Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheism vs Christianity: The Moral Argument

matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:09:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 5:01:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 4:03:55 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:19:52 AM, YYW wrote:
This is the kind of thing that irritates most Christians because they cannot bring themselves to accept, even though this is what they have done, that their faith is irrational. They create reasons that they think prove the validity of God's existence because they cannot reconcile the fact that to believe in God is to deny the absolute validity of human reason. But that's what they're taught, so that's what they hold dear, that's what they will live and die by, and that's all fine and well because in the end it is inconsequential. That one has faith is what is significant, not that one understands how they came to have it.

But the argument from morality is, like all others that attempt to prove god's existence, pointless. It's just as bad as the KCA, because like the KCA it does and can not do what it purports to do -that is it cannot prove the existence of God. To believe in God is to accept as true what cannot be proven, which is at once irrational and the very definition of faith.

I have tried to explain the difference between positive and normative claims, but I think most people have no idea what the conceptual disparities indicate. Those are adjectives to describe mutually exclusive concepts; just like faith and reason. For anyone who is interested, I'd be happy to go further, but I doubt anyone is.

I would suggest, though, that this is the only way that one can be both intellectually honest and believe in God at the same time. It's the answer to Chris Hitchen's demand of proof for God's existence. It's the response to the KCA and this -rather preposterous- argument from morality. It's the logical isolation of concepts that do and can not work together, and it's totally insignificant because, again, how one comes to have faith is irrelevant to eternal salvation -it is only that one has faith which matters.

I doubt that you seriously think that irrational faith has any way of giving people truth, but maybe I am wrong.

So, look at what I posted before. Truth is a specious term. We presume that the truth is verifiable because it is the truth, and the Bible purports to be the truth so it follows then, that we should be able to verify it... right? No.

Truth of the human world is verifiable. Truth of God is not. Truth of God begins with faith, that is acceptance of something as true which cannot be verified. So, we're back to the definition of faith.

You are starting to get it, but you are still only half way there. You seem to be one of the few people that understand that God is not a physical Being, so God cannot be measured or varified by a scientific method of examining. Very easy to grasp and very easy to understand. Although this seems to be an obvious theory of yours, you still seem to think or assume that because of that, God CAN'T be varified? Why? If you are referring to the Biblical God, this is untrue.

You say "truth of God begins at faith", very good that is exactly true, but you still have only come half way lol, that is ONLY the beginning. Because you have concluded that God cannot be varified, your perception of faith is empty.
YYW
Posts: 44,679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:12:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:09:08 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 5:01:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 4:03:55 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:19:52 AM, YYW wrote:
This is the kind of thing that irritates most Christians because they cannot bring themselves to accept, even though this is what they have done, that their faith is irrational. They create reasons that they think prove the validity of God's existence because they cannot reconcile the fact that to believe in God is to deny the absolute validity of human reason. But that's what they're taught, so that's what they hold dear, that's what they will live and die by, and that's all fine and well because in the end it is inconsequential. That one has faith is what is significant, not that one understands how they came to have it.

But the argument from morality is, like all others that attempt to prove god's existence, pointless. It's just as bad as the KCA, because like the KCA it does and can not do what it purports to do -that is it cannot prove the existence of God. To believe in God is to accept as true what cannot be proven, which is at once irrational and the very definition of faith.

I have tried to explain the difference between positive and normative claims, but I think most people have no idea what the conceptual disparities indicate. Those are adjectives to describe mutually exclusive concepts; just like faith and reason. For anyone who is interested, I'd be happy to go further, but I doubt anyone is.

I would suggest, though, that this is the only way that one can be both intellectually honest and believe in God at the same time. It's the answer to Chris Hitchen's demand of proof for God's existence. It's the response to the KCA and this -rather preposterous- argument from morality. It's the logical isolation of concepts that do and can not work together, and it's totally insignificant because, again, how one comes to have faith is irrelevant to eternal salvation -it is only that one has faith which matters.

I doubt that you seriously think that irrational faith has any way of giving people truth, but maybe I am wrong.

So, look at what I posted before. Truth is a specious term. We presume that the truth is verifiable because it is the truth, and the Bible purports to be the truth so it follows then, that we should be able to verify it... right? No.

Truth of the human world is verifiable. Truth of God is not. Truth of God begins with faith, that is acceptance of something as true which cannot be verified. So, we're back to the definition of faith.

You are starting to get it, but you are still only half way there. You seem to be one of the few people that understand that God is not a physical Being, so God cannot be measured or varified by a scientific method of examining. Very easy to grasp and very easy to understand. Although this seems to be an obvious theory of yours, you still seem to think or assume that because of that, God CAN'T be varified? Why? If you are referring to the Biblical God, this is untrue.

You say "truth of God begins at faith", very good that is exactly true, but you still have only come half way lol, that is ONLY the beginning. Because you have concluded that God cannot be varified, your perception of faith is empty.

Faith does not hinge on verification. It is contingent only on trust in that which cannot be proven, verified, etc.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:18:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 10:46:34 PM, wiploc wrote:
At 1/28/2013 10:28:00 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Hello, I wanted to ask all of you who are referring to "god", if you are referring to the "Biblical God" or just god in general? In other words are you referring to the "christian God" as in God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, or just a concept of god if you don't mind? I did see that the title was atheism vs christianity lol, but I was curious about the specifics. Thanks

Christians keep claiming that morality can exist with god, but can't exist without god. They won't explain the claim, but they keep making it. So if you know of any god for whom that claim is defensible, we'd like you to tell us how it works.

