Why do we exist,GOD or BIG BANG theory?

[Sri Lumpa]

DélioPT said:

So, if God does something then it`s moral but if humans do it it`s immoral?

Why the question mark as I do not claim that? I claim that if something is moral when god does it but immoral when humans do it then it is moral relativism.

And who created life and morality?

Who created life is irrelevant.

Who created morality? You believe god did. I believe morality is an emergent property of intelligence/sapience. When an animal commits infanticide we do not see it as immoral because they lack the capacity to make moral judgements. Of course we don't call it moral either, instead we call it amoral. If a human commited infanticide then we see it as immoral because a human is intelligent enough to make moral judgements. 

I can`t judge but God can. Is this two sets of morals aswell?

Moral relativism is when one person has two sets of moral standards (or more) and apply different sets to different entities, not when two entities have different moral standards.

Moral relativism exists on leveled playing fields, like you saying that something is morality and me saying that it`s not.

No, that would be two different moral system. Moral relativism would be saying that you can't judge my moral system by the standard of your moral system or vice versa (saying I can't judge your moral system by the standard of my moral system). I am saying that you are a moral relativist because equating morality to god means that you can't judge god's morality by the standard of human morality.

It was God, who is morality, who created morality, who decided what is morality.

If you really believe that then you cannot honestly categorically say that either the 9/11 terrorists or the hebrews who commited mass murder against the city of Jericho are immoral as they claim to have been doing it on god's order and thus whether their acts are moral or not depend on whether they are right in that belief.

I can say that what they did is immoral because even if they are right in their belief that it was ordered by god it still would not make their acts moral.

Furthermore, if you really believe that consider the possibility that your system of belief is right in most aspects except one tiny inversion. The inversion being that Yahwe is not god and Lucifer is not satan but that the world was created by Lucifer (who is thus god) and that it is Yahwe that rebelled against Lucifer's (and is thus satan).

If you believe what you said about god deciding morality then in such a world you should be a Luciferian as god(lucifer in this example) would have decided what was morality.

My view is that as morality does not come from any divine entity (whether Yahwe as you believe to be the case in this world or Lucifer as in my example), in such a universe I would not have to blindly follow the moral system decided by Lucifer even though he would be the creator of that universe and thus god.

To understand God`s ways you can`t reduce it to just morality since He`s not just morality, otherwise you won`t understand Him. To understand His morality you have to know all of Him.

We can reduce his moral system to just morality. If he corrupts it with things unrelated to morality then we can judge their effect on his moral system. Whatever non-moral system he has that does not affect morality I am not interested in.

How can you, honestly, judge God`s morality when you weren`t the one who created morality? 

Because I have a brain able of abstract thought on people's actions and their consequences, whether positive or negative and I am not afraid to use it. I am not claiming that we can reach moral perfection with our brains as some aspects are complicated but we can detect gross violations of morality, like many actions commited by god.

You are making yourself God as you decide by your own criteria what is morality. And i ask you, is that what you want to do?

I am not making myself to be god, I am just taking god to account for his blatant violations of basic morality. You don't need to claim to be god to claim to be able to make moral judgement. If that was so then you would be unable to make day to day moral judgement without first checking in the bible to make sure that it is the correct judgement.

That`s not what i said, nor what i have been saying. I always said that - even pointed out those who lived before Christ - that people can go to either heaven or hell even without knowing the word of God, but the same situation still applies after knowing the word of God. So, in that regard, the same two possibilities exist without change.

I know what you said but you also said that once they do know of god, if they do not accept him then they are going to hell. So a good person that would have gone to heaven on the basis of his good deeds when not knowing of god would now go to hell because you told him about god unless he did the extra action of believing, just like a person might not have been run over on the basis of staying on the sidewalk when not being pushed on the pavement but once pushed on the pavement they have to do the extra action of getting of the pavement.

The fact that that extra action is available to them and that the pushed person still has the two possibilities (run over or not run over) does not exonerate the person doing the pushing from being culpable of attempted murder and neither does the fact that the person you taught about god  has the extra action of believing available to them and that they still have both possibilities (go to heaven or hell) exonerate you from being culpable of attempted torture.

What changes is that, and this is where we disagree, is that knowing might someone`s action/responsability but deciding on that something is the person`s responsability. Mine ends with the telliing, his begins with the deciding.

You might want to rephrase the bolded portion as it doesn't make sense.

However, if I understand what you are trying to say you are wrong as the telling puts them in more danger than they were before.

