Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality and God

Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 8:39:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yes.

Objective morality is an incoherent term.

For something to be objective, it's truth value must be independent from the mind.

Morality is a mental construct and therefore dependent on the mind.

However when you point this out to theists they will usually say that morality is not ascribed from God's mind but from his nature or something like that, which is just more incoherence.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

The point of reference however must be decided upon, and therefore can never be objective.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:06:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

which god are you claiming to be "the supreme authority"?
and what evidence do you have that your god even exists?
is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:07:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

Except in this case, He creates morality, so He decides what is moral. It's not an opinion, it's a decision.

The point of reference however must be decided upon, and therefore can never be objective.

See above.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:06:18 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

which god are you claiming to be "the supreme authority"?
and what evidence do you have that your god even exists?
is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?

You're changing the subject. I said IF. It doesn't matter which God it is. If objective morality exists, then God must exist.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:07:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

Except in this case, He creates morality, so He decides what is moral. It's not an opinion, it's a decision.

Being decided upon is the very definition of subjective.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:32:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:18:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:07:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

Except in this case, He creates morality, so He decides what is moral. It's not an opinion, it's a decision.

Being decided upon is the very definition of subjective.

Not if your the creator. Are you trying to say there's nothing objective?
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 10:48:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:17:59 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:06:18 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

which god are you claiming to be "the supreme authority"?
and what evidence do you have that your god even exists?
is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?

You're changing the subject. I said IF. It doesn't matter which God it is. If objective morality exists, then God must exist.

that is a logical fallacy, known as false dichotomy
would the reverse also be true, if objective morality doesn't exist, then no gods can exist?
did god create objective morality, or is objective morality independent of god?
is something moral because god said so, or did god say so because it is moral?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 11:04:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:32:41 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:18:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:07:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

Except in this case, He creates morality, so He decides what is moral. It's not an opinion, it's a decision.

Being decided upon is the very definition of subjective.

Not if your the creator. Are you trying to say there's nothing objective?

Being the creator makes no difference. If morality is decided upon by God, then morality is subject to God's decisions. That, by definition, makes morality subjective. If you disagree then you are not speaking English.

Objective is that in which the truth value is independent of the mind. The proposition "the earth is round" for example is true (or perhaps false) regardless of what the mind perceives it to be.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2015 11:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

You're appealing to authority, You're also begging the question- "it's objective, because he cannot be wrong= it's objective because he's right". Also, let's say we have a fascist government that creates a new civilization. But they treat the civilization horribly. They torture anyone who is gay, deprives all of necessary resources, and allows people to kill each other. Yet all the people are under the absolute control of the fascist government. Would you call this government moral (I hope the analogy is clear, and if you want me to prove why it's not a false analogy, I'm willing too).
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 12:52:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 10:48:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:17:59 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:06:18 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

which god are you claiming to be "the supreme authority"?
and what evidence do you have that your god even exists?
is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?

You're changing the subject. I said IF. It doesn't matter which God it is. If objective morality exists, then God must exist.

that is a logical fallacy, known as false dichotomy

Nope. If there is objective morality, it requires a law giver. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

would the reverse also be true, if objective morality doesn't exist, then no gods can exist?

Nope. In a similar way, squares can exist without rectangles, but rectangles can't exist without squares.

did god create objective morality, or is objective morality independent of god?

God created objective morality. If not, then morality is pure opinion and is subjective.

is something moral because god said so, or did god say so because it is moral?

Because God said so.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 1:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 11:59:00 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

You're appealing to authority,

Well since that's the only way morality can be objective....

You're also begging the question- "it's objective, because he cannot be wrong= it's objective because he's right".

Not if He's the ultimate authority. Then it's NOT begging.

Also, let's say we have a fascist government that creates a new civilization. But they treat the civilization horribly. They torture anyone who is gay, deprives all of necessary resources, and allows people to kill each other. Yet all the people are under the absolute control of the fascist government. Would you call this government moral (I hope the analogy is clear, and if you want me to prove why it's not a false analogy, I'm willing too).

Well, since they wouldn't be creating morality(it's already been created), no. Your analogy fails.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 1:13:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 11:04:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:32:41 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:18:55 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:07:12 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:00:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

An authority in this context is nothing more than a point of reference. If God is your authority than anything God says is necessarily moral including raping children, because the very means of determining whether something is moral is a matter of determining whether the action matches the point of reference (aka authority). It's nothing more than a comparison.

