God's Culpability

[Alzael]

The thing that occurs to me about all of this, is that it has very interesting implications. God, according to UP, is not morally responsible to anyone, and is free to be as hateful and mean as he wants to be. However humans do feel moral responsibility. We feel a duty to help those that we see in pain or suffering. We feel a duty to love and protect our families and children. We even feel a sense of moral responsibility towards creatures that we might consider to be of 'lesser' status than us. If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

If god has no moral responsibility to be good then doesn't that make us much better than he is? It might just be my own warped mind, but it would seem to me that a being such as a god should actually have higher standards for itself. And if god doesn't care about not being a jerk, then why should we? Other than the fact that he threatens us with torment if we can't behave morally. In other words he's going to punish us for not behaving better than him. And more importantly, for what reason should I want to worship and love something like this other than the constant threat of punishment. What a vile and horrid hypocrite of a creature.

[Noman Peopled]

I don't know if that is a moral "characteristic" but if a god existed, and it had the ability to create life forms, it makes no sense to build aging to the point of death into those life forms.

Well, it does, depending on what god can do, what it thinks, and what its goal is. It may be an experiment, there may be constraints to his power, or god may think that death is necessary for good or itself good.
If you were referring to an omnimax (including -benevolent) entity though, I agree.

[generousgeorge]

Good thing God is Imaginary, HUH??  :shrug

[Alzael]

If god is free of morals and can do any evil thing it wants, but tries to hold us to higher standards than it sets for itself. I wonder if this is the result of a secret desire on gods part to be as good as we are. He demands so much of us because he expects us to set an example of behaviour for him. This has some interesting philosophical ramifications. .The existence of hell can be sort of seen as the type of emotional backlash that some people suffer from when they realize that someone they admire isn't as great as they thought he was.

Just a thought that I'm starting to process.

[dloubet]

One problem is that if the god is exempt from it's own moral strictures, then it can't be trusted to tell the truth. The threat of hell or the promise of heaven could all be lies, along with everything else we think we might know about the god.

At that point, what could you even say about it?

[cheezisgoooood]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

[ParkingPlaces]

If god has no moral responsibility to be good then doesn't that make us much better than he is? It might just be my own warped mind, but it would seem to me that a being such as a god should actually have higher standards for itself. And if god doesn't care about not being a jerk, then why should we? Other than the fact that he threatens us with torment if we can't behave morally. In other words he's going to punish us for not behaving better than him. And more importantly, for what reason should I want to worship and love something like this other than the constant threat of punishment. What a vile and horrid hypocrite of a creature.

Quite right. I wouldn't mind if this god was running around going all Chuck Norris on the bad guys, as long as he did only decent thing to decent folk. If Hitler died of cancer instead of 12 year old kids, if Gengis Khan bit the big one the day after he went pre-postal (don't know what they called it back then), if Stalin fell while posing for another statue and became a quadrapalegic but nobody nice ever did, then I'd be behind him pretty much all the way.

But to make us flawed and then flog us for our shortcomings, for an eternity? Not really very impressive, even by our morally reprehensible standards.

The dude wouldn't have a leg to stand on, morality-wise, if he existed. Since he doesn't, he has even fewer legs to stand on. 

[RaymondKHessel]

Others:
I don't really have anything else to say to the rest of you. You seem to have just taken the opportunity to restate the POE or just restate your disbelief in gods...Good for you. Way to be atheists.

<shrug>

So you don't like the answer, we're dismissed huh? Nice.  Stay classy. 

Like I said, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of where a lot of us are coming from. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked "What kind of god would you like to believe in?" in the first place.

Ask a Vegan "If you could design an animal you'd like to eat, what would it be?" sometime. See how that works out for you. Kinda similar. Not a perfect analogy of course. You know, what with animals actually existing and all.

Still, a vegan might say something along the lines of "Well, I suppose I'd make an animal made out of Tofu." At which point, it ceases to be an animal. The questions not only demonstrate a lack of understanding of who you're talking to, but they're loaded questions as well.

Sorry you didn't get the answers you were looking for padre. Maybe next time you can just tell us what you want the answer to be and we can all save ourselves a lot of time and energy.  

