What is the most moral way for God to end the world?

I think we should make a law so that God can't end the world until people feel like they want it to end. We need to take into account the feelings of people.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']It's God, he can do whatever he wants. His morals aren't comparable to ours.[/QUOTE]

"Do as I say, not as I do"? What a jerk!
 
Posting some counterpoints. Most of them are just to get you to consider your solution or overall viewpoint more, not to disagree or disagree entirely.

[quote name='cochesecochese']In it's sleep.[/QUOTE]

But then you don't get to say your goodbyes or tell people things you wanted them to know but wouldn't necessarily be right to say earlier. For instance, you tell someone how much you love them right before you or they die, but if you told them this without incoming death it could be hurtful to your relationship with them because they wouldn't believe or understand why the relationship is the way it is or why you act the way you do towards them. Basically a situation where telling someone how you really feel is counterproductive. It sounds fucked up but I've witnessed it.

[quote name='camoor']How Gnostic[/QUOTE]

How so? I am asking you the question, not telling you the answer.

[quote name='Clak']I think we're doing a good enough job of that ourselves, no need for a god.[/QUOTE]

Good point. Personally, I'd prefer him to take us out then let us fuck things up so bad we die a slow painful death and/or our children do.

[quote name='eldergamer']It's God, he can do whatever he wants. His morals aren't comparable to ours.[/QUOTE]

Does God have no morals?

Wouldn't having to be comparable be ethics?

God reputedly took human form.

[quote name='Copper_City_Champ']We should have a 24 hour warning so that I can say and do things that I never could before.[/QUOTE]

That would be nice, but a longer warning would be better. A long lifetime would be great unless it was a painful one, but the end of one lifetime is the beginning of the other for someone else. Thus, not everyone could be given a lifetime, not everyone could be given 24 hours. And relativity can't be given either.

[quote name='IRHari']I think we should make a law so that God can't end the world until people feel like they want it to end. We need to take into account the feelings of people.[/QUOTE]

Because we have power over God? Taking into account people's feelings would be God doing it in a moral way by his own choice.

[quote name='hostyl1']Forced sterilzation. No reproductions, no more world.[/QUOTE]

This is the best answer imo. It's still not fair but it may be the most moral. I was actually shocked to see this because I don't know if I would've thought of it.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']He didn't care about the most moral way to end it when he flooded it, why would he care a second time around?[/QUOTE]

Maybe God is fallible too, that story is distorted or not real, God does not exist, or God had to do it to make us moral.

[quote name='ananag112']With a bang![/QUOTE]

Maybe, especially if there was an afterlife.

[quote name='Sporadic']SPOILER ALERT

there is no god
[/QUOTE]

Then mankind takes stewardship of at least, our world, earth. Since we can't predict the future the most moral thing is to let ourselves die off until no one is left.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Normal Squirrels in large numbers or Large Squirrels in normal numbers?[/QUOTE]

Normal squirrels in insanely large numbers.
 
Just average everyday squirrels. In massive numbers, eating people. Or Hidden thought to be extinct animals such as the dodo bird and woolly mammoth eat everyone as revenge.
 
[quote name='J7.']What's the fascination with squirrels on CAG, they seemed to be mentioned quite often.[/QUOTE]

Who said anything about squirrels? You crazy!
 
[quote name='J7.']But then you don't get to say your goodbyes or tell people things you wanted them to know but wouldn't necessarily be right to say earlier. For instance, you tell someone how much you love them right before you or they die, but if you told them this without incoming death it could be hurtful to your relationship with them because they wouldn't believe or understand why the relationship is the way it is or why you act the way you do towards them. Basically a situation where telling someone how you really feel is counterproductive. It sounds fucked up but I've witnessed it.[/QUOTE]

Pretty sure you didn't witness the end of the world bruh.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Pretty sure you didn't witness the end of the world bruh.[/QUOTE]

I was saying I witnessed someone tell someone how much they really did love them and it ended up hurting their relationship because the person could not equate the way they were being treated by them if the person actually loved them as much as they did. This can happen without the world ending.

[quote name='Indignate']fuck squirrels.

It'll be giant guinea pigs, led by The Guinea Pirate.[/QUOTE]

The guinea pigs are squirrels.
 
[quote name='aihuman']Moon crashes into the earth.