Except in this case, He creates morality, so He decides what is moral. It's not an opinion, it's a decision.

Being decided upon is the very definition of subjective.

Not if your the creator. Are you trying to say there's nothing objective?

Being the creator makes no difference. If morality is decided upon by God, then morality is subject to God's decisions. That, by definition, makes morality subjective. If you disagree then you are not speaking English.

Objective is that in which the truth value is independent of the mind. The proposition "the earth is round" for example is true (or perhaps false) regardless of what the mind perceives it to be.

It could just appear round, while still not being so. (If you want to be that way). It's round because God made it that way, just like morality.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 1:39:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 1:06:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 11:59:00 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

You're appealing to authority,

Well since that's the only way morality can be objective....

You're also begging the question- "it's objective, because he cannot be wrong= it's objective because he's right".

Not if He's the ultimate authority. Then it's NOT begging.

Also, let's say we have a fascist government that creates a new civilization. But they treat the civilization horribly. They torture anyone who is gay, deprives all of necessary resources, and allows people to kill each other. Yet all the people are under the absolute control of the fascist government. Would you call this government moral (I hope the analogy is clear, and if you want me to prove why it's not a false analogy, I'm willing too).

Well, since they wouldn't be creating morality(it's already been created), no. Your analogy fails.

Yes, they would be creating morals. And you are falling under the trap of circular reasoning. "They didn't create morality since it already been created". Also, this fascist government is meant to represent God. Also tell me, why is it that a creator is allowed to create moral values that the creator deems objective? It's like Hitler saying "It's moral to kill Jewish people because I said so".
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 2:19:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 1:13:28 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 11:04:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
Being the creator makes no difference. If morality is decided upon by God, then morality is subject to God's decisions. That, by definition, makes morality subjective. If you disagree then you are not speaking English.

Objective is that in which the truth value is independent of the mind. The proposition "the earth is round" for example is true (or perhaps false) regardless of what the mind perceives it to be.

It could just appear round, while still not being so. (If you want to be that way). It's round because God made it that way, just like morality.

This has absolutely no relevance to the point I just made.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:24:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 12:52:45 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:48:50 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:17:59 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 10:06:18 PM, DanMGTOW wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

which god are you claiming to be "the supreme authority"?
and what evidence do you have that your god even exists?
is your god capable of convincing me that it exists?
is your god capable of communicating with me in a way that i can understand?

You're changing the subject. I said IF. It doesn't matter which God it is. If objective morality exists, then God must exist.

that is a logical fallacy, known as false dichotomy

Nope. If there is objective morality, it requires a law giver. Otherwise, it's just opinion.

would the reverse also be true, if objective morality doesn't exist, then no gods can exist?

Nope. In a similar way, squares can exist without rectangles, but rectangles can't exist without squares.

did god create objective morality, or is objective morality independent of god?

God created objective morality. If not, then morality is pure opinion and is subjective.

is something moral because god said so, or did god say so because it is moral?

Because God said so.

just because you call something a law, doesn't mean that it actually is a law
that is a logical fallacy known as argument by analogy

if your god created morality, then morality is subjective
if you don't have enough of a moral code to determine what is right or wrong
then your parents did a really crappy job teaching you how to be an adult
UjjainKumbhMela2016
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:44:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Objective Morality is very important to understand the other aspects of a particular situation of event. God is the driving force that allows to behave in a certain way most of us known as morality.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 8:10:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 7:44:27 AM, UjjainKumbhMela2016 wrote:
Objective Morality is very important to understand the other aspects of a particular situation of event. God is the driving force that allows to behave in a certain way most of us known as morality.
Well that's obviously wrong since all gods are the creations of man.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 10:19:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 1:39:04 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 1:06:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 11:59:00 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

You're appealing to authority,

Well since that's the only way morality can be objective....

You're also begging the question- "it's objective, because he cannot be wrong= it's objective because he's right".

Not if He's the ultimate authority. Then it's NOT begging.

Also, let's say we have a fascist government that creates a new civilization. But they treat the civilization horribly. They torture anyone who is gay, deprives all of necessary resources, and allows people to kill each other. Yet all the people are under the absolute control of the fascist government. Would you call this government moral (I hope the analogy is clear, and if you want me to prove why it's not a false analogy, I'm willing too).

Well, since they wouldn't be creating morality(it's already been created), no. Your analogy fails.

Yes, they would be creating morals

Morality already existed before the alleged government was, so nope.