[Gimpy]

Like I said, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of where a lot of us are coming from. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked "What kind of god would you like to believe in?" in the first place.

Ask a Vegan "If you could design an animal you'd like to eat, what would it be?" sometime. See how that works out for you. Kinda similar. Except, you know, animals actually exist and all.

THANK YOU, RKH, you articulated what bugged me about the question to begin with.

Now that you opened that door, it's like asking what kind of fairy would you like to believe in, or what kind of Shang-ri-la.

I mean, isn't that question alone how "man" came to "believe" in "gods" to begin with, the whole "self-projection as god" sort of thing? Or am I mixing metaphors.

[RaymondKHessel]

Makes perfect sense to me Miss Gimpy. 

I think you hit a bullseye.

[Alzael]

If you were going to believe in any god What moral characteristics would it need to have? (in order not to be objectionable)

Would it be a being that was moral by definition?
Would it be answerable to human authority?
Would it submit itself willingly to said authority?
Would we answer to it's authority?
Maybe both?
How should we respond if a god exists and it's evil?
What it It's mostly good and sometimes evil?

Also, this part is actually rather poorly worded. If god were real, his moral characteristics don't matter in regards to belief. All he would have to do is actually prove that he actually exists and it wouldn't matter what atheists thought of god or his backwards morals. Gods existence would be obvious through the evidence that was offered. What I think you mean to ask is, "If you were going to worship a god, what moral characteristics would it need to have?"

For myself, personally it wouldn't matter, I would never deem any god or anything worthy of being worshipped. Even if he really was the kindliest most loving being in the universe, as opposed to the bi-polar cosmic psychopath that he almost certainly is. And any being that demands to be worshipped is clearly unfit to be worshipped in the first place.

[kin hell]

Others:
I don't really have anything else to say to the rest of you. You seem to have just taken the opportunity to restate the POE or just restate your disbelief in gods...Good for you. Way to be atheists.

.......plus it being a little presumptively dismissive.

A god, alone, eternal, know-all,  see-all, all powerful etc  could be nothing but arbitrary in all actions  otherwise it is limited by whatever sets the 'limit' on it's arbitrariness.

...namely, you cannot describe or prescribe a/the universal god.

Any "required attributes" "acceptable behaviours" we might wish list immediately deny the god it's omni-omnipotent godhood.



...and specifically if you are talking about a constructed universe where god indicates moral structure, but displays little of that morality, what more could one expect?

Gods, just by their scale and scope, cannot be trusted to act any way at all, they must by definition be arbitrary in all things.
This doesn't mean they cannot create subset universes with promises to their pets. Of course they can, but just as easily, as the source of all, they can arbitrarily reverse direction with no moral quandary whatsoever.

Any human scale expectation of morally consistent behaviour from a god would deny that god.


Regarding an automatic obeisance, if a god is stupid enough to give us a tool with which to judge morality, then continually fails to act in a moral manner, then that god should be prepared to be condemned.

[Alzael]

Regarding an automatic obeisance, if a god is stupid enough to give us a tool with which to judge morality, then continually fails to act in a moral manner, then that god should be prepared to be condemned.

Besides, we're supposed to know good and evil as god knows it. That's what that whole BS in the garden of eden was about. So if we understand morality the same way that god does, why shouldn't we judge the things he does by our standards?

[generousgeorge]

Because he's imaginary???     :shrug

[12 Monkeys]

Because he's imaginary???     :shrug

I dont believe the stories,they are nothing more than a tool to make believers fear. Fear is a well used tool,used by the men who created biblegod. The new testament was just another tool used by people who outgrew the rules and fears of the old testament

[spiritualatheist]

I try not to shatter the theist's delusion of their God whenever I try debating with them.

[UniversityPastor]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

Thank You!

Exactly my point.

[cheezisgoooood]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

Thank You!

Exactly my point.

The arguments that show that God is a complete jerk to everyone are directed toward people who seem to think that God has their best interests in mind.  There are actually a lot of people who believe that whenever something good happens to them, God looks down on them from heaven and smiles, and when something bad happens, he sheds a tear.  Most people do not want to believe in a malevolent God, and only believe in God because they think he's a good guy who will let them into heaven when they die, or they just want to feel like someone invisible has got their back, when no one else does.  Biblegod doesn't fill either of these needs.

