Why is God not held to the same moral standard as man?

[THOR]

[quote="Mutcer"]If God knows the future, can do anything, cares about us all and loves us all (as Christians say), then why didn't he alert the folks of Haiti that there would be a massive earthquake which would kill some 200,000 people and destroy their largest city? Perhaps he could have saved thousands of lives and averted the pain and suffering a lot of loved ones had to go through?

quote]


How could he have saved thousands of lives? Everyone dies.

Are you saying that these 200,000 should have lived forever?

[Mutcer]

Sorry to be the one to tell you this: the God you're speaking of -- in all likelihood he doesn't exist.

That is the assumption I am operating under. However, I wish to give Christians the benefit of the doubt and have given them every opportunity possible to show me that the God they're talking about exists. But they show me nothing.

If you are interested in being shown, then it makes sense to follow the practices of the religion, since this is how one comes to a belief if one does not have it and how one is supposed to get closer to God. IOW usually a long dedicated set of practices to alter you, your way of relating and experiencing and which is supposed to give you different experiences than the ones you can have now. Pretty much every religion stresses practices and attitudinals shifts which coupled lead to experiences. But for some reason atheists and also a good number of theists seem to think atheists will change their minds or gain meaningful experiences via arguments.

That is just silly.

If you are not interested, then don't, obviously.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then I need not follow the practices of Christianity. As I indicated at http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=178623 all God has to do is tell me what number I'm thinking of and I will be convinced he exists.

[Typist]

Unlike what it appears most Christians fail to do, I do investigate claims in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner.

Please provide evidence of your claim that human reason is capable of conducting an investigation of gods.

Just as theists are making a claim which can be examined with reason, so are you. You bear the same burden for your claim that they bear for their claim. If you don't accept your burden, then you surrender a claim of "investigating in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner."

First, let's review briefly what reason is. Reason is the rather poorly developed ability of one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies, which make up a completely unknown percent of all reality. The species that claims this reasoning ability is continually teetering on the edge of it's own destruction, at it own hands.

Next, let's briefly review what gods are. God is usually defined as an entity that is the source of all reality. As example, such God is said to have created billions of galaxies.

So, let's review the situation.

We have a single immeasurably small species holding a gun to it's own head, while claiming that it is capable of analyzing questions about all of reality, an arena which it can not begin to define in even the most basic manner. Said species claims it would be able to understand an intelligence that can create galaxies, should such an intelligence exist, even though it can not understand how to manage it's own affairs.

Only when you start grasping how utterly hopeless your situation is in regards to such questions, will you begin to understand religion. And only when you begin to actually understand religion, will you be in a position to attempt to debunk it.

[Moreno]

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then I need not follow the practices of Christianity. As I indicated at http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=178623 all God has to do is tell me what number I'm thinking of and I will be convinced he exists.

That is not a response to what I wrote. But if that is your religion, then you should be satisfied. If you are interested in other religions then the one you are putting forward here, you might want to try following their practices: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, contemplation, study of scripture, confession, etc. etc. But if you are content with what you already think God must be like and would do if God existed, and so on, then stay with that.

[Mutcer]

Unlike what it appears most Christians fail to do, I do investigate claims in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner.

Please provide evidence of your claim that human reason is capable of conducting an investigation of gods.

Very simple. If God knows everything and can do anything, then he should be able to tell me what number between 1 and 10 million I'm thinking of. Likewise, if he is omniscient, omnipotent and loves us all, he would do something to prevent the deaths of those 9 million children each year as described by Sam Harris. But he does nothing. Therefore, as Sam Harris says, God either doesn't care or he is impotent.

Just as theists are making a claim which can be examined with reason, so are you. You bear the same burden for your claim that they bear for their claim. If you don't accept your burden, then you surrender a claim of "investigating in a rational, responsible and intelligent manner."

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one who posits the existence of a God. I'm merely responding to the claims the Christians make that their God exists.

First, let's review briefly what reason is. Reason is the rather poorly developed ability of one species on one planet in one of billions of galaxies, which make up a completely unknown percent of all reality. The species that claims this reasoning ability is continually teetering on the edge of it's own destruction, at it own hands.

Next, let's briefly review what gods are. God is usually defined as an entity that is the source of all reality. As example, such God is said to have created billions of galaxies.

Would an "entity that is the source of all reality" also love everyone, know everything and be able to do anything?

So, let's review the situation.