. And you are falling under the trap of circular reasoning. "They didn't create morality since it already been created"

It's not circular; it's factual. Again, morality existed before your government did.

. Also, this fascist government is meant to represent God. Also tell me, why is it that a creator is allowed to create moral values that the creator deems objective?

Because before we existed, morality didn't exist, so in order for it to exist, it had to be created. Would you rather live in a world without objective morality?

It's like Hitler saying "It's moral to kill Jewish people because I said so". Nope, because objective morality already existed before Hitler. What Hitler did was subjective. He used opinion;God did not.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 12:17:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 10:19:17 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
Because before we existed, morality didn't exist, so in order for it to exist, it had to be created. Would you rather live in a world without objective morality?
We all do, your fantasies not withstanding.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 10:19:17 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 1:39:04 AM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 1:06:20 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 11:59:00 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 9:18:35 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

If He is the supreme authority, it's absolutely objective because He cannot be wrong.

You're appealing to authority,

Well since that's the only way morality can be objective....

You're also begging the question- "it's objective, because he cannot be wrong= it's objective because he's right".

Not if He's the ultimate authority. Then it's NOT begging.

Also, let's say we have a fascist government that creates a new civilization. But they treat the civilization horribly. They torture anyone who is gay, deprives all of necessary resources, and allows people to kill each other. Yet all the people are under the absolute control of the fascist government. Would you call this government moral (I hope the analogy is clear, and if you want me to prove why it's not a false analogy, I'm willing too).

Well, since they wouldn't be creating morality(it's already been created), no. Your analogy fails.

Yes, they would be creating morals

Morality already existed before the alleged government was, so nope.

. And you are falling under the trap of circular reasoning. "They didn't create morality since it already been created"

It's not circular; it's factual. Again, morality existed before your government did.

. Also, this fascist government is meant to represent God. Also tell me, why is it that a creator is allowed to create moral values that the creator deems objective?


Because before we existed, morality didn't exist, so in order for it to exist, it had to be created. Would you rather live in a world without objective morality?

It's like Hitler saying "It's moral to kill Jewish people because I said so". Nope, because objective morality already existed before Hitler. What Hitler did was subjective. He used opinion;God did not.

In the analogy of the government, there is no God in the system. Instead, the God is represented by the fascist government. The whole system was created by the government, and they assign moral values to that system. It's like God creating the universe (a system) and assigning moral values to that system. Tell me, what don't you exactly get about the analogy?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:56:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 80 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.

And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 4:58:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 60 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.

And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 5:00:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 4:56:53 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 80 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.


And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.

So you're not claiming that God => objective morality?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:32:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 5:00:55 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 4:56:53 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 80 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.


And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.

So you're not claiming that God => objective morality?

As far as objective or subjective one could probably argue for both, depending on what someone wants to justify, but that seems to be because men in general don"t get the view from the Kingdom of God. As I tried to explain in the previous posting, its really irrelevant considering the whole of what God sees as righteous, or accounts as righteous, is faith in Him. Though yes in man's world, they are relevant, or no one could manage law for societies.

In the case of "morals" as in how it"s used in today"s world, and the Lord God of Jesus Christ, morals are relative. Even in the Adam and Eve case it was about the agreement between Adam and His Maker, the Lord God. The Ten Commandments are also called a Covenant that the Israelites agreed to obey. Ethics would fall under cases of not meeting the agreement. No different then most any human activity that involve another person. You agree not to shoot people indiscriminately on the street as you walk down the street, and so does everyone else unless they are the enemy of the people that agree to that agreement. More that one person must agree in something to coexist. So, in the case of God and His People (not all people) He has made an agreement with them knowing they can"t keep it but has provided deliverance from their inability to keep it, known as His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:40:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:32:40 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/23/2015 5:00:55 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 4:56:53 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 80 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.


And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.

So you're not claiming that God => objective morality?

As far as objective or subjective one could probably argue for both, depending on what someone wants to justify, but that seems to be because men in general don"t get the view from the Kingdom of God. As I tried to explain in the previous posting, its really irrelevant considering the whole of what God sees as righteous, or accounts as righteous, is faith in Him. Though yes in man's world, they are relevant, or no one could manage law for societies.