Lol, I do hear that quite a bit. But I'm not really sure that I agree with that. I would say that "IF" it was true, that such a christian God exists, then it would be plausible that morality come from Him. However, I don't really see how morality could not exist without God.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:49:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:12:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:09:08 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 5:01:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/28/2013 4:03:55 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:19:52 AM, YYW wrote:
This is the kind of thing that irritates most Christians because they cannot bring themselves to accept, even though this is what they have done, that their faith is irrational. They create reasons that they think prove the validity of God's existence because they cannot reconcile the fact that to believe in God is to deny the absolute validity of human reason. But that's what they're taught, so that's what they hold dear, that's what they will live and die by, and that's all fine and well because in the end it is inconsequential. That one has faith is what is significant, not that one understands how they came to have it.

But the argument from morality is, like all others that attempt to prove god's existence, pointless. It's just as bad as the KCA, because like the KCA it does and can not do what it purports to do -that is it cannot prove the existence of God. To believe in God is to accept as true what cannot be proven, which is at once irrational and the very definition of faith.

I have tried to explain the difference between positive and normative claims, but I think most people have no idea what the conceptual disparities indicate. Those are adjectives to describe mutually exclusive concepts; just like faith and reason. For anyone who is interested, I'd be happy to go further, but I doubt anyone is.

I would suggest, though, that this is the only way that one can be both intellectually honest and believe in God at the same time. It's the answer to Chris Hitchen's demand of proof for God's existence. It's the response to the KCA and this -rather preposterous- argument from morality. It's the logical isolation of concepts that do and can not work together, and it's totally insignificant because, again, how one comes to have faith is irrelevant to eternal salvation -it is only that one has faith which matters.

I doubt that you seriously think that irrational faith has any way of giving people truth, but maybe I am wrong.

So, look at what I posted before. Truth is a specious term. We presume that the truth is verifiable because it is the truth, and the Bible purports to be the truth so it follows then, that we should be able to verify it... right? No.

Truth of the human world is verifiable. Truth of God is not. Truth of God begins with faith, that is acceptance of something as true which cannot be verified. So, we're back to the definition of faith.

You are starting to get it, but you are still only half way there. You seem to be one of the few people that understand that God is not a physical Being, so God cannot be measured or varified by a scientific method of examining. Very easy to grasp and very easy to understand. Although this seems to be an obvious theory of yours, you still seem to think or assume that because of that, God CAN'T be varified? Why? If you are referring to the Biblical God, this is untrue.

You say "truth of God begins at faith", very good that is exactly true, but you still have only come half way lol, that is ONLY the beginning. Because you have concluded that God cannot be varified, your perception of faith is empty.

Faith does not hinge on verification. It is contingent only on trust in that which cannot be proven, verified, etc.

That is only half way true lol...
Example, let me show you how a christian would use faith....
Lets say God showed me "in the spirit" how to pray for a particular situation. Lets say that what God was showing me made no sense to what I know and see happening in the physical. In other words God is having me pray into existence what is contradictory in the present. God is having me pray what seems impossible to my flesh. I would use FAITH to obey and listen to God until It manifested in the physical. Once it manifests into the physical, it becomes varified.
I've NEVER had to use faith to believe that God exists lol. God varifies Himself. I use faith to obey Gods word, not to believe He exists. Christians must exercise faith mainly because we are limited to our flesh. We cannot see all that God sees, we don't know all that God knows and therefore faith is used to step out in trust realising that God is far above and beyond us. We need to let go a little.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:18:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is important that people understand what faith is used for. Faith is an element God uses in the life of a believer. Faith is a substance that is built and grown into the life of a christian. The main misconception that people have about faith, is that faith is an empty word. IT IS NOT. Faith is actually an action......with a result.
Unfortunately, since faith is a spiritual concept, most people don't have any idea what it means. And because of that christianity is entirely misunderstood.
According to the word, faith is not only an action, it is referred to as power.

One of the most well recognized scriptures regarding faith is in Matthew 17:20 where the disciples come to Jesus and asked Him why it is that they cannot do what He does...... " Because of your unbelief: for truly I say unto you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move; and nothing shall be impossible for you.
Of course I believe that Jesus is talking about spiritual things as well as material things here. But faith in a believers life is much more than just hoping with no return, no wonder it has such a bad name lol.
Again in 1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Matthew 15:28 O women, great is your faith, be it to you even as you will. And her daughter made whole that very hour.