Before the danger was for them to be bad people.

Now the danger is for them to be bad people OR to be good people but not to believe.

You increased the danger by your deliberate actions and that is that increase that is immoral (unless you warn them and they agree to take the risk).

When i spoke about knowing the world, i was trying to say that people all around know what can lead them to heaven or hell, even before knowing of God.

First, that would not be knowing the world but knowing another world (the spiritual world).

Second, if that was true then why do different religions have different requirements for salvation and why do some religions (like the Jews and some christians) not believe in the same kind of heaven and hell most christians do?

You say that salvation should be about morality. But isn`t life more then morality? Isn`t more than just morality? So, in both cases, why should it be reduced to just a part of it to acquire salvation or hell?

I already said why in other posts: Because if it isn't about rewarding morality and punishing immorality then it is about rewarding those who like you and punishing those who don't. It is cronyism at its worst. I can respect those who believe in heaven but not in hell but those that believe in hell in such a system argue that eternal torture for failing to be god's crony is acceptable and I totally disagree. Even if it is true it is still a system worth rebelling against (just like there are systems that are "true" in that they exist or existed but they are/were worth rebelling against).

When i teach someone something, i teach them about the good or the bad, but the message always focus on the good - so is the word of God - but i also speak about the bad as a warning so people can understand why it`s good, why it`s bad and repercussions on both actions.

If you started with the bad as a warning "if you listen to me and don't believe you will be tortured for eternity even if you are a good person" and gave them the option not to listen to you then I would have no problem as it would be their informed decision and thus their responsibility.

That`s not throwing people in front of a car.

It is if you don't tell them of the dangers of listening to you. A closer analogy would be that you are putting blinders on them and leading them in front of the car but the result is the same and the immorality of it doesn't change with the method of putting them in front of the car.

It`s showing them a way, asking them to walk on the sidewalk because it`s good for them but warning also of the dangers for those who decide to walk in the street.

I only showed the way, it´s people who decide where to put their feet in. And that is not my responsability.

Except that simply telling them is putting their feet on the street unless they get off it (just like telling them about god is putting them in hell unless they believe).

I honestly do not know about other religions, but i do know this: Christ is our saviour. And that`s all i need to know.

But you having faith that it is so is no more proof than a muslim believing that "there is no god but allah and Mohammed is his prophet" is proof of the correctness of a Muslim's faith, which was the point I was making.

God isn`t good to people?

Straw man. I am not claiming that god is never good to people. Indeed I believe that he is good to those that love him but as Jesus himself pointed out, how dificult is that?

If God wasn`t good then Jesus wouldn`t have died to so we could regain heaven. What Jesus always asked of us was to reject ourselves, accept our crosses and follow Him. Didn`t He do that, even literally?

If god was good then he wouldn't have arbitrary requirements for avoiding being tortured. That he is willing to have good people tortured because they do not believe in him is reason enough to say that he is not absolutely good.

Do you think that by punishing God doesn`t care? 

What's the point of hell? When you punish a kid you do it soon after he did his mistake so he can learn from it and improve. God is doing the equivalent of not punishing a kid until they are dead and then doing all the punishing (and then some) when they have no opportunity to improve anymore.

God gives us all the chances in the world to accept Him. 

So do allah and bramah... why don't you accept them?

Our reward, whatever it is, good or bad, is the consequence of our actions. It`s not God`s fault that we made mistakes in the first place.

Debatable if he is the one who made us.

But it is definitely his fault if our punishment is for things that have nothing to do with morality as he is the one who set-up the system.

If your read about the marian apparitions that i pointed out you would know that God tries everything to save us.

He tried more in the times of the Hebrews so it is hard to say that he tries everything nowadays.

He even lets our prayers and sufferings have a role in the salvation of others. If that`s not caring, then i don`t know what is.

So who should I believe? The bible when it says "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" or the catholic church's doctrine of reparation?

Besides, do you think that releasing criminals because somebody else (their mom, their wife?) is really really sorry they did what they did and grovels for forgiveness is caring? I don't think it is caring. It is just stroking god's vanity to get what you want.

If he cared he would not merely threaten all through people's life and then punish them by torture for a duration much longer than their life. Instead he would punish all through a person's life, in proportion to their crime (which an eternal punishment isn't), to teach them to be better. You know, like parents do to their kids and the government to adults (though imperfectly for both).

There would be no nonsense of getting off due to the acts of others but would be earned by good behaviour and/or change of heart (as god can see that) from the condemned.