Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To moral relativists/nihilists:

Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:47:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

Since God is the Creator of evil, do you think He's concerned about the things He formed ( visible objects ) that causes fear in His people?

Isaiah 45
7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Deuteronomy 32
39: "`See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:47:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

Yes, as much as unicorns and leprechauns necessarily exist.

In other words, what does one have to do with the other?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.

Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.

Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

I can see why you would consider that to be the best debate you're ever read, like your posts, it relies entirely on fallacies and leaps of faith.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:26:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

No.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:56:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.

Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

I skimmed the first part, it's pretty good, but I had trouble spotting the link to the rebuttals (as it's a rebate you want me to read, not a single side's arguments).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 12:56:30 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.

Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

I skimmed the first part, it's pretty good, but I had trouble spotting the link to the rebuttals (as it's a rebate you want me to read, not a single side's arguments).

The debate gives a comprehensive look at it. To get to the next page there should be an arrow towards the very bottom right of the opening argument that almost looks like an ad icon. It's weird.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

Sure, I'll give you that. However, for morality to be objective it must not be dependent on the subjective interpretation of individuals at any point, thus morals would be agreed upon without exception. Culture and time period should make no difference.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 12:59:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 12:56:30 PM, Ragnar wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:40:10 AM, Ragnar wrote:
As someone who believes there are objective morals for human beings, I am curious the connection between objective morality and God existing?

If God created everything including all morals, they are clearly not objective as they needed to be made up rather than being inherent; in essence by the flip of a coin they could have been the opposite of what they are now. Of course if they pre-date God, than God is no the creator of all things, failing at the usual definition of God.

Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

I skimmed the first part, it's pretty good, but I had trouble spotting the link to the rebuttals (as it's a rebate you want me to read, not a single side's arguments).

The debate gives a comprehensive look at it. To get to the next page there should be an arrow towards the very bottom right of the opening argument that almost looks like an ad icon. It's weird.

It's labeled as "next post" with a title but it's just a continuation of the debate.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

I would say that if morality was objective, that means an omnipotent being had to define it for us, which would also contradict free will. However, I believe morality is subjective and yet at the same time I believe a god(s) exist.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:34:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.

....no. You are confusing semantics with ontology. "Goodness" doesn't have to MEAN the same thing as "he did what was in accordance with Gods will" for it them to be identical.

Water = H20. Before we discovered that identity relationship we didn't MEAN that water is H20 (because we had no concept of its atomic structure). One can be a competent user of the language and properly refer to water but be unaware that h2o is water (as some scientifically illiterate cultures are today no doubt).

It's just like I don't MEAN that the evening star is the morning star yet they both are the same star.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:50:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 1:34:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.

....no. You are confusing semantics with ontology. "Goodness" doesn't have to MEAN the same thing as "he did what was in accordance with Gods will" for it them to be identical.

That's not what I just argued, and of course what is in accordance with God's will if he exists is not determined by my intended usage of language. That's common sense.

What I explained is what the argument actually does, which is 1) Define God as the ideal that goodness is measured against, then 2) claim that Good is a necessarily determined by comparing something to God. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what that is a fallacious argument to support any meaningful conclusion.

If we use #1 as our starting point then the argument is useless to support God's actual existence. If we don't begin with #1 then there is no logically coherent way to get to #2 because that requires an objective ideal which is a logical contradiction.

My analogy about usage of language attacks point 1.
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 3:38:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For reference to Ben's linked debate...
All pieces of said argument are linked from the final post: http://www.strangenotions.com...

Anyway if Objective Morality exists, than it must be some measure that is unchanging. Presuming the God of the Bible exists, God does not seem to be consist with following morals (at least as evidenced by current translations of the Bible).
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 3:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 3:38:23 PM, Ragnar wrote:
For reference to Ben's linked debate...
All pieces of said argument are linked from the final post: http://www.strangenotions.com...

Anyway if Objective Morality exists, than it must be some measure that is unchanging. Presuming the God of the Bible exists, God does not seem to be consist with following morals (at least as evidenced by current translations of the Bible).