I know this is kind of off the subject lol, but it is vital that we know what faith is to come to the correct conclusions . Faith is not a weak empty substance. It is a position a believer stands in until His word is accomplished. Faith is power, believing in God for a result.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 9:42:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
In my opinion, morality is not the best argument for God. I would agree that it could be an indicator that God would be the source, but I don't think it brings us any closer to God or the knowledge of God. For believers, morality is a standard by which God supplies the guidelines for our benefit. Without God, the concept of morality loses its depth and becomes less significant. I would think that a believer would evaluate morality with much more caution in light of what Jesus teaches about sin and moral standards that proceed from within, along with being sensitive to conviction and correction.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,174
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:44:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:44:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

This statement above assumes morality is objective. What we call "morality" may be based on popular opinion, which is founded on the relatively similar emotions most of us share. Most of us feel for other people on at least some level, and get sad or sickened when they here what a little girl had to go through while she was getting raped. This is where rules and a sense of obligation come into play, and it is necessary for a thriving society like ours. The word "Evil" is just something used to describe a person or act, which sets off certain negative emotions in most of the species. People who have something different going in their brain won't feel empathy for example, and would have no problem torturing a baby. It seems evident that what we call "morals" are based on emotions.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 5:28:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

This is essentially William Lane Craig's version, just iterated slightly differently.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,174
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 6:03:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:44:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

P1 - If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.


You may wish it were otherwise, or be referring to a different argument, but WLC"s version of it explicity says that atheist-friendly morality does not exist. There"s just no way to get around it. This is the claim that is completely unjustified.

But even the more modest claim that morality is more plausible on theism doesn"t really cut much ice either, for much the same reasons. It also posits an ontologically rich reality which itself would either have to be justified or considered unparsimonious.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 8:54:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 6:03:19 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 1/29/2013 3:44:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

P1 - If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.


You may wish it were otherwise, or be referring to a different argument, but WLC"s version of it explicity says that atheist-friendly morality does not exist. There"s just no way to get around it. This is the claim that is completely unjustified.

But even the more modest claim that morality is more plausible on theism doesn't really cut much ice either, for much the same reasons. It also posits an ontologically rich reality which itself would either have to be justified or considered unparsimonious.

Oh I don't wish it otherwise. But in a different vein Craig, nor I, argue that 'atheistic friendly' morality doesn't exist. Rather the theist like Craig is arguing that without God, we're left with less plausible and more arbitrary grounds for objective morals.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 9:28:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:50:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

This statement above assumes morality is objective. What we call "morality" may be based on popular opinion, which is founded on the relatively similar emotions most of us share. Most of us feel for other people on at least some level, and get sad or sickened when they here what a little girl had to go through while she was getting raped. This is where rules and a sense of obligation come into play, and it is necessary for a thriving society like ours. The word "Evil" is just something used to describe a person or act, which sets off certain negative emotions in most of the species. People who have something different going in their brain won't feel empathy for example, and would have no problem torturing a baby. It seems evident that what we call "morals" are based on emotions.

Right, just because some psychopath is mentally handicapped to see that it's objectively wrong to torture a child for fun, doesn't mean I ought to therefore doubt the fact that I, a non-psychopath, apprehend the objective truth that loving a child is infinitely greater than torturing it.

Emotions or not, if you honestly believe that in some possible world, torturing an innocent child for fun is a good thing, then it'd simply be accurate to call you a psychopath.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,174
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:05:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 8:54:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 6:03:19 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 1/29/2013 3:44:35 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:11:01 PM, unitedandy wrote:
http://debate.org...

Pretty sure at least some of these objections are insurmountable, at least for the WLC type of moral argument. The main gripe I have with this kind of argument is, in my experience, the claim that atheism necessitates or leads to rejecting morality is never justified.

That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

P1 - If God does not exist, Objective moral values and duties do not exist.


You may wish it were otherwise, or be referring to a different argument, but WLC"s version of it explicity says that atheist-friendly morality does not exist. There"s just no way to get around it. This is the claim that is completely unjustified.

But even the more modest claim that morality is more plausible on theism doesn't really cut much ice either, for much the same reasons. It also posits an ontologically rich reality which itself would either have to be justified or considered unparsimonious.

Oh I don't wish it otherwise. But in a different vein Craig, nor I, argue that 'atheistic friendly' morality doesn't exist. Rather the theist like Craig is arguing that without God, we're left with less plausible and more arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

That's not what the argument says. It says that there is NO such values on atheism. Just read it.

Second, even the far weaker claim that you make is subject to pretty much exactly the same points. It's the same bare assertion and so on. Moreover, given the modesty of the argument, it would provide only tentative support for theism, like, say, the argument from scale would for atheism.

Lastly, just as a cute aside, you can't run the moral argument, given sceptical theism. For all we know, rape, torture and so forth by some agent may have a morally sufficient reason beyond our ken. A problem with ST is that it pervades pretty much every evidential argument for God. Moral paralysis is by no means the only baggage you now have.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 1:30:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:05:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:

Oh I don't wish it otherwise. But in a different vein Craig, nor I, argue that 'atheistic friendly' morality doesn't exist. Rather the theist like Craig is arguing that without God, we're left with a less plausible and more arbitrary moral ontology.

That's not what the argument says. It says that there is NO such values on atheism. Just read it.

In the context of debating a proposition, the proposition, if true, just needs to be shown as more plausibly true than not. And the premise in question says that if God doesn't exist, then objective morals don't exist. Thus within the context of debating a proposition in propositional logic, it's understood that the premise in question is that God is the more plausible moral ontology.

Sure you can give whatever competing ontology you like, but if it's less plausible (which entails it being more arbitrary, given the nature of objective morals), then of course it follows that the premise of God being necessary for morals is more plausibly true. Which is all that's required for the moral argument (if of course one accepts the remaining premise of actual objective morals).

Second, even the far weaker claim that you make is subject to pretty much exactly the same points. It's the same bare assertion and so on. Moreover, given the modesty of the argument, it would provide only tentative support for theism, like, say, the argument from scale would for atheism.

