Divine Morals

[BountyHunterSAx]

I feel like I'm constantly shoehorning myself into these arguments about things that I really ought not to be arguing about, with the entire board on one side and me playing the role of the apologist fundie. Forgive me if my answers seem/are pedantic and circular - I swear that in my head they don't seem that way.

@FSTargetDrone:

I would ask this being why it simply didn't alter circumstance and see to it that the child never did the horrible thing And that can be accomplished without bloodshed, certainly without butchering a blameless child.

g: "For a *very*, VERY, VERY good reason. But your mind would not be capable of understanding that reason. And as to the latter half, don't be so myopic. Clearly butchering this child is an absolute necessity for things to proceed according to my design which - seeing as to how I'm the most perfectly merciful, omnipotent and omniscient and perfect - is indeed a perfect design.

In any case, this god is not trustworthy.

Ah! That I hadn't considered. You're saying that even if he's omniscient he still could be a liar and toying with you for the joy of seeing you slaughter in his name? What - without giving you supernatural powers needed to reach his super-worldly understanding of all things - would be proof of his honesty in this matter? In other words, this hypothetical assumed an omniscient omnipotent god. Further, it assumed that such a deity could and would prove it had these capabilities to the individual being questioned. If necessary we can add the assumption of honesty, but I'd rather not have to assume it if it were possible for him to prove it - though I can't devise a test as I'm not sufficiently incredulous.

If you can't think of a test - let's assume that he means well (and being that he's omnipotent that's not just an empty feeling).

I would consider whatever it told me to be unreliable because *I* do not see how it can justify killing (or allowing the killing of) the child by giving me an impossible choice when it is certainly within its power to prevent some horrible future without involving the death of a child while simultaneously insisting that it is the Right Thing.

(emphasis mine)


In this hypothtetical, we were opening from the premise that g exists and proved it to you, correct? Do you see how it is possible to create matter from nothingness? No! But then you saw God do it and prove he was capable of it. Do you see how it is possible to bring the dead back to life? No! But then you saw God do it and prove it was possible. What if we take it further? What if you challenge God to create a rock he can't pick up? Naturally, being omni-potent means he's capable of it, and so he does it. But if you asked him to pick it up, he'd be able to do that *too*. A logical impossibility - a paradox? No doubt. And yet he did it! Clearly what you and I 'do not see' about this omnipotent God isn't at zero. Just because something is incomprehensible to us does not *necessarily* mean it's incomprehensible to him.

If anything, God should be held to a higher standard of morality. It cannot call itself good or moral, yet allow evil to befall innocents.

How do you define evil and good - out of curiosity - without violating Hume's law? If you aren't violating Hume's law then you certainly must have at least one premise that states something to be objectively evil with no justification other than 'it just IS', yes? By this 'appeal to incomprehensibility' - where one claims that infinite knowledge must needs be infinitely beyond our perception and therefore cannot be fully comprehended by men and is thus beyond our scrutiny - God can claim exceptions to your first premise that you cannot hope to disprove.

After all, what point is a logical argument when you are staring at and talking to a paradox?

-AHMAD

[Omeganian]

I heard from a university professor there the Bar Ilan University has an entire course on the Binding of Isaac, so it's a complicated subject.

And about the argument between the God and a man... I mentioned somewhere here a Talmudic story about such an argument (concerning matters of purity), where the people, in the end, told the God to shove off. And the God did.

[BountyHunterSAx]

And about the argument between the God and a man... I mentioned somewhere here a Talmudic story about such an argument (concerning matters of purity), where the people, in the end, told the God to shove off. And the God did.

That story would actually interest me very much - do you by any chance have a reference to it? You'd mentioned St. Augustine earlier, and gave a link to a Wikipedia article on the original sin - but this particular excerpt from the Talmud you didn't post (or I didn't see) the link for.

-AHMAD

[Omeganian]

And about the argument between the God and a man... I mentioned somewhere here a Talmudic story about such an argument (concerning matters of purity), where the people, in the end, told the God to shove off. And the God did.

That story would actually interest me very much - do you by any chance have a reference to it? You'd mentioned St. Augustine earlier, and gave a link to a Wikipedia article on the original sin - but this particular excerpt from the Talmud you didn't post (or I didn't see) the link for.

-AHMAD

It is known as the Aknai (or Akhnai) oven.

http://www.jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm

[Patrick Degan]

You say err on the side of life and do not kill, but why? Are you a pacifist that denies that there is ever a justifiable execution?

