Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[ClearwaterVol]

What exists besides the universe? What created/developed humanity besides natural processes? My point is that even humanity's reasoning facilities are the product of natural selection unless there is something besides natural selection to have produced us and our intellect. So in that framework, it is impossible for humanity's reasoning to have gone against survival of the fittest, as they would have had to have transcended that which produces them.

What, besides natural selection, produced human intellect/reasoning?

I disagree. Survival of the fittest is nothing more than humanly created theory regarding the animal kingdom. It is not a universal truth and humans are obviously less affected by the application theory than other critters.

I don't know what, if anything, exists beyond the universe.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We've argued this point before but I think it's important to note as a response here that the notion that God's character being "good" boils down to God's character being God's character, which doesn't at all explain why it's good. This has to be taken as axiomatic, but there's really no reason for someone who doesn't already believe to accept this premise.



This relies on the previous point being true.



I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. If God's nature is necessarily the way that it is then there is either a reason for the way that it is, or it is arbitrary (i.e., a brute fact). If there's a reason that God's nature is what it is, then what caused it to be what it is rather than something else?



The way I've been using the term "normative" may not be the same way it is often used when talking about ethics; Christian morality is normative in the sense that it attempts to provide an absolute basis for morality. I've been saying it isn't normative because it fails at this (due in part to the above).

I won't be able to address everything that you posted today as I'm just too busy so I thought I'd focus on this post, at least for the time being. And I appreciate the apology although it was unnecessary. If I was offended or upset about our interactions I would have blocked you a long time ago.

I think we're both well educated and read enough to know that treating the need for a cause to the necessary being is absurd. He is axiomatic. We've tilled that ground before.

Perhaps you are using the term differently. God's allowance of free will doesn't in any way change his sovereignty or basis as standard.

Thanks.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I disagree. Survival of the fittest is nothing more than humanly created theory regarding the animal kingdom. It is not a universal truth and humans are obviously less affected by the application theory than other critters.

I don't know what, if anything, exists beyond the universe.

Natural selection is supposedly that which produced your intellectual processes. I think your playing coy. And how would you exit your rationality to prove that it isn't effected by the process that developed it?

 

[Wafflestomper]

I think we're both week educated and read enough to know that trending the need for a cause to the necessary being is absurd. He is axiomatic. We've tilled that ground before.

This is my point. If there's no reason God is the way he is (i.e., no cause), then what follows from that?

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is my point. If there's no reason God is the way he is (i.e., no cause), then what follows from that?

That he is I Am that I Am, His standards are based on a His character and not some malleable whim. You seem just to be looking for a way to criticize it. If it was changeable, you would criticize. Since its not, you criticize. You seem to be showing your agenda.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Natural selection is supposedly that which produced your intellectual processes. I think your playing coy. And how would you exit your rationality to prove that it isn't effected by the process that developed it?

But you still seem to be relying upon a human creation, natural selection, to say that humans are incapable of moving beyond it. I am not playing coy and I do thank you for your responses. We won't agree, but I think I better understand your views.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But you still seem to be relying upon a human creation, natural selection, to say that humans are incapable of moving beyond it. I am not playing coy and I do thank you for your responses. We won't agree, but I think I better understand your views.

I'm not sure i understand yours, but that's fine. That critique was definitely directed at naturalistic, evolutionary ethics theory.

Thanks. Genuinely.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That he is I Am that I Am, His standards are based on a His character and not some malleable whim. You seem just to be looking for a way to criticize it. If it was changeable, you would criticize. Since its not, you criticize. You seem to be showing your agenda.

I'm not saying it is based on a whim, just that it isn't based on any reason. That's just how I'd define arbitrary.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not saying it is based on a whim, just that it isn't based on any reason. That's just how I'd define arbitrary.

If you think the self existent necessary being is without a reason... That's on you.

Philosophically, the historic criticism of arbitrary morality is that it could have been something else, is,or will be. The point is that God's nature would immunize Him from that criticism.

 

[Wafflestomper]

If you think the self existent necessary being is without a reason... That's on you.

Philosophically, the historic criticism of arbitrary morality is that it could have been something else, is,or will be. The point is that God's nature would immunize Him from that criticism.

If the purpose of normative ethics is to provide a basis for acting one way, rather than another, the source of morality having no particular reason for being the way it is (meaning that it is essentially just a brute fact) doesn't really strike me as providing adequate motivation for action.

The purpose of claiming that it isn't arbitrary seems to me to be an attempt to show that it's based on reason, and thus should provide justification for acting a certain way. But that's not really the case.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If the purpose of normative ethics is to provide a basis for acting one way, rather than another, the source of morality having no particular reason for being the way it is doesn't really strike me as providing adequate motivation for action.

The purpose of claiming that it isn't arbitrary seems to me to be an attempt to show that it's based on reason, and thus should provide justification for acting a certain way. But that's not really the case.

The point of God as the necessary being is that he is perfect. If he weren't perfect, He wouldn't be God. That's the reason behind his nature. you're trying to use that against Him in the moral argument and i don't see how it works as you think it does. You're claiming that it's without reason when the "reason" is that he's/it's perfect.

It's definitely an interesting tactic to claim that God's perfection is a criticism that makes His nature arbitrary. I see it as just the opposite. I guess there is much we most likely will never agree with

 

[rjd970]

That he is I Am that I Am, His standards are based on a His character and not some malleable whim. You seem just to be looking for a way to criticize it. If it was changeable, you would criticize. Since its not, you criticize. You seem to be showing your agenda.

That seems like an arbitrary statement that is self-defined to be immune from argument. If the source of objective reality is God and he just is, what is any different than saying "Murder is wrong and it just is"? I'm not seeing the qualitative difference here or what is being smuggled.

 

[Wafflestomper]

The point of God as the necessary being is that he is perfect. If he weren't perfect, He wouldn't be God. That's the reason behind his nature. you're trying to use that against Him in the moral argument and i don't see how it works as you think it does. You're claiming that it's without reason when the "reason" is that he's/it's perfect.

But perfection isn't entailed by necessity?

I guess there is much we most likely will never agree with

For once I think we fully agree.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That seems like an arbitrary statement that is self-defined to be immune from argument. If the source of objective reality is God and he just is, what is any different than saying "Murder is wrong and it just is"? I'm not seeing the qualitative difference here or what is being smuggled.

I don't see it as arbitrary, nor that it's self-defined (designed) to be immune from argument. God said that of Himself thousands of years ago, before there was ever so much as a Christian, much less a Christian apologist. The same with God's self-revelation of perfection and immutability. In other words, God designated Himself the Necessary Being in scripture. If God is perfect in every way, that means that He couldn't have been anything else, else He wouldn't have been perfect in every way. So, it's necessary yet self-dependent that He is what He is.

To be frank, this seems like a complaint that Judeo-Christian philosophy is too sufficient. I'll take it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

But perfection isn't entailed by necessity?

It is. As I just posted to rjd, if He wasn't perfect in every way, He wouldn't be God, thus it was a necessity that He be Him as He is to be Him as He is. Yes, this is axiomatic, which we've both agreed is to be expected in the self-referential, self-existent Necessary Being.

And again, I don't see that this is a criticism of Him as the source of morality, nor the morality that He sources.

 

[rjd970]

I don't see it as arbitrary, nor that it's self-defined (designed) to be immune from argument. God said that of Himself thousands of years ago, before there was ever so much as a Christian, much less a Christian apologist. The same with God's self-revelation of perfection and immutability. In other words, God designated Himself the Necessary Being in scripture. If God is perfect in every way, that means that He couldn't have been anything else, else He wouldn't have been perfect in every way. So, it's necessary yet self-dependent that He is what He is.

To be frank, this seems like a complaint that Judeo-Christian philosophy is too sufficient. I'll take it.

As stomp said though, that is absent of any reason for somebody to believe that already doesn’t. I will grant it might be consistent, but quite the opposite actually, it’s wholly insufficient. Simply stating God doesn’t need a reason is not compelling or sufficient enough for me to just wash over the problem. I’m better off just saying murder is wrong and morally justifying it through the the lens of minimizing human suffering.

Again, I fail to see anything being smuggled if the end sum is simply pointing to something doesn’t have to follow the same reasoning you are requiring of everybody else.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As stomp said though, that is absent of any reason for somebody to believe that already doesn’t. I will grant it might be consistent, but quite the opposite actually, it’s wholly insufficient. Simply stating God doesn’t need a reason is not compelling or sufficient enough for me to just wash over the problem. I’m better off just saying murder is wrong and morally justifying it through the the lens of minimizing human suffering.

Again, I fail to see anything being smuggled if the end sum is simply pointing to something doesn’t have to follow the same reasoning you are requiring of everybody else.

I think a study of necessary being would be constructive.

I didn't say that there is no reason for revealed morality, just that it is based in God's Character, which is uncaused.

As mentioned before, morality is also based in God's purpose for creation, which is reason. I think your criticism would only hold water if God were an impersonal God.

For instance, murder is wrong because humanity has value, which is because we are special creation in Gods image. Stealing is bad because God established property rights. Coveting is wrong because love is the highest ideal in Gods creation.

It's not like there is no reason for God's morality. They are based on God creative decisions which are based in His divine character.

You are choosing a non-morality where murder is neither right it wrong because it is based in your opinion with no standard to say it's right it wrong. You're complaining because Christian morality provides a standard.

Christian scriptures predicted 2000 years ago that people complain about the standard and decide to deny it.

 

[rjd970]

I think a study of necessary being would be constructive.

I didn't say that there is no reason for revealed morality, just that it is based in God's Character, which is uncaused.

As mentioned before, morality is also based in God's purpose for creation, which is reason. I think your criticism would only hold water if God were an impersonal God.

For instance, murder is wrong because humanity has value, which is because we are special creation in Gods image. Stealing is bad because God established property rights. Coveting is wrong because love is the highest ideal in Gods creation.

It's not like there is no reason for God's morality. They are based on God creative decisions which are based in His divine character.

You are choosing a non-morality where murder is neither right it wrong because it is based in your opinion with no standard to say it's right it wrong. You're complaining because Christian morality provides a standard.

Christian scriptures predicted 2000 years ago that people complain about the standard and decide to deny it.

I could also make the moral claim murder is good, and justify it through maximizing human suffering. But how long as a species would we have survived had that been the case? Is murder wrong because God said so, or is murder wrong because here we still are in 2019?

That aside, I’m still not seeing a reason God is needed to know what’s right and wrong if at the end of the day the answer is God is uncaused while at the same time requiring that I find that cause.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I could also make the moral claim murder is good, and justify it through maximizing human suffering. But how long as a species would we have survived had that been the case? Is murder wrong because God said so, or is murder wrong because here we still are in 2019?

That aside, I’m still not seeing a reason God is needed to know what’s right and wrong if at the end of the day the answer is God is uncaused while at the same time requiring that I find that cause.

You could claim that, but it wouldn't be a moral claim since, without a standard, it neither defines nor negates murder as wrong.

I'm not following your last paragraph. I suspect you are misrepresenting Christian theology. You don't have to find that cause to know that murder is wrong since God wrote it on your heart when he made you, as conscience.

As mentioned several times in this thread, Romans 2 answers this.

 

[Wafflestomper]

It is. As I just posted to rjd, if He wasn't perfect in every way, He wouldn't be God, thus it was a necessity that He be Him as He is to be Him as He is. Yes, this is axiomatic, which we've both agreed is to be expected in the self-referential, self-existent Necessary Being.

And again, I don't see that this is a criticism of Him as the source of morality, nor the morality that He sources.

The initial argument was that because his character is necessary morality based on him isn't arbitrary. You're now talking about the content of his character, which is another matter.

His attributes are presented as being axiomatic, but given all the arguments against them, including ones I've presented on this forum, that isn't the case in a strict sense.

 

[rjd970]

I can if the standard is human suffering. Not saying you will find that sufficient, or if it even is, but it’s a standard.

What I’m sayin is when I say murder is wrong, you are requiring that I provide a standard or reason as to why that claim is objectively true.

When I ask you the same question the answer is because God is, and by definition a reason isn’t required.

If that is misstated I’m open to being corrected.

 

[Weezer]

What do you do when your neighbor doesn't want to live next to you in peace unless you adopt their way of life?

Have you personally experienced that? How many Muslims live in your neighborhood? How many people have they killed for not converting?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can if the standard is human suffering. Not saying you will find that sufficient, or if it even is, but it’s a standard.

What I’m sayin is when I say murder is wrong, you are requiring that I provide a standard or reason as to why that claim is objectively true.

When I ask you the same question the answer is because God is, and by definition a reason isn’t required.

If that is misstated I’m open to being corrected.

I've already corrected you and given a reason murder is wrong. I've also posted in depth, more than once, in this thread, why stating your opinion with no external standard is actually making non-moral statements. Since Aristotle and Plato, the philosophical necessity of the Unmoved Mover has been established. You're just trying to claim that if that standard exists, it's the same as if there is no standard.

It's a logical absurdity.

 

[Weezer]

He wouldn't answer me when i asked if murder was wrong by Muslims, he wont answer you. He said its judging to say its wrong, while fussing about Christians during the crusades.

Murder is straight up wrong no matter who does it.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Have you personally experienced that? How many Muslims live in your neighborhood? How many people have they killed for not converting?

How many live next to you or in your neighborhood. I just asked you a hypothetical question.