It's not a weaker claim Andy. It's enunciating the context with which propositional logic, and debates therein, take place. What do you mean by an argument from scale?

Lastly, just as a cute aside, you can't run the moral argument, given sceptical theism. For all we know, rape, torture and so forth by some agent may have a morally sufficient reason beyond our ken. A problem with ST is that it pervades pretty much every evidential argument for God. Moral paralysis is by no means the only baggage you now have.

That's simply not true, and this is a major point of contention between us simply because it's based upon a misunderstanding of epistemic positioning. As explained before, theists don't survey the moral happenings in the world and deduce God's existence or non-existence. The world is morally ambiguous as we've already agreed. Rather we deduce from the actual EXISTENCE of objective morals in the first place God's necessity to ground them.

And the fundamental thing that you refuse to accept is that we're within a good epistemic position to see that objective morals exist, whereas we're within a poor epistemic position to see that God, a maximally great moral standard by definition, would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing some instance of evil in the world.

Absence of evidence only counts as evidence of absence when you're in an epistemic position good enough to reasonably discern what would be the case had the thing in question exist.

You still never showed we were within such a position in our PoE argument. All you've done was suppose it with a misapplication of the principle of credulity.
LatentDebater
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 1:34:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

Ever come to know of Nihilism? Should try it some time dumbass.
I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

People who think they know everything are extremely irritating to those of us who do.

"If you believe in a god, just tell me why you don't believe in all the other gods. The reasons you give will be why I don't believe in yours." - Ricky THEGENIUS Gervais
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:02:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/30/2013 1:34:09 PM, LatentDebater wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

Ever come to know of Nihilism? Should try it some time dumbass.

<Drags LatentDebater Away>

A recruit against the elite...

HA.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Anonymous
1/30/2013 2:11:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 2:29:12 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

Whatever warrant could be used to support the first premise could also be used to invalidate the second premise by circular logic. For example, if the only possible way we can agree morality can be objective and absolute is if it's commanded by God, then the second premise would be implicitly stating that God's commands (and therefore God) exist.

The argument might as well be read:

P1: If God's hands exist, then God exists.
P2: God's hands exist.
C: Therefore, God exists.

This one is obviously circular, but only a bit more so than the last.

That's not circular, it's just a predicative argument.

Another example:

P1 - If I own a house, I own an edifice.
P2 - I own a house
C1 - Therefore, I own an edifice.

It's one of those things that could possibly even be constructed as:

P1 - I own a house
C1 - Therefore I own an edifice

The major premise is almost unncessary: it could easily be a lemma.

However, the reason we need the first premise is because it's very reasonable to dispute it. It assumes an ethically naturalist approach to morality, which arguably has been debunked with Moore.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 4:39:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/29/2013 9:28:33 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/29/2013 4:50:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


That's of course not the claim, rather it's that atheism at best provides a less plausible and more arbitrary basis for objective morals than the theist.

This statement above assumes morality is objective. What we call "morality" may be based on popular opinion, which is founded on the relatively similar emotions most of us share. Most of us feel for other people on at least some level, and get sad or sickened when they here what a little girl had to go through while she was getting raped. This is where rules and a sense of obligation come into play, and it is necessary for a thriving society like ours. The word "Evil" is just something used to describe a person or act, which sets off certain negative emotions in most of the species. People who have something different going in their brain won't feel empathy for example, and would have no problem torturing a baby. It seems evident that what we call "morals" are based on emotions.

Right, just because some psychopath is mentally handicapped to see that it's objectively wrong to torture a child for fun,

Why is it objectively wrong to torture a child? Can you give reasoning to support this claim? The thought sickens me and results in unpleasant emotions, but how does that mean that torturing a child is objectively wrong?

doesn't mean I ought to therefore doubt the fact that I, a non-psychopath, apprehend the objective truth that loving a child is infinitely greater than torturing it.

Why is it an objective truth that loving a child is greater than torturing it? Why isn't that just something that creates negative emotions in most people? Like I said in the other thread, you need to back up what you say with reasons. You have much to learn....


Emotions or not, if you honestly believe that in some possible world, torturing an innocent child for fun is a good thing, then it'd simply be accurate to call you a psychopath.

For it to be an objectively good thing for a baby to be tortured, morality would have to be objective. Since I'm not arguing that is the case (you are), then of course I'm not saying it would be a good thing. My question, is why do you think morality is objective...Is it because the idea of a baby being tortured sickens most of us? I'm sorry, but that just supports the notion that morality is collectively subjective.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,174
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:48:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/30/2013 1:30:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/30/2013 8:05:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:


Oh I don't wish it otherwise. But in a different vein Craig, nor I, argue that 'atheistic friendly' morality doesn't exist. Rather the theist like Craig is arguing that without God, we're left with a less plausible and more arbitrary moral ontology.

That's not what the argument says. It says that there is NO such values on atheism. Just read it.

In the context of debating a proposition, the proposition, if true, just needs to be shown as more plausibly true than not. And the premise in question says that if God doesn't exist, then objective morals don't exist. Thus within the context of debating a proposition in propositional logic, it's understood that the premise in question is that God is the more plausible moral ontology.

