thehomer:

An indifferent God would be like the deist God. That God can be claimed to have created the universe and left it to be. He wouldn't care about humans, in fact, humans wouldn't be considered to have been his aim for creating the universe.

No I'm not. Is there something baffling about what I said there?

Kay 17: Wouldn't it be sound to say, that morality is possible only under the force of moral laws. Therefore its giver (God or the State) isn't moral, because they don't come under the force/influence of moral laws. Hence both are amoral.

Mr_Anony:

This is where we backtracked.

https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/23#14385248

My quotes from that post:

Mr_Anony:
So please can you now answer the question as it is without jumping to what you think I might say next?

thehomer:
As I said before, the creator is under moral obligations if the creation is sapient and if the creator is said to be beneficent towards the creation.

davidylan:

Irrelevant rambling. If i remember correctly, the question was that you explain the scientific evidence that proves God doesnt exist... i.e. what is the scientific evidence for the existence of man and the solar system independent of God?

Of course i can bet my entire salary this month that you have no answer to that question.

Ihedinobi:

What does it mean for God not to care about things?

Ihedinobi:
I don't believe this. I ask you why God is supposed to be sapient and benevolent and whatnot and you answer, " because he is supposed to be sapient and benevolent"? With a straight face? And I'm not wasting my time with you?

thehomer:
[size=14pt]Firstly, the God under consideration is the God of the Bible.[/size]
God is a moral agent because he supposed to be sapient, he is supposed to care about humans and he can do something to affect humans.

thehomer:

Exactly what it says there. A God that is indifferent to the universe after creating it.

thehomer:

Exactly what it says there. A God that is indifferent to the universe after creating it.

And I don't believe what you've said above. What sort of God concept do you have in mind? The one I have in mind is the Christian one spoken about in the Bible. And that one is supposed to be sapient and benevolent.

I already said this right in my post here.



If you're seriously telling me that as a Christian you do not know that the Christian God is supposed to be moral, sapient and beneficent, then I have to ask what concept of the Christian God you have in mind.

Ihedinobi:

Alright then, it's safe to say that you really don't have an answer to the question.

Ihedinobi:
It doesn't matter to me what God concept you are concerned with. I'm only concerned with God as a concept. What obligates God to be all these things you claim that he is obligated to be? To whom or what is he so obligated?

Ihedinobi:
Now, just to keep things as straight as possible, what obligates the God of the Bible to be and do as you have insisted that he is obligated to be and do? To whom or what is he responsible?

thehomer:

That is the answer to the question. The words I wrote have meanings associated with them. If you understand the meaning of the words, then you should understand the answer to the question. If you find any of the words confusing, please let me know.



It does matter because there are very many God concepts out there and they can be contradictory. e.g the deist God cannot be the same as the Christian God because one is moral while the other is amoral. And the Christian God cannot be Brahma etc.



What do you mean? I'm presenting you with a description of the God of the Bible. That he is supposed to be moral, sapient and beneficent aren't supposed to be obligations, they're supposed to be descriptions. Just as saying that a person is moral, sapient and caring about her family, isn't an obligation, it is a description of them.

Ihedinobi:

Perhaps you really don't understand this discussion or else you're really just fooling around. I honestly don't know which it is.

Ihedinobi:
I said, God, by definition, is the supreme moral authority. It makes no ssense to describe God as a moral agent because then it is no longer God of whom you speak. An authority is an authority and as such cannot also be an agent. Once you describe God as having to be moral, sapient, caring or whatever, you have to say why he has to be so. Either God is completely arbitrary or He is not God. Being God makes God subject to no moral requirements, rather it subjects all morality to Him. He decides what is right and what is wrong. If, for instance, God said that it is wrong to get to work on any given day without killing at least twenty people, then it is wrong. We, not being equal to God or above Him, would automatically have a moral compass that applauds mass murder and frowns upon forbearance. We would send people to jail for killing less than twenty people every morning. This is becausr our natural morality then would be built like that.

Ihedinobi:
You call right right because some arbitrary moral authority says it is right. You call wrong wrong because the same arbitrary moral authority says it is wrong. The moral authority decides what is right and what is wrong, moral agents are answerable to it on their choices which to follow.

