...I dont understand this. Please note that im NOT trying to be rude or anything....
If i went to a person now and enslaved them, this would be seen as morally wrong. If i then went back to 1000BC and enslaved someone, people wouldnt really care, because it wasnt morally wrong. If God gives us our morals, and God CANNOT change at all, then how can our morals change?
I (tentatively) view moral facts as parallel to God's character but independent of it, just as logic and mathematical truths are fully known by God but aren't dependent on him to exist. The moral argument is simply that God is a law-giver, and this doesn't change even if I abandon divine command theory. Just as God made our brains to see physical reality, he developed our hearts to know moral truths.
I'm sure you've encountered this question already, but if morality is defined by God, by what standard do we say that God is good? Isn't the description of the goodness of God circular?
But his being the source of morality is not a standard by which we can see if God is good. The term God is good becomes vacuous of meaning if "good" is defined by God at will, just as saying "Obama is good" is vacuous of meaning if good is defined by whatever Obama says is good.
@migkillertwo Did God make himeslf good, or is he just good by his own nature? Could he choose not to be good? Could something that was nothing like god at all be called good? Or is god completely synonymous with good? If we were created in his image, why make us evil at heart?
Too many questions that require ad hoc answers... In my opinion
I agree that if GOD does something one can say "we dont know why He did it and it cldve been a super +ve or just outcome for tht individual at GOD in the end" BUT as many have rightfully pted out, wht abt all the LAWS in the OT which are PREESCRIBED FOR MEN supposedly by GOD? like to stone adulterers, disobedient children etc to death? The verses dont say GOD will stone adulteres it clearly states thts wht beleivers ought to do in the name of GOD to those individuals who carry out those acts.
...And this is the main problem. Such laws can NEVER in no time be logically justified coz one can never make a consistent argument saying murder=adultery and btw stoning is more severe than just killing by say hanging which according to the OT is enough for murder. See how ridiculous this is?
And yes yet another thing. How cld GOD order humans in those ignorant times to carry out such severe punishments. If anything in those times GOD mustve prescribed less legal punishments coz at tht time the human's had much less experience regarding the methods of trial and evidence. It just doesnt add up.
I agree that morality can not exist without God but just because a person does not believe in God does not mean he can not act morally. Look at Romans 2:14. There is a concept of Natural Law Morality that comes from a creator but is inherent in humans that has played a major part in Christian thinking over the years.
I can't really agree with God cannot possibly do something wrong. I'd say that God has great responsibility towards us in the same way that parents have great responsibility towards their children. I mean a parent cant do whatever he wants to his own kid either. Being someones creator doesnt mean that you can do with your creation whatever you want. If I could make a robot with A.I. as good as the human brain, would it be okay for me to torture it? No because its no longer just a mindless object
"I can't really agree with God cannot possibly do something wrong."
It's a very simple concept Knowntje, if Christianity is right, then the theory of divine command morality is correct. if Divine command morality is true, then something is only good if god wills it, and something is bad of god wills against it. hence, God cannot possibly do anything bad because he being the ultimate source of morality is under no moral obligations. "God is bad" is about as useful as "a square circle"
so if I think it was bad of god to have two bears tear apart 42 children because they called eliah a baldhead... then I am anti moral for thinking that?
I just think it is weird that our personal sense of morality is so different from god's. If god really is the source of the bible I would expect to find amazing morality in it and an amazing sense of awe for god and such a sense of wanting to worhip him for being so increddible. but it is completely the opposite
you mean that three parter called "does god commit attrocities in the new testament" you I have listened to that. I'm trying to get through all of the audio available of reasonablefaith
It wasnt bad, but the main thing is that I just cant see why those babaric laws andacts were the only way that god could have accomplished his goals. You would expect him to be able to find a better way in which fewer people would get hurt because I see many thing in the OT not just as evil but as unnessacary
He also believes that children go to heaven when they die so thats the reason that also the children would have to die. But is that really a biblical doctorine, I never heard any verse that says such a thing
If people go to hell because of sins, it logically follows that an entity which could not have sinned (in this case, an infant) would not be liable to face Gods Judgement.