Lol. No. If you make the claim that on atheism, there are NO objective moral values, you have to show that AF morality is either impossible or that the only account of morality which works requires theism. You can't shirk this burden (as Craig does) by merely ruling out one or two alternatives. For if this was the case, the nihilist could refute, say, an evolutionary account of morality and claim that there are no objective moral values.


Sure you can give whatever competing ontology you like, but if it's less plausible (which entails it being more arbitrary, given the nature of objective morals), then of course it follows that the premise of God being necessary for morals is more plausibly true. Which is all that's required for the moral argument (if of course one accepts the remaining premise of actual objective morals).

This claim is radically different from P1. P1 holds that AF morality does not exist. Period. Your revised statement only claims that AF morality is less plausible. And, BTW, you'd have to provide a theistic account of morality in this case.

Second, even the far weaker claim that you make is subject to pretty much exactly the same points. It's the same bare assertion and so on. Moreover, given the modesty of the argument, it would provide only tentative support for theism, like, say, the argument from scale would for atheism.

It's not a weaker claim Andy. It's enunciating the context with which propositional logic, and debates therein, take place. What do you mean by an argument from scale?

The argument from scale purports to show modest support for atheism given the size/age of the universe. The important point is that, like your revision of the moral argument, at best, it would be tentative support, unlike a problem of evil or Kalam, which, if completely successful would be game-changers.

Lastly, just as a cute aside, you can't run the moral argument, given sceptical theism. For all we know, rape, torture and so forth by some agent may have a morally sufficient reason beyond our ken. A problem with ST is that it pervades pretty much every evidential argument for God. Moral paralysis is by no means the only baggage you now have.

That's simply not true, and this is a major point of contention between us simply because it's based upon a misunderstanding of epistemic positioning. As explained before, theists don't survey the moral happenings in the world and deduce God's existence or non-existence. The world is morally ambiguous as we've already agreed. Rather we deduce from the actual EXISTENCE of objective morals in the first place God's necessity to ground them.

And the fundamental thing that you refuse to accept is that we're within a good epistemic position to see that objective morals exist, whereas we're within a poor epistemic position to see that God, a maximally great moral standard by definition, would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing some instance of evil in the world.


I'm not talking about moral values existing, but moral actions. Take the drowning baby scenario. Given ST, following word for word the same logic, our saving of this child is unwarranted. The costs/benefits of doing so are completely beyond our ken. She may grow up to be Mother Theresa or a tyrant. We can't possibly know, even probabalistically what to do. This is the problem of moral paralysis.

And the beauty of the bind is that the only way out for the theist is to rebuild the walls they have to tear down to erect ST. This is just one of the reasons why some of the most vociferous critics of ST are theists.

Absence of evidence only counts as evidence of absence when you're in an epistemic position good enough to reasonably discern what would be the case had the thing in question exist.

Again, the problem of an illusory past.

You still never showed we were within such a position in our PoE argument. All you've done was suppose it with a misapplication of the principle of credulity.

Lol. Apart from arguing from this, my epistemic consistency point, showing that ST begs the question, leads to numerous other difficulties and my illusory past point, you mean. Remember, this is only to establish, that all else being equal, I should trust what appears to be the case (especially when it's so abundant in the world). It's amazing to me how theists quickly throw out rationality here. If your theism leads to such epistemic paralysis, we have an argument not unlike Plantinga's EAAN. Theism undercuts itself and rationality and should be rejected.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:59:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 8:48:42 AM, unitedandy wrote:

In the context of debating a proposition, the proposition, if true, just needs to be shown as more plausibly true than not. And the premise in question says that if God doesn't exist, then objective morals don't exist. Thus within the context of debating a proposition in propositional logic, it's understood that the premise in question is that God is the more plausible moral ontology.

Lol. No.

Lol yes.

If you make the claim that on atheism, there are NO objective moral values, you have to show that AF morality is either impossible or that the only account of morality which works requires theism. You can't shirk this burden (as Craig does) by merely ruling out one or two alternatives. For if this was the case, the nihilist could refute, say, an evolutionary account of morality and claim that there are no objective moral values.

This isn't relevant to what I said above.


Sure you can give whatever competing ontology you like, but if it's less plausible (which entails it being more arbitrary, given the nature of objective morals), then of course it follows that the premise of God being necessary for morals is more plausibly true. Which is all that's required for the moral argument (if of course one accepts the remaining premise of actual objective morals).

This claim is radically different from P1. P1 holds that AF morality does not exist. Period. Your revised statement only claims that AF morality is less plausible. And, BTW, you'd have to provide a theistic account of morality in this case.

In your usual style, this claim isn't "radically" different or even different at all from P1 given the context of argumentation; that premises are to be accepted if they're more plausible than not. Now AF morality is not a moral ontology but a moral epistemology, we're talking here about moral ontology. Besides, even the name, 'atheist friedly' gives it away as an epistemology posing as an ontology. It's weak sauce BS brah. Your biggest problem in discussing this is seperating moral ontology from moral epistemology.

It's not a weaker claim Andy. It's enunciating the context with which propositional logic, and debates therein, take place. What do you mean by an argument from scale?

The argument from scale purports to show modest support for atheism given the size/age of the universe. The important point is that, like your revision of the moral argument, at best, it would be tentative support, unlike a problem of evil or Kalam, which, if completely successful would be game-changers.