I agree, however I'm not Christian.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:41:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

What do you mean the other guy was "chipping in with two or three comments on it"? They both had similarly detailed arguments/rebuttals. Unless you just mean that the negating case wasn't strong or convincing enough.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

There's an important distinction to make between something that is "morally good" vs. something that is just "good". If something is considered "morally good" it's referring to a disposition. On the other hand, something that is "good" can simply refer to something that causes pleasure (like eating french fries). Keep in mind that any moral choice requires will. So when I say that God is essentially good im referring to God's moral disposition and will. Basically all I'm saying is that it's logically coherent that God is essentially good.

In situations that can be considered morally good/bad, "good" is whatever is in accordance with God's will or disposition. I'm aware you've already objected to this basically saying that God is semantically defined to be in accordance with the good. However, a priori, a standard of something that is perfectly morally good must exist in order for us to make moral judgements in degrees of "good" and "bad" in the first place in any objective moral system.


It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.

Compasion, patience, trustworthiness, humility, courage, love, tolerance, respectfulness, etc., are all objective ideals to the extent of referring to a good disposition.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:35:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:41:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

What do you mean the other guy was "chipping in with two or three comments on it"? They both had similarly detailed arguments/rebuttals. Unless you just mean that the negating case wasn't strong or convincing enough.

I wasn't able to see the other arguments and thought based on what he said in the intro that the comments underneath would contain the rebuttals. I saw you say afterward that there is some icon in the lower right corner that takes you to the rest of the debate, not showing on my screen.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

There's an important distinction to make between something that is "morally good" vs. something that is just "good". If something is considered "morally good" it's referring to a disposition. On the other hand, something that is "good" can simply refer to something that causes pleasure (like eating french fries). Keep in mind that any moral choice requires will. So when I say that God is essentially good im referring to God's moral disposition and will. Basically all I'm saying is that it's logically coherent that God is essentially good.

The only difference between good and moral good, is the thing being judged. Morality refers specifically to one's actions. That in no way impacts the essence of what we're talking about. Good, moral or not, still requires an ideal as a basis for comparison. If we're talking about morality then that ideal is an ideal action or intent.

In situations that can be considered morally good/bad, "good" is whatever is in accordance with God's will or disposition. I'm aware you've already objected to this basically saying that God is semantically defined to be in accordance with the good. However, a priori, a standard of something that is perfectly morally good must exist in order for us to make moral judgements in degrees of "good" and "bad" in the first place in any objective moral system.

Simply asserting your position is not an argument to support it. Not only have you given no reason why there must be a "perfectly good moral standard", but you've completely ignored my argument explaining that this is incoherent. How are you judging that moral standard to be perfectly good? What standard are you comparing it to, and how did you determine that that standard is better than the next one?

It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.

Compasion, patience, trustworthiness, humility, courage, love, tolerance, respectfulness, etc., are all objective ideals to the extent of referring to a good disposition.

If these are objective ideals then they are the standard which everything else, including God, is judged by. On the other hand, If God is not judged by these traits then they are not objective traits. So which is it?

Somehow I predict that your response will be something like "they are one in the same" which is not a rebuttal, it's a dodge. For the umpteenth time, good is a determination we make. You cannot make a determination without comparing two different things. Logic 101.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:40:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 1:59:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
In a word, no. There is no direct correlation between any God and morality.

There is. God is decribed as intelligent and conscious, which are sine qua non to morality. And God is made more relevant since He made man.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:46:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

Having power does not makes ones moral beliefs true. The same applies to God.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 6:48:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

No, of course not. The objective natural laws we have in science certainly do not; the same could apply for objective morality.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 8:21:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:35:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 5:41:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 1:03:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 11:54:41 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Before I say anything about it please read this exchange on the issue. It's probably the best debate I've ever read.

http://www.strangenotions.com...

Unless I am missing something (very possible), that was not much of a debate, It was one guy presenting his case and the other guy chipping in with two or three comments on it.