One reason you can't use your moral since to judge God's actions is because God has access to all knowledge and you do not. He knows what would have happened had those people lived, and you do not.
the slaughter of the canaanites is by far not the only attrocity in the old testament. What about the laws given in leviticus and deuteronomy? Like stoning children who will not obey. Death penalty for homosexuals, stoning people who dont keep the sabbath, letting women who are only expected of commiting adultary drink poison. God burning two people to death for offering "strange fire" or something. ripping children out of the wombs of the women of your enemies,keeping virgin girls as sex slaves
I dont get this, you say that if we prove those attrocities happened then we disprove biblical inerrancy? no it would be the other way around if we would prove those attrocities DIDNT happen then we would disprove biblical inerrancy because according to the bible they happened allthough ofcourse those people didnt see them as being attrocities
About objective morality, tooltime did not give any example but stated that some systems existed which were objective - he didn't try to prove but to have you look at these systems.
Preferential utilitarianism IS objective morality. When a person desires a thing, it's a subjective feeling; but when people fight for said thing it means said thing has objective value from the desire and the invested energy in achieving that desire.
You can then use scientific reasoning to infer some principles - for example that killing someone is wrong in most circonstances, since people objectively fight for their lives, giving value to it at the same time.
This is the only way to get objective morality - the scientific way, that might or might not get to the same conclusions as instinctive (subjective) morality for a particular person, but is gotten to by a different road.
Respecting God's will to have a morally objective character, you must prove that God's will have a value, which in the objectivity range means that people can generally sacrifice to it. (apart from the obvious problem of stating what "respecting God's will" means)
I'm curious as to why Tooltime did not respond to you directly. Rather, he posted a video that you have to search out youtube in order to find it and respond.
Good video. Atheist think that God is a human, that's why they don't understand.
cmpresents 11 months ago
...I dont understand this. Please note that im NOT trying to be rude or anything....
If i went to a person now and enslaved them, this would be seen as morally wrong. If i then went back to 1000BC and enslaved someone, people wouldnt really care, because it wasnt morally wrong. If God gives us our morals, and God CANNOT change at all, then how can our morals change?
1234funsies 2 years ago
Good vid!
Shazoolo 2 years ago
I (tentatively) view moral facts as parallel to God's character but independent of it, just as logic and mathematical truths are fully known by God but aren't dependent on him to exist. The moral argument is simply that God is a law-giver, and this doesn't change even if I abandon divine command theory. Just as God made our brains to see physical reality, he developed our hearts to know moral truths.
legodesi 3 years ago
I'm sure you've encountered this question already, but if morality is defined by God, by what standard do we say that God is good? Isn't the description of the goodness of God circular?
legodesi 3 years ago
"by what standard do we say that God is good?"
the fact that he is the ultimate source of moral laws.
"Isn't the description of the goodness of God circular?"
yes, but how is that a problem?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
But his being the source of morality is not a standard by which we can see if God is good. The term God is good becomes vacuous of meaning if "good" is defined by God at will, just as saying "Obama is good" is vacuous of meaning if good is defined by whatever Obama says is good.
legodesi 3 years ago
there really is no standard by which we can say "God is good". God is really his own standard.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Okay. I disagree, but can understand your take.
legodesi 3 years ago
@migkillertwo Did God make himeslf good, or is he just good by his own nature? Could he choose not to be good? Could something that was nothing like god at all be called good? Or is god completely synonymous with good? If we were created in his image, why make us evil at heart?
