ECT Is God Moral?

[Desert Reign]

God declares he does not know everything from the very beginning. He brought the animals before Adam to see what he would call them. He said "Now I know that you will not withhold your son from me". I know people say it, but the Bible declares it otherwise right from the start. Does he know the secrets of your heart? Of course. All he has to do is look. But he can't see into the future as it has not happened. Knowing these qualities of his nature tells us that God is moral.

He did not have to take on human form and serve justice for sin. He chose to save life. He can't be amoral and relational at the same time.

Great post!

 

[Lon]

As do I - imagine that! :noway: I've got a B.S. in Computer Science, a B.A. in Religious Studies, and at the end of this semester a Masters in Computer Science.

Already said that

I'm behaving fine - it is you who are in error: demanding everyone fall in line behind you. You attempt to use your own supposed authority to silence any meaningful discussion. You are more concerned that people agree with you than you are about the truth.

No, you treat others with contempt and disrespect and you are wrong on this that is arrogance and ignorance asserting itself.

have always been against those who would try to use authority to silence reason. Always will be.

That's obvious. Authority may not be right but you have chosen the 'wrong' and inane over it, time after time. That's where reactionary youth gets you.

Your supposed authority means nothing to me.

You still think a series of segments is a line. It is not, it is a ray (one direction).

If you know your stuff then there should be no need to fall back on claims of authority - you should be able to provide well-reasoned arguments for your positions and address other peoples arguments and challenges.

I can, you disdain the messenger.

This is nothing new with you - you may begin a discussion in good spirits - but you quickly descend into appeals to authority, even your own authority (ha!), and personal attacks on the other party - like trying to dismiss them outright because they are younger than you. The fact is that a few years from now when I have my Doctorate in Theology or the like, you will still attempt the same antics - because you think you are superior to everyone else and that they should just fall in line behind Lon! HA!

And you have no idea what you are talking about and spout off as if you do. A series of segments is a ray, not a line.

Never said a segment does contain an entire line.

You are talking about increments and confusing a ray with a line.

If you can't understand how an infinite series of continuous segments can compose a line - or any other function for that matter - then you aren't nearly as educated in math as you like to think. You shouldn't need to look this up in a math book to understand it if this is your field of study. This is, maybe, Calculus I material.

Good, find the quote or page number. No book anymore? Try here and here.

A line is composed of an infinite series of segments. Again, red herring. This is much to do about nothing.

"Can be expressed or thought of as an infinite series" but again you are talking about a ray at that point, not a line. You are wrong.

God is not finite, but God is in time. If you prefer, we could say time is part of God. You continue to ignore the scriptures in favor of nonsensical analogies to mathematical constructs that are irrelevant.

That you don't get the applied logic? Sure. Everything to you is 'nonsensical' and 'silly.' Why? Because you don't get it. Would you say God is 'physical' because Creation is? If not, your 'time is part of God' isn't true either. What does the scripture say about a physical God?

Wrong - a succession of segments doesn't require that it be unidirectional. Look up doubly linked lists, for instance. Also - you are the one who insists on coming up with a mathematical representation for God - not me. You are in error as far as I'm concerned - you've made much to do about nothing. We need but go back to the scriptures to find that you are in error in attempting to assert that God is outside time - and I've provided a multitude of examples from scripture that demonstrate your error.

:nono: This is logic 101 in mathematics and philosophy classes. That leaves you clueless and unaware. A 'succession' of segments is 'unidirectional.' "Another" succession is two rays 'as' it finitely expresses a line. The supposed 'much to do about nothing' is a 'mathematical' proof that a line is only hinted at once it is bisected. The line is constantly bidirectional. I gave the scripture already: God has no beginning and no end. The intersection with man is God's interaction with Him but the segment of eternity we understand is limited and finite. The mistake is to extrapolate, from the limited, and somehow limit God, which time, a physical property or property of creation in general, does. An eternal past guarantees no succession of time other than as it relates to His interaction with finite creatures.

In part. It is also a directive to not let others look down on you simply because one is young. Not that I'm terribly young, but I shall always be younger than you. That is not a reason for me to be silent and accept whatever you say.

I didn't tell you to be silent, I told you that you were wrong and that you don't listen.

Once more - you, Lon, are not my teacher.

Anybody who rightly corrects us is our teacher, either the easy way, or the hard way. That you don't want the instruction? Evident. Scripture stands where you and I depart. The laws of a physical universe stand until the heavens and earth fall from the sky and only apply to God "as He interacts with man." The only time I interact with my fish, is when my finger gets wet. I am hardly constrained by water at the point, the rest of me, but for the tiny segment is dry, and I'm finite, God is not.

I don't need to know what you've taught to know that my statements concerning math are correct. While Mathematics is not my primary field of study, it is an integral part of Computer Science - so I've had my fair share of classes on the topic.

