Only man is fit to be God.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Only man is fit to be God.

There is no higher form of intelligent life as far as we can tell with any confidence.

Man has already proven that he can produce better laws than any of the Gods so to want to have man led by a God with less moral values would be like us electing Satan.

We are a part of the animal kingdom. In this kingdom, all animals look to their own kind for guidance and the best rules for them to live their lives by. These they learn from instincts. Man seeks the same best rules to live life by and not only uses his instincts and feelings, he also uses his intellect and reason.

Religions would have us emulate some absentee Gods while knowing that they are less moral and intelligent in their laws than man. That is why religions tend to not try to have holy laws put into our societies. They are way too draconian.

If all other animals emulate their fittest as God, in the sense of the best rules for life, then why do some humans want to follow what can only be called an alien God?

Humans should rule over humans. No alien God should ever be let to rule over us even if one did show up.

Do you agree and if not, why not?

Regards
DL

2

So you think an infant has the ability to decide, to, make good choices, to be intelligent, etc etc. A blind person needs no help.

3

Machines have been made far, far greater in intelligence than homosapian could ever become.

4

Nice OP Greatest. I see that nobody managed to actually challenge it.

Kriswest just strawmaning as usually and JSS seems to have an awkward definition of intelligence if he thinks machines are more intelligent than humans.

5

I did not indicate anything about infants but I would say yes, they have the ability to decide, to, make good choices, to be intelligent, etc etc.

Have a look and see if you can agree. The intelligent part may not be there. We would have to define that term but I think we can apply it here. But the baby definitely makes the right choices and definitely has the ability to decide.

youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Regards
DL

6

None have yet to pass the Turin test and true intelligence and morality needs sentience.

Gods should be moral.

Regards
DL

7

Thanks and yes, so far so good.

Regards
DL

8

You have to define what you mean by better. What laws of man are better than the natural laws (Assuming you believe there are natural, physical laws and that these were produced by a god/s)?

Faulty logic. Though I don’t disagree with your entire post, I think it would be better without that Satan reference.

What traits evolve are not ‘what is best’ but what traits are ‘good enough to allow the individual to reproduce’ given the different pressures at particular times on the population in question. Though some animals do learn from their own kind, I have to take issue with the blanket nature of your statement. Can you provide some examples from each of the phyla to back up this statement. (I use phyla because you seem to be subscribing to the taxonomic system presently used).

Also, it’s not just ‘their own kind’ that animals look to. It’s the population they are a part of. It’s why a dog can behave like a cat etc. Though some things remain, as in, it is still of a dog species, the dog’s behaviour may be exactly the emulation of a cat.

How is reason not an instinct then? If all animals learn from instinct and their peers and mankind is definitely an animal? I don’t know why you make this distinction. Why privilege reason? (Not to mention ‘feeling’, which I assume you mean is intuition.

I disagree with this statement. To my understanding, monotheistic religions believe their god to be absolutely moral, and absolutely intelligent (that is, the most intelligent and moral it is possible to be). Could you show me how religions demonstrate that they ‘know’ that their ‘absent’ god is less moral and intelligent in their laws than man?

Perhaps you mean they ‘no longer’ try to have holy laws put into society. And when you talk about ‘our societies’ you should be specific.

I guess this is what you mean when you talk about reason being privileged over instincts in humans. They copy the humans around them, and use their reasoning to justify belief in a ruling god.

A little too conservative for me.

  1. what evolves is not what is best but what is good enough not to die before reproducing
  2. species don’t just emulate themselves, they can emulate other species’ behaviour too
  3. you privilege reason as if it isn’t a learned instinct and give no reason (lol) for doing so

conclusion: an alien god could be more intelligent and moral than humans, and thus, humans should emulate it (follow its laws) if it were proven to be morally superior. That is not to say that it should be followed for all time. There may come a time when humans become more intelligent (or a descendant species thereof) than the alien god, and thus, should stop following it.

9

Thanks for the reply UglyHarris

From your first comment and this one Q & A —

“Religions would have us emulate some absentee Gods while knowing that they are less moral and intelligent in their laws than man.”

