What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

A) Wikipedia is... a source. How accurate it is is dubious, but I'll take it as it is.

Yes, but in this case there were plenty of references, which I removed in the quotes but you can find in the footnotes section of the original page. I'm sure some of those could provide more reliable detail.

True, true.

B) Each of these quotes place the gospels as written by the end of the first century AD. Long before 180. The Epistles were probably written before the gospels, as the authors had died by around 90 AD, and made their journeys/visitations to the churches much earlier.

Written, yes. Finished, not necessarily. After all, there's a lot of things in the gospels that weren't found in the earliest manuscripts. That's why I figured that 180 AD is a safe estimate: there probably weren't any major changes after that point, and there may have been before then since we don't have any manuscripts from the first century (https://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html). Also, 180 AD seems to be around the earliest we still have a complete manuscript from, so that may be where that number came from? As for the Epistles, I 100% agree.

Although this is now going off on a relatively unimportant tangent...

Fair enough. I don't know all the history of them, but I was simply pointing out that in general, they were written by the end of the first century, and if they were edited they still agree with writings in the Epistles, which were finished earlier.

And yeah, it is a sidetrack. I'll respond to your other longer post soon; I've had some things to do today which relegated my responses to the shorter ones.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie, your argument here essentially comes down to advocating against free will. You are saying that God knew there would be sin and that Lucifer and Adam would choose to sin, so He just shouldn't have given them the option.

And yet, to love, one must have the ability to hate. To do good, one must have the ability to do evil. To be righteous, one must have the ability to sin. Free will is the most loving thing God could give us, because He gave us the ability to love.
(Not to mention God's sacrifice for us so that we may be forgiven of sin and held righteous in the eyes of God.)

Can we be said to have free will, if God knew, in advance, every choice we would ever make? If you believe God exists, and is omnipotent and omniscient, then all our decisions, from the moment of our conception, are predestined.

Ah, but God is outside of time. He foreknew it all, and yet He still gave us the choice, such that He knows it in the very moment we do it. Unlike ai in a program, we have the ability to disobey the will of our "programmer" and yet that very same programmer knows that we will disobey Him. It is not entirely understandable by us, as we are the creation and not the creator. After all, if we could understand everything about God, we would have to be God ourselves.

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

Because it's all nonsense.

[Octavious]

Why does God knowing what you will do make it any less of your choice? If I looked into a crystal ball and saw you punching a Nazi in the face tomorrow (or whatever it is you do for a hobby in the holidays), would my preknowledge make it any less your decision? Your entire future is set in stone, but that doesn't mean you're not the chief stone mason

[Crazy Anglican]

Why does God knowing what you will do make it any less of your choice? If I looked into a crystal ball and saw you punching a Nazi in the face tomorrow (or whatever it is you do for a hobby in the holidays), would my preknowledge make it any less your decision? Your entire future is set in stone, but that doesn't mean you're not the chief stone mason

Hi Octavious,

I think the counter argument to that would be that you didn’t create me. The implication is that since God created everyone with absolute foreknowledge of every decision they would make, then God is responsible for those decisions being the one who put all those decisions into motion by creating me.

Essentially people don’t slap Nazis; God slaps Nazis.


My contention is that God with His omniscience knows not only the choices that history shows I have made, but all the choices I might have made and might make still. To me that’s more all knowing than the God who knows the choices we have made and presumably will make. Basically who knows more about geography: the fellow who knows only the way to and from work, or the guy who knows all the roads in all the countries of earth?

My contention to Jamie, was simply that. Knowing all possible choices and their eventual outcomes is more all knowing than knowing the particular choices of all of your creations and ignoring any other possibilities. By definition, if you could know more; then you’re not all knowing. So, Jamie is beginning with a false premise and is basing his argument on it. It seems funny to me because it isn’t even an argument about God’s existence or morality, as it’s really an argument about the definition of omniscience.

[Crazy Anglican]

Can we be said to have free will, if God knew, in advance, every choice we would ever make? If you believe God exists, and is omnipotent and omniscient, then all our decisions, from the moment of our conception, are predestined.