Oh that's just rediculous. First, the scale of the universe is an anthropic condition anyway and so can't logically be used against the existence of a creator. Secondly, the moral argument is independant of any other arguments but can be used to support the strength of the other arguments if need be- it's like a coat of chain mail rather than a link in a single chain.

And the fundamental thing that you refuse to accept is that we're within a good epistemic position to see that objective morals exist, whereas we're within a poor epistemic position to see that God, a maximally great moral standard by definition, would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing some instance of evil in the world.


I'm not talking about moral values existing, but moral actions. Take the drowning baby scenario. Given ST, following word for word the same logic, our saving of this child is unwarranted. The costs/benefits of doing so are completely beyond our ken. She may grow up to be Mother Theresa or a tyrant. We can't possibly know, even probabalistically what to do. This is the problem of moral paralysis.

Again, you're presupposing that we're within a good epistemic position to make the negative Pr judgement that God wouldn't have a morally sufficient reason for such evill this BoP you've never even come close to carrying, you've only presupposed it rather than demonstrate it.

And the beauty of the bind is that the only way out for the theist is to rebuild the walls they have to tear down to erect ST. This is just one of the reasons why some of the most vociferous critics of ST are theists.

You paint a pretty picture of how you view it in your own world, but that world is a painting no less. When it comes to the science of epistemology, the skeptical theist has a well tempered notion of epistemic position, of what he can and cannot affirm. It's by time you atheists walk this bordered path along with us.

Absence of evidence only counts as evidence of absence when you're in an epistemic position good enough to reasonably discern what would be the case had the thing in question exist.

Again, the problem of an illusory past.

Again, that's not a problem; we've a positive experience of the past. We've no positive experience of all of the possible theodocies and then the lack of them. Plus I just used one theodicy, that only challenged you to give an real instance of evil that neither was outbalance-able nor defeatable. And you never even met this challenge.

You still never showed we were within such a position in our PoE argument. All you've done was suppose it with a misapplication of the principle of credulity.

Lol.

Lol

Apart from arguing from this, my epistemic consistency point, showing that ST begs the question, leads to numerous other difficulties and my illusory past point, you mean. Remember, this is only to establish, that all else being equal, I should trust what appears to be the case (especially when it's so abundant in the world). It's amazing to me how theists quickly throw out rationality here. If your theism leads to such epistemic paralysis, we have an argument not unlike Plantinga's EAAN. Theism undercuts itself and rationality and should be rejected.

You epistemic consistency point was predicated on the notion of a good epistemic position, which you had to argue for, not just ignore. The Theist is in a reasonably bad epistemic position to say with confidence that an all knowing God wouldn't have a good reason for allowing something that a partial knowing creature discerns as having no good reason. This doesn't lead to intellectual paralysis, indeed how could it? You're making a jump of logic here. It's just like saying "well if you deny that we're within a bad position to say that there's no fly at the edge of the grand canyon, you may as well say we're within a bad position to say there's no elephant in the room!"
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:57:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

"but then you would have to find some grounds for this god exhibiting some kind of morals".and that leave the Christian/Judean/ Islamic god out in the cold.
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:31:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:57:05 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

"but then you would have to find some grounds for this god exhibiting some kind of morals".and that leave the Christian/Judean/ Islamic god out in the cold.

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God. So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,174
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:29:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:59:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/31/2013 8:48:42 AM, unitedandy wrote:

In the context of debating a proposition, the proposition, if true, just needs to be shown as more plausibly true than not. And the premise in question says that if God doesn't exist, then objective morals don't exist. Thus within the context of debating a proposition in propositional logic, it's understood that the premise in question is that God is the more plausible moral ontology.

Lol. No.

Lol yes.

If you make the claim that on atheism, there are NO objective moral values, you have to show that AF morality is either impossible or that the only account of morality which works requires theism. You can't shirk this burden (as Craig does) by merely ruling out one or two alternatives. For if this was the case, the nihilist could refute, say, an evolutionary account of morality and claim that there are no objective moral values.

This isn't relevant to what I said above.


Sure you can give whatever competing ontology you like, but if it's less plausible (which entails it being more arbitrary, given the nature of objective morals), then of course it follows that the premise of God being necessary for morals is more plausibly true. Which is all that's required for the moral argument (if of course one accepts the remaining premise of actual objective morals).

This claim is radically different from P1. P1 holds that AF morality does not exist. Period. Your revised statement only claims that AF morality is less plausible. And, BTW, you'd have to provide a theistic account of morality in this case.

In your usual style, this claim isn't "radically" different or even different at all from P1 given the context of argumentation; that premises are to be accepted if they're more plausible than not.

Yes, it really is. P1 claims AF morality does not exist. Your claim is that it's less plausible. It's pretty much the difference between impossibility on the one hand, and improbability on the other.

Oh, and neither have yet been justified.

Now AF morality is not a moral ontology but a moral epistemology, we're talking here about moral ontology. Besides, even the name, 'atheist friedly' gives it away as an epistemology posing as an ontology. It's weak sauce BS brah. Your biggest problem in discussing this is seperating moral ontology from moral epistemology.

Lol. What I mean by AF morality is any ontological account of morality compatible with atheism. I've not said anything about moral epistemology or applied ethics. This includes things like Alonzo fyfe's account of morality, Kantian ethics, Atheistic moral platonism and so on. Basically, it includes every single account of moral realism apart from Divine Command Theory.

