Riddle me this Batman.

Can Man, on his own, discover reliably what is good and evil?
By "on his own" I am referring specifically to, without god/gods telling him, can man reliably determine through any conceivable process what is good or evil?

There are clearly only two possible answers to this binary question.  Yes man can determine what is good and evil, or no man cannot.  Based on your opinion I have several follow up statements (underlined below).

If Man can determine between good and evil on his own, then morality is independent from God and God is thus bound by the same moral laws that his creatures are.  God is no more in command of these laws than we are.  He is little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge that already exists independent of him.  Man has an innate sense of right and wrong and a morally good man will make morally good decisions without the assistance or influence of God.

If Man cannot determine the difference between good and evil, then things are much trickier.  One, being that Good and Evil is arbitrarily decided, merely upon God's whims, and that if tomorrow morning when you woke up and God commanded you, and the rest of the world that rape, torture and murder were virtues, and mercy and charity were now vices that it would be so.   

Secondly it means that what God is saying and doing are at odds with each other.  God says that murder rape and torture are immoral, while at the same time God commits those same acts and has in multiple instances commanded his followers to do the same in his name.  So which is it God?  Do as I say but not as I do? 

Thirdly, How is man to be expected to know that God is good and Satan is evil?  If one were to ask both God and Satan "Which of you is good and which is evil?" and both of them answered that they were good and the other was evil, how would man be expected to know the difference?  How is man to know that Lucifer is not good and God is not Evil?  Furthermore, if man requires God to know the difference between good and evil than why is man punished (hell) for having a moral failing by not worshiping and obeying God?

So, through all this we can conclude that either:
A)  Man must come up with a valid and rational method of determining Good and Evil, and is capable of doing so independent of the influence of God/Satan.

B)  Man must randomly choose to accept X and reject Y or vice verse.  If he chooses correctly he is rewarded with an eternal afterlife in paradise  if not he is punished eternally in a lake of fire.  Hope you chose correctly.






Bonus Questions:
If we require God to know the difference between right and wrong, how can God say we have a moral failing if we do not choose to worship and obey him?

If life is a Moral Test, how can God punish us for failing it if we must randomly choose the right set of morals?   It only makes sense to punish a person for evil behavior if they knew that their behavior was evil. 

Both of you guys brought up some really good points. I'll admit that I'm a baptized Anglican, but if you were to know me in person you'd tell me that I'm more Agnostic than anything. While I'm accepting of God as an "Entity", I follow my own heart in my decisions, though if there really is a God, he probably doesn't like that, which would explain why many people rush into my family restaurant like a bunch of gluttons and bash us with orders relentlessly.... X_X

I have no intention of provoking any flaming here, as that's not the point of this topic at all, but I honestly think that just doing what God says, without question, is not only ignorance of all else, but demonstrates that you may look to others to make decisions for you, rather than think for yourself (ie; looking to God for answers and guidance by reading and studying his teachings).

I know that every religion says now and again on and off that  another religion is not true to the word of God, but what really is? if you think about it, every religion reads more of one, MAYBE two segments of the bible as if they're favored, and all but neglects the rest, which explains why you may find branches of a single religion, like various catholics or baptists that agree on one section, but disagree on another segment, and branch off as a result.

Now I can't say that I've flipped through the pages of my old, dusty bible, but my dad read it from the first page to the last, and noticed that even though he's Anglican, most of what he read in that book was not constantly mentioned in any morning/noon/evening service he has ever attended, and the minister actually admitted to that little tidbit. even when my dad asked if he should be allowed to teach sunday school (knowing that he doesn't walk the walk 100%),  the minister's answered: He can, because in terms of the bible to which he's teaching, he wouldn't be teaching HIS word, but THE Word, meaning that even an average guy like me can teach someone the bible, and I don't need the robes, power, or Glory of God to do it. :/

As far as my dad's concerned, he's already going to hell, despite reading the bible from cover to cover and actually liking the teachings (to a degree), but he tries to look at things from a wide, outside the box perspective, rather than just think strictly like an Anglican. to a Faithful Anglican, they might call him a Heretic, but is keeping an open mind really Evil?

Another note, which Sil's post reminded me of, was before I was baptised. Originally my church didn't want to baptise me because my dad didn't go to church faithfully like some mindless zombie on every single day of the week. Although I went every sunday as a kid, I wouldn't be able to get baptised because my dad didn't come every day like it's his life? God should accept all his children, as that's what I've heard, and that stuck up attitude makes me think that religions may or may not be full of hypocrites who preach one thing, than turn around and kick you in the ass a minute later.