Too many questions that require ad hoc answers... In my opinion
1234funsies 2 years ago
I agree that if GOD does something one can say "we dont know why He did it and it cldve been a super +ve or just outcome for tht individual at GOD in the end" BUT as many have rightfully pted out, wht abt all the LAWS in the OT which are PREESCRIBED FOR MEN supposedly by GOD? like to stone adulterers, disobedient children etc to death? The verses dont say GOD will stone adulteres it clearly states thts wht beleivers ought to do in the name of GOD to those individuals who carry out those acts.
jonnykzj 3 years ago
...And this is the main problem. Such laws can NEVER in no time be logically justified coz one can never make a consistent argument saying murder=adultery and btw stoning is more severe than just killing by say hanging which according to the OT is enough for murder. See how ridiculous this is?
jonnykzj 3 years ago
And yes yet another thing. How cld GOD order humans in those ignorant times to carry out such severe punishments. If anything in those times GOD mustve prescribed less legal punishments coz at tht time the human's had much less experience regarding the methods of trial and evidence. It just doesnt add up.
jonnykzj 3 years ago
so god could actually torture babies and eat their flesh and since he was god and all morality comes from god that would be ok to you?
932016 3 years ago
I agree that morality can not exist without God but just because a person does not believe in God does not mean he can not act morally. Look at Romans 2:14. There is a concept of Natural Law Morality that comes from a creator but is inherent in humans that has played a major part in Christian thinking over the years.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
mig is t3h 1337
russjumps4fun 3 years ago
I can't really agree with God cannot possibly do something wrong. I'd say that God has great responsibility towards us in the same way that parents have great responsibility towards their children. I mean a parent cant do whatever he wants to his own kid either. Being someones creator doesnt mean that you can do with your creation whatever you want. If I could make a robot with A.I. as good as the human brain, would it be okay for me to torture it? No because its no longer just a mindless object
Knowntje 3 years ago
"I can't really agree with God cannot possibly do something wrong."
It's a very simple concept Knowntje, if Christianity is right, then the theory of divine command morality is correct. if Divine command morality is true, then something is only good if god wills it, and something is bad of god wills against it. hence, God cannot possibly do anything bad because he being the ultimate source of morality is under no moral obligations. "God is bad" is about as useful as "a square circle"
migkillertwo 3 years ago
so if I think it was bad of god to have two bears tear apart 42 children because they called eliah a baldhead... then I am anti moral for thinking that?
I just think it is weird that our personal sense of morality is so different from god's. If god really is the source of the bible I would expect to find amazing morality in it and an amazing sense of awe for god and such a sense of wanting to worhip him for being so increddible. but it is completely the opposite
I just think that's strange
Knowntje 3 years ago
"I just think that's strange"
try not to forget the compassion god displays throughout the Old Testament as well. Craig actually has a podcast on this subject.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
you mean that three parter called "does god commit attrocities in the new testament" you I have listened to that. I'm trying to get through all of the audio available of reasonablefaith
It wasnt bad, but the main thing is that I just cant see why those babaric laws andacts were the only way that god could have accomplished his goals. You would expect him to be able to find a better way in which fewer people would get hurt because I see many thing in the OT not just as evil but as unnessacary
Knowntje 3 years ago
He also believes that children go to heaven when they die so thats the reason that also the children would have to die. But is that really a biblical doctorine, I never heard any verse that says such a thing
Knowntje 3 years ago
"I never heard any verse that says such a thing"
If people go to hell because of sins, it logically follows that an entity which could not have sinned (in this case, an infant) would not be liable to face Gods Judgement.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
how does that work with original sin? they never accepted jesus, they dont have the cognative ability to choose god.
932016 3 years ago
One reason you can't use your moral since to judge God's actions is because God has access to all knowledge and you do not. He knows what would have happened had those people lived, and you do not.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
the slaughter of the canaanites is by far not the only attrocity in the old testament. What about the laws given in leviticus and deuteronomy? Like stoning children who will not obey. Death penalty for homosexuals, stoning people who dont keep the sabbath, letting women who are only expected of commiting adultary drink poison. God burning two people to death for offering "strange fire" or something. ripping children out of the wombs of the women of your enemies,keeping virgin girls as sex slaves
Knowntje 3 years ago
"keeping virgin girls as sex slaves"
Um, that never happened. You should probably get all your facts straight before accusing Moses of keeping virgin girls as sex slaves.
