Socrates's Question
-
You said simply that "morality is related to reality", there is your notion dispelled. I am not dismissing morals, but morals are from perception and programming, not from reality. The examples you gave are ALL perception, even the evolutionary point of view - there is no such thing as a "forward path" in evolution (even Darwin said that, IIRC).
As for the speed camera, simple. The speed camera has eyes, a brain and a mouth. When someone speeds, the information enters its eyes. The specific arrangement of light/whatever rays it sends out makes a picture of a car. The way the speed camera is built, when it percieves a speeding car, it is programmed to "gasp" and feel shock, i.e. recognise the speeding car, and react to the speeding car by taking a picture (one would commit the details of a murder to memory). It thus speaks and reports it to the authorities - the police download their files and rip off taxpayers for more speed cameras ()).
So, the speed camera has built in morals. It recognises speeding as a grave sin and acts as a reflex against it, just as shock at a murder is a reflex. BUT - the speed camera's "morals" can be changed - it can be programmed to only photograph the fastest speeders (gravest murders) or ignore legitimate speeders such as police (war). It can also be taught to only photograph those going under the limit, instead of over - an example of skewed morals.
As for free will, no. That needs true randomness. On the book, wiki says the exact opposite. No real "free will". In fact, the author's sentiments are in line with the Quran (853).
You were the same person advising someone to "follow reality". Why the sudden shift? Is it the sign of a creator that keeps you away?
-
When did I say we mustn't follow reality?
The camera is programmed to react to speeding, but I don't get how you're equating that to morals.
Do we even mean the same thing by "morality?"
Just because we are programmed to react to something in a certain way, doesn't mean that it is morally right to do so.
I may be conditioned to think that murder is a good thing, but that doesn't mean murder becomes morally right (even for me).
Morality is related to reality. Okay, maybe my evolution example wasn't that great, but still.
It is a universal principle that hurting others for no good reason is wrong.
That is not because of perception, but because of something that is biologically programmed into us it seems, or maybe it's something else.
But if it is programmed into us (from birth that is), it doesn't make it "not real." It's still very real. -
This is going around in circles. Reality is very simple - it is materialism, everything physical, everything tangible, that obeys the laws of physics.
Just because we are programmed to react to something in a certain way, doesn't mean that it is morally right to do so.
I may be conditioned to think that murder is a good thing, but that doesn't mean murder becomes morally right (even for me).This is a completely circular argument. You are using Perception A to judge Perception B and then prove Perception A is correct, when if you looked through Perception B, it would be perfectly fine. If every human had Perception B - that murder was fine, and you had Perception A, you would be shipped to a mental facility (actually, they would just kill you )).
Morality is related to reality. Okay, maybe my evolution example wasn't that great, but still.
It isn't. Period.
It is a universal principle that hurting others for no good reason is wrong.
No it isn't. It's a social principle.
That is not because of perception, but because of something that is biologically programmed into us it seems, or maybe it's something else.
That IS perception. There is no "soul" or "spirituality" and new-age rubbish is exactly that. Perception is shaped by your physical composition, which is why many, many, many drugs have the effects they do. Magic mushrooms will trigger spiritual experiences, Ritalin will make you suicidal, ecstasy will make you love everyone, and LSD will just destroy you. Alcohol will make things look more attractive, and exaggerate your own perception, leading some to believe they are stronger than they really are (and also turn them extremely aggressive). No spiritual or other junk science can explain the effects of drugs like these, simple as that.
The reason you still hold onto the "soul" is because of this "abstraction layer" that just makes it seem as if physical and spiritual are separated, because of the ridiculously complex nature of things - spiritual comes from the physical, and the physical alone. Compare software and hardware, this is similar. In about 100 years, we will probably be programming in gramatically perfect English (or whatever is around at that time). It would seem as if you write a few sentences and out comes a program - but this isn't the case, at the low level, it still has to be translated into machine code - in our sense, particles. It would seem as if it happened by pure magic, but is it? Never. The Quran warns against magic and explains that it is pure trickery. Here is no exception.
But if it is programmed into us (from birth that is), it doesn't make it "not real." It's still very real.
It doesn't make it real whatsoever. It is still perception alone. The simple fact is, some people see pink dinosaurs routinely and communicate with the dead, what makes your perception of reality greater than theirs? Can you explain? Aside from majority consensus?