Ihedinobi:
Now if you say that God is moral, immoral or amoral, the question would be, "with reference to whom or what?" What is God answerable to as a moral agent? What is God obligated to? Why does God have to be or do anything?

Ihedinobi:
Ok. About the God of the Bible, can you show how the Bible has described God in such a way as to obligate Him to anything? Of course, the Bible holds that God is Himself Wisdom, that God is Himself Love, that God is Himself Good. If He is "supposed" to act in some ways and not others, it is entirely at His discretion and dictated only by His innate Nature, which both mean the same thing anyhow.

Ihedinobi:
This is our difficulty when you talk about the morality of God. It makes no sense when you measure God's morality if you have nothing to measure it against. And if you could produce something against which God's morality can be measured, then it is not God whose morality you're measuring, rather that yardstick against which you measure God is God. And on and on and on...as far as you care to go.

thehomer:

Actually, your problem is that you have no idea of a cogent concept of morality. You actually think that morality can compared to say a ruler that it has to be compared to God.

You're just stipulating that here and why should I accept that this particular God is the supreme moral authority? Can this God you're talking about here tell the difference between right and wrong?

So if God told you that you should kill twenty people each day, then it would be the moral thing to do? I'm sorry but what you've effectively shown is that you're in no position to consider moral issues.

And I disagree. I call something right or wrong based on its effects on sentient creatures. Frankly, you need to explore some moral philosophy because what you're saying here is really dumbfounding.

With reference to how he treats sentient creatures. You see morality can be considered without the need to refer to a supreme commander. Try to understand this basic point. It is what God d oes that determines whether or not he actually is moral, immoral or amoral.

No, if God is actually love, then he is supposed to love people. Loving people entails acting in a certain way that is beneficial towards them and not acting in ways that will harm them. e.g loving someone means keeping them safe rather than torturing them.

Then your main problem is with your understanding of what morality is. We don't "measure" morality in a way analogous to measuring a meter. Basically, the moral system you espouse is bankrupt as you demonstrated by saying that if God demanded that 20 people be killed before you go to work, then killing those people would be a moral act.

Seriously, please take the time to look into the ideas presented in moral philosophy. As always, Wikipedia is a good place to begin.

thehomer:
I answered that question here

In no way have I tried to read your mind. If you think I did, please show me where I did this.

And I notice that you're yet to answer my own question.

Now if you want to shift this discussion to first trying to find out which God it is you want to start talking about, then explicitly do so rather than playing these games.

In fact, since you're feeling so skittish, I'll do it for you.

What sort of creator and creation do you have in mind? Obviously, none of them can be mindless if it is to be relevant to this discussion.

thehomer:
How on earth can you say we backtracked when you were clearly referring to the Christian God? Did you miss your references to a certain specific God in that post? Or were you deliberately conflating two different Gods?

thehomer:
Sure it isn't a tragedy to him but it is to the parents who live and care about these children. Or doesn't he love their parents too? This is the sort of point that bothers me in Job. God allows Job's children to be killed and as reward, he gives Job more children. Having the privilege of knowing people who have lost children, do you think they'll accept these new children as actually replacing the dead ones?

Mr_Anony:
As we have established earlier, God is not under any moral obligation to appease their parents.

thehomer:
No we haven't established this yet. So as I asked before, is God under any moral obligation at all?

Mr_Anony:
You really should have followed the argument before you butted in. I'll just have to ask you the same question that I asked omo tu dun which is: Is one bound by any moral obligation to preserve his/her creation or is one free to treat his creation as he/she likes?

Enigma: @ Ghostface

Why u no ansa me now? E no good oh!

I say what do you think of 'Daytona500'?

alexleo:

stop generalizing my friend. It is you that needs atheist. I HAVE NO NEED OF THEM IN MY LIFE. NOT AT ALL. I cant even offer any atheist a job in my company and if i notice any atheist among my workers i will sack the virus(atheist).

musKeeto: Well, this should do.. y'all can continue the battles...

Ihedinobi:

And moral laws are not possible without a moral authority whom/which they reference. Therefore their giver is always the yardstick for moral measurements. Since the laws only reflect the character of their giver, morality is defined only by this character therefore it is false to describe moral authorities as amoral. The very existence of their moral laws proves that they care about right and wrong.