Of a baby? On what grounds? Kindly explain to the class, Mr. Ahmad, the crimes a little baby who can't form intent, who can't act on its own, who can't even communicate other than by cries and gurgles, can conceivably commit. On what basis, then, does guilt exist?

Are you willing to - after having ample proof that you were in the presence of the omnipotent omniscient god (that is - whatever level of proof could be achieved without you being elevated beyond the level of being a mortal...say you had the same level that the Prophet did) - deny the possibility that g is right and that he's actually presenting you with a baby that you have to kill?

Without a second's hesitation. For a start, if killing this child is at all justifiable (which I deny), then why can't Mr. Omnicience do it himself? If it's really that vital to the scheme of the cosmos, whatever that may be, it's on him to act and take the responsibility on his shoulders. The very fact that he wants somebody else to do his dirty work for no other reason than his Divine Sayso™ is enough to make me suspicious of both motive and validity of the claim.

The decision is yours to make - just because God knows the outcome doesn't mean you're predestined to do it (yes that's a paradox, the existence of an omniscient omnipotent god is inexplicable without paradoxes).

Then the claims to both omincience and omnipotence are meaningless and I'm left with the same dilemma —I'm being told to kill somebody entirely on somebody's sayso and nothing else. Worse, I'm being told to kill somebody who can't conceivably be guilty of a crime given that he isn't old enough to form intent, communicate, or act. There's only one moral answer: to tell God to fuck off. Either way, its a trap laid out by a being with a sadistic sense of humour; because either the whole thing is a cruel joke, or I set myself up to be condemned for committing murder, or I set myself up to be condemned for refusing to obey, or I'm making myself the tool of an immoral being who makes every decision entirely on the basis of his power and personal whim. Which is why the test is bullshit.

[BountyHunterSAx]

Of a baby? On what grounds? Kindly explain to the class, Mr. Ahmad, the crimes a little baby who can't form intent, who can't act on its own, who can't even communicate other than by cries and gurgles, can conceivably commit.

I think you're *still* not getting my argument, because you're *still* not refuting my argument - or explaining why my position 'cannot' be refuted and is also completely stupid. You're asking me to explain what possible reason can exist for a baby to be guilty, and to this all I can answer is that I don't know. In fact I would say that all human logic, morality, and wisdom would lead us to the opposite conclusion - that there is *NO* reason to justifiably kill the baby.

But then all human logic would lead me to believe that 'omnipotence' cannot exist. Clearly *clearly* I'm in front of a being which is capable of showing me that even my most basic logical principles are flawed. It would be like taking a character from a 2d videogame world, and showing him a 3dimensional world. His 'laws' of geometry would fall apart. There is no humanly conceivable reason whatsoever to justifiably call a baby guilty of anything. I won't go so far as to say no justifiable reason to kill the baby because what with the whole abortion and 'when does life start' debate I guess that's debatable - but certainly such death cannot by human standards be considered good.


But human understanding cannot comprehend how an omnipotent being can exist either, can it? We're wrong about one we could be wrong about the other.

Without a second's hesitation. For a start, if killing this child is at all justifiable (which I deny), then why can't Mr. Omnicience do it himself? If it's really that vital to the scheme of the cosmos, whatever that may be, it's on him to act and take the responsibility on his shoulders. The very fact that he wants somebody else to do his dirty work for no other reason than his Divine Sayso™ is enough to make me suspicious of both motive and validity of the claim.

'g' can do it himself, He's telling you to do it. This goes back to the addendum I'd made with FSTargetDrone - you're challenging that 'g' may be duplicitous or dishonest. What shy of making you omnipotent and omniscient would 'prove' to you his sincerity? If nothing would - then let's make that a given, since if we can't trust 'g' then this entire discussion is moot as he's the only one privy to information that even makes baby-killing a theoretically justifiable act.



-AHMAD

[BountyHunterSAx]

GHETTO EDIT:

Ahmad is actually my first name; it's not 'Mr. Ahmad' unless you were intentionally trying to be offensive in which case, my bad.

[Surlethe]

If God appeared before you today - in such a manner as that you were unequivocally aware that you were indeed in the presence of and being addressed by the one eternal omnipotent omniscient God. And He made sure to give you sufficient proofs that it was indeed Him you were speaking to - independently verifiable by others, and not a hallucination, and then gave you an immoral order, would you do it? Would you be immoral to do it?

