What is it about God's commands that make them categorical imperatives?

[crossoldman]

Christian morals are complete BS. Is it immoral to work on Sunday? Yes or No? Is that an important commandment? Yes or No?

[naujphantom]

This is my opinion:

If a doctor gives you an advice about your health, it wouldn't be a good idea not to follow it. This is because a doctor knows more than you about your body.

The same could be said of a mechanic regarding your car, or an architect about your house.

But who knows more about something than his creator?

Then, if there is a creator, it would be in our best interest to follow his advices.

[bitbutter]

@naujphantom I'm not asking why we should do what (people say) God tells us to, I'm asking what (if anything) is it about God's commands that gives them an intrinsic 'must be done'-ness.

If a mechanic gives me advice about how to fix my car, I might feel as if it's in my best interest to follow that advice, but if I don't follow that advice, I won't feel as though I've broken a moral law. Is there any reason to feel that way if i choose to ignore what I'm told that God wants from me?

[naujphantom]

@bitbutter You said: what (if anything) is it about God's commands that gives them an intrinsic 'must be done'-ness?

My first answer remains, a doctor advice on health has an intrinsic must be done.

But then you said something about the feel of breaking a moral law.

I don't know if I understand correctly what you mean but here I go:

If a moral law is a law that regulates morality and morality is related to conducts and ethics that are virtuous: (continues)

[naujphantom]

@bitbutter If you don't listen to your doctor you could feel that you are acting against medicine.

If you don't listen to your mechanic about your car you could feel that you are acting against the laws of mechanic.

If you don't follow God's advices about conduct, and conduct is related to morality you could feel that you are breaking a moral law.

[bitbutter]

@naujphantom "If you don't listen to your mechanic about your car you could feel that you are acting against the laws of mechanic."

I certainly wouldn't feel that way. It may be ultimately a bad idea to ignore the mechanic's advice, but there is no law that I feel I would be breaking by doing so. I see no reason why things would be different if it was a god instead of a mechanic giving me advice.

[naujphantom]

@bitbutter "I certainly wouldn't feel that way"

Maybe because the mechanic doesn't have a law, neither he gives you a commandment, but an advice. If there were a law, example: "Check your car before a long journey" And you don't do it cause you want to save some money, you could feel that you are breaking a law, but it is an advice and then you could feel that you are acting against a good advice, since he probably knows better about your car. (continues)

[naujphantom]

@bitbutter "I see no reason why things would be different if it was a god instead of a mechanic giving me advice."

Well, God almost by definition is wiser than everyone else. I think that is a very good reason.

[bitbutter]

@naujphantom God being very wise doesn't change the fundamental nature of the interaction. The best mechanic in the world might give me a 'commandment' regarding what to do with my car. It might be against my self interest to ignore him, but it doesn't strike me as Wrong in an absolute sense to do so. The same applies to the commandments that the Christian god allegedly made.

[NapoleonReece]

in scripture the word is identified with the mind of God. It is the logos of God which ever was and ever will be. The idea expressed equates the revealed words with the changeless mind of God.

The word God has no meaning if we do not define it.

The definition comes from the system itself. the bile defines the term in the axiom. hence, If we assume the axiom "The Bible alone is the Word of God," we assume God is not a liar.

[NapoleonReece]

*The Bible* not bile

[SirPwn4lot]

So the Bible is true because God said it was in the Bible, and God is real because he said so in the Bible?

Hmm.....

[NapoleonReece]

The attributes of God are a part of axiom since the word God is.

[bitbutter]

I understand your defense. I have a quibble with the following:

'If we assume the axiom "The Bible alone is the Word of God,"'

It is an assumption, but I disagree that it qualifies as an axiom. To do so a proposition has to be defensible through retortion or be self-evident. I don't see how this is either.

[NapoleonReece]

it is defensible through retortion as well as anything else is. isn't retortion just the examination by reversal? isn't it just the Socratic method by for the check of contradiction, not for teach.

Do I misunderstand?

[bitbutter]

I mean it in this sense: 'Retortion is the procedure whereby one establishes a thesis by uncovering a performative inconsistency in anyone who attempts to deny it.' (if you google that quote the article it comes from its quite good too)

[NapoleonReece]

"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."

This quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith explains well why God's commands are obligatory moral duties for all men, namely, because God is Truth and God's Word is the Word of Truth.

[bitbutter]

'God (who is truth itself)'

I'm afraid that's unintelligible gibberish. A person (as God is clearly imagined to be) cannot also be truth, which is an abstract concept.