Your reply —
I disagree with this statement. To my understanding, monotheistic religions believe their god to be absolutely moral, and absolutely intelligent (that is, the most intelligent and moral it is possible to be). Could you show me how religions demonstrate that they ‘know’ that their ‘absent’ god is less moral and intelligent in their laws than man?"

– it looks like we might try to discuss morals before going into some of the side questions and comments you had.

Morality should be the number one factor in selecting a God and I think I can show that man has better laws and morals than the Gods on offer.

Let’s look at God’s main punishment for instance.

Small sin/crime or large sin/crime, be it just a thought sinner or a genocidal Hitler sinner, God only has one punishment in his law. Hell for all, big and small. Then the lake of fire.

Man has a graduated punishment system where small offenders or not dealt the same punishment as the more serious offenders. Man goes by an eye for an eye with some mercy thrown in while God takes an eye for an eye and then some.

That is after death. An infinite punishment for a finite sin. Quite immoral in my opinion.

Here on earth, God would have us stone people for all kinds of offences that are less than us killing by a long shot. Just for working on the Sabbath for instance or saying his name. Totally immoral that.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

10

Once again, you are attacking literalistic Christian theology. You have nothing to say of spiritual masters who have found God to be something more than Man, but not disconnected by the difference. (Eckhart, John of the Cross, etc.)

11

I mention children making decisions because not one decent adult would turn an ignorant infant into the world.
God may seem hypocritical but, so are parents in the eyes of ignorant children. They see a world of things that adults do but, they are not allowed to do. They cannot comprehend why. They do an adult thing and are punished for it. Pretty damn hypocritical in the eyes of a child.
Imagine a child never being told no, allowed to do adult things without knowing why, what, how, when etc.
You can look at a god being hypocritical but, as ignorant children of a vast universe filled with things that could possibly make the strongest and bravest of us pee their pants , just maybe the cruelty hypocracy wrongness of what a god does in order to get it’s humans to evolve and learn could be viewed as the horrible hypocritical ways of parenting.

12

How opportune.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186578

Regards
DL

13

Ya and a bible God son murderer is not a good role model either.

Go get’m girl?

Regards
DL

14

Even a child can tell if a parent is an abusive, apathetic asshole, and that is exactly the kind of parent the theistic God is.

15

A child can? Really?

16

Okay, so I’m actually going to argue that God’s punishment system would produce more people who act morally than a graduated punishment system, which would allow for minor immoralities. And therefore, disagree that mans laws are better than God’s, morally speaking.

My reasoning is:

  1. Absolute punishment for any transgression would prevent all transgressions, no matter how ‘small’ or immoral they are deemed.
  2. A graduated system would allow for minor infringements that, despite being small transgressions, are ultimately immoral.

Therefore, God’s law would produce less immorality than a system of law that would be lenient on less immoral acts, as this leniency would ultimately lead people to do those immoral acts that they otherwise wouldn’t (If they were going to be punished for all eternity for acting that way, performing that action).

This doesn’t really mean that God is more moral in-himself, but it does lend itself to the argument that an absolute, zero-tolerance law would in effect prevent immorality.

However, if we extend to God, the notion that like-does-as-like you used as an argument in your OP, then God must obey God’s law (for it is the best law that God could follow) and therefore, God must be absolutely moral too (unless he is burning in Hell now?).

also, I’m editing this to add:

Regarding Hitler etc. Depending on what God you believe, and how you believe in that God, it is possible that he can absolve you of any sin too. So his punishment is not guaranteed, so long as you are sorry for sinning. Being sorry in man’s courts doesn’t tend to let you off the crime (though it can lessen the severity of the sentence).

17

Obviously this does not work since immorality has not been prevented.

18

True, I don’t actually believe God exists, though. Also, we live in a world governed by the laws of man, not the laws of god.

However, having said that, it might be argued that immorality exists because God has a get-out clause:

I believe Zizek says something to this effect. You can do what you want because of God, rather than do anything you want because God doesn’t exist. That is, because God will forgive you, you can commit atrocities. If God wasn’t lenient at all, and everybody knew that they would burn for eternity when they die for any sin sin, no matter how small, they would not commit sins at all.

19

with love,
sanjay

20

That would go against scriptures that say the vast majority of us will end in hell. We bad bad people are on that wide road to hell, while the very few are on the narrow road to heaven.

Regards
DL