Ah, but God is outside of time. He foreknew it all, and yet He still gave us the choice, such that He knows it in the very moment we do it. Unlike ai in a program, we have the ability to disobey the will of our "programmer" and yet that very same programmer knows that we will disobey Him. It is not entirely understandable by us, as we are the creation and not the creator. After all, if we could understand everything about God, we would have to be God ourselves.

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

Because it's all nonsense.

Do you apply that standard to a lot of things? How are you on particle physics? Is everything, that you don't understand, nonsense?

[CaptainFritz28]

Why does God knowing what you will do make it any less of your choice? If I looked into a crystal ball and saw you punching a Nazi in the face tomorrow (or whatever it is you do for a hobby in the holidays), would my preknowledge make it any less your decision? Your entire future is set in stone, but that doesn't mean you're not the chief stone mason

I think this is a fairly good way to look at it. This, combined with Crazy A's view of God knowing every possible outcome.

[CaptainFritz28]

Why does God knowing what you will do make it any less of your choice? If I looked into a crystal ball and saw you punching a Nazi in the face tomorrow (or whatever it is you do for a hobby in the holidays), would my preknowledge make it any less your decision? Your entire future is set in stone, but that doesn't mean you're not the chief stone mason

Hi Octavious,

I think the counter argument to that would be that you didn’t create me. The implication is that since God created everyone with absolute foreknowledge of every decision they would make, then God is responsible for those decisions being the one who put all those decisions into motion by creating me.

Essentially people don’t slap Nazis; God slaps Nazis.


My contention is that God with His omniscience knows not only the choices that history shows I have made, but all the choices I might have made and might make still. To me that’s more all knowing than the God who knows the choices we have made and presumably will make. Basically who knows more about geography: the fellow who knows only the way to and from work, or the guy who knows all the roads in all the countries of earth?

My contention to Jamie, was simply that. Knowing all possible choices and their eventual outcomes is more all knowing than knowing the particular choices of all of your creations and ignoring any other possibilities. By definition, if you could know more; then you’re not all knowing. So, Jamie is beginning with a false premise and is basing his argument on it. It seems funny to me because it isn’t even an argument about God’s existence or morality, as it’s really an argument about the definition of omniscience.

I think free will is still our choices. If Jamie slaps a Nazi (to humor Oct's example), he is the one doing the slapping. God has given him the means to do so (a hand) but God is not the one slapping. He is not responsible for our actions, but He also knows what our actions will be. Again, this is because God is not within time. He knows what we will do, what precise choices we will make, and yet because He is not confined to our limited ideas of past present and future, we are still making those choices of our own free will. Also, as you say, He knows all possible outcomes. He also which outcome will end up real.

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

[CaptainFritz28]

Consider it this way:
If I went back in time, I would know the actions that everyone was going to do; their words, deeds, etc. I would know what had happened before then, what was happening at that moment, and what would happen in the future. And yet, even though I would know what everyone was about to do, I would still not be responsible for their doing it. It would still be their own free will.
Now, then, we don't have time machines, and we can only exist in one phase of past present or future - being the present. But if God created them, then He can be in all of them at once, or outside of all of them at once. Thus, He can know exactly what we are going to do, what exactly we have done, what exactly we are doing, and what exactly we could be doing otherwise all in the same instant. And yet we are still the ones doing it, and we still have the free will to do it.

[CaptainFritz28]

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You are able to talk of the existence of such a thing. You are able to describe its characteristics and hold debate over it. You are able to conceive of it.

Sure, you cannot understand every aspect in full and complete detail, but that doesn't mean you cannot conceive of it.

[Crazy Anglican]

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

[Crazy Anglican]

I don't understand it at all. Not in the slightest.

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

That being said, what’s your counterclaim? How did we get here and why? Where did all this stuff around us come from and how did it just happen to come together in a way that supports life (even if only on a temporary basis)?

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

[Jamiet99uk]

I don't see why. He's writing in English. His statements are coherent and there aren't any obvious flaws in his logic.

