Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

God and Objective Morality

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The Objective Moral Argument for God makes no sense.
Not because of the non-existence of Objective Morality, but because it requires Objective Morality to only be able to come from "God". The problem is that God can NEVER be the source of Objective Morality.

Let's start with looking at the euthyphro dilemma:
Either:
1) God says X is good because it IS good
OR
2) X is good because God says it is good.

Now, when we look at this we can actually see that it is impossible for God to be the source of OBJECTIVE morality.

If God has a reason for why X is evil or Y is good, then Objective Morality exists independent of God as God has to reason to get to that conclusion.
If God has no reason, then X being evil or Y being good is arbitrary, and thus must be relativistic in nature, all based on how God feels at the time.

So, how can one honestly think the Objective Moral argument is a good one?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 11:31:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
As children we mostly learn what is right and wrong from our parents, so when someone disagrees with us we get to say "no you're wrong because mommy says so". It's a certain dependence that religion only encourages as we enter into our adult lives.

For a theist they have spent their entire life believing that all morality comes from God. So when someone rapes a child, they don't have to worry about explaining or even understanding why it is wrong, they believe that their views are unquestionable because God is unquestionable. It's basically the adult version of what we did as children. It's a way to say "I have God on my side so ha" to anyone who disagrees with them, which I imagine is very comforting.

This is what I have found to be behind the arguments of many theists. You will often hear theists argue "well if there is no objective morality then someone could rape a child and they would not be objectively wrong"... which is true. The problem is... so what? Theists seem to expect that this is a refutation of the argument, which suggests an emotional approach to this question, which suggests that the idea of having someone or something "on their side" is expected to be a self evident reason to accept it. Atheists realize that we don't need anyone on our side, our ability to understand reality and think critically about the consequences of our actions is more than enough.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:10:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:

The Objective Moral Argument for God makes no sense.
Not because of the non-existence of Objective Morality, but because it requires Objective Morality to only be able to come from "God". The problem is that God can NEVER be the source of Objective Morality.

Let's start with looking at the euthyphro dilemma:
Either:
1) God says X is good because it IS good
OR
2) X is good because God says it is good.

False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

Now, when we look at this we can actually see that it is impossible for God to be the source of OBJECTIVE morality.

No, we can't.

If God has a reason for why X is evil or Y is good, then Objective Morality exists independent of God as God has to reason to get to that conclusion.

This is illogical. Can you show it to be true? God is good, thus "good" things are good because they conform to good. God is in fact, THE standard of what good is. That, my friend, is what objective morality is.

If God has no reason, then X being evil or Y being good is arbitrary, and thus must be relativistic in nature, all based on how God feels at the time.

Illogical. You have created a false dilemma with no support at all for you bald claims. You play semantics with, "If God says...." as if His "saying" automatically bestows "goodness" on a thing. Good things are good before God "says" and would be good even if God "says" nothing.

So, how can one honestly think the Objective Moral argument is a good one?

Those people happen to be a little better at critical thinking than you.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:42:35 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:
False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

But the moral argument has already established that something is "good" only if God deems it to be.

This is illogical. Can you show it to be true? God is good, thus "good" things are good because they conform to good. God is in fact, THE standard of what good is. That, my friend, is what objective morality is.

You are mixing up now. You're defining 'good' as 'what God is.' But in that case there's no way to demonstrate the second premise, that 'objective moral values exist.' If you define 'objective morality' as 'what God is', then proving 'objective moral values exist' is the same as proving 'God exists.'

So the argument can be condensed into:

1. God exists
2. Therefore, God exists

I'd like to see you justify #1 in that case.

Illogical. You have created a false dilemma with no support at all for you bald claims. You play semantics with, "If God says...." as if His "saying" automatically bestows "goodness" on a thing. Good things are good before God "says" and would be good even if God "says" nothing.

So God does not determine good - he is already good whether he likes it or not, and his nature determines goodness. But then there is no objective means to verify that 'God's nature exists' outside of a separate argument for God - not utilizing other arguments makes this question begging.

Those people happen to be a little better at critical thinking than you.

I disagree with this dilemma, but I disagree with your objections as well.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 11:47:24 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:10:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
If God has no reason, then X being evil or Y being good is arbitrary, and thus must be relativistic in nature, all based on how God feels at the time.

If God grounds reality and created the universe, then whatever he says also 'grounds reality'. In other words, in a theistic worldview there is no coherence to the term 'objective' without God - only God's ground of epistemology can confirm anything. So God saying X is 'good' is sufficient to be non-arbitrary and objective. Moral realism itself is about what 'objective morality' is, and it is defined as a certain prescribed set of actions and obligations. If God grounds reason and epistemology, his claim that X is 'moral' is sufficient to objectively justify morality.

You are assuming 'arbitrariness' is equivalent to 'non-justification', but that isn't what it is. Since God grounds reality, justification by definition is whatever he says.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 1:09:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Their is something there but , and I bet over half the Christian population felt it . Their has been lost of stuff with gay marriage , this year and last.