I wish a righteous rain would wipe the world clean.[/QUOTE]
I want another Skies of Arcadia, too.
 
[quote name='J7.']
Then mankind takes stewardship of at least, our world, earth. Since we can't predict the future the most moral thing is to let ourselves die off until no one is left.[/QUOTE]
???? I have no idea what you mean by this.

My answer though is with a gnab gib.
 
So whos morals are we talking about? THis supposed god or us? Because look at the morals of ants compared to the morals of humans, which one of them are right?

Not that it matters though because there is no god.


[quote name='Kirin Lemon']"Do as I say, not as I do"? What a jerk![/QUOTE]

Well sometimes its "Do as I do but not as I say, unless I do this or say that. Then you need to do the opposite as long as it doesnt break this rule over here in paragraph 15 line 7 because under those circumstances its different because I have done it even though I said you shouldnt."
 
[quote name='Indignate']fuck squirrels.

It'll be giant guinea pigs, led by The Guinea Pirate.[/QUOTE]

Killer sheep.


XHS53.jpg
LgL68.jpg
 
[quote name='cindersphere']???? I have no idea what you mean by this.

My answer though is with a gnab gib.[/QUOTE]

I mean, if there is no God then man takes stewardship of at least the earth and since we can't predict things like something ultimately saving us from within or by some outside force and no man is more important than another, then we need to let ourselves die off naturally until no one is left. By that though I don't mean we shouldn't try to live and escape death. We just have no say over how the world should end in terms of choosing how to do it. It's complicated to spell it all out, but that's the basic gist of it, however flawed I put it into words.

You're saying to have it end as a natural reaction to the the way it started, that actually might be the best way. Would you want another Big Bang to occur? Morality gets fuzzy when it can come down to basically mathematics, meaning if mathematics is the only explanation for what caused the Big Bang and thus the world. I guess morality would not exist or something.

[quote name='Capitalizt']This worked once...Why not do it again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FrKcHVmXZQ[/QUOTE]

:lol::applause:
My earlier response to the flood (you may or may not have saw it)
Maybe God is fallible too, that story is distorted or not real, God does not exist, or God had to do it to make us moral.

But now I realize it would've been more moral for God to only do away with man, as from my interpretation (I haven't heard that biblical passage in a long time) God created the flood because man was evil. Thus, remove 'God had to do it to make us moral' from that list, unless he wants us to feel responsible for killing all the animals to really drive the point home. But then that means God isn't moral? The problem is God made man in his own image. I'll stop rambling now.

[quote name='gargus']So whos morals are we talking about? THis supposed god or us? Because look at the morals of ants compared to the morals of humans, which one of them are right?

Not that it matters though because there is no god.

Well sometimes its "Do as I do but not as I say, unless I do this or say that. Then you need to do the opposite as long as it doesnt break this rule over here in paragraph 15 line 7 because under those circumstances its different because I have done it even though I said you shouldnt."[/QUOTE]
God's morals, unless God doesn't exist then who has moral authority over Earth? You can extend it to the whole world but then it would require coming up with numerous hypotheticals. Say more about the morals of ants, I'm interested. The only thing is ants do not have the power to end the world do they? Would they end it or just dominate it?
 
[quote name='J7.']I mean, if there is no God then man takes stewardship of at least the earth and since we can't predict things like something ultimately saving us from within or by some outside force and no man is more important than another, then we need to let ourselves die off naturally until no one is left. By that though I don't mean we shouldn't try to live and escape death. We just have no say over how the world should end in terms of choosing how to do it. It's complicated to spell it all out, but that's the basic gist of it, however flawed I put it into words.[/QUOTE] I think you've got some major unstated assumptions to reach the conclusion you do. I don't think there's a God and I disagree with pretty much all of that.

Morality gets fuzzy when it can come down to basically mathematics, meaning if mathematics is the only explanation for what caused the Big Bang and thus the world. I guess morality would not exist or something.
Huh? Morality is a product arising out of our nature as a social animal. It arose out of the need to cooperate in order to survive and to achieve certain values like love, comfort, and happiness. The fact that we are composed of non-living matter (atoms) that operate according to blind physical laws doesn't change that. Just because an airplane can be taken apart and reduced to a pile of purposeless metal chunks doesn't mean it isn't capable of flying..or that is can't have a purpose (and be considered valuable) while it exists. The same applies to human life.