Then stop arguing, you've said enough times "never said that" that show begrudging agreement. Your overt distaste for 'authority' leaves you beyond teachability, at least going the easier route. I treat you as I treat myself because we are both bull-headed but your overt distaste for authority leaves you against what is often correct. As I said, this very conversation has a long rich history of discussion on the collegiate level and we are not reinventing the wheel. However, my debate is against the portion of professors and students that, to me, are stuck in finite thinking and trying to apply that faulty thinking to an infinite and eternal God.

You have ignored the scriptures Lon. How many times must I reference such things as the creation over 6 days, the flood, the judgement, the creation of the new heaven and earth, God's numerous interactions with men in the bible and his response to their actions. In truth - the whole testimony of scripture is against you Lon - it all contradicts the idea that God is outside of time. You have ignored this simple fact and gone off on a red herring about lines as if that somehow dismissed the scriptures.

As with faultily thinking that a succession of segments represents a line, it doesn't, that's a ray which has both finite and infinite representation, a line and God do not; so too you are wrong here. Yes God interacts with us. No God is not 'constrained' to this segment of time that we understand and cannot be any more than a segment is incredibly inadequate to express a line (cannot either).

This is why we have reaches such different conclusions Lon: it is because your view isn't based upon the scriptures. It is based upon your psuedo-intellectual mathematical theology.

:nono: it is based on what is demonstrably true and scriptures as I've already said and given. You just now gave a few indirect scripture references. These are all properties of an infinite God interacting with a finite people. Just as a segment is not a line, neither is time a restraint for God nor can be, scripturally, logically. When He interacts with us, He interacts chronologically. A line interacts from point a to b but is well beyond the confines of those two points. For the brief intersection, the line is part of the finite, but is nowise constrained to it because it is only hinted at by the segment.


Numbers 23:19 (clear enough for even Open Theists).

Isaiah 55:8 1 Corinthians 2:16

From my sig, just before Ephesians 3:20, 21 Paul says that he prays we would discover the height, depth, and breadth of God love, which is 'without measure.' Ephesians 3:18,19 We cannot discover the height, depth, and width of God's love iow, it is a verse that says God and His love are infinite 'beyond' measure; Even an endless series of segments. I appreciate you and I are rays and so a series of segments does, in fact, play a part of our lives but God is only 'relational' to us, He is not us. To wrongly misapply human finite constraints to the infinite God, is both logically and scripturally a mistake and that means necessarily 'wrong.'

 

[Clete]

I'll try to keep it short.

It doesn't matter. Have at it.

 

[Lon]

It doesn't matter. Have at it.

If Nick is correct, it matters at least from his perspective. God's qualities do interrelate, but I'd want to see where he was heading. I was hoping he'd elate a bit.

But I have to say, watching you guys speak of logic is rather entertaining.

Formal logic works well with axioms that can be challenged or accepted that lead to proofs.

There can be two or more axioms that left unchallenged, should lead to an agreed upon truth.

Formal logic is based off of clear mathematical understanding and so it is a preferred philosophy. When we are said to be logical, it is because we are often using axioms to come to a logical formulation.

Logical Proof:
1) "New" relates to something one has never experienced 'before'
2) Only man is finite, and only one who is finite can experience 'new'
3) 'new' can ever only apply to one who is finite
.: There necessarily, is nothing "new" to God who is infinite

Anybody can be logical, but not everybody can proof a set of axioms.

The above is a logical proof set. Only if the axioms are shown not true, can the proof be shown to be inaccurate. If there is challenge to the axioms, then each axiom can be broken down as proof sets as well like a 'show your work' directive. Often times on TOL, I don't have a clue what one means by logical because they don't tend to back it up with axioms for proof. It just tends to be the proof assertions without the attainable axioms. You can look at mine and ask how #1, for instance is true.

I'd have to create a set of axioms to prove each of my statements above.

As with Mathematics, Logic tends to be attainable and provable or it isn't logically solid/tenable.

 

[nikolai_42]

Okay, I think I've drug this out far enough.

I wrote the following a couple of years ago and some of the discussion so far in this thread has brought to my attention the need for me to incorporate some discussion about Euthyphro's Dilemma. I sort of wanted to figure out how to do that before posting it but I decided against it. My thought is that the discussion that follows might help me figure out just how it fits and how best to express it.

Some of what follows will be familiar to those of you who read my posts but this will be the first time I've put all this together in one post, at least on the regular forum.

I look forward to whatever rational feedback I can get!
Enjoy!

------------------------------

Our Moral God

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.​

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V​

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary​

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.​

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature. Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally). Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012

Ergo, logic created the universe ex nihilo?

