How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

How do I know that something is good? When it is pleasing to me,

So your definition of "good," is "that which is pleasing to Bahman"?

I just want to check first. I'm asking, to confirm your criterion.

Because if that's what you mean, then your question translates to, "Why is God not pleasing to Bahman?"

Is that it? And do you really think you can ask me to answer for you?

You are evading answering my question by asking questions.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to answer your question in such a way that it respects what you claim "good" means.

You claimed, above, it means "What Bahman likes." And I can answer that way, if you like. But I'm certain the answer's going to fall considerably short of what any sane person would accept.

For what does it actually matter what pleases Bahman? Will I not instantly be accused of not having answered the question, "How do you know God is good," since "what pleases Bahman" is surely no definition of that?

You surely don't expect other people to accept your definition of "good" given above, do you?

So try again, and I'll try again.

[bahman]

So your definition of "good," is "that which is pleasing to Bahman"?

I just want to check first. I'm asking, to confirm your criterion.

Because if that's what you mean, then your question translates to, "Why is God not pleasing to Bahman?"

Is that it? And do you really think you can ask me to answer for you?

You are evading answering my question by asking questions.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to answer your question in such a way that it respects what you claim "good" means.

You claimed, above, it means "What Bahman likes." And I can answer that way, if you like. But I'm certain the answer's going to fall considerably short of what any sane person would accept.

For what does it actually matter what pleases Bahman? Will I not instantly be accused of not having answered the question, "How do you know God is good," since "what pleases Bahman" is surely no definition of that?

You surely don't expect other people to accept your definition of "good" given above, do you?

So try again, and I'll try again.

Define God's character then.

[Immanuel Can]

Define God's character then.

There's 66 books to do that job, and the Bible does it much better than I can.

But we still have nothing for your conception of "good," except, "whatever pleases me." Is that where we leave it?

[bahman]

Define God's character then.

There's 66 books to do that job, and the Bible does it much better than I can.

That is not a good excuse.

But we still have nothing for your conception of "good," except, "whatever pleases me." Is that where we leave it?

Yes.

[Immanuel Can]

Define God's character then.

There's 66 books to do that job, and the Bible does it much better than I can.

That is not a good excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's a fact. The Bible does it better.

I'm just giving credit where credit is due.

But we still have nothing for your conception of "good," except, "whatever pleases me." Is that where we leave it?

Yes.

Oh. So you no longer have any basis on which to suppose that God has failed to be "good," except that He doesn't turn out to be quite what Bahman likes?

[bahman]

There's 66 books to do that job, and the Bible does it much better than I can.

That is not a good excuse.

It's not an excuse.

It is.

It's a fact. The Bible does it better.

I'm just giving credit where credit is due.

Bible as you said is a set of 66 books, made of verses which even Christians do not agree on whether each verse is literal or figurative. This means that these verses are open to interpretation. And you are asking me to go and read 66 books and come to your conclusion and your interpretation about what good means. And in the end, I have to hold the content of 66 books in my mind to understand what good means.

But we still have nothing for your conception of "good," except, "whatever pleases me." Is that where we leave it?

Yes.

Oh. So you no longer have any basis on which to suppose that God has failed to be "good," except that He doesn't turn out to be quite what Bahman likes?

God is simply not real.

[Immanuel Can]

Bible as you said is a set of 66 books, made of verses which even Christians do not agree on whether each verse is literal or figurative.

You will find a few individual verses that are still debated in this way, and a few even with important implications: but you won't find many. There is an overwhelming consensus among Christians, actually, about most of the substance of those 66 books.

In the end, I have to hold the content of 66 books in my mind to understand what good means.

No, just as you don't have to hold the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica in your mind in order to look up a question. You just have to know what you're looking for, and where to look.

Yes.

Oh. So you no longer have any basis on which to suppose that God has failed to be "good," except that He doesn't turn out to be quite what Bahman likes?

God is simply not real.

"Good," I said. Not "God."

What's your conception of "good," beyond "What Bahman likes?"

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

[Belinda]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

I agree. The title is vague and ambiguous.
What I'd do is presume the OP meant " Does Belief in the Existence of a Supernatural Moral Authority Resolve Moral Conflicts?"

I'd answer "Moral conflicts are inevitable. The moral status of an authority, supernatural or natural, depends upon moral axioms i.e basic principles that are self evident.

