He/it creates and defines concepts of morality, but may not be a part of that system, or bound by those definitions. If we’re imagining a being of some kind that is (nominally) omnipotent and omnipresent, the I don’t see how we could realistically apply morality based on a mortal existence to it. How could you apply, for instance, a rule that says “don’t murder” to a thing that is incapable of death in any way that we would understand it?
I’m absolutely not a theist, but I think that exercises like this are ultimately futile. When I was a believer, this kind of mental exercise wouldn’t have made much of a dent in my belief. The nature of evil has been a study point for religious scholars for >2000 years, and mostly people ahve shrugged and said that they don’t understand, but they have faith, and that’s good enough. OTOH, I’m a sample size of one, so maybe there are people that would see this argument and question how rational their belief was.
The question whether god may understand or be bound by moral standards is irrelevant though. Apparently he doesn’t act on it. Either he doesn’t care enough to do or he can’t.
Of course one can imagine god in a way that’s compatible with our world - for example an evil god, a god that doesn’t care about humans, a god that has no relationship with the world, or a god that’s incapable of interference with it. Epicurus doesn’t say god doesn’t exist, merely the (formerly prevalent) idea of an all loving, all knowing, omnipotent creator god. That one is apparently impossible and therefore most likely doesn’t exist.
And going one step further we can say: Well okay, maybe god doesn’t exist, but apparently not in a way that’s relevant to this world. At least not beyond the idea itself. There is no tangible influence of god in this life - he doesn’t interfer (for whatever reason). And since the formerly prevalent idea of god is obviously wrong it’s hard to say if humans were ever justified in thinking we know something about god at all. (Would be a feat anyway, giving the fact that god apparently doesn’t interfer with our reality.) This however leaves very little room to justify or explain the need for religion.
When I was a believer this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. I understood that we know nothing of god, cannot know anything of god, and cannot claim to say he does exist - and that religion therefore made no sense. Back then I called myself an agnostic, taking into account the possibility that, as unlikely as it might me, god could yet exist in some form. Today I don’t even believe that. The term “god” stems from a tradition of groundless and increasingly refuted attributions, and there’s just as much reason to assume the existence of such a concept as every other work of fiction out there. If you’d experience the world without the predenomination of religion you wouldn’t arrive at anything close to their idea of a god in the first place. This was my conclusion from the Epicurean paradox.
So, n=2, now we have a tie.
(Exercise like this might feel futile to you - I find them immensely interesting.)
How could you apply, for instance, a rule that says “don’t murder” to a thing that is incapable of death in any way that we would understand it?
What??!? Murdering is about ending other’s lives. If I were immortal, how does that prevent me from killing someone else who is mortal???
It’s ok to have faith which literally means you believe in something without a shred of evidence (or worse, evidence to the contrary). But again the epicurean paradox is not about the existence of god, is about defining his character
The actual “answer”, which is no answer at all, for this paradox is “god acts in mysterious ways”. That has been the cop out all religions have come up with
But murder is also something that really only applies to rough equals; you wouldn’t call it murder to squish a mosquito. ‘Don’t murder’ is fundamentally a golden rule issue; you don’t want it done to you, so you shouldn’t do it to other people. If you can’t die, then that principle breaks down. (Unless there are other gods, and ‘death’ means something different to them? I think that’s getting into fantasy even more than religion usually does.)
But murder is also something that really only applies to rough equals;
Why?
you wouldn’t call it murder to squish a mosquito
I wouldn’t because killing animals is not in the definition of murder, but certainly PETA people would call me a murdered for simply eating a cow. I get there is nuance in the language but ending a life doesn’t really have much to do with me having a life as well.
‘Don’t murder’ is fundamentally a golden rule issue; you don’t want it done to you, so you shouldn’t do it to other people
You are conflating these 2; I see no relationship with these 2 concepts. I have never made a movie yet I have pirated some, do you imply I couldn’t possibly have pirated a movie since I do not have my own movie or similar intellectual property to be pirated from me?. The 10 commandments includes: “You shall not commit adultery.” If I am single, does that mean I am exempt?
I wouldn’t because killing animals is not in the definition of murder,
The definition of murder also doesn’t include a god killing another god.
You are conflating these 2; I see no relationship with these 2 concepts.
You shouldn’t pirate because, if you had intellectual property, you would not want it to be stolen. You should not commit adultery because if you were in a relationship, you would not want your partner to cheat on you. If a god can not die at all, then telling a god that killing is bad because they wouldn’t want to be killed simply isn’t going to be meaningful.
The definition of murder also doesn’t include a god killing another god.
which, nobody mentioned this far?.. you can’t make a claim and then attack it to justify your point. That is the definition of a strawman argument
If a god can not die at all, then telling a god that killing is bad because they wouldn’t want to be killed simply isn’t going to be meaningful.