[NapoleonReece]

Define what an abstract concept is.

The point is that if everything God says is true, then His commands necessarily become categorical imperatives based upon the second proposition that "evil is sin" and the third proposition that "sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God."

[bitbutter]

Granting that "evil is sin", why should a person not sin?

[NapoleonReece]

One who believes the Gospel of Justification by grace through faith in the substitutionary atonement of Christ will be grateful for the grace shown to him and thus He will resist sin.

He who does not believe the Bible hates God, and He is restrained only by God's providence in protecting the elect. His conflicting sinful desires cause him to not display the most grievous forms of sin in many cases (fear of man cuases many to try to impress men rather than God for example).

[NapoleonReece]

Perhaps by why you did not mean what motive does one have, but instead "why does that 'is' become an 'ought'?"

The answer is that God says you ought not do X and His words are always true. Therefore the ought appears from His authority.

[bitbutter]

Mmm. This isn't in the least satisfying for me, but maybe it does do the job of answering the immediate question (i'll give it some more thought).

The follow up, if you care to continue: How have you come to the conclusion that God never lies?

[NapoleonReece]

Part 1,

Thank you for giving the previous argument further consideration despite the absence of a sense of satisfaction. I believe it does provide an internally consistent answer.

Regarding your question, My philosophy's axiom is "The Bible alone is the Word of God." Internally the Bible says that God does not lie. The Bible does not contradict itself.

I do not know of another system that can provide for a non-contradictory explanation of epistemology.

[bitbutter]

"The Bible alone is the Word of God." does not rule out that God may lie (his lies may be recorded in the bible).

[NapoleonReece]

Yes, that would lead to utter skepticism. If God exists as a liar, then knowledge is impossible to His creation.

But skepticism is inconsistent, so I reject it.

Skepticism leads to the universal proposition that there is no known truth, but in skepticism it is a known truth that there is no known truth, so the universal is contradicted. Skepticism fails.

[bitbutter]

'Skepticism leads to the universal proposition that there is no known truth'

That's not the case. Imagining that God exists, and is a liar, certain axiomatic propositions would still qualify as knowledge, the ones that can be defended through retortion:

1. Existence exists.

2. Consciousness exists (your own).

So limited skepticism is perfectly appropriate.

[NapoleonReece]

So you would have to retreat to rationalism, or only those things which can be known by the laws of logic themselves?

That would depend upon God giving us reasonable minds. How could we rely on reason if God were a liar? Could He not cause us to believe logical falsehood such as A is not A or 2+2 = 5?

I accept logic because logic it is a part of scripture. The laws of logic are stated in scripture.

For example, the law of identity is provided as A is A when God says "I am who I am."

[bitbutter]

'That would depend upon God giving us reasonable minds.'

The propositions are axiomatic, the only hurdle was formulating them, but we've got that far already. Once we're aware of these propositions, we are also aware that they are necessarily true. So whether or not god exists, and is a liar or not, these two propositions hold.

[NapoleonReece]

Alright, this system contradicts itself at an earlier stage. The Bible says that the word of God is the word of truth. in this scenario we are saying that the Bible is the word of God and defining the word of God by the Bible as a system.

It breaks down at the point of internal contradiction. The God of the Bible cannot be the God of the bible if He lies. He is a God of Aristotle or Plato, or Islam, but not the God described in the Bible.

[NapoleonReece]

I don't think you could demonstrate your own consciousness actually. You have to begin with that apriori.

[SirPwn4lot]

Skepticism is merely a human construct of how willing you are to accept the functional truths of our surroundings.

We cannot truly 'know' anything beyond "I think therefore I am", because we have no way to know if our sensory inputs are deceiving us. However, we 'know' (of sorts) that other things exist because the data we receive is FUNCTIONAL; that is, we can apply it successfully to problems.

The same cannot be said for God. Therefore I am 'skeptical' of his existence.

[bitbutter]

I think the objectivists are right that it's useful to unpack this to two propositions we can be certain about: Something exists (or 'existence exists'), and consciousness exists.

[SirPwn4lot]

Lol, love your vids btw man. And now I'm back to watching Queen's 1981 live performance in Montreal. I know Freddy Mercury exists (or rather existed ;)) because he's awesome, no skepticism needed.....

[NapoleonReece]

You are asserting the consequence. that is a logical fallacy, as you seem to already know.