What do you mean the other guy was "chipping in with two or three comments on it"? They both had similarly detailed arguments/rebuttals. Unless you just mean that the negating case wasn't strong or convincing enough.

I wasn't able to see the other arguments and thought based on what he said in the intro that the comments underneath would contain the rebuttals. I saw you say afterward that there is some icon in the lower right corner that takes you to the rest of the debate, not showing on my screen.

Ok. If you're interested in reading the rest of it it's labeled "next post" with a title and a small arrow pointing to the right at the bottom before the comment section. It's confusing because it looks like it's redirecting to another topic but it's a continuation of the debate.

Either way, the argument laid out was the same fallacious case you always make. "Good" is necessarily a determination we make by comparing something to an ideal. Even in your worldview this is true. The difference, which is basically the entire argument in a nutshell, is to define God as that ideal. That's not English. If I am watching a news story of a man who sold his house to pay for his sons surgery and I say "he did a good thing", I am not saying "He did what was in accordance with Gods will". You or others might believe that is the case, but that is irrelevant. That isn't what the word means.

There's an important distinction to make between something that is "morally good" vs. something that is just "good". If something is considered "morally good" it's referring to a disposition. On the other hand, something that is "good" can simply refer to something that causes pleasure (like eating french fries). Keep in mind that any moral choice requires will. So when I say that God is essentially good im referring to God's moral disposition and will. Basically all I'm saying is that it's logically coherent that God is essentially good.

The only difference between good and moral good, is the thing being judged. Morality refers specifically to one's actions. That in no way impacts the essence of what we're talking about. Good, moral or not, still requires an ideal as a basis for comparison. If we're talking about morality then that ideal is an ideal action or intent.

Ok sure, I don't think we disagree that an ideal is required as a basis for comparison but "morally good" ideals are not subjective. For example one can never say that "hatred" is a "morally good" ideal (and be correct).

In situations that can be considered morally good/bad, "good" is whatever is in accordance with God's will or disposition. I'm aware you've already objected to this basically saying that God is semantically defined to be in accordance with the good. However, a priori, a standard of something that is perfectly morally good must exist in order for us to make moral judgements in degrees of "good" and "bad" in the first place in any objective moral system.

Simply asserting your position is not an argument to support it. Not only have you given no reason why there must be a "perfectly good moral standard", but you've completely ignored my argument explaining that this is incoherent. How are you judging that moral standard to be perfectly good? What standard are you comparing it to, and how did you determine that that standard is better than the next one?

Do you agree that good/evil exists on a spectrum? For example, is murder worse than stealing?

Asking me how I'm judging a moral standard to be perfectly good is like asking how I know that courage is better than cowardice, how I know that love is better than hate, how I know that humility is better than boastfulness, etc., Our knowledge of "morally good" standards are innate. God must be the perfectly good moral standard that we judge right from wrong against because anything that can be considered "morally good" references something capable of (1) will or (2) disposition. Both things require a sentient mind. So if you said "killing an innocent is bad" well, it truly is bad. It had nothing to do with your own intent/predisposition when you said that. If Stalin, me, or you said "killing an innocent is good" well, that's false because it's actually bad and has nothing to do with our own intent/disposition about it. There must be an objective source of intentionality and will of disposition that exists apart from the human mind in order for this to be the case because *all* things considered morally good have a source in disposition or will - both of which require sentience. There's two ways to gain knowledge: by reason (rationalism) or by experience (empiricism). Morality falls under the former. Would we ever need to kill somebody to *know* that it's wrong to do so? Just for the sake of argument, really imagine killing an innocent person right now. Do you feel a sense or awareness that repels you from doing that? That sense is innate. We can know what moral standards are superior to others because we already possess an innate awareness of right from wrong a priori that allows us to reason good from evil while acting in accordance to the truth.

It's really that simple. Until you can explain how it is possible to have an objective ideal, "good" will always be a subjective term. Assuming we are speaking English anyway.

Compasion, patience, trustworthiness, humility, courage, love, tolerance, respectfulness, etc., are all objective ideals to the extent of referring to a good disposition.