[UniversityPastor]

Like I said, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of where a lot of us are coming from. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked "What kind of god would you like to believe in?" in the first place.

I never did say "what kind of god would you like to believe in" in the first place

What i said was

If you were going to believe in any god What moral characteristics would it need to have? (in order not to be objectionable)

In other words, atheists, as logically uncompromising individuals seem to have a problem with the implications of Job and Romans 9. Fine, What moral characteristics would make a hypothetical god unproblematic in that way?

It's a logical consistency question.

[UniversityPastor]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

Thank You!

Exactly my point.

The arguments that show that God is a complete jerk to everyone are directed toward people who seem to think that God has their best interests in mind.  There are actually a lot of people who believe that whenever something good happens to them, God looks down on them from heaven and smiles, and when something bad happens, he sheds a tear.  Most people do not want to believe in a malevolent God, and only believe in God because they think he's a good guy who will let them into heaven when they die, or they just want to feel like someone invisible has got their back, when no one else does.  Biblegod doesn't fill either of these needs.

No, at least not by definition he doesn't

[ParkingPlaces]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

Thank You!

Exactly my point.

Okay, so this guy can do anything he damned well pleases. I am helpless if he goes on the warpath, a mere mote if he has a point to prove, a nobody on a planet full of nobodies, a wretch at best, whatever is less than a wretch at worst.

And there is supposed to be a love/love relationship going on in the meantime.

This is supposed to impress me how?

You asked the following in the original OP

If you were going to believe in any god What moral characteristics would it need to have?

Was there, like, you know, a right answer that we've failed to give? I was sort of under the impression that you wanted our opinions, not an answer that would garner an "A" in Theology 515.

Edit: Forgot how to spell for a minute. Fixxxed that.

[UniversityPastor]

The thing that occurs to me about all of this, is that it has very interesting implications. God, according to UP, is not morally responsible to anyone, and is free to be as hateful and mean as he wants to be. However humans do feel moral responsibility. We feel a duty to help those that we see in pain or suffering. We feel a duty to love and protect our families and children. We even feel a sense of moral responsibility towards creatures that we might consider to be of 'lesser' status than us. If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

This fits fantastically into the next place I'd go.

So, any god, if it were to exist, would be morally unaccountable by definition, but, if said god were to exist in this world, it seems probable, that as a conscious being like us, it would willingly conform to external morality, Just cuz.

[kin hell]

>snip< If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

This fits fantastically into the next place I'd go.

So, any god, if it were to exist, would be morally unaccountable by definition, but, if said god were to exist in this world, it seems probable, that as a conscious being like us, it would willingly conform to external morality, Just cuz.

my bolded



Why?

[cheezisgoooood]

The thing that occurs to me about all of this, is that it has very interesting implications. God, according to UP, is not morally responsible to anyone, and is free to be as hateful and mean as he wants to be. However humans do feel moral responsibility. We feel a duty to help those that we see in pain or suffering. We feel a duty to love and protect our families and children. We even feel a sense of moral responsibility towards creatures that we might consider to be of 'lesser' status than us. If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

This fits fantastically into the next place I'd go.

So, any god, if it were to exist, would be morally unaccountable by definition, but, if said god were to exist in this world, it seems probable, that as a conscious being like us, it would willingly conform to external morality, Just cuz.

There's that word "if" again.  If you're taking this somewhere, just go ahead and do it because at this point it's as entertaining as trying to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

[UniversityPastor]

I thought it wasn't even a question anymore that God is a complete jerk to everyone.  Yes, of course being a Christian requires giving God the right to do whatever he want regardless of whether you like it or not.  Anyone who doesn't do this, doesn't understand what they believe in, simple as that.

Thank You!

Exactly my point.

Okay, so this guy can do anything he damned well pleases. I am helpless if he goes on the warpath, a mere mote if he has a point to prove, a nobody on a planet full of nobodies, a wretch at best, whatever is less than a wretch at worst.

And there is supposed to be a love/love relationship going on in the meantime.

This is supposed to impress me how?

It silences a lot of the criticism on this site.

What originally looked like exposing flaws in theism has been revealed to be nothing more than expressions of the statement that "I don't like the idea of theism, it means I'm not the highest moral authority anymore"

You asked the following in the original OP

If you were going to believe in any god What moral characteristics would it need to have?

Was there, like, you know, a right answer that we've failed to give? I was sort of under the impression that you wanted our opinions, not an answer that would garner an "A" in Theology 515.

Edit: Forgot how to spell for a minute. Fixxxed that.

I did want your opinions, I still do. But I rather appreciate that Cheezisgood came to the same opinion I hold, which is that it's an unavoidable aspect of Christianity (or indeed theism) that God cannot be culpable

I'm still interested in hearing a logically consistent alternative if you have one to offer.

[UniversityPastor]

>snip< If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

This fits fantastically into the next place I'd go.

So, any god, if it were to exist, would be morally unaccountable by definition, but, if said god were to exist in this world, it seems probable, that as a conscious being like us, it would willingly conform to external morality, Just cuz.

Why?

because we do, and we are the only available standard for comparison among conscious beings

[Alzael]

It silences a lot of the criticism on this site.

What originally looked like exposing flaws in theism has been revealed to be nothing more than expressions of the statement that "I don't like the idea of theism, it means I'm not the highest moral authority anymore"

Not really. You still can't even begin to prove any of your religion. The only criticism this silences is that if a christian doesn't believe that god is a loving, caring entity, then you can't argue his non-existence based on the fact that he's clearly a megalomaniacal prick. Which was already the case. If a person doesn't believe that god is good, then obviously you can't use an argument of god being evil against them.

Did you have an actual point?

[Alzael]

>snip< If you saw a dog lying injured, you would try and help it. These are basic things about us.

This fits fantastically into the next place I'd go.

So, any god, if it were to exist, would be morally unaccountable by definition, but, if said god were to exist in this world, it seems probable, that as a conscious being like us, it would willingly conform to external morality, Just cuz.

Why?

because we do, and we are the only available standard for comparison among conscious beings

This makes no sense and still has no point to it. Even if we do conform to an external morality, which you can't prove and is basically a meaningless statement. It in no way demonstrates that other beings are constrained to this morality. And it's all just baseless supposition since you can't even show the existence of a god,let alone what its morals are.

[ParkingPlaces]

Okay, so this guy can do anything he damned well pleases. I am helpless if he goes on the warpath, a mere mote if he has a point to prove, a nobody on a planet full of nobodies, a wretch at best, whatever is less than a wretch at worst.

And there is supposed to be a love/love relationship going on in the meantime.

This is supposed to impress me how?

It silences a lot of the criticism on this site.

What originally looked like exposing flaws in theism has been revealed to be nothing more than expressions of the statement that "I don't like the idea of theism, it means I'm not the highest moral authority anymore"

Ahhh, I get it. You don't understand atheists.

You still think atheism is the result, or at least largely the result, of individuals who want everything their way. Freedom to do anything and everything our minds and hormones can cook up. By dissing the idea of god, we give ourselves permission to be world champ a**holes with nobody to answer to but ourselves.

Atheism is the conclusion that there is no god. It means nothing in terms of morality or actions. I am not a murderer in waiting, a slow atheist that after 47 years of disbelief has let down my fellow non-believers by acting morally for way too long.

Were American Indians a bunch of immoral salvages, busy killing each other at levels that made the crusades look like child's play, or did they too have moral standards, despite their complete ignorance of your god guy? True, the Aztecs were a little whacky, but look at the Indian societies in the Pacific Northwest or the millions of Indians that were farming the Mississippi Valley prior to Columbus and his germs. They were doing pretty darned good. Even by Christian standards.

12 monkeys, of Haida descent, hasn't tracked you down in Kansas and done you in. That's not how his people rolled.

Morality, as a generic description of how most in any given society behave so as to keep said society alive, is not the exclusive domain of the Jesus crowd. Nor is the denunciation of anything moral standard deemed inconvenient the domain of the typical atheist.

Just thought you should know.

edit:fixed quoting problem