Inventing a Moral God

This is an attempt by an agnostic atheist (myself) to make a case for a morally justifiable supernatural creator being. Not to prove the existence of any god/s, but to lay out what would be required (in my opinion) for a supernatural creator being to be moral.

1) Pre-existence: The souls of all humans existed before they were born, knowing the truth that the supernatural being exist.

2) Consent: The souls that inhabit the humans have alreadyconsentedto their Earthly lives and all the suffering that comes with it. This is key, the souls are not just created and immediately subjected to the suffering that is life on Earth. They also must agree to any possible consequences that living life entails.

Keep in mind that I'm making all this stuff up, and my morals are subjective.

I do have one complaint.

How can you possiblyconsentto the emotional and physical suffering without knowing exactlywhat you will experience in YOUR life? Yeah you can show me that I could break my arm or watch a family member get sick in the hospital, but if I knew that say, I would die at a young age Because I gethit by a car or have someone I know die right in front of me, there is no way I would neverconsent to that. You can't really show them what to expect without giving the people their future and that almost defeats the purpose of having a god.

This is just my take on it. Otherwise, it makes sense.

Under that logic, one could criticise a woman for giving birth to a child, for afterall, the child did not ask to be born into a world in which at least some pain is inevitable.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Under that logic, one could criticise a woman for giving birth to a child, for afterall, the child did not ask to be born into a world in which at least some pain is inevitable.Vandalvideo

Wouldn't you need the mother's consent to have the child born? Why would they want to give birth to someonethatwillgrow up to bea murderer or something like that.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Under that logic, one could criticise a woman for giving birth to a child, for afterall, the child did not ask to be born into a world in which at least some pain is inevitable.Vandalvideo

If your morals are subjective then there is no way you can create a morally justifiable supernatural creator being.LJS9502_basic

Switching back to my agnostic atheist perspective; I would argue that every ones morals are subjective, irrespectiveof whether a person is religious or not. Since no religions have provided any empirical evidence that the actually have knowledge of the supernatural, I would say that each individual is the ultimate judge of what is moral or what is not. To back this statement up, I would point to that fact that no two people, not even people of the same religion agree on everything.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If your morals are subjective then there is no way you can create a morally justifiable supernatural creator being.pdevil21

Switching back to my agnostic atheist perspective; I would argue that every ones morals are subjective, irrespectiveof whether a person is religious or not. Since no religions have provided any empirical evidence that the actually have knowledge of the supernatural, I would say that each individual is the ultimate judge of what is moral or what is not. To back this statement up, I would point to that fact that no two people, not even people of the same religion agree on everything.

I do have one complaint.

How can you possiblyconsentto the emotional and physical suffering without knowing exactlywhat you will experience in YOUR life? Yeah you can show me that I could break my arm or watch a family member get sick in the hospital, but if I knew that say, I would die at a young age Because I gethit by a car or have someone I know die right in front of me, there is no way I would neverconsent to that. You can't really show them what to expect without giving the people their future and that almost defeats the purpose of having a god.

This is just my take on it. Otherwise, it makes sense.

RazerBlade13

Well, let me pull some new tenets out of my azz.:D

Let's say that the supernatural being grants you the sort of knowledge that allows you to understand all the suffering of previous humans.Also, keep in mind that a life on Earth would seem like practically nothing when your previous view of time was eternity.

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]If your morals are subjective then there is no way you can create a morally justifiable supernatural creator being.LJS9502_basic

Switching back to my agnostic atheist perspective; I would argue that every ones morals are subjective, irrespectiveof whether a person is religious or not. Since no religions have provided any empirical evidence that the actually have knowledge of the supernatural, I would say that each individual is the ultimate judge of what is moral or what is not. To back this statement up, I would point to that fact that no two people, not even people of the same religion agree on everything.

I disagree. For example, you can get a lifetime prison sentence for killing a cow in India.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]Under that logic, one could criticise a woman for giving birth to a child, for afterall, the child did not ask to be born into a world in which at least some pain is inevitable.RazerBlade13

Wouldn't you need the mother's consent to have the child born? Why would they want to give birth to someonethatwillgrow up to bea murderer or something like that.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

Switching back to my agnostic atheist perspective; I would argue that every ones morals are subjective, irrespectiveof whether a person is religious or not. Since no religions have provided any empirical evidence that the actually have knowledge of the supernatural, I would say that each individual is the ultimate judge of what is moral or what is not. To back this statement up, I would point to that fact that no two people, not even people of the same religion agree on everything.

pdevil21

I disagree. For example, you can get a lifetime prison sentence for killing a cow in India.

Does your consent argument not assume that existence and non-existence are equally preferable statements? If so, I take issue with it.xaos

[QUOTE="xaos"]Does your consent argument not assume that existence and non-existence are equally preferable statements? If so, I take issue with it.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] But the mother doesn't know that, and thereby her morality is still in question independent of whether or not birth is voluntary or involuntary. Not to mention that this is just passing the buck -- is God immoral for creating the souls of those childs without their permission? For how could they possibly permit if they did not exist?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="xaos"]Does your consent argument not assume that existence and non-existence are equally preferable statements? If so, I take issue with it.Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="xaos"]Does your consent argument not assume that existence and non-existence are equally preferable statements? If so, I take issue with it.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="xaos"]Does your consent argument not assume that existence and non-existence are equally preferable statements? If so, I take issue with it.xaos

Idk, imo, the only safe way to rid God of criticism about his/her/its morality is to make him/her/it amoral in nature.