Can you cite the chapter and verse, please?
theman77777777232 3 years ago
The adultery water was under a conditional curse, it was not poison. Ripping children out of mother's wombs was not a command nor was sex slaves.
poetsonghotmail 3 years ago
I dont get this, you say that if we prove those attrocities happened then we disprove biblical inerrancy? no it would be the other way around if we would prove those attrocities DIDNT happen then we would disprove biblical inerrancy because according to the bible they happened allthough ofcourse those people didnt see them as being attrocities
Knowntje 3 years ago
"no it would be the other way around"
didn't I say that in my video?
ah fuck!
migkillertwo 3 years ago
isnt the new testament meant for the whole world?? not just for people around the medeterean or however you write that stupid sea
Knowntje 3 years ago
"isnt the new testament meant for the whole world?? not just for people around the medeterean or however you write that stupid sea"
Based on the geographic distribution (whole mediterrenean (sp.)) I would conclude that much of it still applies to us today.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
About objective morality, tooltime did not give any example but stated that some systems existed which were objective - he didn't try to prove but to have you look at these systems.
Preferential utilitarianism IS objective morality. When a person desires a thing, it's a subjective feeling; but when people fight for said thing it means said thing has objective value from the desire and the invested energy in achieving that desire.
Amadeojd 3 years ago
You can then use scientific reasoning to infer some principles - for example that killing someone is wrong in most circonstances, since people objectively fight for their lives, giving value to it at the same time.
Amadeojd 3 years ago
This is the only way to get objective morality - the scientific way, that might or might not get to the same conclusions as instinctive (subjective) morality for a particular person, but is gotten to by a different road.
Respecting God's will to have a morally objective character, you must prove that God's will have a value, which in the objectivity range means that people can generally sacrifice to it. (apart from the obvious problem of stating what "respecting God's will" means)
Amadeojd 3 years ago
"Preferential utilitarianism IS objective morality."
that's only a motivation for acting morally, it's not an objective system of ethics.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Jesus Christ, would you please just define objectivity?
Amadeojd 3 years ago
Good video Mig.
CooFrank 3 years ago
I'm curious as to why Tooltime did not respond to you directly. Rather, he posted a video that you have to search out youtube in order to find it and respond.
theman77777777232 3 years ago
he thought I was still subscribed to him. I subscribed to him a long time ago and then unsubscribed rather quickly.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I subscribed to him a long time ago and then unsubscribed rather quickly."
Why did you unsubscribe?
theman77777777232 3 years ago
I subscribed to him anticipating responses to my series responding to his series on the resurrection, but he never did so I unsubbed.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
oh.
theman77777777232 3 years ago
who needs objective morality
StreetlightEagle 3 years ago
atheists if they want to make moral condemntations against God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
wow. I think I just got it.
theman77777777232 3 years ago
I thought God couldn't lie, so is he bound to a set of morals?
DonusAmbrose 3 years ago
"so is he bound to a set of morals?"
no he isn't, but I happen to think that God is a compassionate and fair god.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Aren't we told to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect? Didn't Jesus say this in the context of morality?
DonusAmbrose 3 years ago
In your questions and answers video, I thought you said the argument from morality wasn't very good.
TheAmazingCristian 3 years ago
I've done more research into the argument from morality, and have concluded that it may be one of the most potent arguments for the existence of God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"and have concluded that it may be one of the most potent arguments for the existence of God."
I thought it was a very potent argument, too.
I was wondering why you said that on your questions and answers video. I guess philosophy is something we could both use some studying up on.
How much research have you done to change your mind so quickly?
Some educated videos on morality would be a nice new change of pace : )
theman77777777232 3 years ago
"How much research have you done to change your mind so quickly?"
Mainly a re-read of Craig's reasonable faith section on morality, and listening to his 4 lectures on the subject.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I'm planning on making apologetic videos soon, and I've just been struggling to decide whether or not it's a good argument
TheAmazingCristian 3 years ago