And I bet well over half the Christians, well over half .
See this and thinks it's ok for gay people to marry , you know their not hurting know 1, if they love each other that's all good.

Now this is where this thing you call. Morality is felt .
You see a little more about the gay marriage, And you start to think.
A small part ,of the reason why they can't get married, is your church your religion , and you think,
I wonder why my god would be so against it , really against it. And then you think ,, because I don't really care.

And here lies a rule, almost a law made by your god . I ain't going to put scripture in my post. But he don't like it.
So you could vote for it on you terms. All good
But not on your god's terms ,
Your now being pushed and pulled .
And 1 of these choices is your morality. Wich is gods way.

So you can keep your morality.
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 2:24:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 11:42:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:

False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

But the moral argument has already established that something is "good" only if God deems it to be.

No. It is good before God "deems" it to be. It is not His "deeming" which makes it good.

You are mixing up now. You're defining 'good' as 'what God is.' But in that case there's no way to demonstrate the second premise, that 'objective moral values exist.'

How so? Do you know the definition of "objective"?

If you define 'objective morality' as 'what God is',

I did not say God was objective morality. I said God was good. We use God as the standard for objective morality much like we use the speed of light as the universal constant. But light is not the universal constant, a quality of light is.

...then proving 'objective moral values exist' is the same as proving 'God exists.'

In a way, as "objective" morality cannot exist if God doesn't. This is why atheists are willing to abandon logic as not embracing stupidity would tacitly show that God does exist. And for them, denying God is more important than good sense.

So the argument can be condensed into:

1. God exists
2. Therefore, God exists

No one here was trying to prove God exist, so your little rabbit-hole will convince no one but your choir. Your argument was that If God exists, He could not be the basis for objective morality. I think I have shown that to be illogical. Or do you have any actual rebuttals to my criticisms of your arguments?

I'd like to see you justify #1 in that case.

Why does every argument for you atheists boil down to "Does God exist"? If you wanted to start a thread titled "Does God exist", why didn't you?

You presented an argument with a false dilemma and several claims. I pointed out the false dilemma and refuted your claims. Do you have any counters? Because I know that every time an atheist is losing he will run to his old standby, "Prove God exists!" even if he started the hypothetical argument in which God is assumed to exist.

So, if you have counters post them. If you are bored/stumped and wish to lrave, feel free. But if you want to start a new topic, start a new thread.

Illogical. You have created a false dilemma with no support at all for you bald claims. You play semantics with, "If God says...." as if His "saying" automatically bestows "goodness" on a thing. Good things are good before God "says" and would be good even if God "says" nothing.

So God does not determine good - he is already good whether he likes it or not, and his nature determines goodness. But then there is no objective means to verify that 'God's nature exists' outside of a separate argument for God - not utilizing other arguments makes this question begging.

Untrue. You are being disingenuous for you know that every belief must begin from some axiom. There is no objective means to verify that your nature exists, but do you know anyone who doubts it?

Those people happen to be a little better at critical thinking than you.

I disagree with this dilemma, but I disagree with your objections as well.

Expected. But I wish you had said how my objections were lacking or offered some fact which nullifies my objection.

For example, you claimed that "if God has a reason for why X is evil or Y is good, then Objective Morality exists independent of God as God has to reason to get to that conclusion."

Not only does this make no sense, we have no reason to believe it is true. And you offered none. Why does God reasoning to a conclusion necessarily mean the conclusion is "independent" of God? You don't explain but seem to expect us to accept it simply on your saying so.

Your two choices,
1) God says X is good because it IS good
OR
2) X is good because God says it is good.

are not the only choices, thus a false dilemma. X can be good because it conforms to the definition of good, the way 12 inches is a foot because it conforms to the definition of a foot.

If you disagree, give us a logical reason why you disagree.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 2:26:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:24:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/7/2016 11:42:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:

False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

But the moral argument has already established that something is "good" only if God deems it to be.

No. It is good before God "deems" it to be. It is not His "deeming" which makes it good.

In which case you've refuted the moral argument yourself.

The moral argument holds:

1. God poses the only ground for objective moral values (only his deeming can make something 'objectively moral')
2. Some such ground exists
C. From 1 and 2, God exists


You are mixing up now. You're defining 'good' as 'what God is.' But in that case there's no way to demonstrate the second premise, that 'objective moral values exist.'

How so? Do you know the definition of "objective"?

If you define 'objective morality' as 'what God is',

I did not say God was objective morality. I said God was good. We use God as the standard for objective morality much like we use the speed of light as the universal constant. But light is not the universal constant, a quality of light is.

I see what you mean - but how does that entail God is the only such standard?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 3:34:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 2:26:46 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:24:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/7/2016 11:42:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:

False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

But the moral argument has already established that something is "good" only if God deems it to be.

No. It is good before God "deems" it to be. It is not His "deeming" which makes it good.

In which case you've refuted the moral argument yourself.

Check again.

The moral argument holds:

1. God poses the only ground for objective moral values (only his deeming can make something 'objectively moral')

No. God need not "deem" anything good. Things are good or bad by how the conform to his nature.