This is not knowledge. This is skepticism. No knowledge is possible. you cannot know that "you think therefore you are." That is an assumption. It is an axiom. It is a presupposition. "I think therefore I am" smuggles the conclusion into the premises (especially if you don't define 'think').

I assume the Bible. You assume consciousness (being with knowledge). I do not claim to prove the Bible.

[SirPwn4lot]

Asserting the consequence is a perfectly valid point as long as there is no other possibility. Please explain to me how you can think without existing.....

If you don't claim to prove the Bible then why do you believe in it?

Faith is non-existent. Every 'faith' is based on some evidence and therefore not faith at all. Actual faith can be applied to any scenario, why is your 'faith' in the Bible superior to 'faith' in the Koran?

[NapoleonReece]

SirPwn4lot,

My point is that you assume existence. you do not deduce it. you begin with assumptions. you have presuppositions.

My philosophy (Calvinism/Scripturalism [best expressed by redbeetle in videos on youtube]) begins with the the axiom of Scripture. the bible alone is the word of God.

[SirPwn4lot]

It's not an assumption. You KNOW you exist because you can perceive. You are yet to explain to me a way you can perceive anything and not exist :S

How do YOU know the Bible is the word of God? Please explain it to me.

[NapoleonReece]

You believe you exist because it is a part of the image of God. It is apriori as a belief every human being has.

You believe you "know you exist though, through perception. You still can't demonstrate it. You assume you know through perception. please demonstrate that you "know" through perception.

The Bible cannot be proven. it is the axiom. Every philosophy begins somewhere. Yours begins at perception.

Please define perception so we know what we are talking about.

[SirPwn4lot]

No I don't. I believe I exist because I can think and make judgement. All I am is my brain. All my brain is is a collection of atoms. How do I know my brain exists? Because I could not be asking this question if it did not. There is no other possible explanation. The only reason we can't 100% know that other things exist is that they are external.

You, however take it many a step further and assert that a giant magic man in the sky exists without any proof at all.

[SirPwn4lot]

I agree. I make assumptions. Everyone does. If you don't assume something then it is impossible to know anything. You don't know that the universe exists. You don't know that ANYTHING exists.

The level of proof I require isn't that it be 'proved' (I use this term lightly) that the theory can never be disproved. Thats crazy.

It is a testament to scientific skepticism that the highest level of explanation possible is a THEORY.

[NapoleonReece]

Basically you are an empiricist. Read Augustine or Plato, or Descartes, or Pascal to read about the fallacies of empiricism.

You cannot gain knowledge through the assertion of the consequence.

[SirPwn4lot]

So I can't learn anything because I make the assumption that I exist, but you can have all the knowledge that ever was, is, or will be by believing in a magical sky daddy who sent his only son down to be nailed to a bunch of sticks to avenge the original sin of mankind that HE created after the first woman ate an apple off a magic tree given to her by a talking snake?

And your evidence for this is what?

[NapoleonReece]

My point is that Your axiom (which you admit cannot provide knowledge) is assume just as my axiom is assumed.

I would encourage you to actually try to understand what the bible teaches as a system and then see if it is logically consistent or not.

Just read the book of Romans as a summary of Scripture and you can get a good idea of the system's scope and beauty.

You are obviously intelligent, and if nothing else, will gain a better understanding of your enemy. Romans is only around 10 pages.

[SirPwn4lot]

Saying that we both make assumptions is irrelevant. Think of the most obvious fact you can. It is an assumption.

What matters is how likely is it to be true. Chances are the universe is real. What makes your axiom on equal footing with mine? What makes the Koran on lower footing than the Bible?

I went to a Catholic school and passed Theology with an A. I have read the Bible. How about you read the WHOLE thing instead of cherry picked sunshine and smiles parts?

[NapoleonReece]

How is Paul's letter to the Romans one of the "cherry picked sunshine and smiles parts" of the Bible? Have you ever read Romans? take a look at Romans chapters 1-3 and chapter 9:11-24. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

It would make sense that you would have no knowledge of the Bible, seeing a YOU got an A in a ROMAN CATHOLIC theology class.

[SirPwn4lot]

I don't know what denomination you are a part of, perhaps Anglicanism or some other (I know, Anglicanism is only sort of) protestant group.

Catholics aren't any worse at reading the Bible lol, at least in my experience.

Yes I have read Romans, and I was referring to how you used it as an example of the "system's scope and beauty". I was saying that there is a great deal of hate and dystopia that contradicts that. Even Hitler looks like a Saint if you ignore all the bad things.