It's not a weaker claim Andy. It's enunciating the context with which propositional logic, and debates therein, take place. What do you mean by an argument from scale?

The argument from scale purports to show modest support for atheism given the size/age of the universe. The important point is that, like your revision of the moral argument, at best, it would be tentative support, unlike a problem of evil or Kalam, which, if completely successful would be game-changers.

Oh that's just rediculous. First, the scale of the universe is an anthropic condition anyway and so can't logically be used against the existence of a creator. Secondly, the moral argument is independant of any other arguments but can be used to support the strength of the other arguments if need be- it's like a coat of chain mail rather than a link in a single chain.

You missed the point. I'm not using the argument from scale here. I'm saying that, at best, LIKE this argument, we'd have merely tentative support for theism, at least if you're going down the revised route.

And the fundamental thing that you refuse to accept is that we're within a good epistemic position to see that objective morals exist, whereas we're within a poor epistemic position to see that God, a maximally great moral standard by definition, would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing some instance of evil in the world.


I'm not talking about moral values existing, but moral actions. Take the drowning baby scenario. Given ST, following word for word the same logic, our saving of this child is unwarranted. The costs/benefits of doing so are completely beyond our ken. She may grow up to be Mother Theresa or a tyrant. We can't possibly know, even probabalistically what to do. This is the problem of moral paralysis.

Again, you're presupposing that we're within a good epistemic position to make the negative Pr judgement that God wouldn't have a morally sufficient reason for such evill this BoP you've never even come close to carrying, you've only presupposed it rather than demonstrate it.

Lol. Exactly. If the theist commits himself to ST, he can't make these judgements. Which (funnily enough) from purely a theistic point of view doesn't allow one to condemn evil acts, which strikes me as a pretty powerful reason either to reject ST or to reject theism wholesale.

And the beauty of the bind is that the only way out for the theist is to rebuild the walls they have to tear down to erect ST. This is just one of the reasons why some of the most vociferous critics of ST are theists.



Again, the problem of an illusory past.

Again, that's not a problem; we've a positive experience of the past. We've no positive experience of all of the possible theodocies and then the lack of them. Plus I just used one theodicy, that only challenged you to give an real instance of evil that neither was outbalance-able nor defeatable. And you never even met this challenge.

How can we rule out the possibility that God created these memories and such 5 mins ago with an appearance of age for some reason beyond our ken? Given ST, we can't rule this out, even probabilistically, like gratuity. ST is thus absurd



Apart from arguing from this, my epistemic consistency point, showing that ST begs the question, leads to numerous other difficulties and my illusory past point, you mean. Remember, this is only to establish, that all else being equal, I should trust what appears to be the case (especially when it's so abundant in the world). It's amazing to me how theists quickly throw out rationality here. If your theism leads to such epistemic paralysis, we have an argument not unlike Plantinga's EAAN. Theism undercuts itself and rationality and should be rejected.

You epistemic consistency point was predicated on the notion of a good epistemic position, which you had to argue for, not just ignore. The Theist is in a reasonably bad epistemic position to say with confidence that an all knowing God wouldn't have a good reason for allowing something that a partial knowing creature discerns as having no good reason. This doesn't lead to intellectual paralysis, indeed how could it? You're making a jump of logic here. It's just like saying "well if you deny that we're within a bad position to say that there's no fly at the edge of the grand canyon, you may as well say we're within a bad position to say there's no elephant in the room!"

If we make these judgements with everything else, then it's just special pleading to undermine them when it comes to evil, absent some very good, non-question-begging reason and your assumption that God exists doesn't really qualify.

But like I said, if God made the world, we have to extend this scepticism. That's the point of the illusory past example. Maybe the world is a maxtrix and other people don't exist. Again, given our epistemic poverty (ST), we can't r
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:10:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:31:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:57:05 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

"but then you would have to find some grounds for this god exhibiting some kind of morals".and that leave the Christian/Judean/ Islamic god out in the cold.

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God. So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection.

Answer: If I accept that your statement, it and you are now left out in the cold with your god. If god is by definition is moral, then by definition his morals (this definition) is described by and through the bible which exhibits NO definition of this morality, as the bible and these definitions are morally bankrupt because of SAME contradictions, I"ve already mentioned.

God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God.

Answer: "and what do you offer to suggest such an absurdity, for I am far greater than your god has even been. Your conditional statement does NOT equal an argument, it has no premise because it has no valid inference and the only support you offer is found with you begging the question through your conclusion.

So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.

Answer: Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the Weak minded, petty, ignorant Christian god. LOL! What god means to you (or anyone else) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the existence of god who only exists through your dial worship of the bible which clearly describes an inferior being.
By the way, providing evidence of my superiority over your god would be easy".I can start with genesis and work my through your whole bible".
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:55:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:46:35 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I agree with what you're saying (concerning probability). But what's wrong with the conclusion "God most likely exists"? Obviously it's not as persuasive as a set of premises which lead to "God exists," but it's still a persuasive argument nonetheless.

We still have yet to establish:

1. That God is the most LIKELY explanation for objective morality, and not just an explanation

2. That objective morality actually exists.

For this reason the argument from morality is generally a pretty weak inductive argument.
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:13:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:10:12 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:31:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:57:05 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

"but then you would have to find some grounds for this god exhibiting some kind of morals".and that leave the Christian/Judean/ Islamic god out in the cold.

