• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

On Nature, morality, and God

ForEverAfter said:
This will be one of my last posts on Bluelight for some time.
I'm going to depart from the forum after today.
It has been made clear that I am not welcome.

meth requested my opinion repeatedly, suggesting that I didn't have one or something, so here it is:

Re: Morality, as it pertains to man/nature/God.

First of all God made nature and God made man, so any attempt to separate anything from God (assuming that you believe in God) is futile. For the sake of this discussion, however, I will attempt do so... by separating each category into "direct" and "indirect" laws

->

Since God made man and man made certain laws, these "man made laws" are indirectly created by God... but let's ignore that and assume that they're not. They will, for the time being, be referred to as man-made laws (1).

Same goes for nature. God created life, in all of it's diversity (regardless of whether or not you literally believe in Genesis, this is what the word God generally implies) and each species has developed its own idiosyncratic "laws" which it must obey in order to function. These are "natures laws". (2)

Finally, the theoretical laws obtained by a species that has achieved social enlightenment are God's laws. These are commonly referred to in holy texts, philosophical works and speculative fiction... Some animal species eat their young. For a relatively enlightened species, such as ours, this is barbaric and horrible... If we take that logic a step further, and introduce another hypothetical species much more enlightened than the human race (typically, this is a future version of our race, that we have envisioned but sometimes it is also alien) that highly enlightened species looks at mankind and considers it to be barbaric also. (3)

(1) does not overlap with (3) as much as (2) overlaps with (3).

In other words: as we approach enlightenment, we approach God's "direct" laws.

...

We have a vision of what (3) would be like and it is a relatively common/consistent vision shared by many different members of the human race. The ratio of commonalities to anomalies increases as we depart from "nature" and approach enlightenment.

(1) There are countless animal species that act outside of how an enlightened species would act. Eating their young, abandoning their young, murdering members of their own species for territorial reasons, etcetera.

This category (1) has little consistency in terms of what is "right and wrong".

(2) There are some races left in the world that partake in cannibalism. We consider them, objectively, immoral/barbaric/unenlightened.

This category (2) has far more consistency in terms of what is "right and wrong", but there are still considerable anomalies.

(3) A theoretical enlightened species (interchangeable with God) would never justify an inarguably needless act that causes harm and serves no function.

This theoretical category (3) has a clearly defined "right and wrong". The rules are simple and consistent...

Although I mentioned speculative fiction, I did that for illustrative purposes because what I'm trying to explain is potentially confusing. Pointing out inconsistencies in how (2) envisions (3), doesn't defeat my point... In other words, saying that writers of speculative fiction disagree about the actions of an enlightened species proves nothing... (2) is not (3) yet, so utter consistency can not be demanded/expected.

...

To state, conclusively, that there are no objective morals (note, regarding (2) and (3): morals also overlap with instincts\practicalities) is blind. Although there are an enormous amount of inconsistencies between races and species there are also a lot of consistencies within each species, including (2).

All major religions, when broken down, have the same basic ethical code. Whether or not it is defined symbolically through allegorical tales, and misunderstood to be something else, or literally stated within allegories so that it can't be misunderstood (the 10 commandments), there is - undeniably - a common ground for what we - as a species - think is "right and wrong".

People have been attempting to simplify this discussion down to one answer, and prove/disprove it either way by not taking into account the complexity of the issue at hand. To conclude that because there are subjective moral laws, there are no objective moral laws is erroneous logic... and vice versa. Similarly, to argue that either God definitely exists or he definitely doesn't, by means of logic and limited examples, is ludicrous.

Attempting to prove God, through fallacious logic (meth) is a waste of time and it proves nothing.
Attempting to disprove God, by similar means (Dystopia et al) is - also - utterly futile.

These are exercises in self-delusion: to try and prove or disprove God (who, by definition, cannot be proved/disproved) with logic is - really - just people convincing themselves of their perspective by desperately attempting to convince others. Which comes across as insecure and uncertain, either way.

This is why I've been arguing against both sides.
I'm not doing it for the sake of arguing.
I'm doing it because: both sides are wrong.

The same thing goes for the evolution thread. Some people were arguing that evolution (and science, in general) disproves God. Others - meth - were arguing that evolution (and, by implication, science in general) is wrong... But, as mabzie pointed out, they (science and God) are not mutually exclusive.

God created man who discovered science. If evolution exists, which is becoming increasingly difficult/stupid to deny, then it is either a function of God's plan or a function of the universe. (Depending on your religious orientation.) No matter what science discovers, it doesn't (and cannot) prove or disprove God.

...

I hope that's an adequate answer, meth.
Click to expand...

I welcome you. I have greatly enjoyed reading some of your posts and shared insight. If I came off as attacking formerly, you have my apologies, as I did not intend to. I can see where many of my posts can be taken that way, perhaps the way I express myself in print, but I very rarely attempt to offend anyone, and certainly not you. Anyway, If I have been a contributor to your leave of absence, I am sorry.
 
Abject said:
Please name some inherent morals for us
Click to expand...

Speaking in terms of morals that can be found universally, regardless of social and cultural influence? Or in terms of morals that exist objectively, regardless of individual belief?

I cannot prove to you that right and wrong exist in actuality, and never will I be able to.
 
FOREVERATER and others,

My basic follow up question is does God (if you accept entity exists) make the ultimate (set in stone ) laws or do you.
And are there any CONSEQUENCES for violating laws?
As far as our species is concerned. NOT dogs or cats who arent as "enlightened" (i would say accountable) as us.
Is it ok for humans to eat their young.
Is there ever a time it is ok?
Ever ok to kill another human being just for pleasure of killing them?
God did in fact give us ability to experience pleasure, so I guess it makes it his fault if I kill someone for kicks.

God gave you free will, so to say he made you

so whatever you do is ultimately his fault/responsibility -----fails.

You make a child , if they decide to kill someone who made decision you or child?

I think you may be the one over simplifying things.


I never said argument proves or disproves anything.
(Careful with assumptions)
Just questions to ask yourself.

Ultimately (if you believe in God)you really do have to choose (live life)
by one or other.
Or I suppose you can try to live by BOTH.
(Which certainly we all try/do)
( which is what I believe your trying to propose,
Could be wrong)
But as I pointed out you will favor one or other.
And logically just doesnt make sence--- to me that is.
What happens if the two conflict?
You make a choice.
Good or evil----
I believe one of the above is better than other,
Even if I choose the other----

You will decide by default or choose which side
you ultimately subscribe to.
The point is who do you trust the most?
For some weird reason I have more faith in one over other.
BUT I guess you are right, it is possible I am more
"Enlightened" ( to borrow your word)

PS Like your God making things analogy
I DO believe you have now come to the
"GODDIDIT" TEAM.
Welcome aboard
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top