God's morals, unless God doesn't exist then who has moral authority over Earth?
Why do you require an authority? And even if we had a super powerful daddy figure who could stomp on us like ants, what about his will makes it "objective"? Nothing. It's still subjective buddy. He may have a much greater ability to enforce his will (might makes right)..but you are not in any way creating an objective morality by postulating a deity. The word "objective" deals with events and matters of fact. The interpretation of those things by a conscious entity will always be subjective.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']I think you've got some major unstated assumptions to reach the conclusion you do. I don't think there's a God and I disagree with pretty much all of that.[/QUOTE]

What do you disagree with and what would you change about that view?

[quote name='Capitalizt']Huh? Morality is a product arising out of our nature as a social animal. It arose out of the need to cooperate in order to survive and to achieve certain values like love, comfort, and happiness. The fact that we are composed of non-living matter (atoms) that operate according to blind physical laws doesn't change that. Just because an airplane can be taken apart and reduced to a pile of purposeless metal chunks doesn't mean it isn't capable of flying..or that is can't have a purpose (and be considered valuable) while it exists. The same applies to human life.[/QUOTE]

If we view ourselves as atoms operating according to blind physical laws, which you're right that is basically what I suggested in that premise, then our thoughts, feelings, morality can cease to exist and be nothing but an illusion. But you make a convincing argument so I view your view being equally as possible as the one I suggested.

[quote name='Capitalizt']Why do you require an authority? And even if we had a super powerful daddy figure who could stomp on us like ants, what about his will makes it "objective"? Nothing. It's still subjective buddy. He may have a much greater ability to enforce his will (might makes right)..but you are not in any way creating an objective morality by postulating a deity. The word "objective" deals with events and matters of fact. The interpretation of those things by a conscious entity will always be subjective.[/QUOTE]

The most moral being that exists should have moral authority over the Earth. Anything less would be less moral and giving multiple authority to all beings would result in immorality. It is all subjective, but I think some beings have higher morals and humans have shown the greatest demonstrations of morality compared to other animals. We've also shown the lowest morality, but those individuals shouldn't be given "moral authority".

The other thing is that humans are the only living thing on Earth to make the choice to end the world. Anything else is not able to do that out of a notion of being moral. If some current organism takes over the earth and kills everything off, it's doing it to claim the environment for it's continued existence. Until something more intelligent than humans is born we are the only thing that exists to make the choice, outside of "God", or aliens.

I don't think I've made an objective morality by postulating a deity. Subjectively I believe the deity I wish to believe in has a higher morality than what he created. "God" could be evil or apathetic to what he created, but I chose to focus on the type of God I choose to believe in. You made me realize that was a mistake and I should have put forth the idea that "God" can be evil, apathetic, dead, or too busy to pay attention, etc.

Don't get mad. I created this topic to spur philosophical discussion. I don't want people to fight over it. I want to classify it as controversial, not politics or vs. I knew that posting it in this topic would get a lot more relevant discussion than CAG Lifestyle and Off Topic because a lot of stuff posted there is viewed as fluff, if only because there's a lot of it there because people just want to be silly and carefree sometimes.
 
[quote name='J7.']What do you disagree with and what would you change about that view?[/QUOTE]
I mean, if there is no God then man takes stewardship of at least the earth and since we can't predict things like something ultimately saving us from within or by some outside force and no man is more important than another, then we need to let ourselves die off naturally until no one is left.

So if there isn't some force to protect us and make us live forever, we should just let ourselves die? How does that follow? I think you've got things completely backwards. If this life is just a stepping stone in preparation for the "real" existence that lasts hundreds of trillions of years, it would make much more sense to kill yourself or let yourself die now. The fact that life comes to an end is precisely what gives it value. It makes every act of kindness much more precious, and every act of injustice much more intolerable. If you think an infinite cosmic happyland awaits you later, our actions in this life are greatly devalued.

The most moral being that exists should have moral authority over the Earth. Anything less would be less moral and giving multiple authority to all beings would result in immorality. It is all subjective

You're missing the bigger question here. How do you know God is moral? Where did he get his morality? This goes back to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, which basically asks "Is 'the good' good because the Gods declare it? Or Do the Gods declare it because it is good?