 

[csuguy]

No, you treat others with contempt and disrespect and you are wrong on this that is arrogance and ignorance asserting itself.

You are the one treating others with contempt and disrespect Lon - attempting to assert authority over everyone to make them fall in line, ignoring everyone else's education and studies on the matter, and making personal attacks. Sad, sad Lon.

That's obvious. Authority may not be right but you have chosen the 'wrong' and inane over it, time after time. That's where reactionary youth gets you.

That's where years of study gets you - and why I can back my position with good reason and with scriptural evidence and you are left with non-sense about a line.

You still think a series of segments is a line. It is not, it is a ray (one direction).

An infinite sequence of continuous segments can serve as a line or any other function. First off, by being an infinite sequence, there need not be an endpoint - and thus not a ray. Not to say that you couldn't have a fixed endpoint, but you can just as easily not have an endpoint. Second off, a sequence only specifies a relative direction between the elements of therein - a sequence doesn't specify which direction you must iterate over the values.

So if you had the sequence "..., -5, 1, 3, ..." You must always pass through 1 to get to -5 from 3 and visa versa. But you can traverse forwards or backwards freely - how you use the sequence is up to you.

I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding such basic concepts as a self-professed mathematician - but it is clear you need a review.

I can, you disdain the messenger.

You can attempt to claim authority all you wish - but it is meaningless - especially when you don't understand how an infinite sequence of line segments can serve as a line or any other function. You must not teach Calculus.

And you have no idea what you are talking about and spout off as if you do. A series of segments is a ray, not a line.

You are talking about increments and confusing a ray with a line.

:doh: No, Lon, I'm not speaking of a Ray. You could use an infinite sequence of segments to model a Ray too - but such a sequence could be used to model ANY function.

Good, find the quote or page number. No book anymore? Try here and here.

"Can be expressed or thought of as an infinite series" but again you are talking about a ray at that point, not a line. You are wrong.

I'll give you a quick run down of the logic behind it - but I'm not gonna spend a bunch of time looking up a formal proof. It's a straight-forward concept. Let's start with a Line Segment (A) instead of a Line.

A: [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
B: [ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]
​

The Segment A is equivalent to the combination of the sequence of segments B. The segments in B need not be of equal length just so long as the elements in B are ordered, and the segments line up so that the segment B[x] has one end point where B[x-1] ended and another end point where B[x+1] begins.

Now we can expand this to a Ray

A: [ - - - - - - - - - - ... ∞]
B: [ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]...[- -]... ∞
​

So long as the infinite sequence B shares the same end point as the ray A, the segments within B are ordered, and the segments line up so that the segment B[x] has one end point where B[x-1] ended and another end point where B[x+1] begins. Since this is a 1D example I'm not worried about varying values - but if this were 2D we'd also need to assert something like the rate of change between any two segment end points is the same for all segment end points.

Now we can expand this to a 1D line:

A: [∞ ... - - - - - - - - - - ... ∞]
B: ∞ ...[ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]...[- -]... ∞
​

Similar to what we did for a ray, we have an infinite sequence of segments B. However, unlike for a ray, there is no endpoint.

We could generate some such infinite sequence of segments by using a formula to calculate the end points of any given segment.

More generally, an infinite sequence of such segments could be used to model any function or any geometrical object. You are just breaking something up into its component parts.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.

Anybody who rightly corrects us is our teacher, either the easy way, or the hard way. That you don't want the instruction? Evident. Scripture stands where you and I depart. The laws of a physical universe stand until the heavens and earth fall from the sky and only apply to God "as He interacts with man." The only time I interact with my fish, is when my finger gets wet. I am hardly constrained by water at the point, the rest of me, but for the tiny segment is dry, and I'm finite, God is not.

You can call me sensei.

:nono: it is based on what is demonstrably true and scriptures as I've already said and given. You just now gave a few indirect scripture references.

I didn't "just now" give you scripture references - I've given them several times before now. You just ignored them - and continue to do so. Rather than addressing these scriptures that you finally acknowledge - you ignore them and instead supply other scriptures. They are indirect references - but I don't think that you need me to go look up the explicit reference to each an every little thing in the scriptures for you. I assume you know where to find the 6 days of creation and the like without much trouble.

So now you can get to the heart of the matter: addresss such passages and what they say about God and time. Address the fact that he interacts with us and creation, that he doesn't do the same thing forever but progressively acts - doing one thing and then another. Address the fact that he responds to our actions and prayers as we make them. God is not some fixed law or constant - which is what you would reduce him to if you removed time/change from him. Not change of his fundamental character mind, but change in action and even knowledge of our actions and the like.

Numbers 23:19 (clear enough for even Open Theists).

Isaiah 55:8 1 Corinthians 2:16

Good verses, but its not clear what your intended meaning is. They don't establish that God is outside of time.

