Question for Atheists

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Does God have infinite volume?

To tell you the truth, I don't know whether God's volume can be measured by a human being. 😉

And what does "completely right" and "completely wrong" mean?

The same as "absolutely right" and "absolutely wrong"... Think of it as something universal that applies to all people without exceptions...[/b]

"Big" is an adjective that refers to the volume of an object. If asking about God's bigness can be answered, so can a question about his volume.

God is big = God has a large volume
God is "absolutely" big = God has an "absolutely" large volume. I imagine that means infinite volume, but you say it does not, so I find what you're saying totally meaningless. Can you clear this up for me?

I'll explain as clearly as I can my understanding of evil and good. Human beings have, as part of the mind, a conscience, which is an unconcious judge of actions. It either approves or disapproves of actions, and it's approval or disapproval is experienced by the person as guilt, outrage, and the like in the case of disapproval and a warm glow of satisfaction, a kinship with others, compassion, etc in the case of approval. These judgements are judgements of "good" and "evil" and they are the person's judgements.

Part of what causes them is a genetic program, and this will be similar for all people though with variation. Part of it is based on life experience; for example, if one is repeatedly told "XXX is bad" and sees the horrible effects of XXX on someone when young, they might come to feel "XXX is wrong" even if XXX were the greatest thing ever for 99% of the people who used it; maybe, for example, XXX was an automobile, and some kid saw his Dad get killed in a car race and grew up with a mother who therefore had a pathological hatred of cars, or something. Likewise, Christians from the Bible Belt of the US, Muslims from Iran, and wanna be Buddhist hippies from California might have certain such judgements common to their own group but different from the others.

This judgement is altruistic and based on the idea that pain is bad and pleasure is good. A healthy conscience feels that these things are true not only for oneself but for others as well.

In the mind is also the tendency to be selfish, and these two opposing factors produce different effects in different people.

Notice that the way I see it "good" and "evil" are simply judgements of something as creating net pleasure or net pain in the world. Now, if there is a God, then he could have his own judgements, but they are still just opinions; he (or anyone) just feels that something is good or evil.

Notice, now, that I have clearly defined good and evil. These definitions may not be the ones you use, but if not, then what do you mean by them? They are the utilitarian definitions, which is why I am a utilitarian.

Humans have a lot of commonality in what we feel are "good" and "evil" and so can make codes that seem pretty good to most people, especially those who have had similar experiences or have a similar culture as the person who made the code. When the authority of mysterious superhuman beings is added you get things like the Ten Commandments.

I believe that the basic idea of morality is an abstraction of pain and pleasure; "if I can experience them, then so can others. If the one is enjoyable and the other unpleasant, then it must be so for others. If I want to try to get one and try to avoid the other, then I should try to get one and try to avoid the other for other people besides myself." That's altruism, and it's natural in our species.

Since I believe these judgements are naturally trying to judge pleasure and pain caused by actions, there IS an "absolute", if you mean what I think you do; the maximum amount of pleasure and minimum amount of pain that can be attained by an action.

Raping and murdering a 2 year old will almost always be "evil" in that it will usually cause great suffering assuming I understand what the consequences would be. However, it's theoretically possible that something bizaare could happen in which such an act would produce the best results in terms of pain and pleasure. For example, the child is totally unconcious during the event, has a horrific, painful disease which would make the child's life miserable if he/she lived, and, I don't know, some magical curse or malignant genie (or god) made it necessary to avoid sending everyone to an infinite afterlife of torture (including the child in question). I can't think of a more plausible way, but then, raping and murdering babies causes a lot of misery in the real world!

So, types of acts are not absolutely evil or good though they may tend to one or the other, but a specific act at a specific time IS absolutely right or wrong.

But that's just how my conscience feels. Yours might feel differently. So maybe it is relative to the person?

Maybe you can see why the question isn't easy to answer without more specifics about what you're looking for, and why getting specific definitions of terms is important. These things vary and those variations can change a question's meaning dramatically.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is not what I said. I asked you whether "1+1=2" is true or not?

