The Problem Of Good

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like you do?

Lately I see you doing little but posting in threads to try and force people to start acknowledging your definition of God in discussion... but nobody gives a shit about your definition because it's held by only one single (and increasingly pretentious) person, and is completely nonconducive to the discussions we have.

Lets brake it down.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done.

I have no idea how God could make a statement. According to how I believe, the only way God could possible make a statement would be to formulate the laws of physics. For example; if God “said” (again I have no idea how God would say) that mass-energy warps space, then gravity would be the consequence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

It would be inherently true. The laws of physics are inherently true.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

I am a theist, and I don’t see a problem.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.

I don’t know of anything that is intrinsic good. Good and evil are relativistic.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

What is God’s position? Why would God have a position? What does “need” have to do with this question?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Like every single person in the thread besides you did. It was transparently obvious, as shown by the fact that you were the only one who tried pulling the "you must look at all definitions!" card.

Lately I see you doing little but posting in threads to try and force people to start acknowledging your definition of God in discussion... but nobody gives a shit about your definition because it's held by only one single (and increasingly pretentious) person, and is completely nonconducive to the discussions we have.

Sure, my position is in the minority, but do you have to always go around and tell the minority that they are wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure, my position is in the minority, but do you have to always go around and tell the minority that they are wrong?

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, but the minority is in even less of a position to go around telling the majority they are wrong. You have only recently gotten hyper aggressive on this issue, somehow this never bothered you before but now you are going out of your way to post replies that have relevance only towards you, and will generate no discussion besides semantic arguments.

I haven't changed. With the exception of doing a lot more reading, but I’m just as bullheaded stubborn as I have always been.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

yes, you could easy derive this conclusion...but Where does intrinsic good come from? Is if of our own quality and nature?

so you are trying to debate that man created God in order to have order and to set what is right and wrong- so man has intrinsic good but created God in their minds and created religion, to feel what? That good will have certain rewards over evil? For if there is not God then there is not a real need to be good, nor really a real consequence for being evil, for in that sense man knows good and evil, so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?

good - God = 0

Originally posted by kava_kava
yes, you could easy derive this conclusion...but Where does intrinsic good come from? Is if of our own quality and nature?

so you are trying to debate that man created God in order to have order and to set what is right and wrong- man has intrinsic good but created God in their minds and created religion, to feel what? That good will have certain rewards over evil? For if there is not God then there is not a real need to be good, nor really a real consequence for being evil, for in that sense man knows good and evil, so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I haven't changed.

Originally posted by kava_kava
... so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?

good - God = 0

Power is the answer. It's the old, "if you don't do what I say, you will go to hell" story. 😄

Originally posted by King Kandy
Have to. If I look at old threads about god, your first response was never things like "this doesn't apply to my definition of God", you actually went with the premise.

Have you ever read anyone calling me the angry Buddhist? It was something I was trying to over come, but I got the name honestly.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What is "good" is what is conducive to functioning society... that is the source of the morals in religion.

So your taking the functional sociological approach, i see. Well the thing is that the "good" problem is only one of many things that have to be argued how to deny God.

if morals are created because it betters function in society, then what say you about societies that function well immorally? Do morals shift with whatever society demands?

and even so, one could say, ofcourse morals are so a society will function properly. I don't think God would want any evil society to function, so morals seem to be a derivative of the functional society, when in fact a functional society is a derivitave of morals. Morals came before a functional society. Good came before us.

shakya just found the one truth, let him spam our threads with his truth so that relevant discussion (mine) is hidden below pages of squabling about an issue that 99% fo the people on this board are in agreement on

Originally posted by kava_kava
So your taking the functional sociological approach, i see. Well the thing is that the "good" problem is only one of many things that have to be argued how to deny God.

if morals are created because it betters function in society, then what say you about societies that function well immorally? Do morals shift with whatever society demands?

and even so, one could say, ofcourse morals are so a society will function properly. I don't think God would want any evil society to function, so morals seem to be a derivative of the functional society, when in fact a functional society is a derivitave of morals. Morals came before a functional society. Good came before us.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What is "good" is what is conducive to functioning society... that is the source of the morals in religion.

Isn't that close to what you are accusing shakya of?

in this thread, we are assuming that good is either an intrinsic value in itself or that good is a choice made by god

sure, it could be defined in that sense, but then the paradox is rendered moot. I can't imagine that any theologan would answer that good is a product of social necessity though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Morals are relative because what works in one society doesn't necessarily work in others.

okay so relative, not derivative...hm...well then in that case you have no argument on "good" at all, for there is no clear definition of "good" if you say that morals are dependent upon and relative to a society's functioning.

So then we cannot even debate if morals are relative...what are morals ?

Originally posted by inimalist
Isn't that close to what you are accusing shakya of?

in this thread, we are assuming that good is either an intrinsic value in itself or that good is a choice made by god

sure, it could be defined in that sense, but then the paradox is rendered moot. I can't imagine that any theologan would answer that good is a product of social necessity though.

Originally posted by kava_kava
okay so relative, not derivative...hm...well then in that case you have no argument on "good" at all, for there is no clear definition of "good" if you say that morals are dependent upon and relative to a society's functioning.

So then we cannot even debate if morals are relative...what are morals ?

Originally posted by King Kandy
That was only a response to that one specific post... I will be the first to admit it doesn't relate to the opening post directly.

fair enough

I do agree, societies morals are certainly based on what was needed at the time

what would you say about stuff that comes up with no real apparent relationship to that though? like some of the dietary and hygene laws, or some of the weirder rituals? do you think all religious rules have a purpose, or might some have just "piggybacked" with the others?

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

I do agree, societies morals are certainly based on what was needed at the time

what would you say about stuff that comes up with no real apparent relationship to that though? like some of the dietary and hygene laws, or some of the weirder rituals? do you think all religious rules have a purpose, or might some have just "piggybacked" with the others?

technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted