Hypothetical question

Originally posted by Agerg
But perhaps you can help change my mind, how does morally right enter into the definition of any entity capable of creating at least one universe? Because it just does!?

This answer to both you and RO: What or what is morally RIGHT?

Consider anything made by any creator - the Model T made by Henry Ford, for example.

Would it make sense for the car to complain to the designer : why on earth should I be all black?

Wouldn't the answer be: Just BECAUSE!

There have already been many threads on Morality, (I seem to remember one such discussion between me and twhitehead, for one) with the point of: what, if anything, is Morally RIGHT?

You will find that in each and every case the proponent of what is RIGHT defines it through his or her own lenses of experience, volition and judgement. There IS no morally RIGHT in any objective, universally accepted way, as the huge differences on this very planet at this very time in the 21st century show. For example, there IS a huge difference between, say, the Morally RIGHT of Western society and that of the Muslim world, (which is a significant chunk of humanity) and who can claim to be an impartial judge of both camps, with a foot in neither?

Originally posted by CalJust
This answer to both you and RO: What or what is morally RIGHT?

Consider anything made by any creator - the Model T made by Henry Ford, for example.

Would it make sense for the car to complain to the designer : why on earth should I be all black?

Wouldn't the answer be: Just BECAUSE!

There have already been many threads on Morality ...[text shortened]... k of humanity) and who can claim to be an impartial judge of both camps, with a foot in neither?

That really is ducking the question.

You claimed that everything that God does is morally right by definition. That is an extravagant claim and I challenged you to explain why.

Your answer was that there is no moral right in any objective, universally accepted way. Even if this were true, it does not support your contention that God is morally right by definition. It would only support the contention that we can't say whether God is morally right or not.

Consider anything made by any creator

OK - I and my wife created my son.

Do you think this means that anything we do to our son is morally right? If not, please explain why you think this does not apply to God, which is what I asked you originally.

Originally posted by CalJust

Consider anything made by any creator - the Model T made by Henry Ford, for example.

Would it make sense for the car to complain to the designer : why on earth should I be all black?

[/b]

Consider the baby who is born with a disease that means that it experiences nothing but pain for the few days that it lives.

Would it make any sense for the baby to complain to the Creator - why did you allow this to happen?

Err.....yes.

Originally posted by Agerg
By our standards it is maximally wrong, but suppose, for argument sake, there exists some other type of creature - somewhere which, for whatever reason, experiences a level of pleasure which is indirectly proportional to the pleasure it sees others experience. Well in that case it would see the eternal torture of humans to be maximally right!! (and conversely ...[text shortened]... t our perception of maximally wrong is perfectly aligned with what is objectively morally wrong?

Yes we can say that. The reason being that if morality is about anything it's about the wellbeing of
sentient creatures.
And in this situation you have sentient creatures undergoing infinite suffering.
This is thus by definition infinitely morally wrong.

The fact that some other creature gets it's rocks off watching other sentient creatures suffering does
nothing to change this.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
OK - I and my wife created my son. Do you think this means that anything we do to our son is morally right? If not, please explain why you think this does not apply to God, which is what I asked you originally.

You as little created your son as your hair.

And I was not ducking the question at all. What I did was point out that neither you nor me can tell what objective moral Right actually is, whether it is attributed to a god-figure or yourself.

Originally posted by CalJust
You as little created your son as your hair.

And I was not ducking the question at all. What I did was point out that neither you nor me can tell what objective moral Right actually is, whether it is attributed to a god-figure or yourself.

So how could you claim that everything that God does is right by definition?

You do realise that you have both claimed that God is always right by definition and that it is not possible for us to know whether God is always right or not?

Originally posted by CalJust
You as little created your son as your hair.

So who did create him?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Actually, my church, the Episcopalian Church of America, has accepted gays into their services for years, and have become the first of the mainstream churches to actually perform same-sex marriages.

From Wikipedia:
"At its 2006 General Convention the Episcopal Church rejected a resolution allowing the solemnization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts ...[text shortened]... [/i] changing. And my church has long been in the forefront of this change and changes like it.

It's good to know God never changes.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So who did create him?

Depends on your belief system.

Some would say that God did.

Others might say that The Life Force, or The Universe or The Great Spirit.

But most certainly not you.

You couldn't create an ant, or an amoeba.

Originally posted by CalJust
Depends on your belief system.

Some would say that God did.

Others might say that The Life Force, or The Universe or The Great Spirit.

But most certainly not you.

You couldn't create an ant, or an amoeba.