From my sig, just before Ephesians 3:20, 21 Paul says that he prays we would discover the height, depth, and breadth of God love, which is 'without measure.' Ephesians 3:18,19 We cannot discover the height, depth, and width of God's love iow, it is a verse that says God and His love are infinite 'beyond' measure; Even an endless series of segments. I appreciate you and I are rays and so a series of segments does, in fact, play a part of our lives but God is only 'relational' to us, He is not us. To wrongly misapply human finite constraints to the infinite God, is both logically and scripturally a mistake and that means necessarily 'wrong.'

What is wrongly being applied here is mathematics. Scripture reveals plenty to indicate that God is in time - and nothing to tell us that he is not in time.

 

[Desert Reign]

I can't see how deferring the issue to God's nature solves the question. Don't get me wrong, I am sure we are working towards the same goal and what you have said is important. But it seems to me that you leave unanswered two important questions:
1) Why does God being logical entail that some actions should be moral and some immoral?
2) Even if you can show that 1) is true, this still doesn't tell us why shooting school children is a bad thing and not a good thing. The rules of logic are clear: an argument only follows from premises. Being consistent, wouldn't you say that God is subject to the same constraints of logic as we are? And that therefore if we are to speak of God's nature, we are more talking about the premises that control his nature (i.e. his own characteristics) than about the process of logic itself. Which brings us back to the problem I mentioned earlier that you are only postponing the problem a level. It amounts to the statement that morality is whatever God is.

I mean, for example, there have been lots of justifications given of things that you regard as evil. The South Africans used the Bible to justify apartheid. Stalin used communist principles espoused by Marx to justify slaughtering millions of his own people. There was always logic involved in these atrocities. And I am sure that at least in some cases, the logic was correct. It was just the premises were wrong.

I think it is great that you come to an acceptance that right and wrong actions depend on their context. However, this principle has been derided as giving no direction for future action. I said before that moral rules would give you incorrect guidance 50% of the time if you followed them legalistically. But the opposite is also surely incorrect too: if you have no rules at all and rely purely on context, then you cannot judge any action at all. Don't worry, I am getting to my own answer as well. But as it is Clete's thread, I wanted to ensure he got first bite of the cherry. Also, this is truly a difficult issue, as I also previously stated. So it helps to understand why some of our views on the subject are wrong before being able to appreciate what may be right.

LOL! I think some people did think it was a bit long. But as for me, I just needed a bit more time. Patience! And if you will permit, I promise that I will set out the premises on which my thought is based at the start so that it is completely clear.

I do not understand the question.
What do you mean by "some actions"? Who's actions, God's? None of God's actions are immoral, which I have no doubt you agree with and so I'm lost, I don't understand what you are asking me.

I said:

1) Why does God being logical entail that some actions should be moral and some immoral?

You were saying that morality exists because God is rational (or logical). In other words the fact that some actions are right and some wrong is because God is rational. If you asked a judge why some actions are wrong, he would say 'because the law says so'. He probably wouldn't say 'because God is logical'. Conversely, according to your argument, you would say that if God is illogical, then no actions are right or wrong. I don't see that is a very saleable proposition. People know that some actions are right or wrong because the rightness or wrongness of the action speaks for itself, not because God is logical. God could be completely illogical for all they care. Now I am sure that judge would not stop there. He would add, 'but the law itself only upholds common sense', i.e. a common perception of the rightness or wrongness of actions. Or the occasional judge might say that the law is intended to uphold Christian values. Or Sharia or something similar. Most would say that the law has its own purpose, namely to ensure the protection and security of the country's citizens and that actions are right or wrong solely because of that purpose. None of this really equates to a general support of the theory that morality stems from the fact that God is rational.

Good and bad are words that have meaningful definitions. Shooting school children would not fall under the definition of good. What is the definition of good, you ask? Well note the quote of Rand that I have in my post...

"...that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil."​

I'm not sure that I would have put "of a rational being" in that statement but since good and evil have no meaning outside of reason it doesn't really damage the definition. Further, the bible teaches the exact same thing...

I agree with you! But what we are looking for is a secure logical argument and this isn't one. Dictionaries tend to be descriptive of how words are used. The origin of the meanings is whole nuther story... And some would take issue with Rand's concept as being too individualistic. What happens when there is a choice between the life one person and the life of another? Rand's idea sounds like what I was warning against, namely an absoute rule that only works half the time in real life.

Proverbs 11:19 As righteousness leads to life, So he who pursues evil pursues it to his own death.
Deuteronomy 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply;

And elsewhere
​

Thus, if that which negates, opposes or destroys life is evil, killing school children would be evil.