And call me crazy, but hasn't anyone else noticed how people from any given religion believes another group from a different religion will go to hell while they go to heaven?

liek wtb archaerals input on this

While true, this statement is only half of the truth.  Consider the Piranha, one of the most aggressive and bloodthirsty creatures on earth.  Piranha, even in their feeding frenzies don't attack, bite or kill each other.  Piranhas don't believe in God, they don't just do whatever they want either.  Where do they get their moral code about not killing each other from?
  Morals specifically relate to the behavior of individuals within a society.  It's impossible to have a stable society without individual members adhering to some basic "morals".  If one member of the society runs around killing other members of the society, the group as a whole will not be able to propagate and remain stable for very long.  This is true for all society species whether it be wolves, piranha, killer whales, lions or even people.  Trust is a major component of this, wolves will pool together to care for children while the rest of the pack goes off to hunt.  You won't see the wolves caring for the cubs eat one just because nobody else is looking.  Where is the moral law-giver here? 
  So basically in order to have a stable society you have to have some properties that can be described as morals.  Just like circles are round and squares have 4 corners, stable societies have "morals".  Good is used to describe behaviors that are beneficial to the society group, and Evil, behaviors that are detrimental to it.  Usually Evil puts personal gain over that of the society, while good does the opposite. 
  So where do they come from?  Depending on the environment, they can be some sort of selective pressure that favors the survival of animals that work together as a group.  In such cases, only the animals that cooperate will survive.  Evolution provides an excellent naturalistic explanation for many items of morality you have mentioned. 

There are many things that are biologically hard-wired.  Emotions for example, you have no control over the facial expressions you use when conveying an emotion.  Even people who are blind from birth smile when they are happy and furrow their eyebrows when angry.  No matter what language you speak, a smile is a smile, and laughter is laughter.  Where am I going with this?
The desire to protect children is another biologically hard-wired trait.  Human beings, whether they admit it or not, all have outrage when they hear or see a child being abused.  Whether the child is human, dog, cat, gorilla, or sea-cow.  We all turn into giant softies for anything with big eyes, round face and a large head-to-body ratio.  This is general true for all maternal mammal species. 
Killing ones own species is another of those biologically hard-wired traits.  In past wars, the biggest problem a field commander would have is to actually get his soldiers to shoot AT the enemy.  It is estimated that as low as 2 or 3 out of ten soldiers would actually shoot the enemy in WW2(see the book On Killing by LtCol David Grossman for more on this subject).  Animals are biologically hard-wired NOT to kill each other.  Just like the Piranha, nobody has any problem killing an animal from another species, but everyone has a problem killing each other.

Funny you mention bloodthirsty gods...you mean the bloodthirsty God of the Bible whom has demanded burnt offerings all throughout the old testament as penance for sins?  And the weird pseudo-cannibalistic ritual Jesus demands of his followers before his crucifixion?  God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering, God stops him at the last second claiming it was a "test of faith", but God still to smell burned flesh to Abraham burned a ram alive instead of his son. 
Or the first seven chapters of Leviticus which describe, in detail, how animal sacrifices must be made, and that they must be burned so "God can smell them."  Honestly, if you read the whole thing, it sounds like the priests made all that up so they could have an awesome feast every week courtesy of the parish.  The priests in Leviticus were very particular about the feast offerings and how the food animals should be prepared prior to sacrifice.
Time and Time again in the christian bible God commands sacrifice of first-born children, animals and everything in between. 


Which is a lot more than the bible can say.  Time and time again God commands murder in the bible.  Murder people who don't listen to priests, Kill witches, homosexuals, fortune tellers, a child who hits his father, a child who curses his parents, adulterers, a woman who has sex before marriage, people of other religions, non-believers, false prophets, women who are not virgins on their wedding night, blasphemers, anyone who approaches the tabernacle and anyone who works on Sunday. All of these have committed crimes worthy of death.  God is clearly A-OK with murder.
What about Slavery?  I think we can all agree that slavery is bad right?  Not God.  In both Old and New testament God allows, encourages and provides guidance to slaves and slave owners.  If a man beats a slave to death he is to be punished, however if the slave lingers for a day or two it's ok because the slave is his property.  It is OK to beat somebody to death so long as they don't die that day is what the Bible is saying. Even in the new testament
  God abides by and does not appear to have a problem with one of the most deplorable of human conditions. 

That's the premise of the topic, is it required for God to tell us right from wrong?