But then that would be an entirely different diety we would be talking about. Not a personal one.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] That's assuming that God consented to his own existence which is a logical absurdity.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] God says MetalGear_Ninty wins this argument, that's why.Vandalvideo

So...by this...people..accepted they would suffer and all?..Or am i misinterpreting..?

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]As a whole society tends to have the same morals. Overall. LJS9502_basic

I disagree. For example, you can get a lifetime prison sentence for killing a cow in India.

That's the entire point, they think that, but people who aren't Hindu don't. If there was some sort of objective morality intrinsic in the human psyche, cultures that were long isolated from each othershould have come to the same conclusions anyway.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Nah, I'll think I'll elaborate on my point. As soon as you say God exists outside of logic, you effectively terminate any theological discussion, or rather philosophical discussion regarding God. For example: Debater A: God punished group X because he hates them. Debater B: But that's impossible, God is omnibenevolent. Debater A: But God transcends logic, so he can be both omnibenevolent and non-omnibenevolent simultaneously. You see where I'm going with this?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

I disagree. For example, you can get a lifetime prison sentence for killing a cow in India.

pdevil21

That's the entire point, they think that, but people who aren't Hindu don't. If their was some sort of objective morality intrinsic in the human psyche, cultures that were long isolated from each othershould have come to the same conclusions anyway.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Nah, I'll think I'll elaborate on my point. As soon as you say God exists outside of logic, you effectively terminate any theological discussion, or rather philosophical discussion regarding God. For example: Debater A: God punished group X because he hates them. Debater B: But that's impossible, God is omnibenevolent. Debater A: But God transcends logic, so he can be both omnibenevolent and non-omnibenevolent simultaneously. You see where I'm going with this?MetalGear_Ninty

1) Pre-existence: The souls of all humans existed before they were born, knowing the truth that the supernatural being exist.

2) Consent: The souls that inhabit the humans have alreadyconsentedto their Earthly lives and all the suffering that comes with it. This is key, the souls are not just created and immediately subjected to the suffering that is life on Earth. They also must agree to any possible consequences that living life entails.

pdevil21

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] I see where you want to go with it, but the huge problem is first we have to decide what omnibenevolent means. Likewise, why can't God just be a schizo. Or better yet, maybe God is like the Borg. Ever think of that? Logical contradiction avoided using teh borg. Assimilate or die. We are legion!xaos

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And? Apparently the citizens in India agree on that. Overall.LJS9502_basic

That's the entire point, they think that, but people who aren't Hindu don't. If their was some sort of objective morality intrinsic in the human psyche, cultures that were long isolated from each othershould have come to the same conclusions anyway.

Hindus agree, the rest of the world doesn't. Since you are presumably arguing for intrinsic objective morality, the rest of the world should have come to the same conclusion. If some cultures says it's wrong to kill cows and the rest say it's okay; then it's a completely subjective issue.

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

1) Pre-existence: The souls of all humans existed before they were born, knowing the truth that the supernatural being exist.

2) Consent: The souls that inhabit the humans have alreadyconsentedto their Earthly lives and all the suffering that comes with it. This is key, the souls are not just created and immediately subjected to the suffering that is life on Earth. They also must agree to any possible consequences that living life entails.

aransom

What's your faith?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Omnibenevolent as in 'all-loving'. This extinguishes the possibility of schizophrenic episodes as this would negate the word 'all'. Also, I don't know this 'Borg' you speak of.:?Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="aransom"]

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

1) Pre-existence: The souls of all humans existed before they were born, knowing the truth that the supernatural being exist.

2) Consent: The souls that inhabit the humans have alreadyconsentedto their Earthly lives and all the suffering that comes with it. This is key, the souls are not just created and immediately subjected to the suffering that is life on Earth. They also must agree to any possible consequences that living life entails.

pdevil21

What's your faith?

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] God says MetalGear_Ninty wins this argument, that's why.MetalGear_Ninty

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

That's the entire point, they think that, but people who aren't Hindu don't. If their was some sort of objective morality intrinsic in the human psyche, cultures that were long isolated from each othershould have come to the same conclusions anyway.

pdevil21

Hindus agree, the rest of the world doesn't. Since you are presumably arguing for intrinsic objective morality, the rest of the world should have come to the same conclusion. If some cultures says it's wrong to kill cows and the rest say it's okay; then it's a completely subjective issue.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] God told me to beware of deception from off-topic posters. Thus, we arrive at an impasse.D_Battery

Wasn't that exactly his point?xaos

[QUOTE="pdevil21"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So? The point was that a society agrees. Which you have now agreed with me about. Thus, subjective doesn't really work.LJS9502_basic

Hindus agree, the rest of the world doesn't. Since you are presumably arguing for intrinsic objective morality, the rest of the world should have come to the same conclusion. If some cultures says it's wrong to kill cows and the rest say it's okay; then it's a completely subjective issue.

You're trying to make the argument that everyone know what is "right" and what is "wrong." If everyone know what is "right" and "wrong," why do you have people who genuinely think it's okay to slaughter a cow and people who genuinely think it's wrong?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="pdevil21"]

Hindus agree, the rest of the world doesn't. Since you are presumably arguing for intrinsic objective morality, the rest of the world should have come to the same conclusion. If some cultures says it's wrong to kill cows and the rest say it's okay; then it's a completely subjective issue.

pdevil21

You're trying to make the argument that everyone know what is "right" and what is "wrong." If everyone know what is "right" and "wrong," why do you have people who genuinely think it's okay to slaughter a cow and people who genuinely think it's wrong?

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] God told me to beware of deception from off-topic posters. Thus, we arrive at an impasse.D_Battery