He would not exist if my wife and I had not taken the conscious (if somewhat inebriated) steps to make it happen. We provided the raw materials. My wife's body did the rest.

This is all there is to creating a human being. And well within the scope of us having 'created' him. Just because other belief systems like to wrap this up in some hippy mumbo jumbo does not change this.

That is my belief. Why do you give credence to other belief systems, but not mine?

Your comment on ants and amoebas is clutching at straws. Do you think I was claiming I could create an ant or an amoeba?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
So how could you claim that everything that God does is right by definition?

You do realise that you have both claimed that God is always right by definition and that it is not possible for us to know whether God is always right or not?

I would be really interested in hearing how you reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
That is my belief. Why do you give credence to other belief systems, but not mine?

Your comment on ants and amoebas is clutching at straws. Do you think I was claiming I could create an ant or an amoeba?

I did not claim to have described ALL possible belief systems. Nor did I state what mine was.

Obviously, yours is another alternative view (i.e. I am the creator of my children's lives) and you are welcome to it.

(Aside: consider the poor couple where the father cannot "create" a child. What skills would you like to teach him? In what way would his abilities be inferior to yours?)

I would say that (if it were possible) your "ability" to have created the life that started in your wife's womb is for more spectacular than your "ability" to create an amoeba, hence my comparison.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I would be really interested in hearing how you reconcile these two apparently contradictory statements.

Strange that you need even more elaboration, I have now tried to explain it twice.

They are not contradictory statements by any means.

Firstly, I have already demonstrated that neither you nor I am able to state what is objectively RIGHT, and you did not dispute that.

Secondly, if there was a god-figure that made all the rules, then nobody would be able to challenge him/her/it to say whatever it was he/she/it was doing was WRONG. On what basis? Superior information or superior experience?

THis seems to me both obvious and simple.

Originally posted by CalJust
Strange that you need even more elaboration, I have now tried to explain it twice.

They are not contradictory statements by any means.

Firstly, I have already demonstrated that neither you nor I am able to state what is objectively RIGHT, and you did not dispute that.

Secondly, if there was a god-figure that made all the rules, then nobody would be ...[text shortened]... asis? Superior information or superior experience?

THis seems to me both obvious and simple.

Strange that you need even more elaboration, I have now tried to explain it twice.

Perhaps the fault is in your explanation.

Firstly, I have already demonstrated that neither you nor I am able to state what is objectively RIGHT, and you did not dispute that.

The fact that I did not dispute it does not mean that I accepted it, either. I believe it is objectively wrong to torture people in hell for eternity.

Secondly, if there was a god-figure that made all the rules, then nobody would be able to challenge him/her/it to say whatever it was he/she/it was doing was WRONG. On what basis? Superior information or superior experience?

The original claim I challenged was not that no-one was in a position to say that this god was doing wrong. You claimed that this god must being doing right. These are not the same statements.

If you are not in a position to say whether someone stole my wallet, it does not mean that he/she did not steal my wallet.

You made the active claim that god always acts in a moral way by definition. I asked you to substantiate this claim. You have not. Simply repeating that no-one is in a position to judge god (which I dispute, but do not need to pursue for the moment) is not the same as proving that how god acts is always morally right.

To give one option, it is possible that this god knows exactly what is morally right and morally wrong, and then occasionally ignores this because, as you suggest, he is simply much bigger and more powerful than we are and can do what he likes because there is sweet FA we can do about it and there is no one to hold him to account.

However, you have claimed this is not the case, and I am asking you how you know.

Originally posted by CalJust
I did not claim to have described ALL possible belief systems. Nor did I state what mine was.

Obviously, yours is another alternative view (i.e. I am the creator of my children's lives) and you are welcome to it.

(Aside: consider the poor couple where the father cannot "create" a child. What skills would you like to teach him? In what way would ...[text shortened]... fe's womb is for more spectacular than your "ability" to create an amoeba, hence my comparison.

I did not claim to have described ALL possible belief systems.

I didn't say you had made this claim.

consider the poor couple where the father cannot "create" a child. What skills would you like to teach him?

What makes you assume creation is a skill that can be taught?

In what way would his abilities be inferior to yours?

Assuming he is infertile, then his ability to fertilise his wife's egg is inferior to mine.

I would say that (if it were possible) your "ability" to have created the life that started in your wife's womb is for more spectacular than your "ability" to create an amoeba, hence my comparison.

I would consider it far more spectacular if I were able to create an amoeba, and I imagine I would win a nobel prize if I could.