Is there an absolute moral law?

[velkyn]

That statement about his god being evil may not be completely correct.  By God being good, evil exists by default. Evil cannot exist without the existence of good and good cannot exist without the existence of evil. If evil did not exist, there would be no measure by which to determine the existence of good. It is the existence of evil that clearly defines the righteousness of God. So I have been told. Which also may not be completely correct. Just a thought.

the problem I find with the "if not one then you can't have the other" argument is that one has to define good and evil, and one has to have a god that does one or the other, and not whatever it wants, simply claiming that it is good, aka the circular arguments that theists use, anything my god does by definintion is "good". 

[Historicity]

Vger, you have more or less re-invented Zoroastrian theology on the matter.

Congrats.

[Vger]

Vger, you have more or less re-invented Zoroastrian theology on the matter.

Congrats.

Not me. I am not that enlighten. Just something I heard somewhere that stayed with me.

[Vger]

That statement about his god being evil may not be completely correct.  By God being good, evil exists by default. Evil cannot exist without the existence of good and good cannot exist without the existence of evil. If evil did not exist, there would be no measure by which to determine the existence of good. It is the existence of evil that clearly defines the righteousness of God. So I have been told. Which also may not be completely correct. Just a thought.

the problem I find with the "if not one then you can't have the other" argument is that one has to define good and evil, and one has to have a god that does one or the other, and not whatever it wants, simply claiming that it is good, aka the circular arguments that theists use, anything my god does by definintion is "good".

Unless your god is Satan , in which anything your god does is evil. It is hard to get away from the circular argument when the argument is about god, or any thing to do with someones god. Without the circular argument, the argument would be rather short.

[One Above All]

That statement about his god being evil may not be completely correct.  By God being good, evil exists by default. Evil cannot exist without the existence of good and good cannot exist without the existence of evil. If evil did not exist, there would be no measure by which to determine the existence of good. It is the existence of evil that clearly defines the righteousness of God. So I have been told. Which also may not be completely correct. Just a thought.

1: Morality is subjective, so your point is moot[1].
2: Things can exist without their opposites[2].
3: The christian god is supposed to be omnipotent, so it could very well allow good to exist without evil.

TL;DR version: False. Try again.

1.	My point was under the false assumption that good and evil are absolutes.
2.	For example, in physics you have "matter", but you can't have "nothing".

[One Above All]

Unless your god is Satan , in which anything your god does is evil. It is hard to get away from the circular argument when the argument is about god, or any thing to do with someones god. Without the circular argument, the argument would be rather short.

Circular logic is not the basis for an argument. Quite the opposite; it is a fallacy. It renders any argument null and void.

[Azdgari]

Vger, "God is good" is a personal determination.  You use your own authority in order to agree that it's true (or false).

Which makes it less a statement about "God" and more a statement about you.

[The Wannabe]

This sounds just a tad bit like something Joseph Stalin would've said.

That is an example of a genuine ad hominum argument.

Just because Stalin would have said it does not make it wrong or even a bad idea.  I'm sure Joe also said something like "let's eat".

So in other words, i had a genuine, yet fallacious, ad hominum argument? 

And of course if the words "I'd like a bagel" were to come out of Joe's literally god forsaken mouth, that doesn't make his desire for a bagel any more evil then our own desire for said bagel.  In the context, i thought it would have been clear that i was referring to his crackpot socialistic ideologies.   

[Azdgari]

So in other words, i had a genuine, yet fallacious, ad hominum argument?

"That is a genuine evildoer" - does this statement parse to you as "the man is both genuine and evildoing", or "the man is genuinely evildoing"?

I would go with the latter.  But maybe it's not as clear as I think.

[Vger]

That statement about his god being evil may not be completely correct.  By God being good, evil exists by default. Evil cannot exist without the existence of good and good cannot exist without the existence of evil. If evil did not exist, there would be no measure by which to determine the existence of good. It is the existence of evil that clearly defines the righteousness of God. So I have been told. Which also may not be completely correct. Just a thought.