If this happened to me (and Allah forgive me for the sacrilege of typing as God - it's only for illustrative purposes; and I in no way attribute the following exact words to God - heaven forbid. No - it's just my rationalization of what He might say.) Say the conversation went something like this:

g: "Now you know that I am indeed he that I am, by my will execute this child. [insert crying baby here]"

me: "I..but I...I thought you were the all-loving God of Eternal mercy and compassion."

g: "I am. And I am telling you to execute this baby. Now. My infinite unbounded knowledge far surpasses your puny understanding, and you could not hope to contend with me. I am all-knowing, I know what's good for you and what's good for the baby. Do it."

me: "But it's an innocent baby! For what crime does it deserve to die? Why should I do it?"

g: "Because I'm more powerful than you."

me: "Might does not make right. You have ordered me via your messenger that the person who tells the truth to a tyrant ruler is in a state of Jihad! I say that you are exercising tyranny to try and order me to kill this baby and I refuse to do it."

g: "Do you doubt me?"

me: "Yes. My lord would not be so unmerciful as to ordain I kill an innocent child."

g: "You say that the child is innocent based off of your knowledge of this child and its life. But I am all knowing - I know that if you failed to put this child to the sword then you would be doing it a disservice."

me: "I don't understand why."

g: "Now you're getting it. You *don't* understand why; and you're a pitiful human. Your limited comprehension and knowledge base cannot and *WILL* not understand why. And yet I order you to do it. So do it."

me: "But you must appreciate what a difficult position you're putting me in? You're asking me to - on the basis of your word - commit murder. Not just any murder, but cold blooded murder of an innocent child."

g: "Would you *stop* calling him innocent? You seriously think that the child is pure and innocent? You seriously believe that death is a bad thing? Perhaps in your world as you understand it it may be, but we're *way* beyond that now. I mean, I'm God and i'm standing in front of you and talking to you as we speak!"

me: "Couldn't you set it up differently then? You're all powerful, right? Why don't you *make* this child innocent so that it doesn't have to be executed?"

g: "Because."

me: "Because why?"

g: "Firstly, I don't have to justify myself to you. Secondly, even if I *were* to justify myself, you wouldn't understand the justification because it requires knowledge and intellect beyond your capability."

me: "Then enhance my capability."

You grant him the assumption that the understanding is, in fact, beyond your capacity. How do you know that's true? Because he says so? What reason has he given you to trust him?

[Patrick Degan]

Of a baby? On what grounds? Kindly explain to the class, Mr. Ahmad, the crimes a little baby who can't form intent, who can't act on its own, who can't even communicate other than by cries and gurgles, can conceivably commit.

I think you're *still* not getting my argument, because you're *still* not refuting my argument - or explaining why my position 'cannot' be refuted and is also completely stupid. You're asking me to explain what possible reason can exist for a baby to be guilty, and to this all I can answer is that I don't know. In fact I would say that all human logic, morality, and wisdom would lead us to the opposite conclusion - that there is *NO* reason to justifiably kill the baby.

Uh uh. Don't you even try to think you can get away with that kind of bullshit around here. The entire position on which the command is based is that there is supposed to be, at the end, some sort of reason why the baby has to be killed. Yet Mr. Omnicience can't or won't state it, but Poor Dumb Mortal is expected to simply take his word for it and do as he's told. You, defending your argument, asked:

You say err on the side of life and do not kill, but why? Are you a pacifist that denies that there is ever a justifiable execution?

—and the overall context to that question assumes a justifiable reason for executing a little baby, and when one cannot be found to exist, you attempt an Appeal to Ignorance: man can't know the mind of the Divine and he doesn't have to explain himself.

But then all human logic would lead me to believe that 'omnipotence' cannot exist. Clearly *clearly* I'm in front of a being which is capable of showing me that even my most basic logical principles are flawed. It would be like taking a character from a 2d videogame world, and showing him a 3dimensional world. His 'laws' of geometry would fall apart. There is no humanly conceivable reason whatsoever to justifiably call a baby guilty of anything. I won't go so far as to say no justifiable reason to kill the baby because what with the whole abortion and 'when does life start' debate I guess that's debatable - but certainly such death cannot by human standards be considered good.

The difference is that there is a chance the 2D being could eventually figure out the geometry of a 3D world. We ourselves can already do that mathematically with 4D, 5D, and hypothetical 8D worlds. What you're doing however is defending the principle that power defines a different set of rules for itself as opposed to everyone else. Which is the position any tyrant takes to justify anything he likes.

But human understanding cannot comprehend how an omnipotent being can exist either, can it? We're wrong about one we could be wrong about the other.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy —again.

Without a second's hesitation. For a start, if killing this child is at all justifiable (which I deny), then why can't Mr. Omniscience do it himself? If it's really that vital to the scheme of the cosmos, whatever that may be, it's on him to act and take the responsibility on his shoulders. The very fact that he wants somebody else to do his dirty work for no other reason than his Divine Sayso™ is enough to make me suspicious of both motive and validity of the claim.

