>>41687337
When it comes to grounding objective morality with God, I had to question whether or not you could have a conversation with God in Heaven about what line of reasoning he used to justify his moral law. If there was no reasoning, and just said "Because I said so", I would have to recognize God as irrational and tyrannical. If he did supply the reasoning, I have to wonder why humans could not develop the same level of justification that is in the mind of God, without him.

>>41687337
If tge story of grumpy Jesus were true, no religions would be needed

>>41687373
Why would the creator of everything need to justify Himself to a finite being?

>>41687391
Because he loves us.
If I were granted a position in Heaven through moral action, what's the harm in questioning God to find out what his reasoning was when determining morality?
If you say it doesn't need to, or it's beneath him, then that serves that he is tyrannical, and you are bending to him out of fear of his power, i.e. a coward.

>>41687399
I am bending to Him because, to me, His laws and commandments come across as necessary and just, and to me they make sense. And because I love Him, I WANT to follow them. Wouldn’t you want evil to be punished and good to be rewarded? The punishment and reward aren’t the point—they’re what make the law legitimate. A law without punishment is just a suggestion.

>>41687420
Sure, but this doesn't answer my question.
If God is a rational, omniscient being, then he is imbued with infallible reasoning.
His moral laws are constructed with such reasoning, and we, as reasoning creatures, can choose to follow or deny them.
That said, if God is using reason to justify his morality, then he likely has a comprehensible system as to why this is the so.
If this is so, why can't humans use reason to formulate objective moral principles, when God did the same?

>>41687373
>When it comes to grounding objective morality with God, I had to question whether or not you could have a conversation with God in Heaven about what line of reasoning he used to justify his moral law.
I don't want your freedom.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cs3Pvmmv0E

>>41687438
He doesn’t need to justify Himself because He is the base layer of existence itself. Nothing exists beyond Him; thus, everything He says is right by default. If He is what grounds right and wrong, then that logically means you have no say in it. I do not know why God does all the things He does, and I believe that’s part of the test. But one thing I do know is that the alternative to Him is dark, and I do not want it. And because I do not want it, I live as if He exists by choosing the only option that can possibly give your life true value. It is for both my sanity, and it follows logically too.

>>41687337
Your "objective grounding" is "because God says so". Abrahamic morality amounts to Might Makes Right, God is the most powerful so good means obeying him even when he's telling you to kill women and children.

>>41687472
>He doesn't need to justify Himself because he is the base layer of existence itself.

Then why is the Bible filled with entries that stimulate the act of reasoning with us, in order to discern truth from lies, and reinforce our faith in God?
If everything God says is right by default, then there's a system of reasoning behind it that can be congruent with our understanding.
Consider burnt offerings, what is the purpose of this? Do you see now that there is a reason for this occurrence, and it's demonstrated by the rationale of God as revealed to his prophets?
So, when we see the world as it is, we must wonder, "Why not another way?"
If you're answer is "just cause", then this is an infantile response.
If he had nothing to prove, and no reason to justify himself to the sensibilities of man, why send Christ to die on the cross, and allow for theologians since then to analyze its meaning so that it can propagate to new converts?
Why wouldn't the Bible just be written in incomprehensible gibberish, with the expectation that we should just know how to read it?

>>41687505
The issue is that I see this very differently from you. You want answers now, but even the Bible hints at the fact that we cannot know His nature fully until the end of the age:
“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”
Faith means enduring under uncertainty, and I believe that one day we will know His nature fully.

>>41687567
I find that unsatisfying, then.
I could create an imaginary scenario using the same argumentation used in the Bible to justify believing in the existence of a God, and it would hold the same logical equivalence.
For example, I believe in a God that says Christianity is inherently deceitful, and all are going to Hell who believe in him. I have seen this figure in my dreams, and I use this as evidence for my belief.
This basically trashes your point in the original post that a mathematician would take the option with a higher rate of success, and the only contradiction you can possibly find is that it's basically just a rip-off, or fictional, which the Bible can be easily seen as, as well.
You would have to point to other source of evidence that erode the principles of faith, making the argument irrational.
I'm impressed by the cunningness of the Bible in its cut-throat message of faith and damnation, but I see equal beauty in other religious texts that don't incite the thought that they are demonic in nature.
You can still ground objective morality in a transcendent being that's not detailed in the Bible, so I find no substantial reason to believe in, when it's just a sharp rhetorical mechanism.

>>41687602
The God of the Bible is unique, there has not been another god who has claimed ownership over creation and moral laws, and that is what my whole argument is based on—the moral laws.