[SirPwn4lot]

I AM aware that Romans isn't a "happy" part of the Bible, it has some terrible things in it, but you tried to use it as an example of "the system's scope and beauty", so I responded accordingly :)

[NapoleonReece]

The defense I would offer is that the Koran is not logically consistent, but the Bible is.

[NapoleonReece]

Part 2,

Understanding what the Bible teaches and then being persuaded that the teachings are true requires that the Holy Spirit create the propositions of the Gospel in the mind of an individual as assented to.

in other words, the Holy Spirit has to persuade the Individual of the Truth of Scripture.

It is the duty of Christians to defend the Bible as logically consistent and to attack other philosophies as logically inconsistent while asserting the propositions of Scripture.

[bitbutter]

If you believe that it's entirely down to action of the the holy spirit, whether a person is persuaded of the veracity of the bible, isn't this duty to defend the bible senseless?

[NapoleonReece]

Like all of creation it is for God's good pleasure.

[NapoleonReece]

Calvinists don't defend the faith because they can persuade men, but because our ethics demand it. Our ethical duties do not depend upon outcomes or cause and effect but upon the command of God.

[NapoleonReece]

God provides a consistent for of egoism rather than altruism for his people though as the ethic. Self interest is not frowned upon in the Bible.

[Th3ch053non3Gold1]

Brock is a genius!

[dewonthegrass]

A very good question! By what standard does he consider that the morals laws, set by his god are objective, true and right?

I am sorry to disappoint you, bitbutter, but I strongly suspect TheAtheisticAntidote will be too smug (again), to bother to answer your question. This will leave your so pertinent question to be viewed by us as hanging over his head forever... Is he willing to have that?

[urbanelf]

Fish in a barrel. BLAM!

[ForgivenessFound]

Excellent question bit. From a Biblical point of view, Gods moral authority is understood to be made known to us by spiritual revelation. Whether we have a philosophically detailed explanation for Gods moral authority or not, we have been made to know in our souls that He has it.

[ForgivenessFound]

Additional factors can be mentioned, such as the fact that the God of the Bible knows much more than we do, and owns us. Since we are His property, it could be suggested that He has the right to determine what we should and should not do. But then the question is why does God have the right to say that because He owns us, he can tell us what we must do?

[ForgivenessFound]

And why does God have the right to claim He owns us because He created us? My final answer would have to be that we dont have a detailed answer to these questions right now, but that Gods right of authority is made spiritually known to all men by God Himself.

[bitbutter]

Thanks for the thoughts FF.

When you mention spiritual revelation you seem to be talking about what I understand as our moral intuitions or moral feelings. We feel these so strongly that it's understandable that we'd like these feelings to be reflective of the fabric of the universe at a deep level. I think it's important to be aware of the lure of wishful thinking in this area. [contd]

[bitbutter]

I'm curious about how you think about those moments when what you take to be revealed moral law (your moral feelings) conflicts with stories in the bible. For instance perhaps the story where the children are torn apart by bears.

If this offends your moral sense (i hope it does), do you conclude that your moral sense must be an imperfect reflection of God's 'moral law' (revelation was not completely successful), or do you look at the mismatch in another way?

[bitbutter]

Woah, the vanishing presuppositionalist!

[TheAtheistAntidote]

I am going to make a follow up video.

I like your video and I will address the question in the follow up.

[bitbutter]

Thanks. I look forward to it.

[bitbutter]

There was no mention of this question in your follow up vid. I guess you forgot.

[ticobassie]

Be prepared for William Lane Craig's response, but I bet you are well aware of that one. Interesting to see where this is going.

[SirPwn4lot]

Another great video, Bitbutter.

Keep it up, I'm thinking of starting my own vlog here, I have too much too say about religion and politics to bottle it up any longer.....

[bitbutter]

Hi Sir, do it!

[riversonthemoon]

Great to have you making videos again, bb!

Brock said in the comments that he would make a follow-up video answering many of the objections that had been made. Perhaps he'll have an answer for you.

It seems any answer would be unsatisfactory, but an implicit answer I see Christians expressing (usually when talking among themselves and not in guarded debate) is that following God's commands is rooted in an obligation a created creature has to its maker, much like the one we have to our parents.

[ProcInc]

The major problem here is that when we say "objective moral law" we actually mean "univerally accepted moral principles", just because we can all agree on something doesn't mean it is objective.

Murder is wrong because we ourselves do not want to be spontenously murdered and we see no benefit in murder (At least most people don't most of the time)

[Neilsama]

The problem I have with this sort of apologetic argument is that it appeals to adverse consequence. It basically goes as follows:

If there is no God, then there is no objective standard for morality.