Again, I can agree with this, but it isn't an argument to say that the Bible says it so it must be right. I am looking for an argument that is permanent and self-justifying. These passages of scripture have contexts and so cannot be used to establish an absolute rule.

Sound reason is not so much constraining your thoughts to the rules of logic as it is containing your thoughts to the limitations of reality. The rules of logic only define what those constraints happen to be. In other words, the rules of logic are not made up or invented, they are discovered. Thus if God is real then He is, by definition, part of reality. The Law of Identity therefore must apply to God or else to say that God is would be meaningless.

I agree with all this, especially the bolded part. And this understanding does form a big part of my own reasoning on the subject.But it doesn't seem to me to lead to a conclusion that actions are moral or immoral because God is rational.

I feel the need to make a clarification here. As I've stated in an earlier thread, the word logos is where the English word logic comes from but we use the word logic differently than the Greeks used logos. The best single word translation of logos into English is the word 'Reason'. "Logic" implies the rules that reason follows. Logos refers more to the actual act of reasoning rather than to the rules which govern it.

Again, I agree. But if God is rational, then one would expect that his thoughts are also logical. One would expect that good thinking is logical thinking. Or at least is not illogical. It doesn't seem to answer the question: God reasons, therefore some actions are right or wrong. I don't see a proper argument here. There is a missing premise.

The notion that morality is whatever God is would mean (logically) that if God were to do something that is currently evil then evil would become good.
If, on the other hand, if the good is that which is proper to life then if God where to do something evil, evil wouldn't become good, God would become evil and destroy Himself in the process.

I don't think you understand the consistency argument. The argument that God is a consistent person was proposed precisely to overcome the objection you just mentioned. If God one day decided that building houses was great and the following day decided that burning them was just as great, then this would be an argument against the idea that morality comes from God. So the argument that God was consistent in his character and actions overcame this objection. It took away the arbitrariness of the argument.

However, it only pushes back the problem to a different level, that of who God is. We can imagine that God is consistent and that he always thinks that burning houses is great. This argument therefore depends on a presumption that God exists and relies on a pure coincidence that his character just happens to be in favour of building houses. Morality then is still derived from a pure coincidence that God's nature happens to be what it is. Again, this isn't a compelling argument at all. Again, our general perception, at least with some actions, is that the rightness or wrongness of an action speaks for itself. It doesn't require any belief in God or any belief that God has a certain kind of character.

The difference is that while it might sound to untrained ears to being saying the same thing in another way, the fact is that it really isn't the same thing at all because saying that the good is whatever God is renders it meaningless to call God good.

Exactly. So how does your statement that God is rational, therefore some actions are right or wrong, make logical sense? Your above statement would imply that you are of the view that morality is external to God.

Well if the premises were wrong then so was the logic.

Suely it is foundational to logic that the argument is decided on the basis of correct logic, not whether the premises are true or false? The principles of good logic, like law, must be blindfolded to the parties. It must give unbiased results, otherwise it will only ever be biased. I am actually surprised you say this. It sounds unlike you.

Its called the Law of Rational Inference. The issue, like any other, can get rather complex but the point is that just because you begin with a premise and go through a process of thought that lead you to draw a conclusion does not mean your conclusion is right. The premises must be valid, germane and true. The form of your argument must also be valid and the conclusion must actually follow from both the premises and the arguments. Errors can be made all along the way by us human beings but not by God who is infinitely knowledgeable, intelligent and wise.

I don't really mind what name you call it. It doesn't justify it. First order logic is pure. It is true that first order logic is so simple that it is almost useless in ordinary human conversation but the fact is that in first order logic, the premises to an argument are accepted by the parties to an argument. They are givens. And most human debate and conversation is based on higher order logics dealing with sets and definitions and often the premises of first order logic statements are the real subject matter of discussion. But none of this nullifies the first order logic on which all the other logics are based. All the arguments, however complicated, are predicated on the principle that if somehow you can work out all the disagreements and lack of clarity down to a pure first order logic argument, then there would be an agreement.

 

[Lon]

You are the one treating others with contempt and disrespect Lon - attempting to assert authority over everyone to make them fall in line, ignoring everyone else's education and studies on the matter, and making personal attacks. Sad, sad Lon.

You have already said this.

That's where years of study gets you - and why I can back my position with good reason and with scriptural evidence and you are left with non-sense about a line.

Talk about your assertions and appeal to what? Your 5 years of actual study on this earth? You act like you've never heard of Quantum Physics? What kind of a mathematics major are you?

An infinite sequence of continuous segments can serve as a line or any other function. First off, by being an infinite sequence, there need not be an endpoint - and thus not a ray. Not to say that you couldn't have a fixed endpoint, but you can just as easily not have an endpoint. Second off, a sequence only specifies a relative direction between the elements of therein - a sequence doesn't specify which direction you must iterate over the values.