Your failure to answer the question speaks volumes.

i think you're confused on this, 1+1=2 this is true, but its not the only truth, if you were using a different form of numbering system as opposed to decimal then 1 + 1 would not necessarily add up to 2; in binary 1 + 1 would = 0, in musical theory 8 + 8 = 15.... my point is nothing in the world is completely true or false... you have said is it wrong to kill a 2 yr old, but in what context, what scenario are we talking here... at times a person would be justifed in killing a 2 year old, the child could be in extreme pain, extreme sickness... is that still wrong.... it is us who justifies ourself, there is no god in this, even a christian does this, after all, it is the christian who feels when he has been forgiven, this has come from the person, not god

Originally posted by stocken
I'm sorry. I was still on the topic of right and wrong, and naturally
assumed that your question would somehow relate to that. If we're
talking pure mathematics now and not human moral values, the answer
is of course true.

Then again, it all depends on what 1 means. If by the number 1 you
mean the value of two, but by the number 2 mean the value o d you really just use mathematics as a completely off topic post just
for the fun of it?

So you think there is a context in which the unlawful premeditated raping and killing of a two year old baby would be considered as absolutely right?

Originally posted by dj2becker
While we are on the topic of pure Mathematics, would you care to demonstrate a situation where the number 1 could have the value of 2?

this has been answered in the previous post yet you refuse to acknowledge it

Originally posted by dj2becker
While we are on the topic of pure Mathematics, would you care to demonstrate a situation where the number 1 could have the value of 2?

You see, the reason we associate the number 1 with the value of one item is
because we've agreed that it should be so. It's not a universal claim. We just
decided that to describe one item of any kind we should use the number 1.
We could just as easily have chosen 2 or 10 or 00000001 (the last one
actually being agreed upon as representing the value of one in binary).

Originally posted by eatmybishop
this has been answered in the previous post yet you refuse to acknowledge it

Indeed it was. And indeed he does.

Originally posted by stocken
You see, the reason we associate the number 1 with the value of one item is
because we've agreed that it should be so. It's not a universal claim. We just
decided that to describe one item of any kind we should use the number 1.
We could just as easily have chosen 2 or 10 or 00000001 (the last one
actually being agreed upon as representing the value of one in binary).

So you think there is a context in which the unlawful premeditated raping and killing of a two year old baby would be considered as absolutely right?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Big" is an adjective that refers to the volume of an object. If asking about God's bigness can be answered, so can a question about his volume.

God is big = God has a large volume
God is "absolutely" big = God has an "absolutely" large volume. I imagine that means infinite volume, but you say it does not, so I find what you're saying totally mean ...[text shortened]... iations can change a question's meaning dramatically.

So what if the maximization of your own pleasure causes pain to another individual?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you think there is a context in which the unlawful premeditated raping and killing of a two year old baby would be considered as absolutely right?

there is no absolutely right.... how many more times can people tell you this... nothing is completely right or wrong, it is what we judge as wrong or right... like i said before, none of this judgement comes from god but from ourselves, our childhood, media, family, friends, work... so many influences... no doubt you'll just completely ignore this post and start waffling on about something else

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what if the maximization of your own pleasure causes pain to another individual?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't understand what you're asking.

i dont think he does either

Originally posted by eatmybishop
there is no absolutely right.... how many more times can people tell you this... nothing is completely right or wrong, it is what we judge as wrong or right... like i said before, none of this judgement comes from god but from ourselves, our childhood, media, family, friends, work... so many influences... no doubt you'll just completely ignore this post and start waffling on about something else

there is no absolutely right....

So the statement you wrote, "there is no absolute right" is not absolutely right?

In other words, nothing that you have said is absolutely right, so why do you think that I should listen to anything that you write?

The more you write to more incoherence you create.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't understand what you're asking.

I strongly recommend that you use a dictionary if you struggle understanding a sentence.

So which part of the sentence are you have difficulty with?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]there is no absolutely right....

So the statement you wrote, "there is no absolute right" is not absolutely right?

In other words, nothing that you have said is absolutely right, so why do you think that I should listen to anything that you write?

The more you write to more incoherence you create.[/b]

i would agree with you, everything i have written or anyone has written can be proved to be false, but that goes for you as well my friend