'g' can do it himself, He's telling you to do it. This goes back to the addendum I'd made with FSTargetDrone - you're challenging that 'g' may be duplicitous or dishonest. What shy of making you omnipotent and omniscient would 'prove' to you his sincerity? If nothing would - then let's make that a given, since if we can't trust 'g' then this entire discussion is moot as he's the only one privy to information that even makes baby-killing a theoretically justifiable act.

And if that information cannot be shared, it may as well not exist at all, which means claims to justification are invalid and I'm left with the same dilemma.

[Faqa]

If God appeared before you today - in such a manner as that you were unequivocally aware that you were indeed in the presence of and being addressed by the one eternal omnipotent omniscient God. And He made sure to give you sufficient proofs that it was indeed Him you were speaking to - independently verifiable by others, and not a hallucination, and then gave you an immoral order, would you do it? Would you be immoral to do it?

If this happened to me (and Allah forgive me for the sacrilege of typing as God - it's only for illustrative purposes; and I in no way attribute the following exact words to God - heaven forbid. No - it's just my rationalization of what He might say.) Say the conversation went something like this:

g: "Now you know that I am indeed he that I am, by my will execute this child. [insert crying baby here]"

me: "I..but I...I thought you were the all-loving God of Eternal mercy and compassion."

g: "I am. And I am telling you to execute this baby. Now. My infinite unbounded knowledge far surpasses your puny understanding, and you could not hope to contend with me. I am all-knowing, I know what's good for you and what's good for the baby. Do it."

me: "But it's an innocent baby! For what crime does it deserve to die? Why should I do it?"

g: "Because I'm more powerful than you."

me: "Might does not make right. You have ordered me via your messenger that the person who tells the truth to a tyrant ruler is in a state of Jihad! I say that you are exercising tyranny to try and order me to kill this baby and I refuse to do it."

g: "Do you doubt me?"

me: "Yes. My lord would not be so unmerciful as to ordain I kill an innocent child."

g: "You say that the child is innocent based off of your knowledge of this child and its life. But I am all knowing - I know that if you failed to put this child to the sword then you would be doing it a disservice."

me: "I don't understand why."

g: "Now you're getting it. You *don't* understand why; and you're a pitiful human. Your limited comprehension and knowledge base cannot and *WILL* not understand why. And yet I order you to do it. So do it."

me: "But you must appreciate what a difficult position you're putting me in? You're asking me to - on the basis of your word - commit murder. Not just any murder, but cold blooded murder of an innocent child."

g: "Would you *stop* calling him innocent? You seriously think that the child is pure and innocent? You seriously believe that death is a bad thing? Perhaps in your world as you understand it it may be, but we're *way* beyond that now. I mean, I'm God and i'm standing in front of you and talking to you as we speak!"

me: "Couldn't you set it up differently then? You're all powerful, right? Why don't you *make* this child innocent so that it doesn't have to be executed?"

g: "Because."

me: "Because why?"

g: "Firstly, I don't have to justify myself to you. Secondly, even if I *were* to justify myself, you wouldn't understand the justification because it requires knowledge and intellect beyond your capability."

me: "Then enhance my capability."

g: "So you're saying you want to become a God before you'll obey God?"

me: "....I didn't think of it that way. I'm trying to apply human standards to something that I accept is beyond human understanding."

g: "Now you're getting it - so go kill the baby."

me: "I don't want to. I can't shake the feeling that this baby doesn't deserve to die. I can't willingly do something so terrible."

g: "But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not [[Qur'an 2:216 , about going to war]]"

me: "I guess you're right. . . you know - if this were anybody but the all-knowing all-seeing all-loving God I wouldn't do this. But since you know better than I do and I no longer have any way to disbelieve in you, I'll do it." *goes to slice*

g: "That's all I needed to see *take's baby away before swing hits*. You pass the test."

me: "So ... it was all a game? You were just dicking with me?"

g: "It was a test I knew you would pass; now you've earned paradise as a result."

me: "But why the whole rigmarole if you already knew I'd pass?"

g: "Don't worry about it. You can't possibly hope to understand, it's too far beyond you."

Really, the issue seems to be that the only justification for what 'g' is asking is predestination(the baby IS definitely evil no matter what you do). And yet the only reason to ask YOU to do it is a belief in free-will(to 'test' you, as it were). Moral justification results in self-contradiction.

Ergo, in any reality where logic and reason apply, 'g' is morally abhorrent. So why do what he says?