Kay 17:

Sounds right though.

BUT. . .

Morality appears upon the introduction of moral laws, without such no morality. Consequently where there are moral laws, there is morality.

The FACT that moral laws borrow some characteristics from the giver doesn't imply the giver is moral, because the Giver if a freewilled mind, can derogate or abstain from the laws.

Ihedinobi:

Really? What then is the meaning of law courts and the concept of judgment and the dispensation of justice?

Ihedinobi:
What particular God?

Ihedinobi:
Like you said, if you have any difficulty comprehending my argument you only have to ask questions.

Ihedinobi:
Explain the bolded. What effects do you mean? What effect, for instance, would make a moral act good or evil? And why?

You know, from where I stand, I have said pretty much the same thing to you.

Ihedinobi:
Who made this rule about treating sentient creatures in some particular way? And why should anyone obey it to be moral?

Ihedinobi:
You decide what Love is?

Ihedinobi:
Again my question about the proceedings of the law comes in handy. What is the whole point of law courts and the dispensation of justice if morality cannot be measured?

Ihedinobi:
Seriously, please take the time to look into the definitions of aome terms used in moral philosophy. As always, a good dictionary is a fine place to start.

davidylan: As usual, the atheists NEVER answer any question... they only way they can survive on a thread is to perpetually have the christian answering circular questions that lead no where... all the while providing nothing of substance for their own beliefs.

Mr_Anony:

And I also responded to your answer here
https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/28#14392157

Mr_Anony:
I am not trying to shift any discussion. I am first trying to establish a general rule for creators and their creations. After we have established this, then we can insert God and humans to see how they fit. Jumping the gun without establishing a basic framework is what I am trying to stop you from doing.

Mr_Anony:
Let me refresh your memory:

1. You butted into a debate I was having with omo tu dun to address why he thought God to be evil which originally started from here: https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/18#14369265

2. It continued here: https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/19#14369783

3. The point at which you butted in was in response to this: https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/19#14370149

Notice that by this point I and omo tu dun had already established that a creator is not morally accountable to his creation before we now moved on to God. I was continuing the argument with you based on that established premise. However somewhere along the line, you said this:

Mr_Anony:
To which I replied:


Then you said:


This prompted me to say this:


Notice that I was obviously drawing you back to the question that established the basis of the argument you butted into since you denied that we hadn't established it yet.


So oga, please let us follow the argument step by step without speculating on what particular creator I might have in mind

davidylan: As usual, the atheists NEVER answer any question... they only way they can survive on a thread is to perpetually have the christian answering circular questions that lead no where... all the while providing nothing of substance for their own beliefs.

Logicboy03: This thread is called "the cowardice of atheism"

But rather, the real cowards are; Anony, Enigma, Davidylan and co

Seriously avoiding a thread that gives points against their religion that they cant counter;
https://www.nairaland.com/1200970/why-religion-section-always-turn

I'm sure some have viewed it and they ran.

toba: Don't you think its too early to start smoking egbo? Many of us are really engaged outside the internet, cos we've got bills to pay and have responsibilities. NL is a social media relaxation/fun centre. Wise up

thehomer:

I never said you didn't respond, I said you didn't answer it.


Did you notice that I clearly and carefully explained to you why the ability to decide right and wrong does place a moral obligation on you? For some reason, you sidestepped that one right here.

What sort of creator and creation do you have in mind? I ask again because what pertains to one type of creator may not pertain to another.

Your confusion is that you expect me to accept omo_to_dun's premises in my own argument but I don't. That was why I told you that if that God was sapient and his creation was sapient and if he was to be beneficent to his creation, then he had some moral obligations towards them. Clearly, the God he was talking about there, the God you were referring to and the one I was referring to were the one and the same Christian God. He clearly referred to the Bible and Christianity, and you went ahead to talk about that God's omniscience but not retreating to some deist God.

You established that with someone else not with me. When you asked me that same question, I answered here. Or do you just want to force another person's words into my mouth?

This is why I've asked you to explicitly say you're not talking about the Christian God if you want to go through all that again so we're clear on what we're tackling rather than oscillating between the conception of the deist God and the Christian one whenever it suits you.