If these are objective ideals then they are the standard which everything else, including God, is judged by. On the other hand, If God is not judged by these traits then they are not objective traits. So which is it?

Objective moral ideals refer to *disposition* and disposition requires a source in sentience. When something is morally good/bad we are just comparing what's considered good or bad to sentient disposition or will. Since moral standards are good/evil independent of human assessment, that objective source requiring disposition/will is God.

Somehow I predict that your response will be something like "they are one in the same" which is not a rebuttal, it's a dodge. For the umpteenth time, good is a determination we make. You cannot make a determination without comparing two different things. Logic 101.

This is why I made the distinction between "good" and "moral good". I'm not saying that God and "good" are the same thing. I'm saying that God and "moral good" are the same thing. When I say that God is perfectly good im saying that God has perfectly virtuous disposition and will. Think of *anything* with moral relevance that doesn't require a source in intentionality or disposition.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 8:21:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 2/28/2015 6:35:36 PM, Double_R wrote:
The only difference between good and moral good, is the thing being judged. Morality refers specifically to one's actions. That in no way impacts the essence of what we're talking about. Good, moral or not, still requires an ideal as a basis for comparison. If we're talking about morality then that ideal is an ideal action or intent.

Ok sure, I don't think we disagree that an ideal is required as a basis for comparison but "morally good" ideals are not subjective. For example one can never say that "hatred" is a "morally good" ideal (and be correct).

And yet again, you are asserting your position without justifying it. How can any ideal, moral or not, be anything other than subjective? How is your statement even coherent?

Simply asserting your position is not an argument to support it. Not only have you given no reason why there must be a "perfectly good moral standard", but you've completely ignored my argument explaining that this is incoherent. How are you judging that moral standard to be perfectly good? What standard are you comparing it to, and how did you determine that that standard is better than the next one?

Do you agree that good/evil exists on a spectrum? For example, is murder worse than stealing?

I agree that we can assess actions/intent on a spectrum, allowing us to determine an obvious statement such as murder is worse than stealing. It's obvious of course because we are using the same ideals (such as well being and agreement) as our basis for comparison.

Asking me how I'm judging a moral standard to be perfectly good is like asking how I know that courage is better than cowardice, how I know that love is better than hate, how I know that humility is better than boastfulness, etc., Our knowledge of "morally good" standards are innate.

What is innate are our emotions and the fact that some emotions are preferable to others. Pleasure is always preferable to non-pleasure (which follows from the definition), therefore any emotion which is found to be pleasurable is preferable. That's why you prefer love over hate. What makes it "better" is the fact that you prefer it. That's what "better" means. It is not some innate knowledge programmed into us by a God, it is definitions of words followed by logic 101.

If Stalin, me, or you said "killing an innocent is good" well, that's false because it's actually bad and has nothing to do with our own intent/disposition about it. There must be an objective source of intentionality and will of disposition that exists apart from the human mind in order for this to be the case because *all* things considered morally good have a source in disposition or will - both of which require sentience.

Again, you are just making assertions without justifying them. You gave absolutely no reason why human minds cannot be the source in disposition or will. All you are saying here is that there must be an objective source apart from human beings otherwise there would be no objective morality. And guess what... you're right. Now all you need to do is prove that there is an objective source.

BTW, pretending for the sake of argument that what what we're talking about is limited to humans, I find it awfully curious that you are arguing that there must be a source in disposition or will outside the human mind when disposition and will are things we have only recognized in the human mind.

There's two ways to gain knowledge: by reason (rationalism) or by experience (empiricism). Morality falls under the former. Would we ever need to kill somebody to *know* that it's wrong to do so? Just for the sake of argument, really imagine killing an innocent person right now. Do you feel a sense or awareness that repels you from doing that? That sense is innate.

You call it innate, I call it common sense. The most fundamental instinct we have is to survive. Taking away someone else's life when our #1 instinct is to stay alive is completely contradictory to what we understand through our own emotions to be important. You don't need a deity to explain that.