>>41687623
So you're enthralled by the fact that it's original.
As I've said, it's still logically equivalent to this post, which is now considered a sacred text because I am a prophet in a new age.
YHWH is a malevolent djinn who manipulated the minds of vulnerable desert dwellers into exalting him as the one true God. The Bible is corrupted, as such, and the God I follow, let's name him Arcturus, is the only being worth praising, as he is the true creator of the universe and the laws of man that bind us.
You see how this, especially in ancient days, could be taken seriously?
There is the same amount of evidence for it as the God of the Bible, and enough doubt being produced that it could alter someone's beliefs, if not clarified that it's simply a rhetorical device.
It's basically the Flying Spaghetti Monster, some transcendent being that defies all explanation and demands praise, along with faithful service.
Simply believing something because it's the first of its kind is a crude justification, and as for the moral laws, you find them appealing, I personally do not, which results in your saying I'm condemned to Hell, and should seek to repent, which I refuse to, because I see the logical errors inherent in most religious arguments, so I find no reason to believe.

Christians be like
>erm, without a belief in MY god, humans wanting to avoid pain and indulge in pleasure and not die is actually nonsensical

>>41687648
The whole thing about "which god?" is irrelevant to my argument anyways, because my argument has to do with the fact that if there is no objective grounding for meaning or morality, everything collapses, and the best option then to bet on is a god who claims to be the grounding of morality and existence itself; only a god that grounds morality fits my argument.

>>41687653
Belief in *a* God is necessary in order to make claims of objective meaning
The Christian God happens to make the most sense historically

>>41687715
my experience is objective in the sense that I am experiencing it and have no choice to experience otherwise
don't need a god for that

>>41687721
You need God to determine whether your experiences are good or bad

>>41687746
durr i can't feel pain or feel good I have to read a bible to tell me that sticking my hand in a fire hurts
shut up nigga

>>41687754
It's not that you need God to tell you what is right and what is wrong; it is that God is necessary to ground those feelings of good and bad as something more than just feelings.

>>41687337
>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding
They dont have that WITH God either.
God is not an object. God made up all His morality just like any other person.

The only thing you are saying is might makes right, and God gets to make up morality because He will torture you if you dont follow.

>>41687420
>Wouldn’t you want evil to be punished and good to be rewarded?
Only if I get to say what is good and what is evil.
God has said it is good to rape women and dash their kids' brains against the rocks in front of them.
God has made a lot of moral claims that frankly are nothing but harmful.

>>41687623
Why do people always sound SO confident when they are plain wrong?
अहं सर्वस्य प्रभवो मत्त: सर्वं प्रवर्तते ।
इति मत्वा भजन्ते मां बुधा भावसमन्विता: ॥ ८ ॥
>I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

>>41687337
Just because your identity is intrinsically linked to a book written by men that only reinforces man-made duality-based belief systems, goes against human nature, advocates blind worship (worshiping the creator by default of him being the creator, and why is it gotta be he everytime?), docile/slave morality (just wait for an external savior, he will come.. eventually), doesn't mean everyone else is the same. Some people find meaning within, after a long existential crisis, after a Kundalini awakening, after being alone with only their thoughts to relate to for years. Some only find answers after asking questions their whole life and they don't find it in your book.

But nope, of course you, someone who has little connection to the ACTUAL metaphysical/spiritual lecturing others from a hylic POV about spirituality and """morality""". The fuck does YHWH know about morality? The Demiurge created this realm, archons/Dracos rule over you. Fight for your home (Earth), not some mythological God from a book that is astrologically coded anyway.

>creator god fails problem of evil

nothing personnel abrahamoid

>>41687337
Philosophically yes, Religiously No. "God" exists but the fanatical monotheistic cults of the world don't know a thing about it and need to be destroyed if humanity is to have any chance of a future.

>>41687337
>Without God, meaning and morality do not have an objective grounding
not really
>yet a bunch of you people live as if your life still has value, or that your choices matter.
nope
> The moment you deny God, you lose the right to claim that objective value, meaning, or purpose exist, or that something is right or wrong
not really. your logic is braindead npc tier. what a garbage thread

>>41687337
I don't really don't care if god exists or not I mean religion is great at morality and all but it sort of chains you down sometimes

>>41687337
I am God.

>>41687337
God is beyond mortal understanding of morals and logic. The morals attributed to him is just wishful thinking by mortals who want what they would understand to be a kind and compassionate God, but he isn't that. What he is can't be defined by anyone.

>>41687337
>faith
>rational
Top fucking kek

>>41688690
Hey dude can you like wipe out the world or something this whole living thing is kinda exhausting

>>41688717
>What he is can't be defined by anyone.
For an undefinable being, there sure are a lot of books that claim to offer understanding.

File: Snares.jpg (211 KB, 1009x1075)

211 KB JPG

>>41687337
Deconstruction of faith is. You just chose to remain in complex i space, instead of spinning back to a base case in reality. The twist you claim your irrational universalistic notion of value is anything but cope.
Enjoy your religious psychosis

>>41687337
>you lose the right
i will take your life you keep talking like that.

>>41687337
I have faith that Jewsus is a gay hebrew psyop. And Yaweh the k•ke demon owes me a foreskin.