...and that would be bad.

I know that's not necessarily the conclusion that Brock is trying to draw, but it's implicit in his argument. He doesn't like the prospect of having to work out "the rules" on his own, so he appeals to a higher power for objectivity, because that's what he prefers.

[Neilsama]

When dealing with morality, the only rules we're faced with are those that can be established by obersation. For example, our very mortality is a rule. We get sick. We die. We have a limited time on this planet. After that, it's all a matter of what we're willing to put up with as a community.

Brock's problem is that he thinks that rules should be prescriptive instead of descriptive, and as long as he thinks that, he's going to have the same problem as those at whom he directs his criticism.

[ProfMTH]

*Precisely* the right question, Bitbutter?

[bitbutter]

Thanks prof? ;)

[TheBlackwaterDemon]

Odds are he'll either ignore it completely or totally duck the key issue if he does respond, but I definitely think it's important that people continually throw down the gauntlet whenever someone demands that others adhere to an indefensible position. It's made even worse by the fact that the so-called absolute moral laws are so frequently violated by both their adherents - and if the mythology is to be believed literally - the moral-law-giver as well. Hypocrisy is a most repugnant failing.

[Epydemic2020]

I don't know a single Christian that argues God's commands are moral because of His power.

The common Christian argument is that morality roots itself in God's nature. (Natures do not change, the nature of a square is to have 4 sides and the nature of God is to be good) This means that it is not subject to His whim, arbitrary, or justified due to his power.

If there was an all powerful, all knowing, and all good/loving God, how could his commands not be moral?

[bitbutter]

The word 'good' has a lot of irrelevant bagge, so i'll substitute if for 'cludde' here to try to show why your answer doesn't solve the problem.

For the sake of discussion I accept that the character God exists, that God is definitionally cludde, and that his commands are also cludde.

The question remains: why is 'do what is cludde' a categorical imperative? why ought we do what's cludde?

[legodesi]

"why is 'do what is cludde' a categorical imperative? why ought we do what's cludde?"

I suppose the question can be asked of any moral theory, right? I mean, we could incessantly ask "Why?" Btw, Im glad you're still making vids.

[bitbutter]

Hi legodesi. Yes exactly, i think this is a problem with moral realism in general.

[randyhelzerman]

Because if you don't you'll fry in hell, you dirty rotten anti-cludder!!!!!

[bitbutter]

Still no attempt to engage with the question. That's a shame.

[RosieDesire]

@Epy: That agrument isn't used because it is related to tyranny. But the nature thing isn't a good argument to me either (btw: the nature of a square isn't to have 4 sides. An abstract of an object exists, which we have assigned 4 sides and called it a square.) There is a difference.

(cont)

[RosieDesire]

(cont) As for the good arguement. When someone said evil is the absents of god. and good is the same thing as good. Then they are professing that good is not omnipresent. If evil lacks god, then god can not be everywhere.

[ProfMTH]

"If there was an ALL POWERFUL, all knowing, all good/loving God, how could his commands not be moral?" [Emphasis mine.]

I thought your god's power had nothing to do with his commands being moral, Epydemic. If so, why even mention his power in that sentence? It's irrelevant, isn't it?

[Epydemic2020]

Prof

"All powerful" was an unnecessary addition to my sentence. My point is, if you have a God who knows the future outcomes of all possible actions and desires the good, what He commands would be good.

Humans suffer from a nature which is not all good and we are often subject to information which leads us to make immoral decisions. God would not have either of those problems.

[ProfMTH]

"'All powerful' was an unnecessary addition to my sentence."

Fair enough. Thanks.

"My point is if you have a God who know the future outcomes of all possible actions and desires the good, what He commands would be good."

2 things. 1st, now it appears you're linking morality to God's omniscience. Morality is a function of knowledge? 2d, you are -- unintentionally, no doubt, but revealingly nevertheless -- speaking of "the good" as something we can know and evaluate apart from God.

[Epydemic2020]

Prof

Good objections.

1. Knowledge does have some impact on morality. If a Nazi thinks Jews are a subhuman threat to humanity... his misinformation will lead him to be immoral or help him justify his immorality.

2. I think we can know about good even without knowing about God. However, God provides a rational grounds for belief in objective morality. If it is the case that God does not exist, that part of us that tells us what we have moral obligations, or "oughts", is misleading.