If these are objective ideals then they are the standard which everything else, including God, is judged by. On the other hand, If God is not judged by these traits then they are not objective traits. So which is it?

Objective moral ideals refer to *disposition* and disposition requires a source in sentience. When something is morally good/bad we are just comparing what's considered good or bad to sentient disposition or will. Since moral standards are good/evil independent of human assessment, that objective source requiring disposition/will is God.

And once again... asserting your position without justifying it. How many times are you going to beg the question in this post? Whether moral standards are good/evil independent of human assessment is what you are supposed to be substantiating.

Again, disposition/will are things we only recognize as function of our minds. You are claiming that this function occurs outside of our minds. You need to demonstrate that claim.

And even if you can demonstrate that claim, you still need to explain how it solves your problem. All your claim accomplishes is to bump the level of subjectivity up to a higher authority. Higher authority =/= objective.

Somehow I predict that your response will be something like "they are one in the same" which is not a rebuttal, it's a dodge. For the umpteenth time, good is a determination we make. You cannot make a determination without comparing two different things. Logic 101.

This is why I made the distinction between "good" and "moral good". I'm not saying that God and "good" are the same thing. I'm saying that God and "moral good" are the same thing. When I say that God is perfectly good im saying that God has perfectly virtuous disposition and will. Think of *anything* with moral relevance that doesn't require a source in intentionality or disposition.

You can claim God is perfect all you want, you have yet to explain how he is the objective standard. If I happened to be perfectly moral, that doesn't make me the standard. It means that I perfectly match the standard. We don't become one in the same, nor is that a coherent statement.

To go back to the liquid/wetness analogy, they can't be separated because the concept in both cases necessarily involves a liquid. Wetness literally means to be covered in liquid. You can't separate the concept of a liquid from the concept of a liquid. God on the other hand is completely different. You can in fact separate the idea of the being that is God, from the idea of this being as good. By saying that you can't separate them is to simply define goodness as being consistent with God. That position requires you to demonstrate that God exists before you can claim that morality is objective which as far as I am aware, underpins the entire purpose of this discussion.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 12:37:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 6:40:30 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2015 1:59:11 PM, dhardage wrote:
In a word, no. There is no direct correlation between any God and morality.

There is. God is decribed as intelligent and conscious, which are sine qua non to morality. And God is made more relevant since He made man.

But, your statement is meaningless if referring to the Abrahamic God and the religions associated; Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These religions do not agree in there descriptions of the very same God. This does not even take into account the myriad of the gods purported to exist.

So, your statement therefore begs the questions, which God are you describing and who is the authority over that description?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 7:05:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?
No.

Morality is an evaluative concept. Like truth, it exists in the mind of the beholder, not in that which is being beheld. And the same goes for "God".

To clarify, "God", truth, and morality do not exist for my dog. They are concepts of and about his existence that can't formulate in his mind. So they simply don't exist, for him.

As a human, these concepts can formulate in my mind, but I can recognize that just because I can formulate a conception of something does not mean that it "exists" in any form beyond that of an intellectual concept. So even if I were to conceive of morality as an objective phenomena, that does not necessarily mean that I must conceive of "God" as an objective phenomena. I could embrace one without the other, or both, or neither, as I choose.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 7:45:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

No.
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 8:09:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

Nope. A God who creates morality is doing so from its view point thus subjective. It is not like if one moment he changed morality that a big rift in the fabric of being would open and swallow all that is.

You are simply defining God as the supreme entity that gets the honor of establishing morality because he has full contol of enforcing it.

If the devil somehow majically become stronger than God, would he now be the objective supplier of morality?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 9:05:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 11:31:46 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Do you accept that IF morality was objective, God necessarily exists?

No I don't.

And here is why.

If traffic lights did not exist we would need the police to direct traffic. But traffic lights do exist and are independent of the police.
We also know it is not the police that erected those traffic lights. They were installed by some other agency independent of police.
The moral objective of traffic lights is to control traffic. It was installed so there would be no need for police to be at every cross section.
Therefore objective morality exists and it makes God unnecessary.