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

That being said, what’s your counterclaim? How did we get here and why? Where did all this stuff around us come from and how did it just happen to come together in a way that supports life (even if only on a temporary basis)?

Why do I have to have one? I am not sure how the universe began, if indeed it had a beginning at all.

Just because I am not certain of the origin of the universe does not make your theory right. Your theory makes no sense to me, because it relies on special pleading.

Where did God come from and how did God just happen to come together in the way you describe?

[Jamiet99uk]

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

Very simple example:

The bible says God created man "in his own image". Therefore logically, God looks like a man; two arms, two legs, one head, possibly a beard.

Yet if I suggest God is a big old bearded man with magical powers, Christians say "no, no, no, you're wrong, how silly you are!"

I find such nonsense very tiresome.

[CaptainFritz28]

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

That being said, what’s your counterclaim? How did we get here and why? Where did all this stuff around us come from and how did it just happen to come together in a way that supports life (even if only on a temporary basis)?

Why do I have to have one? I am not sure how the universe began, if indeed it had a beginning at all.

Just because I am not certain of the origin of the universe does not make your theory right. Your theory makes no sense to me, because it relies on special pleading.

Where did God come from and how did God just happen to come together in the way you describe?

Every theory of this type relies on special pleading. Thus, that is not an issue of God. In fact, by saying that that is the flaw of Christianity but not everything elses, you are making a special pleading fallacy. The universe must have a beginning because the observable conditions and laws of nature make that clear. The universe is expanding; thus, there must have been an origin. Everything tends towards chaos from order; thus, there must have been a time of perfect order, an origin.

We've gone over both of your final questions already in depth. Bringing them up again is silly. The answer to the first is that He came from Himself, for He is infinite. The answer to the second is that He did not happen to come together but existed for all eternity, and we know this because He communicates it to us in the Bible.
So yes. God is God because God is God. The Bible is God's truth because God says so, because He is God. It's circular and special pleading. So is every other worldview. Name something that isn't.

What you are saying is simply that you have no idea what the origin of the universe was, the purpose of mankind is, the origin of morality is, or what occurs after death. Your worldview is simply that you cannot explain anything, and that you refuse to accept any explanation of it.

[CaptainFritz28]

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

Very simple example:

The bible says God created man "in his own image". Therefore logically, God looks like a man; two arms, two legs, one head, possibly a beard.

Yet if I suggest God is a big old bearded man with magical powers, Christians say "no, no, no, you're wrong, how silly you are!"

I find such nonsense very tiresome.

Perhaps you are right. I don't know what God looks like exactly, nor do you, and you are correct, we are created in God's image. That could mean that we look like Him physically. Now, then, your assumption that He is a bearded old man is arbitrary, and not founded in anything (other than that God is referred to in the Bible as masculine), but it could be right. It doesn't really matter.

[CaptainFritz28]

He's talking about this entity called "God" which exists outside of the Universe. I cannot conceive of the existence of such a thing.

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

[Jamiet99uk]

You do seem to be able to conceive of this Being called God, well enough to do three things:

1) Create a caricature of Him.
2) Argue against venerating the caricature you’ve created.
3) Extoll the evil nature of your caricature.

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

[Crazy Anglican]

You see this is precisely the problem I have.

When I do force myself to try to conceive of "God", people like you say "oh, that's not accurate, that's a caricature".

You are still able to conceive of Him. Just because you don't have most of the details right doesn't mean you can't conceive of Him.

Then stop telling me I'm imagining him wrong!

Either what I imagine God to be is something in the right order, OR STOP ASKING ME!!

Okay so here is my problem. You're getting more and more inconsistent.

Can you conceive of God or not? If you can, great, that's progress, but you've said you cannot conceive of Him at all; then say you can force yourself to conceive of Him. Then that concept you forced out has to be absolutely (or at least mostly, right) and nobody can say something as simple as "No wait that's not how I see it and Christian doctrine says something different than what you're saying"? Why not? What's the harm in pointing out the errors in your concept of something you've admitted you have a hard time conceptualizing?