I have to hand it to you, your logic is internally consistent. Though whether a cloud fairy is this or that has almost no practical application.

Exactly. It's not about if something is this or that, rather if there is something that is not rationally this or that. If there weren't so, scientific discovery beyond the caveman experience of snow = cold, fire = hot, pain = bad, pleasure = good, would have never been achieved.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

rather if there is something that is not rationally this or that. If there weren't so, scientific discovery...

Something can not come from nothing (except all the matter in our universe)
- Science

Science is limited as a tool of rational explanation, when it comes to the beginning of everything, and the beginning of life. Mostly because we can not recreate them for definitive proof. Depending on which version of the Big Bang you have faith in, determines what questions need to be asked.

I was taught Einstiens version and the question I asked was, what happened one second before the Big Bang. Today, I prefer Sir Roger Penrose cyclic era explanation, as opposed to the forever expanding version. (or shrinking as you travel back in time)

Which ever version you have faith in, there is always a core question with an unrational answer. So I find it ironic you would find my analogy unrational, and then mention scientific discovery in the same sentence :p
Particularly when early modern day scientists like Isaac Newton used science as a way to admire God's Creation.

If we consider that every computer game is its own universe, then we have a statistical refferance of which we can use to calculate the probability of a creator. Each game has its own laws of gravity, physics and moral codes etc. They also 100% have a creator. The probability that a game will create itself is 0%

So then, what is the chance that our universe will create itself. Science lacks the ability to provide a rational answer.

@Edy
First and foremost, I really enjoyed your analogy Edy. However, I must say that I do not agree with it (on multiple different levels). Don't get me wrong, I found your analogy quite thought provoking, but I would like to elaborate on some of the areas I don't find very convincing. Firstly, I don't think the analogy (on the surface) truly holds because any video game you can reference does not involve some of the vital aspects of why we would consider your examples (such as murder, burning people alive, etc) immoral--such as life, consciousness, the ability to feel pain, etc. When the programmers test their program (by shooting a person in it, for example), they are not shooting a being that is conscious of the fact that they are shot nor can they feel the excruciating pain of the bullet as it rips through their body. I would reckon that if the aforementioned was actually the case, that they could feel the pain, then we would have laws attempting to prevent people from abusing virtual characters within video games. What I am trying to say is that your analogy only holds if shooting a person in a video is exactly analogous to shooting someone in real life--and I think there is a clear difference.


Secondly, I think your concept of morality (as best as I could infer) is that of a cognitivist--that is, it seems to me that you are attributing moral actions as truth claims that are seemingly discoverable in an absolute sense. For example, it seems as though you are implying that God he "coded in", so to speak, our absolute moral standards, but he is amoral in the sense that he doesn't need to abide by his created moral standards for us. As you may be already anticipating: I abide more towards non-cognitivism (in a general sense)--that is, I do not think there are moral truths (in an absolute sense). Morality is not based off of some baseline (some absolute) but, rather, it is relative to sentient beings. Therefore, I would conclude that whether God's actions (assuming he exists) are immoral or moral is utterly up to the sentient being's discretion. I for one, assuming we are discussing the abrahamic God, would consider His actions in the Old Testament immoral (but, more importantly, not in an absolute sense). I would appeal to perceived objective facts that I have obtained throughout my life to make a compelling argument (or at least I would consider it so) that mass genocide (regardless of whomever commits it) is immoral (if the term "immoral" is going to mean anything at all).

Thirdly, I would like to point out that amorality is (I would say) a non-cognitivist position because it is only possible to claim something is amoral if that thing resides in an "environment" that has no moral truths and, subsequently, no moral judgements. I would also like to point out that amorality is not the idea (as I best understand it) that something is out of bounds of morality (which I think this is what your analogy is aimed at, although I could be mistaken), but, rather, it is that there are no moral truths or judgements.

Hopefully this finds you well,
Bob Ross