[ProfMTH]

As to #1, so immorality can be avoided with correct information, is that correct? (I'm not busting your chops here, I'm just trying to get at what you're trying to say.) As to #2, I probably wasn't clear. You talked about God desiring the good. What do you mean by that?

[Epydemic2020]

Prof

It is ok. I like being held accountable for what I say.

1. I am not sure if I would go as far to say immorality can be avoided with correct information, but if you have a perfectly good being (like God) who knows all of the correct information, He is simply in a better position to know and tell us what is good and what is not.

2. If God's nature literally is the standard of goodness, God would desire good.

I am not sure if that is the answer your were looking for or not.

[Hooya2]

Epy, what exactly do you mean by good? You're saying an all-loving God with omniscience would give 'good' orders, but what exactly does that mean? Can you define good?

If 'good' is nothing more than what God wants, then isn't the whole thing tautological?

If 'good' means what is good for us, as in what is advantageous to our well-being and happiness, then isn't the reason for obeying God conditional--you should do it only if you want to be happier?

[Epydemic2020]

Hooya

Goodness is what God's nature is. It is basically the idea that a standard of goodness exists by which would make certain actions "good" and "certain ones bad". An action is not good or bad solely because God wants it or not. Although what God "wants" may coincide with goodness.

Therefore acts like killing and innocent man for fun is immoral, regardless of whether or not it makes someone happier or not.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

> Goodness is what God's nature is.

What if God's nature is to kill men, women and children indiscriminately? Does that become goodness?

[Epydemic2020]

religionisacrutch

Gods nature cannot "become" anything. Natures do not change. The nature of a square is to have 4 sides. The nature of God is goodness.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Stop avoiding the question. I didn't specify that anything changed. I'm asking, hypothetically, if God's nature were to kill randomly, that would be goodness then, wouldn't it? Yes or no.

[Epydemic2020]

ReligionisACrutch

Your question is basically nonsense.

A nature = necessary traits. It could not change nor could it be any different. If God's nature was "evil" as He simply wouldn't be God. If God was evil, I highly doubt we would have been created at all.

It is kind of like saying, "God is all-knowing. If God's nature was different and He knew nothing, would the greatest possible good entail ignorance?"

The answer to both questions is no, that situation is impossible.

[bitbutter]

Epydemic, you have two options:

1. God is definitionally good. If his nature happened to compel him to command the killing of innocents, the killing of innocents wold be a moral act, commanded by a good god.

2. God's nature is good as assessed in relation to an external standard of goodness. If a divine being commanded the killing of innocents, he wouldn't be God, because God is good, and the killing of innocents is evil.

Which is it?

[Epydemic2020]

Bitbutter

No, you simply misunderstand my position.

Lets assume that a square has existed eternally in order to use it as an analogy to compare to God.

If the nature of a square is to have 4 sides, and a "square" has five sides, it is no longer a square.

To ask, "what if the nature of a square is different" is silly. If it is the nature of a "square" to have five sides, we are no longer talking about a "square" but a different thing entirely... You are merely calling this new thing a "square".

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Your analogy doesn't work. The analogy deals with the difference between "square" and "fours sides" but the actual discussion is about "God's nature" and "goodness". The term "goodness" does not have the same descriptive content as "four sides". We can unambiguously pick out things with four sides but not goodness. That's how you're avoiding the main difficulty of the dilemma. By saying that God's nature equals goodness you still haven't committed to what goodness is.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Just to restate the two options:

1. "Good" is whatever God's nature is.

2. God's nature is whatever is "good".

If it's (1) then if God's nature is to rape, rape is good.

If it's (2) then if rape is not good, it can't be part of God's nature.

[Epydemic2020]

ReligionisACrutch

God's nature defines what is good.

You could phrase it, the unchanging and unchangeable standard of goodness determines what is good.

Without God's nature there is no "objective" standard of right and wrong.

"If God's nature is to rape" is the exact same thing as saying "if the nature of a square is to have 5 sides..." It doesn't make sense.

To even say that "rape is not good" presupposes a standard of morality to determine whether an act is moral or immoral.

[bitbutter]

If the creator of the universe's nature defines what is good, then if the creator of the universe's nature included the approval of rape, then rape would be good.

Of course, you can insist that YHW's nature doesn't actually entail this. But that's not in dispute.

"If i was black then x,y,z". It's a hypothetical. To insist that i'm not black would be to miss the point.

[ticobassie]

Epydemic2020 said: "If God's nature is to rape" is the exact same thing as saying "if the nature of a square is to have 5 sides..." It doesn't make sense.