In the case of "morals" as in how it"s used in today"s world, and the Lord God of Jesus Christ, morals are relative. Even in the Adam and Eve case it was about the agreement between Adam and His Maker, the Lord God. The Ten Commandments are also called a Covenant that the Israelites agreed to obey. Ethics would fall under cases of not meeting the agreement. No different then most any human activity that involve another person. You agree not to shoot people indiscriminately on the street as you walk down the street, and so does everyone else unless they are the enemy of the people that agree to that agreement. More that one person must agree in something to coexist. So, in the case of God and His People (not all people) He has made an agreement with them knowing they can"t keep it but has provided deliverance from their inability to keep it, known as His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm not very versed in Christian theology, so my understanding of these arguments aren't the best. Speaking to you, let me rephrase the question. Could a theist claim that atheists are not able to hold morals, due to its nature in relativism? Only theists can claim to hold objective morality?
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 12:03:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:40:00 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 6:32:40 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/23/2015 5:00:55 PM, Pase66 wrote:
At 11/23/2015 4:56:53 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/22/2015 8:29:08 PM, Pase66 wrote:
I would like to pose a question to those who claim objective morality can be derived from a God. My question is, on what basis can morality ascribed by "a God" be objective in any case? For example, lets take a father (analogous to God) who lets his children (us) beat, maim, and kill each other, deprives some of his children of necessary resources (third world countries), and condemns his other children to brutal punishment due to being something they cannot change (homosexuality), and much more. So does the father have a right to impose any of these moral standards on his creations? And even if one assumes the existence of God, doesn't the concept of God assigning objective moral values still fall prey to the is-ought problem?

Objective or subjective is not the issue when it comes to the Lord God of Israel. You don"t get it, God doesn"t expect human nature to meet His standard. Liars tell you that. He already knows the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. His expectation of the fulfillment of, for example the Ten Commandments, in mankind is with His nature, not human nature. You can"t go 80 mph without the capability, such as a car, or something like that. It"s not really a judgement, it"s a, either you got it or you don"t. And the commandment also called the Testimony, testifies whether you got it or you don"t. In the case of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the law given by the hand of Moses, testifies He is the One.


And just because people have been born into the world, doesn"t make them "His Children" if they are born of His Spirit, then they are "His Children". Men are a part of His creation, but not necessarily "His Children". You are born of your parent"s flesh into the world, you are in the flesh and blood their child, if one is born of the Holy Spirt then in the Spirit one is a Child of God, because as Jesus said, God is a Spirit.

So you're not claiming that God => objective morality?

As far as objective or subjective one could probably argue for both, depending on what someone wants to justify, but that seems to be because men in general don"t get the view from the Kingdom of God. As I tried to explain in the previous posting, its really irrelevant considering the whole of what God sees as righteous, or accounts as righteous, is faith in Him. Though yes in man's world, they are relevant, or no one could manage law for societies.

In the case of "morals" as in how it"s used in today"s world, and the Lord God of Jesus Christ, morals are relative. Even in the Adam and Eve case it was about the agreement between Adam and His Maker, the Lord God. The Ten Commandments are also called a Covenant that the Israelites agreed to obey. Ethics would fall under cases of not meeting the agreement. No different then most any human activity that involve another person. You agree not to shoot people indiscriminately on the street as you walk down the street, and so does everyone else unless they are the enemy of the people that agree to that agreement. More that one person must agree in something to coexist. So, in the case of God and His People (not all people) He has made an agreement with them knowing they can"t keep it but has provided deliverance from their inability to keep it, known as His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm not very versed in Christian theology, so my understanding of these arguments aren't the best. Speaking to you, let me rephrase the question. Could a theist claim that atheists are not able to hold morals, due to its nature in relativism? Only theists can claim to hold objective morality?

An atheist can come to an agreement with anyone else that something is against or good for their mutual interests, and agree to do it. Like maybe not burn each other"s house down, while living next door. If both the atheist and the theist agree, there you are. An atheist can agree to enter a theist"s coffee shop and pay for services rendered. I mean the Constitution of the US is an agreement, between those of many creeds and beliefs. Now there is a moral standard, if you will, that is expected to be fulfilled by all parties. That is relative to the parties in agreement. It seems to me, that in transactions is the only place where there can be a true manifestation of an ethical action.

The social and legal standards that Russians live and agree by in the land of Russia have nothing to do with the social and legal standards that US citizens live and agree by in America. And one doesn"t effect the other nor is a American bond to Russian sensibilities and law, unless the American is in the land of Russia where as to be there, is to agree to at the least obey the laws they have. Therefore it"s relative to the persons in agreement, whether it be with God and men, or men and men.

Just take a look at just about every human activity and you are looking at something that is agreed to by more then one person, that is relative to those that agree.