Either way, programming = perception.
-
That IS perception. There is no "soul" or "spirituality" and new-age rubbish is exactly that. Perception is shaped by your physical composition, which is why many, many, many drugs have the effects they do. Magic mushrooms will trigger spiritual experiences, Ritalin will make you suicidal, ecstasy will make you love everyone, and LSD will just destroy you. Alcohol will make things look more attractive, and exaggerate your own perception, leading some to believe they are stronger than they really are (and also turn them extremely aggressive). No spiritual or other junk science can explain the effects of drugs like these, simple as that.
Totally understand that. I'm not promoting new age spirituality rubbish, and I never brought up the idea of soul.
This is a completely circular argument. You are using Perception A to judge Perception B and then prove Perception A is correct, when if you looked through Perception B, it would be perfectly fine. If every human had Perception B - that murder was fine, and you had Perception A, you would be shipped to a mental facility (actually, they would just kill you Roll Eyes).
Haha that's right.
But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.
It doesn't make it real whatsoever. It is still perception alone. The simple fact is, some people see pink dinosaurs routinely and communicate with the dead, what makes your perception of reality greater than theirs? Can you explain? Aside from majority consensus?
If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
Plus we are social animals (Aristotle said so!), and we like to spend time with other humans. That's another reason why we have evolved this system of morality.
Like free-will and language, the concept of morality is uniquely human, and it's very real, not just a hallucination.Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!
No it isn't. It's a social principle.
So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.
Either way, programming = perception.
Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
If I'm annoying you we can end this, I've got no problem with that. But we have a disagreement here and I would like to know why it's there.
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real. P -
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
-
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
Nicely painted how you did that ;D
-
Is something right because the Gods command it, or do the Gods command something because it is right?
Well, if you agree with the former, then you're plain wrong, because there is just too much wrong with it.
So the only valid choice is the latter part of the question. God commands certain actions because they are right.
So God doesn't create right and wrong, God, through His infinite wisdom, recognizes the right and wrong, and commands us to do it.
So morality and God are seperate.
I don't get how, from this...^^^
....you jumped to this...
So we can learn about right and wrong without God.And then you try to protect yourself quickly with...
p.s. I'm not trying to criticize the quran here, or trying to get God out of the equation...
Actually, you're 'trying' real hard, to do exactly that. Just because you said you're not, doesn't mean it's so (Just to clarify; I don't mean you're doing it intentionally).I said this to you before, and I'll say it again, Lobster... without GOD, there is no we, there is no learn, there is no 'right'/'wrong'.
Peace.
PS - Thanks for sharing the Socrates story, I have no clue about that stuff. http//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/zenje/smilies/dunce.jpg
-
Totally understand that. I'm not promoting new age spirituality rubbish, and I never brought up the idea of soul.
Haha that's right.
But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
Plus we are social animals (Aristotle said so!), and we like to spend time with other humans. That's another reason why we have evolved this system of morality.
Like free-will and language, the concept of morality is uniquely human, and it's very real, not just a hallucination.Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
If I'm annoying you we can end this, I've got no problem with that. But we have a disagreement here and I would like to know why it's there.
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real.But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.
Exactly. Yes, it's possible for everyone to think murder is right. When you eat chicken, is it not dead? It's been murdered. Do you feel murder? No. You aren't programmed to look at the chicken and think "Murder!!!", you are programmed to look at it and think " eat".
And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.If Perception B was majority opinion, then presumeably they had to adapt to something that made only Perception B stick around. Meaning, yes, it would be right, in those conditions (I can't imagine them, but it doesn't matter, pure speculation). If it was in this world, where A takes the lead, B would be completely ridiculous. But in the world of B, A is more ridiculous.
I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
No, not really. What if this mentally insane person could run an x-ray and see pink-elephant bones? Let's assume we are all in a "matrix" and some people are running on different parts of the "matrix". To those people, it is VERY real.
I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad).
Here's a fictional story
Scientists were conducting an experiment on 50 mentally ill people. They would lock them into a room with completely foam padded walls, and sealed off from the outside world in every concievable way, with a few ventilation slots at the top, also disguised. So, these mentally ill patients would be in effect, stuck inside a plain cube. The only feature present was a niche in the wall, painted to look exactly like a door. When the experiment started, 49 patients attempted to exit the cube. None could - they would turn the door handle, but nothing would change. 1 person sat in the corner, laughing like a maniac. When asked why he was laughing and not trying to exit the cube, he replied "Pssst, they don't know I have the only key!".