We have a single immeasurably small species holding a gun to it's own head, while claiming that it is capable of analyzing questions about all of reality, an arena which it can not begin to define in even the most basic manner. Said species claims it would be able to understand an intelligence that can create galaxies, should such an intelligence exist, even though it can not understand how to manage it's own affairs.

Only when you start grasping how utterly hopeless your situation is in regards to such questions, will you begin to understand religion. And only when you begin to actually understand religion, will you be in a position to attempt to debunk it.

I don't have anything to prove. The burden is upon you to show me some evidence that your God exists. And so far I have seen nothing but a bunch of specious claims.

[Mutcer]

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then I need not follow the practices of Christianity. As I indicated at http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=178623 all God has to do is tell me what number I'm thinking of and I will be convinced he exists.

That is not a response to what I wrote. But if that is your religion, then you should be satisfied. If you are interested in other religions then the one you are putting forward here, you might want to try following their practices: prayer, meditation, shamanic work, contemplation, study of scripture, confession, etc. etc. But if you are content with what you already think God must be like and would do if God existed, and so on, then stay with that.

It's not my religion. It's my response to how Christians describe their God. Perhaps we should clear some things up:

1) Can your God do anything?
2) Does your God know everything?
3) Does your God love all of us?
4) Does your God want all of us to believe he exists?

[Moreno]

It's not my religion.

Actually, it really is. Your religion, in this specific case, includes the idea that Chritians can ask God that kind of question and get that kind of answer. That that is an activity God would engage in if that God existed. You even link me to a discussion where it seems you think you have demonstrated this. You have a set of hypothetical beliefs about God. If there is a God, then...... Or, if there is an all powerful God, then...... And you seem sure that if there was a God or a Christian God, then your conclusions are correct about the implications of this. That is a kind of religion. And you are claiming to know things really on a very similar level to the claims of Christians.

In this thread you said Christians have not shown you anything, evidence of God that is. But most religions, including Christianity believe that the demonstration takes place via practice and attitudinal shifts. If you are interested, you could pursue those. And this would be, as opposed to the activity you are engaging in here, a real attempt at finding out if you can be shown something. If you are not interested, fine. I mean some proselytizing Christians think it is not fine, but if you are not interested and do not believe, this should not pose a problem for you.

Again, very few people actually believe that arguments will show you something new around this issue - and many other ones also, religious and secular alike.

[Moreno]

Very simple. If God knows everything and can do anything, then he should be able to tell me what number between 1 and 10 million I'm thinking of. Likewise, if he is omniscient, omnipotent and loves us all, he would do something to prevent the deaths of those 9 million children each year as described by Sam Harris. But he does nothing. Therefore, as Sam Harris says, God either doesn't care or he is impotent.

It's amazing how ignorant he must be of how various religions have answered the problem of evil which this is a version of.

Again, you are claiming that YOU KNOW what God would do. If God exists God would play psychic games with you. If God exists, he would prevent all deaths. Etc. These are claims to knowledge.

Can you demonstrate that these must be the case?

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one who posits the existence of a God.

And this shows your confusion. If you make a claim, you also have this burden.

[Typist]

Very simple. If God knows everything and can do anything, then he should be able to tell me what number between 1 and 10 million I'm thinking of. Likewise, if he is omniscient, omnipotent and loves us all, he would do something to prevent the deaths of those 9 million children each year as described by Sam Harris. But he does nothing. Therefore, as Sam Harris says, God either doesn't care or he is impotent.

No, no, no and more no. This is more assuming that reason is qualified to address the question. You can't just assert reason is so qualified, and then we're supposed to believe it on faith. Just as theists are expected to provide evidence for the ability of their chosen authority, you have to do the exact same thing. If you decline to do so, you are thereby abandoning any claim to reason.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one who posits the existence of a God.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes any claim. You are claiming reason is capable of addressing this question. Please provide compelling evidence to support your claim. If you refuse to do so, you are refusing to reason. If that turns out to be the case, your assertions are exactly no different than that of any faith based religion.

Would an "entity that is the source of all reality" also love everyone, know everything and be able to do anything?

I have no idea. If you feel you know, you have to demonstrate how you know, and that the method you've used to achieve that knowing has that ability.

I don't have anything to prove.

What you have to prove is that you are in a position to present the challenge you wish to present. You have to prove you have some method which is capable of meaningfully analyzing the question. Again, there's no reason why we should accept this just because you wish for us to assume it.