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God. So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.


God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection.

Answer: If I accept that your statement, it and you are now left out in the cold with your god. If god is by definition is moral, then by definition his morals (this definition) is described by and through the bible which exhibits NO definition of this morality, as the bible and these definitions are morally bankrupt because of SAME contradictions, I"ve already mentioned.

God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God.

Answer: "and what do you offer to suggest such an absurdity, for I am far greater than your god has even been. Your conditional statement does NOT equal an argument, it has no premise because it has no valid inference and the only support you offer is found with you begging the question through your conclusion.

So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.

Answer: Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the Weak minded, petty, ignorant Christian god. LOL! What god means to you (or anyone else) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the existence of god who only exists through your IDOL (fix)worship of the bible which clearly describes an inferior being.
By the way, providing evidence of my superiority over your god would be easy".I can start with genesis and work my through your whole bible".
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Chase200mph
Posts: 332
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:13:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:10:12 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:31:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:57:05 PM, Chase200mph wrote:
At 1/28/2013 11:30:57 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:26:11 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:21:40 AM, Dan4reason wrote:
I hoped you liked the dramatic title. Now of course agnostics, Muslims, spiritual people can participate too as well.

Here it is:
If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
Morality is objective and absolute.
Therefore, God must exist.

I will not offer my opinion on it right now, but I will do so in my next post. So there are two questions to be resolved in this epic debate. Is morality objective and absolute? Is God the best explanation for a objective and absolute morality?

You'd have to establish that God wasn't just the BEST explanation, but the ONLY explanation.

Not so, one could merely show that God is the most plausible and least arbitrary grounds for objective morals.

"but then you would have to find some grounds for this god exhibiting some kind of morals".and that leave the Christian/Judean/ Islamic god out in the cold.

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God. So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.


God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection.

Answer: If I accept that your statement, it and you are now left out in the cold with your god. If god is by definition is moral, then by definition his morals (this definition) is described by and through the bible which exhibits NO definition of this morality, as the bible and these definitions are morally bankrupt because of SAME contradictions, I"ve already mentioned.

God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God.

Answer: "and what do you offer to suggest such an absurdity, for I am far greater than your god has even been. Your conditional statement does NOT equal an argument, it has no premise because it has no valid inference and the only support you offer is found with you begging the question through your conclusion.

So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.

Answer: Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the Weak minded, petty, ignorant Christian god. LOL! What god means to you (or anyone else) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the existence of god who only exists through your IDOL (fix)worship of the bible which clearly describes an inferior being.
By the way, providing evidence of my superiority over your god would be easy".I can start with genesis and work my through your whole bible". FIX idol
While an otherwise educated intelligent person may still believe in the bible, that person would have no educated or intellectual reason to do so.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 8:33:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:10:12 PM, Chase200mph wrote:

God isn't reached as the basis for morals by what he does, but rather who he is: by definition God is worthy of worship, not because of any duty he fulfilled, but rather because of his axiological perfection. God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, so that if you were to conceive of something greater then THAT would be God. So it follows that, ontologically, God is the maximally great being. And since it's greater to be good rather than just exemplify it, then it follows that God is good. But since God is the maximally great being, then it follows that therefore if he is good, then by virtue of his nature, he's maximally good- the greatest good. This is what we mean by God.

If I accept that your statement, it and you are now left out in the cold with your god. If god is by definition is moral, then by definition his morals (this definition) is described by and through the bible which exhibits NO definition of this morality, as the bible and these definitions are morally bankrupt because of SAME contradictions, I"ve already mentioned.

I'm not arguing for and nor am I interested in, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I gave a natural theology definition of God, the ontologically maximally great being. This definition holds regardless of our epistemology of what constitutes great making properties. Nevertheless, it seems that the property of "all good" is one such property, and so therefore one can reasonably ascribe this maximally great being with the property of being all good. For clearly it's greater to be good than not.

"and what do you offer to suggest such an absurdity, for I am far greater than your god has even been. Your conditional statement does NOT equal an argument, it has no premise because it has no valid inference and the only support you offer is found with you begging the question through your conclusion.

First, I highly doubt that you're greater than a necessarily existing being, for I can conceive of possible worlds in which you don't exist, say, a world where only singularities exist whose creation is contingent upon God's creating such black holes. Clearly then you would have the property of existence, but God would. Also, it seems by the violation of the principle of charity in reading my post, you clearly fail to have the property of being all good- not to mention the fact that you're obviously not an all knower either, another such property that's reasonably ascribed to God.

Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about the Weak minded, petty, ignorant Christian god. LOL! What god means to you (or anyone else) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the existence of god who only exists through your dial worship of the bible which clearly describes an inferior being.

Again, no one is discussing the doctrine of biblical inerrancy here. God has been defined as a maximally great being, this is what we have to work with. And It seems to me that having the property of being all good is reasonably a great making property, and so God, as the greatest being, has this property unless you can show that all goodness is not in fact a great making property.


By the way, providing evidence of my superiority over your god would be easy. I can start with genesis and work my through your whole bible.

Again, biblical inerrancy is irrelevant, I'd like to know one 'great making property' that you would "easily" have that's over and above the properties of a maximally great being?

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.