Me, for instance, I tend to think we are biological , therefore it's axiomatic that those axiomatic principles are axiomatic that support and enhance life. Supernatural authorities are usually hijacked by worldly authorities and are therefore unreliable. Therefore human reason plus ordinary human kindness are better axiomatic principles than any supernatural authority.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

I agree. The title is vague and ambiguous.
What I'd do is presume the OP meant " Does Belief in the Existence of a Supernatural Moral Authority Resolve Moral Conflicts?"

I'd answer "Moral conflicts are inevitable. The moral status of an authority, supernatural or natural, depends upon moral axioms i.e basic principles that are self evident.

Me, for instance, I tend to think we are biological , therefore it's axiomatic that those axiomatic principles are axiomatic that support and enhance life. Supernatural authorities are usually hijacked by worldly authorities and are therefore unreliable. Therefore human reason plus ordinary human kindness are better axiomatic principles than any supernatural authority.

The 'can' should be between 'How' and 'believing'. Or the 'How' could be removed, with 'can' replacing it. As it stands it's a statement that has a question mark stuck on the end. It's like hearing someone sing off key, or a bad violinist

[Belinda]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

I agree. The title is vague and ambiguous.
What I'd do is presume the OP meant " Does Belief in the Existence of a Supernatural Moral Authority Resolve Moral Conflicts?"

I'd answer "Moral conflicts are inevitable. The moral status of an authority, supernatural or natural, depends upon moral axioms i.e basic principles that are self evident.

Me, for instance, I tend to think we are biological , therefore it's axiomatic that those axiomatic principles are axiomatic that support and enhance life. Supernatural authorities are usually hijacked by worldly authorities and are therefore unreliable. Therefore human reason plus ordinary human kindness are better axiomatic principles than any supernatural authority.

The 'can' should be between 'How' and 'believing'. Or the 'How' could be removed, with 'can' replacing it. As it stands it's a statement that has a question mark stuck on the end. It's like hearing someone sing off key, or a bad violinist

Yes, that too. However from my point of view it's more interesting to define what version of 'God' is being talked about. Most people here seem to regard God as unique supernatural authority.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I agree. The title is vague and ambiguous.
What I'd do is presume the OP meant " Does Belief in the Existence of a Supernatural Moral Authority Resolve Moral Conflicts?"

I'd answer "Moral conflicts are inevitable. The moral status of an authority, supernatural or natural, depends upon moral axioms i.e basic principles that are self evident.

Me, for instance, I tend to think we are biological , therefore it's axiomatic that those axiomatic principles are axiomatic that support and enhance life. Supernatural authorities are usually hijacked by worldly authorities and are therefore unreliable. Therefore human reason plus ordinary human kindness are better axiomatic principles than any supernatural authority.

The 'can' should be between 'How' and 'believing'. Or the 'How' could be removed, with 'can' replacing it. As it stands it's a statement that has a question mark stuck on the end. It's like hearing someone sing off key, or a bad violinist

Yes, that too. However from my point of view it's more interesting to define what version of 'God' is being talked about. Most people here seem to regard God as unique supernatural authority.

That has nothing to do with what I was referring to. A god is a supernatural being that childish idiots believe in because they were told bullshit by their parents.

[bahman]

Bible as you said is a set of 66 books, made of verses which even Christians do not agree on whether each verse is literal or figurative.

You will find a few individual verses that are still debated in this way, and a few even with important implications: but you won't find many. There is an overwhelming consensus among Christians, actually, about most of the substance of those 66 books.

I don't think so. Pope for example does not believe in Hell. You do. How about the story of Adam and Eve? Homosexual rights. etc.

In the end, I have to hold the content of 66 books in my mind to understand what good means.

No, just as you don't have to hold the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica in your mind in order to look up a question. You just have to know what you're looking for, and where to look.

That was you who failed to define the meaning of good, in a sentence, a paragraph, or even a page and instead referred me to 66 books.

Oh. So you no longer have any basis on which to suppose that God has failed to be "good," except that He doesn't turn out to be quite what Bahman likes?

God is simply not real.

"Good," I said. Not "God."

And I said, God, not good. God simply does not exist, as you could not find a flaw in my argument. So the discussion about God is good has no particular relevance.

What's your conception of "good," beyond "What Bahman likes?"

Nothing, what pleases me is simply good.

[bahman]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

There are people like IC who thinks that believing in God can resolve moral conflict. So, the title and OP are completely relevant.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Several pages of thread comments for a title that has no meaning. A question that isn't a question. Ridiculous.

There are people like IC who thinks that believing in God can resolve moral conflict. So, the title and OP are completely relevant.

Can you even read?