1: Morality is subjective, so your point is moot[1].

1.	My point was under the false assumption that good and evil are absolutes.

How can anything be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

2: Things can exist without their opposites[2].

2.	For example, in physics you have "matter", but you can't have "nothing".

antimatter is the opposite of matter
[/quote]

3: The christian god is supposed to be omnipotent, so it could very well allow good to exist without evil.

TL;DR version: False. Try again.

So, can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? I am amused that this type of question would come up. The christian god is supposed to be able to do anything that can be done. Which , as I hear it means that if it is possible then it can be done. If it is not possible , then it does not become more possible just because you throw more power at it. Again, just something I heard once upon a time.

[Vger]

Unless your god is Satan , in which anything your god does is evil. It is hard to get away from the circular argument when the argument is about god, or any thing to do with someones god. Without the circular argument, the argument would be rather short.

Circular logic is not the basis for an argument. Quite the opposite; it is a fallacy. It renders any argument null and void.

That was my point. A very short argument.

[One Above All]

How can anything be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

Better for whom? Worse for whom?
Subjective.

antimatter is the opposite of matter

No. Antimatter is simply a different "form", if you will, of matter. It is still matter.
Your "rebuttal" conveniently ignores the fact that my footnote speaks of "nothing".

So, can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? I am amused that this type of question would come up.

That would be omnipotence - the ability to do anything.

The christian god is supposed to be able to do anything that can be done.

Then it is not omnipotent. See above.

That was my point. A very short argument.

Wrong. There would be no argument. If your argument can only be "supported"[1] by a fallacy, then it's not an argument. It's just an absurd statement.

1.	And I'm using that term very loosely.

[velkyn]

vger, you might want to introduce yourself over here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,17.0.html  and give us a better idea about you and your interests, background, and why you're here.

[Vger]

So, can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? I am amused that this type of question would come up.

That would be omnipotence - the ability to do anything.

The christian god is supposed to be able to do anything that can be done.

Then it is not omnipotent. See above.

That was my point. A very short argument.

Wrong. There would be no argument. If your argument can only be "supported"[1] by a fallacy, then it's not an argument. It's just an absurd statement.

1.	And I'm using that term very loosely.

Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.Clearly, then, any coherent understanding of God and God’s nature requires theologians to place limits of some sort upon God’s alleged omnipotence. The first and most basic limit, designed to avoid problems like those described above, is that of logic: God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do. Thus, God cannot make 2 + 2 equal 5, God cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time. As for the matter , antimatter , I checked and you are correct. Forgive me. As for the argument being an absurd statement. Ok, but try telling that to a theist , you will have an argument.

[Vger]

vger, you might want to introduce yourself over here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/board,17.0.html  and give us a better idea about you and your interests, background, and why you're here.

I will do that.

[Azdgari]

How can anything be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

Because if there was, then it would be objectively better or worse.  The absence of an objective standard is precisely what makes it subjective.

antimatter is the opposite of matter

Oh cool, so it has negative mass then, right...?

So, can God make a rock so big that He cannot lift it? I am amused that this type of question would come up.

That is not an analogous argument.

[One Above All]

Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent.

Which is why no being can claim to be "omnipotent" in the literal sense. Yet theists claim their gods are omnipotent all the time.

If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.

Correction: Every form of atheism would be justified at all times and every form of theism would have no good arguments (AKA: What happens now).
Also, note how you speak of "God" (referring to YHWH) and "theism", as if "theism" were limited to the abrahamic religions.

Clearly, then, any coherent understanding of God and God’s nature requires theologians to place limits of some sort upon God’s alleged omnipotence.

Id est: Limit the supposed "limitless" being.

The first and most basic limit, designed to avoid problems like those described above, is that of logic:

Does this logic also apply to everything else about that deity, rendering it either non-existent or no better than a very powerful (but 100% natural) being?

God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do.

See above about the "very powerful natural being".

and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time.

Actually that would depend on your definition of a "lie".