You might understand something from that
Anyway, you moved onto majority consensus. Bringing in a second opinion, an animal's opinion. Let's assume that for every entity you bring on your side, there is an entity on the "loony" side that testifies to the loony side's perception.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
That can, will, and has already been programmed out. Look at a few torture victims, look at the victims of CIA experimentation (one prolific experiment involving children, I think). There was a documentary a while back on people born, lived, married, had children, died - what was their affliction? They were literally without the ability to love, empathise, sympathise or socialise in any way that needed those things. One of them had some form of disease that took it away, or maybe a hard impact to the brain, I forgot. The fact remains that something disturbed the arrangement in his head, and that was completely removed. By now, everyone surely has heard of Phineas Gage, who was tapping dynamite in a railway when a pole went through his head, disturbed the arrangement, and transformed him into an aggressive, moral-lacking beast.
Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Actually, it is. An idea has no basis in reality. An idea, again, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. A word, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. And so on. Shooting someone in the head puts an end to that "morality" by... moving a zillion atoms in the brain. The fact remains that a person ends when that arrangement is disturbed too much. Abstraction layer, keep that in mind. It makes morality part of perception and not "absolute". It puts morality into the hands of the creator/programmer. Meaning, without "God", there is no morality. THE God, in the Quranic sense, defined by his attributes, not "God" as in the being that claims to be talking from many religious books (if you can understand that).
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
Exactly, he believes freedom of will exists by the development of the ability to change/learn. We already have this in computers (chess computers are a good example). Shame, however, that our author was preceded by the Quran 1400 years ago (see 853). Now, perception can be described as your arrangement of a zillion x zillion atoms, morality can be again, described that. Programming is how that arrangement comes by, think of the natural conditions needed to get Perception B above, will it be anything like this world now? The Quran's definition of "God" is immaculate. People are changed by natural conditions, God is described as the one who changes natural conditions on many occasions (see the verses on 'Ad for instance).
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real.
Incorrect. You can do all of the above, but if you got caught, you would be spending life in prison for murder, or brain surgery without a license.
-
I don't get how, from this...^^^
....you jumped to this...And then you try to protect yourself quickly with...Actually, you're 'trying' real hard, to do exactly that. Just because you said you're not, doesn't mean it's so P (Just to clarify; I don't mean you're doing it intentionally).I said this to you before, and I'll say it again, Lobster... without GOD, there is no we, there is no learn, there is no 'right'/'wrong'.
Peace.
PS - Thanks for sharing the Socrates story, I have no clue about that stuff. http//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/zenje/smilies/dunce.jpg
Actually I was reading about this in a philosophy book. I think the only rational conclusion we can make is that God does not make morality, but through His infinite wisdom guides us to it.
I don't see how this is trying to get rid of god.
But now we have OPF arguing that morality isn't even real... -
Actually I was reading about this in a philosophy book. I think the only rational conclusion we can make is that God does not make morality, but through His infinite wisdom guides us to it.
I don't see how this is trying to get rid of god.
But now we have OPF arguing that morality isn't even real...Please read. A two-bit author is NOT going to change reality. Neither am I. As for the rational conclusion, you have already acknowledged that morals depend on perception, and to say otherwise is logically fallacious.
-
Please read. A two-bit author is NOT going to change reality. Neither am I. As for the rational conclusion, you have already acknowledged that morals depend on perception, and to say otherwise is logically fallacious.
Did I say that?
If Perception B was majority opinion, then presumeably they had to adapt to something that made only Perception B stick around. Meaning, yes, it would be right, in those conditions (I can't imagine them, but it doesn't matter, pure speculation). If it was in this world, where A takes the lead, B would be completely ridiculous. But in the world of B, A is more ridiculous.
No! how can it be right just because more people believe in it? How do you define "right?"
No, not really. What if this mentally insane person could run an x-ray and see pink-elephant bones? Let's assume we are all in a "matrix" and some people are running on different parts of the "matrix". To those people, it is VERY real.
I will admit that reality depends on perception sort of. For example, if we are in fact in a matrix, this is our reality because this is the only thing we can percieve. But it's not really reality is it? If one of us was to break through the matrix, we would know the true reality.