The burden is upon you to show me some evidence that your God exists.

I don't have a God myself. What I have is near infinite ignorance.

[Mutcer]

It's not my religion.

Actually, it really is. Your religion, in this specific case, includes the idea that Chritians can ask God that kind of question and get that kind of answer. That that is an activity God would engage in if that God existed. You even link me to a discussion where it seems you think you have demonstrated this. You have a set of hypothetical beliefs about God. If there is a God, then...... Or, if there is an all powerful God, then...... And you seem sure that if there was a God or a Christian God, then your conclusions are correct about the implications of this. That is a kind of religion. And you are claiming to know things really on a very similar level to the claims of Christians.

I am merely responding to what Christians have said about their God. It's not a religion of mine. It's a religion of the people I'm responding to.

In this thread you said Christians have not shown you anything, evidence of God that is. But most religions, including Christianity believe that the demonstration takes place via practice and attitudinal shifts. If you are interested, you could pursue those. And this would be, as opposed to the activity you are engaging in here, a real attempt at finding out if you can be shown something. If you are not interested, fine. I mean some proselytizing Christians think it is not fine, but if you are not interested and do not believe, this should not pose a problem for you.

Like I said, if God is omniscient, omnipotent, loves me and wants me to believe he exists (as Christians claim) - then it would be about as easy for him to get me to believe as it is for you or me to take a breath of air. But he does nothing.

Again, very few people actually believe that arguments will show you something new around this issue - and many other ones also, religious and secular alike.

I'm not looking for arguments. I'm looking for sufficient evidence that God exists.

So tell me. What number from 1 to 10 million am I thinking of?

[Mutcer]

Very simple. If God knows everything and can do anything, then he should be able to tell me what number between 1 and 10 million I'm thinking of. Likewise, if he is omniscient, omnipotent and loves us all, he would do something to prevent the deaths of those 9 million children each year as described by Sam Harris. But he does nothing. Therefore, as Sam Harris says, God either doesn't care or he is impotent.

It's amazing how ignorant he must be of how various religions have answered the problem of evil which this is a version of.

Again, you are claiming that YOU KNOW what God would do. If God exists God would play psychic games with you. If God exists, he would prevent all deaths. Etc. These are claims to knowledge.

Can you demonstrate that these must be the case?

I am merely responding to the claims of knowledge which Christians make.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on the one who posits the existence of a God.

And this shows your confusion. If you make a claim, you also have this burden.

What claims have I made? I am merely responding to the claims that Christians have made.

[Moreno]

I am merely responding to the claims of knowledge which Christians make.

Well, no. You are stating what would be the case if God existed. You are claiming to know what God would do or what God should do if God existed. These are claims to knowledge. I think these issues can be raised as excellent questions, but once you set out to make claims as part of an argument, you are then subject to the same burden of proof yourself. How do you know what God would have to do? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claims.

What claims have I made? I am merely responding to the claims that Christians have made.

I've made this clear. If God was real he would save children. If God was real Christians would be able to engage God's help in reading your mind to find numbers so that you would be convinced. In other threads you have made similar types of claims, implicitly or openly.

[Mutcer]

I am merely responding to the claims of knowledge which Christians make.

Well, no. You are stating what would be the case if God existed. You are claiming to know what God would do or what God should do if God existed. These are claims to knowledge. I think these issues can be raised as excellent questions, but once you set out to make claims as part of an argument, you are then subject to the same burden of proof yourself. How do you know what God would have to do? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claims.

What claims have I made? I am merely responding to the claims that Christians have made.

I've made this clear. If God was real he would save children. If God was real Christians would be able to engage God's help in reading your mind to find numbers so that you would be convinced. In other threads you have made similar types of claims, implicitly or openly.

If God doesn't save children (or alert us of impending catastrophes), then he either doesn't care (he's immoral) or he is incapable of doing anything (impotent). The more likely scenario is that God doesn't exist.

[James S Saint]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

[Moreno]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Just to be tangential....the claim that someone making a claim bears the burden of proof is, well, a claim. One can support this claim by pointing out the practical consequences of either having such a rule or not having it, but in the end this will likely fall way short of proof. On the other hand this particular claim has seemed to me at least to have both practical and moral assumptions tucked in it. I actually don't agree with this claim. I don't think there is such a burden nor should there be, at least not as a comprehensive rule.