So, according to you, this means an immortal god would not even understand why killing is bad? Sorry but I do not see the correlation here.
Assuming your point for a moment, then none of the commandments hold any meaning to god since I cannot steal, harm or cheat an all-powerful entity.
He/it creates and defines concepts of morality, but may not be a part of that system, or bound by those definitions. If we’re imagining a being of some kind that is (nominally) omnipotent and omnipresent, the I don’t see how we could realistically apply morality based on a mortal existence to it. How could you apply, for instance, a rule that says “don’t murder” to a thing that is incapable of death in any way that we would understand it?
I’m absolutely not a theist, but I think that exercises like this are ultimately futile. When I was a believer, this kind of mental exercise wouldn’t have made much of a dent in my belief. The nature of evil has been a study point for religious scholars for >2000 years, and mostly people ahve shrugged and said that they don’t understand, but they have faith, and that’s good enough. OTOH, I’m a sample size of one, so maybe there are people that would see this argument and question how rational their belief was.
The question whether god may understand or be bound by moral standards is irrelevant though. Apparently he doesn’t act on it. Either he doesn’t care enough to do or he can’t.
Of course one can imagine god in a way that’s compatible with our world - for example an evil god, a god that doesn’t care about humans, a god that has no relationship with the world, or a god that’s incapable of interference with it. Epicurus doesn’t say god doesn’t exist, merely the (formerly prevalent) idea of an all loving, all knowing, omnipotent creator god. That one is apparently impossible and therefore most likely doesn’t exist.
And going one step further we can say: Well okay, maybe god doesn’t exist, but apparently not in a way that’s relevant to this world. At least not beyond the idea itself. There is no tangible influence of god in this life - he doesn’t interfer (for whatever reason). And since the formerly prevalent idea of god is obviously wrong it’s hard to say if humans were ever justified in thinking we know something about god at all. (Would be a feat anyway, giving the fact that god apparently doesn’t interfer with our reality.) This however leaves very little room to justify or explain the need for religion.
When I was a believer this was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. I understood that we know nothing of god, cannot know anything of god, and cannot claim to say he does exist - and that religion therefore made no sense. Back then I called myself an agnostic, taking into account the possibility that, as unlikely as it might me, god could yet exist in some form. Today I don’t even believe that. The term “god” stems from a tradition of groundless and increasingly refuted attributions, and there’s just as much reason to assume the existence of such a concept as every other work of fiction out there. If you’d experience the world without the predenomination of religion you wouldn’t arrive at anything close to their idea of a god in the first place. This was my conclusion from the Epicurean paradox.
So, n=2, now we have a tie.
(Exercise like this might feel futile to you - I find them immensely interesting.)
What??!? Murdering is about ending other’s lives. If I were immortal, how does that prevent me from killing someone else who is mortal???
It’s ok to have faith which literally means you believe in something without a shred of evidence (or worse, evidence to the contrary). But again the epicurean paradox is not about the existence of god, is about defining his character
The actual “answer”, which is no answer at all, for this paradox is “god acts in mysterious ways”. That has been the cop out all religions have come up with
But murder is also something that really only applies to rough equals; you wouldn’t call it murder to squish a mosquito. ‘Don’t murder’ is fundamentally a golden rule issue; you don’t want it done to you, so you shouldn’t do it to other people. If you can’t die, then that principle breaks down. (Unless there are other gods, and ‘death’ means something different to them? I think that’s getting into fantasy even more than religion usually does.)
Why?
I wouldn’t because killing animals is not in the definition of murder, but certainly PETA people would call me a murdered for simply eating a cow. I get there is nuance in the language but ending a life doesn’t really have much to do with me having a life as well.
You are conflating these 2; I see no relationship with these 2 concepts. I have never made a movie yet I have pirated some, do you imply I couldn’t possibly have pirated a movie since I do not have my own movie or similar intellectual property to be pirated from me?. The 10 commandments includes: “You shall not commit adultery.” If I am single, does that mean I am exempt?
The definition of murder also doesn’t include a god killing another god.
You shouldn’t pirate because, if you had intellectual property, you would not want it to be stolen. You should not commit adultery because if you were in a relationship, you would not want your partner to cheat on you. If a god can not die at all, then telling a god that killing is bad because they wouldn’t want to be killed simply isn’t going to be meaningful.
which, nobody mentioned this far?.. you can’t make a claim and then attack it to justify your point. That is the definition of a strawman argument
So, according to you, this means an immortal god would not even understand why killing is bad? Sorry but I do not see the correlation here. Assuming your point for a moment, then none of the commandments hold any meaning to god since I cannot steal, harm or cheat an all-powerful entity.