2. Some such ground exists
C. From 1 and 2, God exists

As long as you make it clear that it is YOU making an argument concerning the existence of God. I'm just showing that your argument in the OP is illogical.

You are mixing up now. You're defining 'good' as 'what God is.' But in that case there's no way to demonstrate the second premise, that 'objective moral values exist.'

How so? Do you know the definition of "objective"?

If you define 'objective morality' as 'what God is',

I did not say God was objective morality. I said God was good. We use God as the standard for objective morality much like we use the speed of light as the universal constant. But light is not the universal constant, a quality of light is.

I see what you mean - but how does that entail God is the only such standard?

God isn't the only standard. He is the only objective standard. The best standard. The most logical standard.

History is replete with moral standards that did not use God as their canon. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hannibal, Idi Amin, Mohammad, The Catholic Church..... and we see how they fared.

Today, the anti-theist, seeing that he cannot logically assail the "objective moral standard" argument of Christians, is attempting to arbitrarily redefine "objective" to make it fit his illogical argument. But if you have to redefine 3 to make 2+3=5, then perhaps your problem is mathematical and not simply numerical.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 3:59:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 3:34:59 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:26:46 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 2:24:01 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 3/7/2016 11:42:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 3/7/2016 10:04:35 AM, ethang5 wrote:

False dilemma. X is good because it is good. God need not "say" anything. Things are good because they conform to God's character. God need not "say anything.

But the moral argument has already established that something is "good" only if God deems it to be.

No. It is good before God "deems" it to be. It is not His "deeming" which makes it good.

In which case you've refuted the moral argument yourself.

Check again.

The moral argument holds:

1. God poses the only ground for objective moral values (only his deeming can make something 'objectively moral')

No. God need not "deem" anything good. Things are good or bad by how the conform to his nature.

2. Some such ground exists
C. From 1 and 2, God exists

As long as you make it clear that it is YOU making an argument concerning the existence of God. I'm just showing that your argument in the OP is illogical.

You are mixing up now. You're defining 'good' as 'what God is.' But in that case there's no way to demonstrate the second premise, that 'objective moral values exist.'

How so? Do you know the definition of "objective"?

If you define 'objective morality' as 'what God is',

I did not say God was objective morality. I said God was good. We use God as the standard for objective morality much like we use the speed of light as the universal constant. But light is not the universal constant, a quality of light is.

I see what you mean - but how does that entail God is the only such standard?

God isn't the only standard. He is the only objective standard. The best standard. The most logical standard.

History is replete with moral standards that did not use God as their canon. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hannibal, Idi Amin, Mohammad, The Catholic Church..... and we see how they fared.
And god, you should read the OT, just sayin'.
Today, the anti-theist, seeing that he cannot logically assail the "objective moral standard" argument of Christians, is attempting to arbitrarily redefine "objective" to make it fit his illogical argument. But if you have to redefine 3 to make 2+3=5, then perhaps your problem is mathematical and not simply numerical.
So objective cannot be defined using logic?
Certainly christian objectivity can't be measured so.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2016 5:05:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:10:16 PM, SNP1 wrote:
The Objective Moral Argument for God makes no sense.
Not because of the non-existence of Objective Morality, but because it requires Objective Morality to only be able to come from "God". The problem is that God can NEVER be the source of Objective Morality.

Let's start with looking at the euthyphro dilemma:
Either:
1) God says X is good because it IS good
OR
2) X is good because God says it is good.

Now, when we look at this we can actually see that it is impossible for God to be the source of OBJECTIVE morality.

If God has a reason for why X is evil or Y is good, then Objective Morality exists independent of God as God has to reason to get to that conclusion.
If God has no reason, then X being evil or Y being good is arbitrary, and thus must be relativistic in nature, all based on how God feels at the time.

So, how can one honestly think the Objective Moral argument is a good one?

well u dont need to start speaking for God's actions and what he would do. simple to understand, God is all knowing -> so whatever he says is correct -> we dont need to "questioning/doubting God's reasoning" end of the story.
Never fart near dog
ethang5
Posts: 4,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2016 5:57:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/7/2016 3:59:07 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 3/7/2016 3:34:59 PM, ethang5 wrote:

I see what you mean - but how does that entail God is the only such standard?

God isn't the only standard. He is the only objective standard. The best standard. The most logical standard.

History is replete with moral standards that did not use God as their canon. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hannibal, Idi Amin, Mohammad, The Catholic Church..... and we see how they fared.

And god, you should read the OT, just sayin'.

When you finally do read it, your posts will be less silly.

Today, the anti-theist, seeing that he cannot logically assail the "objective moral standard" argument of Christians, is attempting to arbitrarily redefine "objective" to make it fit his illogical argument. But if you have to redefine 3 to make 2+3=5, then perhaps your problem is mathematical and not simply numerical.

So objective cannot be defined using logic?

If it can, you'll never know.

Certainly christian objectivity can't be measured so.

lol. What is Christian objectivity bully?