So I've clearly followed the argument but you keep dragging me back when you don't like my response.

Kay 17:

Sounds right though.

BUT. . .

Morality appears upon the introduction of moral laws, without such no morality. Consequently where there are moral laws, there is morality.

The FACT that moral laws borrow some characteristics from the giver doesn't imply the giver is moral, because the Giver if a freewilled mind, can derogate or abstain from the laws.

Logicboy03: This thread is called "the cowardice of atheism"

But rather, the real cowards are; Anony, Enigma, Davidylan and co

Seriously avoiding a thread that gives points against their religion that they cant counter;
https://www.nairaland.com/1200970/why-religion-section-always-turn

I'm sure some have viewed it and they ran.

Logicboy03:


Yet you have time to rig elections for two weeks on Nairaland?


Keep avoiding the thread

thehomer:

Law courts are supposed to render legal judgement. But this is orthogonal to the issue of morality which is what we're discussing.



The one you're talking about here. It obviously isn't the Christian one.



I understand it perfectly.




The effect I mean is that e.g simply killing 20 people everyday you want to go to your work as a cab driver is immoral because you're deliberately harming those people for no sensible reason.

No you've not said pretty much the same thing as I have. I'm saying your example of killing those 20 people is immoral every time you want to go to work is immoral while you're saying it is moral if God says so.




It is not a "rule" about morality, it is what it means to be moral. Moral decisions depend on the effects of actions on sentient creatures and not on e.g stones. Do you think that morality has something to do with actions on sentient creatures?



No, what love is has been decided by the language. To communicate, words and meanings need to be consistent across usage. Or do you think love doesn't entail caring for someone else?



Their point is to implement the law not to determine what is moral. Do you think slavery is moral or immoral? How do you think it came to be abolished? Did the law courts "measure" it against something?



Obviously this has to be a joke because you're the one who doesn't seem to understand what love is.

Mr_Anony:
Did you notice also in that same post that I clearly and carefully explained to you that your "clear and careful explanantion" mysteriously managed to avoid altogether the creator/creation relationship upon which the question was based in the first place.

Mr_Anony:
I don't necessarily have any particular creators or creations in mind. I am referring to them in general. If you think that there are certain kinds of creators that are morally accountable to their creations, then it is up to you to explain to me what these characteristics are and why they impose moral obligations upon the creators towards their creations.

Mr_Anony:
Actually, I don't expect you to accept omo tu dun's premise that is why I asked you the same question I asked him so that we can argue based on thehomer's premise.
You have not shown us how sapience lays a moral obligation on a creator towards his creation.

Mr_Anony:
Secondly, it is poor logic to argue that a creator ought to be beneficent because he is said to be beneficent. That's like saying "The reason why God ought to be good is because He is said to good". That's a non-answer and you know it.

Mr_Anony:
And I am trying to establish a first premise with you. I am not switching Gods (I haven't even specified any). I am only inquiring on what ought to be the relationship between creator and creation. You are the one projecting towards some particular God.
The argument before us is very simple

Premise 1: A creator is/is not bound by a moral obligation towards his creation.
Premise 2: God is a creator and man is His creation
Conclusion: Therefore God is/is not bound by a moral obligation towards man.


The stage we are in this argument is establishing premise 1. Once we establish it, the rest of the argument will logically fall in line. Unfortunately, you are trying to use a conclusion that we have not reached to argue a premise that we have not defined. It doesn't work that way my friend.

Ihedinobi:

Ok. Let's dial back a bit, shall we? My question was, how is God a moral agent? Your answer was, first, that it is the Christian God you mean. Ok, I'm fine with that. Second, you say because God is supposed to be sapient etc etc. The answer makes no sense to me and I say so and you say that the Christian God is held by Christians to have these qualities. And I try to explain that this does not make Him a moral agent and we start addressing morality. Only in doing so, we have gone away from finding a sensible compromise on God's moral agency.

Ihedinobi:
So far, you have not told me how God, any God, could be a moral agent. Moral agency means,

an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some commonly held notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.

That's from Wikipedia which you advised me to use. Now, on what basis do you say that the Christian God (your prefered target of discourse) is a moral agent? Is he bound by any commonly held notion of right and wrong? Is he accountable to anyone?