Anyway, you moved onto majority consensus. Bringing in a second opinion, an animal's opinion. Let's assume that for every entity you bring on your side, there is an entity on the "loony" side that testifies to the loony side's perception.
What you are doing here is completely undermining science. 2+2=4, no matter how many people say otherwise. That is a verifiable fact that always is, regardless of how many people disagree with it.
Do you agree that there is ONE true reality?That can, will, and has already been programmed out. Look at a few torture victims, look at the victims of CIA experimentation (one prolific experiment involving children, I think). There was a documentary a while back on people born, lived, married, had children, died - what was their affliction? They were literally without the ability to love, empathise, sympathise or socialise in any way that needed those things. One of them had some form of disease that took it away, or maybe a hard impact to the brain, I forgot. The fact remains that something disturbed the arrangement in his head, and that was completely removed. By now, everyone surely has heard of Phineas Gage, who was tapping dynamite in a railway when a pole went through his head, disturbed the arrangement, and transformed him into an aggressive, moral-lacking beast.
Yes, it got programmed out only because the structure of their brains changed. They are not "human" anymore, because physically they work differently.
They didn't develop a new moral system based on perception, they lost the ability to be moral because of a physical change in their bodies.
Your position would only be proven if you could TEACH a person to be amoral. We all have the ability to empathize, just like we all have the ability to talk, and I believe it is this ability which allows us to be moral. If you take that part of the brain that enables empathy, you lose that ability.
The examples you gave do not support your position.Actually, it is. An idea has no basis in reality. An idea, again, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. A word, is the arrangement of a zillion atoms in your brain. And so on. Shooting someone in the head puts an end to that "morality" by... moving a zillion atoms in the brain. The fact remains that a person ends when that arrangement is disturbed too much. Abstraction layer, keep that in mind. It makes morality part of perception and not "absolute". It puts morality into the hands of the creator/programmer. Meaning, without "God", there is no morality. THE God, in the Quranic sense, defined by his attributes, not "God" as in the being that claims to be talking from many religious books (if you can understand that).
An idea is real...again, it doesn't matter if it is a zillion atoms in your brain. The electric impulses from your neurons arranged in a certain way what we call an "idea." It is real!
You can end that idea by changing the arrangment. I don't understand how that makes it part of "perception?"I would say the creator creates reality, and morality is part of that. It is part of our human psychology. It is part of what makes us human.
But anyway, do you think morality is something subjective or is it objective? I think morality is the same for everyone. And I guess you believe morality is different for every individual?
Exactly, he believes freedom of will exists by the development of the ability to change/learn. We already have this in computers (chess computers are a good example). Shame, however, that our author was preceded by the Quran 1400 years ago (see 853). Now, perception can be described as your arrangement of a zillion x zillion atoms, morality can be again, described that. Programming is how that arrangement comes by, think of the natural conditions needed to get Perception B above, will it be anything like this world now? The Quran's definition of "God" is immaculate. People are changed by natural conditions, God is described as the one who changes natural conditions on many occasions (see the verses on 'Ad for instance).
Okay, I agree that morality depends on our ability to learn. I think that morality, language, and free-will are similar. We all have the potential for it, due to our genetic make-up. We can all be moral, we can all talk, and we can all make free choices, but that doesn't mean all of us do. A child needs to learn how to talk, and we need constant practice to keep up our skill. Similarly, we all have the ability to be moral, but it needs to be brought out...it can be supressed, even without physical damage, but you can't completely take it away.
and can you elaborate a little on "morality depends upon the creator/programmer?" I'm afraid I haven't yet grasped what you're trying to say there.
-
peace to all,
yes lobster, you can clearly see it cant you, just as you can see the clouds and the sun, they exist dont they, can you prove my pink elephants dont exist?
Kurt
peace
You're saying it like it's a bad thing! I'm not really trying to disprove the existence of god in this thread...I'm just trying to find a place for god in reality.
I haven't, and will not in the future, give up a chance to question the existence of God. You shouldn't either. -
Is something right because the Gods command it, or do the Gods command something because it is right?
The former is correct something is right because God commands it. There is no morality beside the standard in God, or to put it in another way, it is pure blasphemy and rejection of God's supremacy to refer to Him based on an external standard of morality that exists outside of Him.
