who believe that today it is possible for someone to have the same knowledge of God that Abraham is described in the Bible as having.

-Bri