So if you had the sequence "..., -5, 1, 3, ..." You must always pass through 1 to get to -5 from 3 and visa versa. But you can traverse forwards or backwards freely - how you use the sequence is up to you.

I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding such basic concepts as a self-professed mathematician - but it is clear you need a review.

:doh: I gave links to genuine mathematics websites. You? :nono: "Infinite sequence" is stuck with 'sequence.' You are describing an infinite number of starting places (1) and then talking about infinite directions from there.

You can attempt to claim authority all you wish - but it is meaningless - especially when you don't understand how an infinite sequence of line segments can serve as a line or any other function. You must not teach Calculus.

I don't really care about what a computer kid thinks. I gave you websites from mathematics institutions. You give about next to nothing.

:doh: No, Lon, I'm not speaking of a Ray. You could use an infinite sequence of segments to model a Ray too - but such a sequence could be used to model ANY function.

We'll see, Remember the link I gave? Line AB is understood to be beyond both A&B and understood to merely represent what cannot be drawn.

I'll give you a quick run down of the logic behind it - but I'm not gonna spend a bunch of time looking up a formal proof. It's a straight-forward concept. Let's start with a Line Segment (A) instead of a Line.

A: [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
B: [ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]
​

The Segment A is equivalent to the combination of the sequence of segments B. The segments in B need not be of equal length just so long as the elements in B are ordered, and the segments line up so that the segment B[x] has one end point where B[x-1] ended and another end point where B[x+1] begins.

Now we can expand this to a Ray

A: [ - - - - - - - - - - ... ∞]
B: [ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]...[- -]... ∞
​

So long as the infinite sequence B shares the same end point as the ray A, the segments within B are ordered, and the segments line up so that the segment B[x] has one end point where B[x-1] ended and another end point where B[x+1] begins. Since this is a 1D example I'm not worried about varying values - but if this were 2D we'd also need to assert something like the rate of change between any two segment end points is the same for all segment end points.

Now we can expand this to a 1D line:

A: [∞ ... - - - - - - - - - - ... ∞]
B: ∞ ...[ - - - -][- - -][- - - ]...[- -]... ∞
​

Similar to what we did for a ray, we have an infinite sequence of segments B. However, unlike for a ray, there is no endpoint.

The segmentonly represent the line. You can draw a segment, you cannot draw a line.

We could generate some such infinite sequence of segments by using a formula to calculate the end points of any given segment.

More generally, an infinite sequence of such segments could be used to model any function or any geometrical object. You are just breaking something up into its component parts.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.

No, you are confusing the representation with actuals. In quantum physics, does 9:27AM to 9:28 AM represent the actual time of the universe? :nono: It is represents the concept in what limitations it can.

You can call me sensei.

I'll repeat, all you have to do is show this to a real mathematician. You won't.

I didn't "just now" give you scripture references - I've given them several times before now. You just ignored them - and continue to do so. Rather than addressing these scriptures that you finally acknowledge - you ignore them and instead supply other scriptures. They are indirect references - but I don't think that you need me to go look up the explicit reference to each an every little thing in the scriptures for you. I assume you know where to find the 6 days of creation and the like without much trouble.

No. I said God is 'relational to' time, similar to the way a line is relational to a segment.

So now you can get to the heart of the matter: addresss such passages and what they say about God and time. Address the fact that he interacts with us and creation, that he doesn't do the same thing forever but progressively acts - doing one thing and then another. Address the fact that he responds to our actions and prayers as we make them. God is not some fixed law or constant - which is what you would reduce him to if you removed time/change from him. Not change of his fundamental character mind, but change in action and even knowledge of our actions and the like.

"Relation to, unbound by" time. You are the one who has a God who is the product of the universe rather than the other way around. Read just a 'little' of quantum physics and be educated. Until you do, you aren't going to be teachable. The good news? Quantum physics have been around since Einstein. I don't have to be the one to shove it down your throat. It stands whether you look at it or not.

Good verses, but its not clear what your intended meaning is. They don't establish that God is outside of time.

They do, if you understand why they do.

What is wrongly being applied here is mathematics. Scripture reveals plenty to indicate that God is in time - and nothing to tell us that he is not in time.

...and outside of it.
There are scriptures that say "before time" etc. Of course God interacts with us. A fish, thinking I am bound by water in his bowl is simply 'wrong' to think I'm wet. You are simply wrong here as well. I'm done. Quantum mechanics proves this. I've given the link. Do your best but no, you can't assert over Einstein try as you like. Not going to happen. I at least understand why he is right. You'll emote that he isn't but that doesn't do a lot for me. Take care Csguy. Wrestle with Quantum Mechanics and physics. I'm going to get a cup of coffee as I'm done trying to make sense to a kid that is 'too good' to be taught by his elders or betters.