Actually it seems that Gods "goodness squares" DO sometimes have 5 sides. As it happens whenever a square has 5 sides it becomes perfectly justified to use genocide to keep the Hebrew race pure. Genocide IS moral BECAUSE it was commanded by God.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Your argument is "God's nature defines what's good but God's nature can't be to rape because that would be bad". That's circular nonsense. If God's nature defines what is good then whatever God's nature is defines goodness, including rape.

The same goes for squares. If the nature of a square is to have 5 sides then you can't turn around and say "but that's not a square because squares have 4 sides!"

If you specify the nature of something, you can't argue against it with a contradiction.

[Epydemic2020]

Religionisacrutch

Natures do not/cannot change. Your "what if" scenarios don't even make sense.

The nature of a square IS to have 4 sides. If you talk about the nature of an object with 5 sides, you are no longer talking about a square. If you apply the word "square" to an object which has a nature including 5 sides, you have robbed the term "square" of all that gives it meaning. It is like pointing at a duck and calling it a cat. By redefining the term you rob it of its meaning.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

You keep arguing with all these faulty analogies that don't make any sense. Why don't you give us a literal argument instead?

[Epydemic2020]

Religionisacrutch

The nature of God is something that could not have been any different than it currently is.

Asking "What if the thing that could not have been any different than it is was different than it currently is?" is silly.

I have no idea why you are still trying to argue this.

[bitbutter]

Epydemic:

We could talk about what things would be like if i'd been born with an amazing capacity for mental arithmetic. Obviously this imagined 'me' wouldn't be the real me because i don't have this ability, yet we both understand what it means to entertain a hypothetical scenario in this case. Why is this so difficult for you in the case of God?

[Epydemic2020]

bitbutter

God is an eternal being with necessary attributes.  You literally cannot change the nature of God and that being still be God.

Good is not an arbitrary thing. There is no possible world in which rape could be good. It is reminiscent of trying to imagine a world with choice and without choice at the same time. That world is literally impossible.

[bitbutter]

'Good is not an arbitrary thing. There is no possible world in which rape could be good.'

Is there a possible world in which arranging for bears to tear apart a group of children could be good do you think?

[ticobassie]

ah, the Eliah conundrum.

In response another side to that innate 4-sided "goodness square" of God must be added (or subtracted for that matter). I suspect Christians may not want to, but an intelligent one will realise they have to. It would be too disturbing to admit God was a little too vengeful there.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

> God is an eternal being with necessary attributes. You literally cannot change the nature of God and that being still be God.

Evidence? Argument? Anything other than your assertion?

[Epydemic2020]

religionisacrutch

That which exists either exists in the necessity of its own nature or had a creator. If God exists He cannot have had a creator. Therefore He exists out of the necessity of His own nature.

If God exists, that makes His nature eternal, necessary, and unchanging.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

> That which exists either exists in the necessity of its own nature or had a creator.

Or simply exists for no reason...

[Epydemic2020]

ReligionisaCrutch

To clarify:

You say "if God's natuer is to rape, rape is good.

This simply doesn't make sense.

God is defined as a being whose nature is all good. Your question refutes itself by asking the equivalent of "If a being whose nature is all good has a nature that includes evil..."

You might as well ask, "if a object which has 4 sides has a nature of 5 sides..."

A being with an evil nature could not simultaneously be "God" unless you rob the term "God" of its meaning.

[bitbutter]

'Your question refutes itself by asking the equivalent of "If a being whose nature is all good has a nature that includes evil..."

Wrong. Since if God commanded rape, rape would not be evil, as you've already conceded. And so God woldn't be evil either. Rape would be good by virtue of Gods nature resulting in him commanding it.

[bitbutter]

Epydemic: on the view of goodness youve metioned, why ought we do good? or: What is it that makes God's commands categorical imperatives?

[Epydemic2020]

bitbutter

We were created with a purpose, we recognize that purpose through moral obligations. We recognize there are some acts we should do even if it does not actually benefit us. Basically, we there is behavior which is objectively "proper functioning" then we ought to function in that way.

[bitbutter]

@epydemic

Lets say I believe in a god who created me, and who told me not to steal, and that my moral sense also opposes stealing.

For sure it would be perverse to act in opposition of my moral feelings, but why *ought* I (unconditionally) obey my creator and act in accordance with my moral feelings?

I can't see an answer except for 'you just ought to!', and i don't consider that satisfactory. Theism doesn't support categorical imperatives any better than atheism does.

[shayneby]

@1:06 These rules constitute moral law. If you don't understand why, maybe it is a good idea to read your bible.

He is God. You are not God and can't be God.

[bitbutter]

Hi shayneby. What exactly is it about God's commands that make them categorical imperatives? (feel free to consult your bible if you believe it will help you answer the question).

[Hooya2]

Even if God created us, why is his opinion of what we should be like objectively relevant? I will grant you that following his desires would be proper functioning, but why ought we function properly? The only real difference between glitching and working right is the subjective desires of the creator; why do these desires make one choice objectively better than the other?

[Epydemic2020]

Hooya2

You say, "I will grant that following His desires would be proper functioning but why ought we function properly?"

Proper functioning by definition is the way we ought to function.

You might as well ask "If I ought to do X, why ought I do X?

Your question answers itself.

On my video called "A new spin on the moral argument..." I get into David Hume and the Is-Ought gap. For my full viewpoint, check out that video.

[Hooya2]

Epy, you just did a fine turn of equivocation on me. In the context that you brought up 'proper functioning' I thought you meant it as 'functioning in accordance with what your creator intended'. Now you seem to be changing the definition to be 'functioning as you ought to function'. If that is the definition you're using, then I no longer agree with you that obeying your creator is necessarily proper functioning.

So tell me: when you say 'proper functioning' what do you mean?

[Epydemic2020]

Hooya2

Functioning in accordance with what your creator intended is how we ought to function.

Objective meaning > subjective meaning.

For example, if I create a pair if scissors in order to help my friends cut paper, and someone uses those scissors to stab one of my friends, those scissors were used improperly. You can assign subjective purpose of "stabbing" to the scissors, but that purpose is inferior to the purpose using them to cut paper.

It is not a perfect analogy, my vid explains better.

[Hooya2]

Now you're outright begging the question! Your assertion that obeying your creator is an objective ought is EXACTLY WHAT I'M CHALLENGING.

Your scissors analogy fails utterly, for the simple fact that your desire that they be used to cut paper is just as subjective as someone else's desire to stab someone with them.

[Epydemic2020]

Hooya2

No analogy here is perfect which involves humans because humans goals are subjective. Your objection then fails if God's purpose for us is objective.

Having basically the same conversation in two places is a little redundant. I will explain the rebuttal to your claim on my video.

[Hooya2]

I agree that we ought to function in accordance with the will of our creator IF we have the goal of working as we were intended. However, every part of this from the intent in our creation to the value of working as we were intended is purely subjective, and doesn't provide us with a true objective ought.

[bitbutter]

'Functioning in accordance with what your creator intended is how we ought to function.'

Is it really how we all ought to function, regardless of our preferences and desires? Can you offer any reason why we should believe that this assertion is true?

[Dashes000]

"if you have a God who knows the future outcomes of all possible actions and desires the good, what He commands would be good."

This is incoherent. If God, through his omnipotence, knows the future then there is but one course of action to be known. No other outcome is 'possible' in any meaningful way.

[bitbutter]

Well put Dashes000

[Throred]

Bitbutter. Have you hacked my brain? In all seriousness. I love your thougths. But then again, they seem to be identical to my own ;O

Anyway, just wanna say, keep up the good work(thougths). And if you're ever in Norway. Let me know, I'll buy you a brown one, or ten.

[bitbutter]

Thanks throred. I'll try to remember your beer offer if i'm ever in norway :)

[AbbeyNormal]

I would guess a Christian would answer that "god" and "right" are synonymous so that when god does something it must be right, and right things are always mandated by god. But then you're still talking about somebody's personal opinion about what "right" is and so it's still not absolute.

[bitbutter]

Yes, I've heard similar things from theists.

Claiming that god and right are synonymous doesn't get the moral realist theist in the clear. Even if we pretend a god exists, and that whatever he commands fits the label 'right'. The problem is just moved back a step, now the question is: Why should I do what is right?

Or: why is doing what's 'right' (whatever 'right' means) a categorical imperative?

[zarkoff45]

Good question!

I just did a video on a similar subject:

/watch?v=V1gB0W3ktcY

But I think Brock will come down to not killing, not stealing, etc.. What every society has and had laws against even before the Bible's first words were written.

And indeed, when you go back to those earlier times it is always some god handing down laws.

[mfaulkner12]

I sincerely doubt that he'll make a response but it would be very nice to see what he had to say to this.

I also sort of wonder why something becomes a moral law once God get's behind it, does he lend some sort of credibility or something?