As for the matter , antimatter , I checked and you are correct. Forgive me.

Forgiveness can be yours if it's accompanied by chocolate or *insert NSFW stuff here*.

As for the argument being an absurd statement. Ok, but try telling that to a theist , you will have an argument.

I assume the last "argument" means "discussion". If so, you are correct. Theists have this thing with logic. It's only good as long as it doesn't prove their god to be false.

Rational arguments tend not to work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.

[velkyn]

Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.Clearly, then, any coherent understanding of God and God’s nature requires theologians to place limits of some sort upon God’s alleged omnipotence. The first and most basic limit, designed to avoid problems like those described above, is that of logic: God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do. Thus, God cannot make 2 + 2 equal 5, God cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time. As for the matter , antimatter , I checked and you are correct. Forgive me. As for the argument being an absurd statement. Ok, but try telling that to a theist , you will have an argument.

well, considering that all gods (AFAIK) are claimed to be able to do the impossible and illogical, that' a pretty good way to say none of them exist. 

[Vger]

Unfortunately, the most absolute sense of omnipotent has been found to be incoherent. If God were truly omnipotent in an absolute and unlimited sense, then God could be capable of both existing and not existing at the same time, meaning that every form of theism and every form of atheism would be equally justified at all times simultaneously.Clearly, then, any coherent understanding of God and God’s nature requires theologians to place limits of some sort upon God’s alleged omnipotence. The first and most basic limit, designed to avoid problems like those described above, is that of logic: God’s omnipotence means that God can do anything that is logically possible to do. Thus, God cannot make 2 + 2 equal 5, God cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, and God cannot lie and tell the truth at the same time. As for the matter , antimatter , I checked and you are correct. Forgive me. As for the argument being an absurd statement. Ok, but try telling that to a theist , you will have an argument.

well, considering that all gods (AFAIK) are claimed to be able to do the impossible and illogical, that' a pretty good way to say none of them exist.

They may, but if they do they seem to be anti social. I have never seen one.

[screwtape]

So in other words, i had a genuine, yet fallacious, ad hominum argument? 

Your argument was an ad hominem[1].  However, unlike many cases here where people accuse others of doing so when they are merely calling names, yours actually was an ad hominem.  Bona fide.  Genuine.  It boiled down to "that must be wrong because Stalin would agree with it, and we know how Eeeeevil he was..."

In the context, i thought it would have been clear that i was referring to his crackpot socialistic ideologies.

Socialism has nothing to do with totalitarianism or authoritarianism, per se.  That nitpick aside, your meaning was clear.  The way you went about making your point, however, was sloppy and that is what I was pointing out.  Sorry if that was pedantic.

1.	I spelled it wrong in the other post

[Vger]

Which is why no being can claim to be "omnipotent" in the literal sense. Yet theists claim their gods are omnipotent all the time.

The key work here is "claim" I see this as no more that two kids saying My daddy can beat up your daddy.

Correction: Every form of atheism would be justified at all times and every form of theism would have no good arguments (AKA: What happens now).
Also, note how you speak of "God" (referring to YHWH) and "theism", as if "theism" were limited to the abrahamic religions.

Being that I was raised in the mid west ( Bible belt) I seem to use the local god as a reference, just habit I would guess.

Id est: Limit the supposed "limitless" being.

Not sure if this is putting limits on god are just seeing the only logical thing about a inlogical subject. Does that make any sense It sounds strange after rereading it.

Does this logic also apply to everything else about that deity, rendering it either non-existent or no better than a very powerful (but 100% natural) being?

I could not say for sure one way or the other. But using pure logic it would seem so. Please understand I am only voicing an opinion.

Actually that would depend on your definition of a "lie".

That which can be proven not to be true

Forgiveness can be yours if it's accompanied by chocolate or *insert NSFW stuff here*.

What may I ask which would be your chocolate of desire?

Rational arguments tend not to work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people.

[/quote]

[The Wannabe]

Socialism has nothing to do with totalitarianism or authoritarianism, per se. 