 

[Lon]

I'll try to keep it short.

Not going anywhere anyway. There is too much pride between us so I'm ever reduced to links that will likely never be read.

Back to your thread:

Spoiler

I wrote the following a couple of years ago and some of the discussion so far in this thread has brought to my attention the need for me to incorporate some discussion about Euthyphro's Dilemma. I sort of wanted to figure out how to do that before posting it but I decided against it. My thought is that the discussion that follows might help me figure out just how it fits and how best to express it.

Some of what follows will be familiar to those of you who read my posts but this will be the first time I've put all this together in one post, at least on the regular forum.

I look forward to whatever rational feedback I can get!
Enjoy!

------------------------------

Our Moral God

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to anyone or anything, including a moral standard - He is the standard! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what is meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this short essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how

the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

Spoiler

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

​

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used makes no sense.

Spoiler

This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.
​

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V
​

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary
​

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason is he possibly can. If, the Living God is Logic, what conclusions then should this person come too?

Spoiler

Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that in mind I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
​

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.
​

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton
​

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.
​

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's nature.

Spoiler

Which, by the way, is not to say that Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God led to a great many errors, some of which are disastrous and grievously wrong. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged
​

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

I submit that in fact there is nothing an atheist or anyone else could say that would be more in line with the teaching a Scripture and that in fact we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact the God is Logic.

Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which, if you are following the line of thinking in this essay properly, you'll understand is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to Life (i.e. He acts morally). Thus, to say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. An amoral (non-moral) God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Clete Pfeiffer
3/24/2012

I'm not sure self-sacrifice is 'logical' to the world, however. How does morality come from what 'seems' to be an illogical choice? I'm not opposed to your comments but I'm having a bit of disconnect between logic and where morality fits in. I 'think' Ayn incorrect, that survival of the fittest does not produce a morality from logic.
We know God's morality is different from man's immorality:
Let me postulate: For man, morality is relational. True? or not?'
For God, morality is not relational primarily, but is shown that way toward immoral man. True? No?

 

[genuineoriginal]

we aren't far away from each other on these issues at all.

Yes, so don't get upset when I disagree with you on minor matters.

In what way is a rational being able to be amoral?

Here is an example of rational beings being amoral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea#Essex

Morality is that which is consistent with life (i.e. promotes, extends or is in anyway proper to life).

Here is the problem with your statement: "SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!" as you keep pointing out.

This statement is the linchpin to your whole argument, and you present it as if it was a known indisputable fact, which it is not; it is an opinion.

Only living beings can be rational, by definition, and reason is that beings only means of survival.

You appear to be arguing that all living beings are rational, is this correct?

Would a bacteria be a living being, and therefore rational and moral instead of amoral?

Would a goat be a living being, and therefore rational and moral instead of amoral?

At what point does a living being need to be both rational and moral in order to be considered a living being?

 

[genuineoriginal]

No, you treat others with contempt and disrespect and you are wrong on this that is arrogance and ignorance asserting itself.

Lon, have you been talking to yourself in the mirror, again?

 

[Lon]

Lon, have you been talking to yourself in the mirror, again?

Romans 12:17-21 1 Peter 3:9 Thanks for the encouragement?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Romans 12:17-21 1 Peter 3:9 Thanks for the encouragement?

At least you are now admitting that what you did was "evil or reviling".

 

[Lon]

At least you are now admitting that what you did was "evil or reviling".

I'm sure you feel justified in boxing for your fellow Unitarian? Are you defending him? Well and good I suppose, if misguided and questionable. Yeah, I got nothing left to tell ya....
See you around GE, have a good day. :wave:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yeah, I got nothing left to tell ya.... back to iggy and yep, this is one of the reasons you are there. :wave:

See you around GE, have a good day.

Yes, it is easier to keep me on ignore than to see me point out where you are wrong.

 

[csuguy]

For those that may have been following mine and Lon's discussion: he sent me some pos rep after doing some more research and conceded that I had made some valid points at least in so far as line segments are concerned - but suggested that I maybe wrong if we move beyond line segments specifically into other kinds of segments. He said that this discussion was bringing out the worse in us and decided to put me on ignore for the time being. I'll leave the discussion where it's at - and sorry to Clete for going off track.

 

[Clete]

For those that may have been following mine and Lon's discussion: he sent me some pos rep after doing some more research and conceded that I had made some valid points at least in so far as line segments are concerned - but suggested that I maybe wrong if we move beyond line segments specifically into other kinds of segments. He said that this discussion was bringing out the worse in us and decided to put me on ignore for the time being. I'll leave the discussion where it's at - and sorry to Clete for going off track.

No big deal.