In other words, did God just invent the rules out of thin air, or does he have a good REASON for declaring things like murder wrong? If he just flipped a coin and picked one option, his decision certainly can't qualify as "objectively right".. If he doesn't view things as wrong in light of their consequences, then his will is completely arbitrary..and using a label like "good' to describe it makes no sense. If you believe whatever God declares good suddenly BECOMES "the good", then morality is genuinely arbitrary.

On the other hand, if you say God (in his infinite wisdom) simply *recognizes* certain actions as good..that he understands the consequences of certain actions..then says "X" behavior leads to unfavorable result "Y", so I declare it to be wrong.", this means that he is recognizing that some actions have beneficial consequences for humanity, while others are harmful, and that he always chooses "the good" actions based on their effect. This makes much more sense.


Most theists believe that because God is perfectly wise, he recognizes the negative outcome of certain actions and therefore describes them as immoral.. I'm just pointing out that the negative outcome of those actions exists
whether or not there is a god. Adultery, murder, theft, rape, selfishness, disrespect, and dishonesty all lead to an unstable and unhappy society. These things are objectively harmful to a functioning civilization, therefore people from all walks of life would consider these things immoral. If you stop believing in the "middleman" upstairs who passes this information along on stone tablets, nothing changes. If a God does exist, he is necessarily reduced to a messengerboy..because his existence doesn't change the facts on the ground. The negative consequences of bad actions would persist even without a god, which means the principles he uses to determine right and wrong are open for anyone to discover. To summarize...Even if a God exists (and that's a big if), morality can't come from his decree. It transcends everything, even him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']

So if there isn't some force to protect us and make us live forever, we should just let ourselves die? How does that follow? I think you've got things completely backwards. If this life is just a stepping stone in preparation for the "real" existence that lasts hundreds of trillions of years, it would make much more sense to kill yourself or let yourself die now. The fact that life comes to an end is precisely what gives it value. It makes every act of kindness much more precious, and every act of injustice much more intolerable. If you think an infinite cosmic happyland awaits you later, our actions in this life are greatly devalued.



You're missing the bigger question here. How do you know God is moral? Where did he get his morality? This goes back to Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, which basically asks "Is 'the good' good because the Gods declare it? Or Do the Gods declare it because it is good?

In other words, did God just invent the rules out of thin air, or does he have a good REASON for declaring things like murder wrong? If he just flipped a coin and picked one option, his decision certainly can't qualify as "objectively right".. If he doesn't view things as wrong in light of their consequences, then his will is completely arbitrary..and using a label like "good' to describe it makes no sense. If you believe whatever God declares good suddenly BECOMES "the good", then morality is genuinely arbitrary.

On the other hand, if you say God (in his infinite wisdom) simply *recognizes* certain actions as good..that he understands the consequences of certain actions..then says "X" behavior leads to unfavorable result "Y", so I declare it to be wrong.", this means that he is recognizing that some actions have beneficial consequences for humanity, while others are harmful, and that he always chooses "the good" actions based on their effect. This makes much more sense.


Most theists believe that because God is perfectly wise, he recognizes the negative outcome of certain actions and therefore describes them as immoral.. I'm just pointing out that the negative outcome of those actions exists
whether or not there is a god. Adultery, murder, theft, rape, selfishness, disrespect, and dishonesty all lead to an unstable and unhappy society. These things are objectively harmful to a functioning civilization, therefore people from all walks of life would consider these things immoral. If you stop believing in the "middleman" upstairs who passes this information along on stone tablets, nothing changes. If a God does exist, he is necessarily reduced to a messengerboy..because his existence doesn't change the facts on the ground. The negative consequences of bad actions would persist even without a god, which means the principles he uses to determine right and wrong are open for anyone to discover. To summarize...Even if a God exists (and that's a big if), morality can't come from his decree. It transcends everything, even him.
[/QUOTE]

You cut my quote in half, the part where I said
"By that though I don't mean we shouldn't try to live and escape death. We just have no say over how the world should end in terms of choosing how to do it. It's complicated to spell it all out, but that's the basic gist of it, however flawed I put it into words."