It seems that there is, at the very least, a loose correlation between socialism and totalitarian/authoritarian rule.

That nitpick aside, your meaning was clear.  The way you went about making your point, however, was sloppy and that is what I was pointing out.  Sorry if that was pedantic.

Just a "little" pedantic, but fair enough.  Point taken 

[One Above All]

The key work here is "claim" I see this as no more that two kids saying My daddy can beat up your daddy.

The difference is that one kid won't kill the other kid over it.

Being that I was raised in the mid west ( Bible belt) I seem to use the local god as a reference, just habit I would guess.

Understandable, but my point remains - there are tens of thousands of gods.

Not sure if this is putting limits on god are just seeing the only logical thing about a inlogical subject.

What is the logic behind putting limits on something that has no limit?

Does that make any sense It sounds strange after rereading it.

Nope.

I could not say for sure one way or the other. But using pure logic it would seem so.

If we don't use "pure logic"[1], which is the basis for understanding reality, what should we use? Other methods that have continuously resulted in misconceptions?

Please understand I am only voicing an opinion.

Please understand that I don't care and will treat your opinions like I treat everyone else's.

That which can be proven not to be true

My apologies; it's not about the definition of a lie but rather the definition of lying.

What may I ask would be your chocolate of desire?

Damn, I was hoping you'd go with the NSFW stuff.
White chocolate is fine.

1.	As you called it.

[screwtape]

How can anything be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

By whatever subjective measure you are using.  Is a 24" dick better than a 4" dick?  What is the objective standard?  It depends on what subjective means you are using to determine "better".  For a gorilla or a human, the 4" dick is definitely more functional.  For a horse, the 24" might not do it.

I think you haven't thought this stuff through yet.

antimatter is the opposite of matter

Nope.  Matter takes up space.  So does antimatter.

"Opposite" is a silly concept that has no basis in reality and only serves to confuse things.  What is the opposite of man?  Boy?  Woman? Animal?  Corn?  Don't all of those work on some level?  What is the opposite of white?  Red makes as much sense as black once you get past the conditioning instilled in you by Sesame Street.  Opposites are for children. 

It is especially pointless for relative concepts like "good" and "evil".  Buddhists have a better understanding of it:
http://www.awakeblogger.com/2008/09/the-10-very-best-zen-stories/

6. Maybe
Once upon the time there was an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Maybe,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Maybe,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“Maybe,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Maybe,” said the farmer.

[Vger]

The difference is that one kid won't kill the other kid over it.

you have not met the kids in my neighborhood.

Understandable, but my point remains - there are tens of thousands of gods.

Yes , that is their claim.

What is the logic behind putting limits on something that has no limit?

If you/they or who ever , whats to apply a god with unlimited power, the power to do anything , even things not possible to do, into a logical discussion then I see no point to the discussion and a large waste of time. Things that are not possible are still not possible no matter how much power is used. I don't care how you look at it. God or no god somethings just can not be.

If we don't use "pure logic"[1], which is the basis for understanding reality, what should we use? Other methods that have continuously resulted in misconceptions?

Logic is the only thing we can use , if we wish to accomplish anything.

Please understand that I don't care and will treat your opinions like I treat everyone else's.

I could understand it better if I knew how you treated everyone else's opinions. So, how do you?

Damn, I was hoping you'd go with the NSFW stuff.
White chocolate is fine.

1.	As you called it.

Well , at least we have one thing in common , I too like white chocolate.

[Vger]

How can anything be subjectively 'better' or subjectively 'worse' UNLESS there is an objective standard to measure them by?

By whatever subjective measure you are using.  Is a 24" dick better than a 4" dick?  What is the objective standard?  It depends on what subjective means you are using to determine "better".  For a gorilla or a human, the 4" dick is definitely more functional.  For a horse, the 24" might not do it.

I think you haven't thought this stuff through yet.

antimatter is the opposite of matter

Nope.  Matter takes up space.  So does antimatter.

"Opposite" is a silly concept that has no basis in reality and only serves to confuse things.  What is the opposite of man?  Boy?  Woman? Animal?  Corn?  Don't all of those work on some level?  What is the opposite of white?  Red makes as much sense as black once you get past the conditioning instilled in you by Sesame Street.  Opposites are for children. 

It is especially pointless for relative concepts like "good" and "evil".  Buddhists have a better understanding of it:
http://www.awakeblogger.com/2008/09/the-10-very-best-zen-stories/

6. Maybe
Once upon the time there was an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Maybe,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Maybe,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“Maybe,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Maybe,” said the farmer.

As for the matter , anti matter , I did admit my mistake. As for the rest of your post, I see the  point.

[One Above All]

you have not met the kids in my neighborhood.

Irrelevant.
Kid 1: My dad can beat up your dad.
Kid 2: Nuh-uh!
Kid 1: I'm gonna kill you!

I seriously doubt this scenario would be possible, unless both kids were sociopaths and/or psychopaths.

Yes , that is their claim.

No, that is a fact. There are tens of thousands of gods. At least one god per religious[1] denomination[2] and over 30,000 denominations in christianity alone.

If you/they or who ever , whats to apply a god with unlimited power, the power to do anything , even things not possible to do, into a logical discussion then I see no point to the discussion and a large waste of time.

Welcome to my world.

Things that are not possible are still not possible no matter how much power is used. I don't care how you look at it. God or no god somethings just can not be.

Agreed.

Logic is the only thing we can use , if we wish to accomplish anything.

See my quote a few posts back about rational arguments and theists.

I could understand it better if I knew how you treated everyone else's opinions. So, how do you?

Skepticism whilst keeping an open mind. If your opinion is supported by evidence, I will weigh it against my own and see whose is better. If your opinion is not supported by evidence... let's just say I like to have fun.

Well , at least we have one thing in common , I too like white chocolate.

It's the best.

1.	Note that my definition of "religion" includes the belief in at least one deity.
2.	Each denomination claims that they know what their deity "really" meant; they are effectively worshiping different beings.

[Samothec]

This sounds just a tad bit like something Joseph Stalin would've said.

That is an example of a genuine ad hominum argument.

Just because Stalin would have said it does not make it wrong or even a bad idea.  I'm sure Joe also said something like "let's eat".

Actually, I had not considered how the post he was replying to might have sounded and I thought it a valid point – although to my knowledge that would have been a mellow viewpoint for Stalin. I didn't take it as an "ad hominum argument" as much as an observation. Plus, as you point out, even terrible people can have okay or even decent ideas.

A couple of others here have identified themselves as humanist misanthropes. I understand the viewpoint since I am similar. Haven't really figured out good terminology yet.

EDIT

"Doesn’t this bother you when someone finds a piece of truth, O Evil One?" his attendant asked. "No," Mara replied. "Right after this, they usually make a belief out of it."

This seems so very appropriate.

[Samothec]

Forgiveness can be yours if it's accompanied by chocolate or *insert NSFW stuff here*.
 

What may I ask would be your chocolate of desire?

Damn, I was hoping you'd go with the NSFW stuff.
White chocolate is fine.

Well , at least we have one thing in common , I too like white chocolate.

It's the best.

White-olate?    Blech! Blasphemy! I thought better of you Lucifer.    Although the other comment redeems you a bit, maybe. What sort of stuff inserted where? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say-no-more.   

That statement about his god being evil may not be completely correct.  By God being good, evil exists by default. Evil cannot exist without the existence of good and good cannot exist without the existence of evil. If evil did not exist, there would be no measure by which to determine the existence of good. It is the existence of evil that clearly defines the righteousness of God.

The portion quoted above is very incorrect. I can conceive of a world without evil and I'm only human. So, either I am superior to god in this respect, or god is evil, or god does not exist. And a valid argument can be made for the first and third being the same position.

Also, please, please, please try to get your quoting correct.