 

[Clete]

I'm not sure self-sacrifice is 'logical' to the world, however.

It is either logical or it isn't. Was it your intention to suggest that the world is illogical? If so, then I'd a agree. Being logical is not instinctive.

How does morality come from what 'seems' to be an illogical choice?

I don't understand the question. What seemingly illogical choice are you talking about?

I'm not opposed to your comments but I'm having a bit of disconnect between logic and where morality fits in.

I don't know how to explain it better than I have. Perhaps you should read it again. It may also help to read my last post to genuineoriginal.

I 'think' Ayn incorrect, that survival of the fittest does not produce a morality from logic.

Rand never taught that the survival of the fittest produces a morality from logic.

We know God's morality is different from man's immorality:

False!

Let me postulate: For man, morality is relational. True? or not?'

Morality is a pretty wide subject. It deals with relational issues as well as personal and private one.

For God, morality is not relational primarily, but is shown that way toward immoral man. True? No?

This is flatly false. Where would you have gotten such a notion?

Do you suppose that the Father has ever acted in manner other than in the best interests of the Son, or that the Son has ever acted in a manner contrary to a proper relationship with the Father? God is relational right down to His very essence and perfectly righteous (i.e. morally good) both in that context and in every other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Yes, so don't get upset when I disagree with you on minor matters.

Disagreement never upsets me or I wouldn't be here. Stubbornness and mindlessness upsets me.

Here is an example of rational beings being amoral:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea#Essex

It would seem you do not understand what the word amoral means.

Amoral is not immoral, it non-moral. There are things that rational beings do that are amoral. Do I eat an apple for breakfast or a peach? Either way, the decision is not a moral one. Do I paint my living room a warm beige or a garish green? Either way, the decision is amoral.

Presuming that you understood what 'amoral' meant when you posted the above link. In what way do you consider the activity described to be amoral?

Here is the problem with your statement: "SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!" as you keep pointing out.

This statement is the linchpin to your whole argument, and you present it as if it was a known indisputable fact, which it is not; it is an opinion.

You didn't read my essay, did you?

There's no possible way you could have said this had you read it.

Read it again and pay attention to what you're reading if you want to continue this discussion with me.

Not only did not I present it as a bald assertion but since then I've posted scripture that says precisely the same thing.

You appear to be arguing that all living beings are rational, is this correct?

No, not all living things are rational but only living things are rational.

Would a bacteria be a living being, and therefore rational and moral instead of amoral?

Would a goat be a living being, and therefore rational and moral instead of amoral?

No, bacterium and other, higher forms of life are not rational in the sense that they have a mind with which they make decisions. They do not act irrationally however. Rand covered this rather interesting question at great length. Here's just a couple of short excerpts of what she said on the matter...

A plant [or bacterium] has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. ...it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

....an animal has no choice in the knowledge and the skills that it acquires; it can only repeat them generation after generation. And an animal has no choice in the standard of value directing its actions: its senses provide it with an automatic code of values, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil, what benefits or endangers its life. An animal has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In situations for which its knowledge is inadequate, it perishes—as, for instance, an animal that stands paralyzed on the track of a railroad in the path of a speeding train. But so long as it lives, an animal acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice: it cannot suspend its own consciousness—it cannot choose not to perceive—it cannot evade its own perceptions—it cannot ignore its own good, it cannot decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
- Rand​

And so the answer to whether lower forms of life are moral is sort of a yes and a no. They are amoral in the sense that they have no, or very limited volition, but life is the standard of value directing it's actions and so from that limited perspective, it's action are moral. Which is no surprise, knowing that all life proceeds from a moral God.

At what point does a living being need to be both rational and moral in order to be considered a living being?

Hopefully the above material answers this question.


Interestingly, Rand, having made several errors, not the least of which is her atheistic worldview, made one her most important errors on just this exact question. The error manifested itself on her position on abortion and children's rights. She didn't support the right to abortion based simply on the notion that a woman cannot right be forced to permit another being to use her body, which is bad enough, but she was vary vague on just when a baby becomes a human being.

Her definition of a human being was...

"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason."​

...a process that a baby does not have, or so she believed. Here's a quote from The Atlas Society, an Objectivist website and organization...

In the Objectivist view, the rights of human beings arise from their rational faculty and their ability to live as independent producers and traders. All rights, including rights like free speech and property, are consequences of—and can ultimately be reduced to—the one basic, fundamental right: the right to be left free from the initiation of physical force.
Rights in this sense do not apply directly to children. While it is difficult or impossible to distinguish the precise moment that a child matures beyond the state of non-rational dependence, all children must pass through such a period of development.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Desert Reign,

I just now noticed your post #207!

I'll respond as soon as time allows. Thanks for the heads up! I would have missed it!