Meaning, not just let ourselves die. What I mean is not make the choice to end the world for some moral cause, but rather live it out. You're arguing there for the same thing I want.
----------

You only focused on one part of my quote again... Why I don't know. But look at what I said, look at the underlined. My use of the word deity is that of my belief in God. I subjectively used my belief in God. I admitted I was wrong to only focus on how I want to view God. Why are you continuing to argue when I admitted that.
I don't think I've made an objective morality by postulating a deity. Subjectively I believe the deity I wish to believe in has a higher morality than what he created. "God" could be evil or apathetic to what he created, but I chose to focus on the type of God I choose to believe in. You made me realize that was a mistake and I should have put forth the idea that "God" can be evil, apathetic, dead, or too busy to pay attention, etc.

The view I choose to take of God is that if he created this world then he is able to just recognize morality or he is at least always attempting to make the most moral choices. You alerted me to remember that not everyone views God this way, especially philosophically.

I agree "the negative outcome of those actions exists whether or not there is a god." Many living beings have shown themselves to be moral regardless of whether God exists or not. But I believe it is just as likely that it is an illusion IF everything is reduced to atoms operating through blind physical laws. I am not saying that is the case, it is just a possibility.

God gave us free will. So it doesn't matter if he exists unless free will doesn't exist and he is in complete control. Morality exists without God, but I view it as possible that morality itself can be an illusion just as life can be an illusion. Scientists have said that it is very likely all life as we know it could be nothing but a computer simulation based on the scientific experiments they have done.
 
J, it seemed to be you were saying that if no god exists, life doesn't have any real importance..that "sure, we should try to remain alive as long as possible", but that it is ultimately pointless to try and avoid extinction. I disagree with that.. There is no reason humanity can't avoid extinction by branching out to other planets and solar systems..and ultimately (who knows?) perhaps tunneling into another universe to avoid the heat death of ours. I tend to be an optimist..and maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but it reminded me of the nihilistic "Whats the point?" philosophy that I really disagree with.

The whole point of the rest of my post was to contest the idea that God is the source of morality. I just wanted to point out why that is impossible..and why we shouldn't defer to a superbeing in this area just because it is more powerful than us. Morality must be based based on experience and reason..not obeying orders. Even if you believe in a good God, the very act of calling him "good" constitutes a judgment call on your part. You are judging him to be good, which proves the ultimate standards of good and evil do not come from God. They necessarily transcend everything.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']J, it seemed to be you were saying that if no god exists, life doesn't have any real importance..that "sure, we should try to remain alive as long as possible", but that it is ultimately pointless to try and avoid extinction. I disagree with that.. There is no reason humanity can't avoid extinction by branching out to other planets and solar systems..and ultimately (who knows?) perhaps tunneling into another universe to avoid the heat death of ours. I tend to be an optimist..and maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but it reminded me of the nihilistic "Whats the point?" philosophy that I really disagree with.

The whole point of the rest of my post was to contest the idea that God is the source of morality. I just wanted to point out why that is impossible..and why we shouldn't defer to a superbeing in this area just because it is more powerful than us. Morality must be based based on experience and reason..not obeying orders. Even if you believe in a good God, the very act of calling him "good" constitutes a judgment call on your part. You are judging him to be good, which proves the ultimate standards of good and evil do not come from God. They necessarily transcend everything.[/QUOTE]

Good post and I hope you're right, you make me want to believe.
 
I think God fell asleep at the wheel because this thing is going to crash on it's own.

Deforestation, pollution, and famine will do us in before any arbitrary "end of days".

Who knows? Maybe this was one big school project for a young budding God. Maybe he wants to see how fast a thinking talking animal could destroy a world with every natural resource you could want.

TRANSLATION FOR TIVO -- Nah, man. God's gonna fuck us up real hard. FDR brought about the apocalypse and now we're just waiting for the mothership.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think God fell asleep at the wheel because this thing is going to crash on it's own.

Deforestation, pollution, and famine will do us in before any arbitrary "end of days". [/QUOTE]

Nuh uh.. God said the world wouldn't end until he ended it. It's in the bible. We don't need to worry about nuclear war, global warming, famine, melting ice caps, etc. God will provide for us. Just have faith like our wise representatives..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE
 
Holy shit the look on that woman's face behind him is pretty priceless when he says Genesis 8. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that smirk but I'm going with "Wtf? Seriously?"
 
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great,
And would suffice.
 
[quote name='J7.']What is the most moral way for God to end the world?[/QUOTE]

Puppies become the ruling species and snuggle us to extinction. Preferably Lab, Newfie and St. Bernard puppies.
 
bread's done
Back
Top