Yes, you're probably right. If the creator believes there is an absolute morality, then there is an absolute morality.
So can I ask you if you believe that the creator believes there is an absolute morality? If you believe there is such thing as absolute morality. If so, could you give a few examples of absolute morality in this world e.g killing is bad.
That's not what I said at all. What the Creator believes or doesnt' believe is irrelevant. The concept of "belief" itself is a part of the universe. We cannot apply that to anything that exists outside it. This would be like me looking at a glass, then stating that the creator of the glass is also non-living.
I also said an objective set of principles, which means the origin of the principles are objective. We might interpret them subjectively, but what is important is that we can concretely determine that the source itself is objective and that what we have is truly from this source.
TruthSeeker
"This is not true, there is no evolving of systems."
In the beginning there was only God let us say.
He then started to add what we see today.
Can it not be said that He changed what was to what is and can we not call that evolving the original system.
Since we know that change is continuing here and now, can we not say that we are evolving.
All other natural systems on earth continue to evolve. Would you have us believe that man does not while all around him does?
If Darwin suddenly woke up, would he say, well look at the world. Everything is evolving except for one species ourt of millions. Man.
Regards
DL
But, let us say that you realized, without a shadow of a doubt that there is a Creator to the universe. You proved that. And let us say that you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Qur'an is from this Creator.
So then when you find a series of facts, how would you tailor them against what you know to be true?
Darwin as you said saw things evolve, and thus believed that man must too evolve. But evolve to and from what? How do we know that for sure?
I have seen crocodiles for a very long time. I see their skeletal remains. They are the same. So why would I not conclude that species generally do not evolve?
If they found some skeletons of something that seems to resemble an ape but looks a little bit erect, does this mean it is our evolution piece or just another species?
The fossil argument isn't even an argument used by evolutionists:
" However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation". (student of darwin Mark Ridley)
I want to point out that we do not deny the concept of evolution. We just say that the human beings do not evolve from apes.
Are you per chance from Free-minds.org? This should be interesting if you are.
You state the creation of the universe, physical laws and our bodies but what does that have to do with "good" and "evil"?
Also how are you sure that there is a Creator of the universe, I don't think any intelligent person would say they are sure, I don't know there is no personal God. You believe there is a creator. How do you know that communication is not from a Malevolent being? what standard do you have to say that being can be justifiably called "Creator/God" other than a book you believe in? And if that God exists out of our universe, by what basis can you describe him and then impose surety of his existence on others? So if your Lord God orders so called evil, because he is the creator of the universe you must obey? But then what good is religious morality if it is dependant on a non-empirical being for which there are countless interpretations?
I'm not going to resort to absolutes. Like Obi Wan says "only a sith deals in absolutes..." Morality is simply boiled down to "do unto others" it is how society can flourish and progress through the ages. In order for more than one human to exist together there has to be a sense of morality. But this is not passed down by some commandments or a book. It is what naturally arises when normal human beings coexist (disregarding those who lack empathy i.e. sociopaths). The facet of utmost importance in human society is co-habitation thus morality is spawned. You cannot invent your own sense of right and wrong in this society without it going against your conscience, which will always say "would you like that done to you if they were in your shoes?". If you dont have that voice you are an antisocial personality and are not able to function in society (not evil), simple.
If a human being was born on a remote island with no contact with any lifeform other than plants, he would have no sense of empathy. He would only think for himself, he would be incredibly selfish and self centered. Why? because he has no one to feel empathy for, no one to share with, no one to compromise with. If one human lived with a pack of wolves he would have the morality of a pack of wolves i.e. become a feral human. If it were several humans, and they had means for survival (i.e. not living like animals) they would have to coexist socially or they would destroy themselves and the species would die out on that island. This is a natural occurence to ensure survival. But naturally out of our ability to think we also have the ability to deviate so we may still steal, kill and lie even though we know it's wrong and that's where the law system comes in, which is a whole other chapter.
Different faiths teach do unto others but some distort meanings of their books to give them a warped sense of morality, against the progression of society such as suicide bombing. Like it or not fanatics are chanting religious scripture and invoking a god's name before they cause destruction not saying "I believe in No God! There's no Hell! Therefore I can do what I like!!" It seems the religious folk have a tendency towards sociopathy than others and I'm not talking exclusively of muslims.
No, i don't know that site. What's it about?
I'd prefer we not resort to indirect insults =/. I'm just here to discuss!