We certainly wouldn't want witnesses of alleged crimes to have a burden of proof - especially in the sense this rule is often used in more stringent forums where one can actually end up banned for making claims with proof (read:evidence). Their claims are evidence and that is useful in and of itself, even if in some or many cases these claims turn out to be false or incorrect.

Further it is useful, for me at least, to here claims, even ones that cannot be supported by much evidence, let alone proof which is rare in any case if at all. If I read, for example, the experiences of someone who seems intelligent and honest, I can still use their unsupported claims to lead to my own explorations. I am obviously not under any burden to assume their claims are true, but these can be useful anyway.

But, if you have the expectation yourself that claims bear a burden of proof then not accepting this burden for your own claims is hypocrisy. (you not being you, James, in the specific)

[Moreno]

If God doesn't save children (or alert us of impending catastrophes), then he either doesn't care (he's immoral) or he is incapable of doing anything (impotent). The more likely scenario is that God doesn't exist.

This is a false dilemma. There could be other options and Christians have come up with a number. To be sure these are the options means you know all the factors a God would know. You assume that you can put yourself in God's perspective, see God's options, and know the ultimate best choices. If you have ever had a pet or a child, they also often assume that you are making the wrong moral choices because their perspectives are not as comprehensive as yours. And they are just as sure as you are, at least on occasion, that you are either impotent or immoral.

Further you mean immoral from your perspective. How do you know your morals are objective?

And, to repeat, what you wrote above has a number of claims in it. That these are the options and there are not others. That this choice would be objectively immoral. That given these claims being true God's nonexistence is more likely.

[Arcturus Descending]

Why is God not held to the same moral standards as man?

It is Man who dreamed up those moral standards and they at times get so messy and run afoul because of our own unique perceptions and because we are just not capable of diving as deeply as we need to in order to see and judge rightly.

If there is a god, wouldn't God transcend morality and hopefully would be capable of flowing only through reality...as it is created. But since we don't have a clue as to what reality IS except what we can taste in a teaspoonful, I mean, why bother having a god at all if the same faulty standards would apply/have to apply to Such a Mystery. Questions of morality and ethics - wouldn't it be far better if they flowed through each situation and circumstance differently? Perhaps then we could see a god as being made in OUR own image and likeness (which we do anyway) as opposed to seeing a god who just does not measure up to us.

Perhaps even God is fearful of helping a butterfly out of its coccoon. Who really knows the awful effect that might have on the universe? Just saying..

[Mutcer]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Where is your proof that God exists?

[James S Saint]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Where is your proof that God exists?

Did you hear me claim that God exists?

That would about like me proclaiming to my cat that the Internet exists. Why bother?

[Moreno]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Where is your proof that God exists?

Did you hear me claim that God exists?

That would about like me proclaiming to my cat that the Internet exists. Why bother?

LOL

And if your cat could talk it would just whip out Occam's Razor and 'demonstrate' that it was more parsimonious to assume you were delusional.

[James S Saint]

And if your cat could talk it would just whip out Occam's Razor and 'demonstrate' that it was more parsimonious to assume you were delusional.

[Mutcer]

The burden of proof is on the one making ANY claim, for or against.

Where is your proof that God exists?

Did you hear me claim that God exists?

That would about like me proclaiming to my cat that the Internet exists. Why bother?

Yes, I heard you claim God exists. Not in those precise words.

If I were to posit that a thousand unicorns are roaming the Arctic icecap, if you were to say I don't have sufficient evidence to legitimately make that claim, would the burden of proof be just as much on you to show I didn't have sufficient evidence to make such claim as it is on me to show there are a thousand unicorns roaming the polar icecap?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

The more likely scenario is that God doesn't exist.

If God exists She/He/They/It must have a life. Surely She/He/It/They are not consumed and obsessed with us little pimples on the ass end of creation.

[Moreno]

Yes, I heard you claim God exists. Not in those precise words.

If I were to posit that a thousand unicorns are roaming the Arctic icecap, if you were to say I don't have sufficient evidence to legitimately make that claim, would the burden of proof be just as much on you to show I didn't have sufficient evidence to make such claim as it is on me to show there are a thousand unicorns roaming the polar icecap?

You still have not acknowledged that you have made claims. You seem to think that if someone else has made a claim, especially if you consider it one less likely to be true, you do not need to back up your claims. That makes no sense if you think claims bear burdens of proof. Unless you think only theists must back up their claims.

[Typist]

"All such conversations would collapse under their own weight if they were actually motivated by reason."
- Prophessur I.B. Partypooper