The Holy Quran says
Then are men returned unto Allah, their protector, the (only) Reality Is not His the command? and He is the swiftest in taking account (662)
The sufis have not only used this verse to show that Allah alone is the only Reality, and there is no reality in His absence, but that he is Al-Haq (The Truth). If Allah is the Truth, than He is the standard of Truth, not simply the God who acts in accordance with Truth, but He is in fact the Manifestation of Truth.
Similarly, there is no concept of peace outside of the standard in Allah. Allah is not the God who is peaceful, but Allah is the very Manifestation, Source and Definition of Peace (As-Salaam)
Allah is He, than Whom there is no other god; the Sovereign, the Holy One, the Source of Peace (and Perfection), the Guardian of Faith, the Preserver of Safety, the Exalted in Might, the Irresistible, the Supreme Glory to Allah. (High is He) above the partners they attribute to Him. (al-Hashr 5923)
So according to my understanding of the Holy Quran, morality and goodness are in God, and He is the definition of them, not that these are outside of Him and that He acts accordingly and is therefore worthy of our worship (God forbid). The reason God is worthy of our worship is simply by virtue of being God, there is no other reason. The real essence of shirk (idolatry) is to not only worship false gods, but also to judge God by another standard
Say "Shall I seek for Judge other than Allah - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt (al-Anam 6114)
-
I didn't read through all the posts in the thread, so I apologize if someone already mentioned this. We're told that Good and Evil are different things, but are they really? They are two poles of the same magnet, Good needs evil to exist, just as the opposite is true. The fun in life is that it appears that Evil is going to always overtake the Good, this is the drama, but this will never happen. Just as Chaos doesn't overtake Order, and Nothing doesn't overtake Something, so too, evil doesn't overtake Good. They are just opposite ends of the same thing. If you didn't hear silence in between sounds, you would never hear music, and if you didn't experience death, you wouldn't know what life is.
-
Yusha, so whatever god tells you to do is right?
but that raises a problem, doesn't it?
If you're criteria of judging right or wrong and truth is based on what god says, then what do you do if I tell you "god says you should kill your friends right now." How do you judge that?
There are so many "voices" of god, so many different scriptures all saying different things...which one is true? and which commands are right?and if you decide right and wrong based on what god says, then that means you only do right because god told you to. The only reason you aren't killing everyone you don't like, then, is because god said killing is wrong.
and if god decides morality, then can't god just change morality whenever god wants? what if the next generations of humans are commanded to "kill thy neighbors?"
did god just pick and choose which deeds to make wrong and which deeds to make right? or was their a reason? does god know what he's doing?
-
Yusha, so whatever god tells you to do is right?
Yes.
If you're criteria of judging right or wrong and truth is based on what god says, then what do you do if I tell you "god says you should kill your friends right now." How do you judge that?
What kind of question is this? First of all I have already told you God is the Truth (Al-Haq) which means he doesn't lie, and in the Holy Quran He has revealed that this is the final law, so youre question doesn't make any sense. I follow what God says directly in His revealed scripture, not what you claim to say about Him without any reason.
There are so many "voices" of god, so many different scriptures all saying different things...which one is true? and which commands are right?
There is only one voice of God, and the Holy Quran has superceded and abrogated all the old scriptures.
and if you decide right and wrong based on what god says, then that means you only do right because god told you to. The only reason you aren't killing everyone you don't like, then, is because god said killing is wrong.
Exactly, I don't kill because God doesn't like that. That should be sufficient reason not to kill. And to demonstrate this point, the Holy Quran has mentioned that God commanded Abraham (alaihi salaam) to sacrifice his son, and Abraham (alaihi salaam) obeyed unquestionably, because this came from God. This story demonstrates that there is no moral standard outside of God by which we can judge. God is the moral standard.
and if god decides morality, then can't god just change morality whenever god wants? what if the next generations of humans are commanded to "kill thy neighbors?"
I have already mentioned that God does not lie, and never fails in His promise
for Allah never fails in His promise (al-Imran 39)
And the promise of Allah is that Islam is completed and so are the commandments, there will be no next generation with a new covenant. This is the final dispensation until the day of judgment.
did god just pick and choose which deeds to make wrong and which deeds to make right? or was their a reason? does god know what he's doing?
God is the Most Wise (Al-Hakeem), and He knows what we know not. We should not speculate or judge Him.