My belief is not in "God" as people use it. Rather I spoke of the belief in the Creator. Why do I believe this?
We know the universe exists. We agree upon this I believe?
So then we arrive at the question, what came before? This leads to 3 possible conclusions.
1) Before the universe, there was nothing
2) The universe was always there
3) The universe came from something else
I am not entirely sure, even now, how anyone has seriously convinced other people that the universe came from nothing. There is no example in real life where something just simply appears. It always comes from something else, be it matter/energy/etc.
So this conclusion is not possible.
Second conclusion is that the universe was always there. So this means the universe is infinite. There are two things wrong with this.
Firstly, does everyone not accept that the universe is expanding? So how can the universe be infinite and expand at the same time? It cannot be.
Secondly, an infinite universe, leads to infinite regression in time. This means there is no such things as before, since time is infinite, and each event occurs simultaneously and infinitely backwards and forward. You cannot have a real sequence of events. In addition, this would also mean that if the event before me was infinite, then my own event would never occur, since the previous event is never-ending.
In short, there is only one conclusion, that the universe came from something else. I call this the Creator =).
Does that make sense?
Anyone who preaches others what to do, firstly must
lead by example.Hare Rama!
Well we would hope they would lead by example. But how often do you see any human being truly leading by example? Celebrities? Politicians? Corporation shareholders?
My example is the prophet peace be upon him, and I try my best to follow him. I do try to do that, but we all make mistakes right?
By the bolded part, as I understand from the way you structure your sentence that you infact mean, that the very nature of the universe is that which is not objective and absolute whereas God is. Especially in congruence with the following sentence.
What a typically Abrahamic way of thinking. God gives everything for you to follow and there needs to be no thinking involved. Good night, sleep tight.
I think Allah is an asshole. Whereas you follow Allah just because you follow Allah.
Morality for me is strongly co-related with evolution. When I say "for me", I dont mean it subjectively or "in my opinion" whereby I say it from my own perspective with possible consideration to that of others as well.
If God is the Basis of Morality. That means the very nature of God is that He is Morally Righteous.
Morality is always a duality. If something is right, there is also something else that is opposite to it, which is wrong.
We humans, attribute the capacity to judge morality to those who are benevolent and not those who are malevolent. E.g thats why we have a legal system, where the judge prosecutes someone as a criminal.
So therefore God must be Omni Benevolent. If he is Omni Benevolent. Then there must be another entity that is Omni Malevolent. And in Christianity/Islam that is Satan.
then now this collapses into God cancelling Himself out as being Most Morally Righteous
I posit two arguements
- Since Malevolence cannot arise in a blank void, where only God existed. Therefore God takes the blame for Malevolence. And he ceases to be Omni-Benevolent. Therefore stripping himself off his status of being Most Morally Righteous.
- if we are to assume that the Creator(for whatever reason) has to be Omni Benevolent and the creation possesses Malevolence, then God must have deliberately created the worlds to make himself look like the good guy. Therefore he acts upon his own nature with an incentive. To put in lay man terms, he does nasty shit to make himself the hero. And that makes him a big time asshole.
- look into the Problem of Evil according to Epicurus
We see that suffering exists in the world among all of living things even though there is also pleasure. The most euphoric of sensations is sex. But living beings themselves are the cause of [natural] reproduction, So pleasure leads to pain. More pleasure, more pain. Worse still sex is only brief, the product of which an offspring is a lifetime, throughout which it is subject to pain more often than pleasure. This fundmental equation of existence seems sadistic. Therefore this Creator must be a sadist himself.
Again typical Abrahamic piece of shit.
Your very premise is incorrect.
"If God is the Basis of Morality. That means the very nature of God is that He is Morally Righteous."
You used words that are both loaded and somewhat vague. What you are essentially saying is that God created Morality, therefore God is the most moral. This is like saying "I created cars, therefore I am the most car-like." No I created the car, doesn't mean I am anything like the car at all.
I said the Creator created the universe, so by default morality is created by this Creator. In the science, we are taught that to understand an experiment, one must be independent of the experiment, otherwise there is bias. So one cannot make any claims to morality of human beings while being a human being themselves. This is biased.
I also never said the Creator is moral. I said He created morality. What the Creator is or isn't is not possible for me to detect because I am a part of the universe. It is beyond my capability to test, so if I am ever to figure it out the very Creator must reveal to me by exo-spection.
If you could also be less insulting. It kind of takes away from the discussion.
Topic: Is this a self evident truth for Good and evil?