I heard of an atheist who converted to Christianity after considering the argument of objective morality. She told herself the truth. A purely naturalistic world should also be purely nihilistic. Yet we don't find that in our world. We instead have an objective understanding of right and wrong. That understanding has been framed by religion during the past thousands of years.
The argument of objective morality is therefore a valid one.
Morality is ingrained within every human being. There is no way that evolution could have created that by chance. Without divinity there is no morality, ethics, etc. becasue there is no accountability. The very existence of any sense of right and wrong proves there is a God who placed that knowledge within you.
We have to have a teacher correct? Well who taughts us these morals? There has to be a God out there who was the first teacher. I done see how a human race of supposed "cavemen" just learned out of the blue that maybe there are morals....Especially when they "supposedly" just took woman whenever they want
Morals are absolutely objective. If morals weren't objective, what the Nazis did during WW2 would be alright. CS Lewis once said, "Next time someone says morals aren't objective, pass through them while both of you are waiting in line." (Paraphrased)
Based on relativism, anything could be accepted as morally right, but clearly that's not true.
YAHWEH sets the standard for morality without Him whose standard would you be following...Mankind is inherently evil with an extremely perverse sense of morals whose judgments are biased and beliefs are self centered! To understand that there is a law that exist which is the standard of living not set by any one person or governing body is to understand the limitations of man's ability to righteously dictate and or regulate anything that would resemble a moral compass
How can life have value if all we are is matter? Without the existence of a God, soul, or free will, morality is subjective. God wants us to love thy neighbor as thyself. We are all Christian so long as we believe in that priciple as objectively moral and right.
The first thing we have to do is define "morality."
- If morality is just what I have imagined in my mind, then morality doesn't imply the existence of God.
- If morality is what the majority of humans believe, this still wouldn't mean God existed.
- If morality is something beyond us. If morality is more like a law of the universe (similar to math and physics) then by all means, it demands the existence of a higher being.
Thus, I think this debate really should be about whether or not a universal moral law actually exists (and I think it does). If there is a universal moral law that humans feel like they "should" follow then this implies that there must be a being that gave us humans that law. However, if it's just relative to each person then that wouldn't imply the existence of God.
There's another thing I should mention. This isn't really an argument, but, it is something to think about. If the moral law DIDN'T exist then the definition of "right" and "wrong" would vary from person to person. If everyone in the world decided that it was okay to kill mentally retarded children, does that make it "right" in moral sense? If you don't believe in the moral law then... Yes... It would be "right."
How do you know if something is morally right or wrong? How can you ground a belief that says acts such as torturing an innocent child, rape, murder, racism, and other such things are objectively immoral? By "objectively," we mean that such acts are immoral in a way that goes beyond personal opinion or feelings; they are immoral whether anyone thinks they are or not. It may surprise you to know that, without God, it is impossible to have objective moral values. Instead, unless God exists, all that is left is mere emotive opinions.
Human beings do not need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. But, that has never been the argument of those who believe in God. Instead, the Christian argument is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."
At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth.
Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn't become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, "I don't like rape." C. S. Lewis put is simply when he said: "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." For those without God, that unchanging straight line does not exist.
Where does this universal understanding of moral right and wrong come from – an understanding that transcends human opinion? Why does a small child immediately know when they've been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator. This fact produces what is called the moral argument for the existence of God, which can be stated in the following way:
• Laws imply a Law Giver
• There is an objective Moral Law
• Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
True object moral good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without a cause. Without God – the cause of everything – all that is left is time + matter + chance. And such a combination only produces chaos; not an absolute moral framework.
Poet Steve Turner spells out this conclusion in his poem entitled Creed:
"If chance be the Father of all flesh,
Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
And when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker."
Don't get me wrong, I DO believe in God. But I wouldn't say the presence of morals demands his existence. Even if he didn't exist, right and wrong would still be there. Why would a crime be any less wrong? How does doing something bad necessarily demand God's existence? While God is real, morals aren't complete and undeniable evidence he exists.
There is no objective morality that guide most people to do what they do. If there were morals ingrained in every person then everyone would have the same opinion about every controversial topic. Not to mention that things like pedophilia and slaver which is considered morally wrong today were actually morally right in the past.
Humans have empathy -- meaning, we can understand emotions in others. We also cooperate to grow food and raise children, so we are a social species. *And* we have the ability to explore and understand cause and consequence.
So we have the means to understand both objective and subjective impacts on one another, motive to help and be helped and methods that let us learn how to help better.
That's enough to build a moral code.
In further support, monotheism developed only in a couple of places in the world. Historically, most faiths were not monotheistic. Faiths have many myths about how they arrived at their morals, yet certain moral principles -- like kindness, generosity and reciprocity -- are present in moral thought all over the world.
If you invent a deity to explain that, then you also have to explain how the dogma was disseminated and why the dogma themselves are so very different. On the other hand, if you accept these impulses are key to the long-term survival of human populations, then that explains it much better.
You mentioned moral accountability, but in many societies there is no moral authority watching over and punishing. So to whom is the accountability?
To society itself, of course -- to its members and governance. And also to whatever impulses reside within us as a species. Toddlers for example, hug one another when they are distressed, and primates soothe one another too.
I hope that may help.
Most laws are based on a "golden rule"
This is one that we have learnt since we have been born.
Do not do to others what you do not want to been done to you.
Most laws are based on this, and rights are just equality and what most people would want.
Morals are rules. Thats it. Moral rules are no more impressive than rules made for games. They are about fairness or at least they should be and most try to make rules for fairness. There are many things that make me think there might be a god but morals arent one of them. If intelligence doesnt prove that there is a god then the results of our intelligenece dont prove that there is a god. I find it funny that we put a man on the moon and thats not evidence of god but something as simple as a few FLAWED rules are evidence of a PERFECT god. How can flaws be evidence of perfection? They arent. What about the cruelty of nature and the fact that god didnt teach us right from wrong as if we are right about moral issues then the rest of the world is wrong along with the whole world in any other time because our views oppose theirs. What about the fact that animals were "made" to rip each other to shreds for survival? What about the fact that there are trillions of planets that we know of without life on them? Everything but our abilities make me think there is no god. I know that there is no good god. If there was a good god our morals would all be good. Otherwise evil is gods fault. If god didnt teach us right from wrong and let us think evil was righteousness then evil is an inevitable result of his actions and is not our faults. And most of what we call evil was done in another time by people who thought is was right.
I've already mentioned this in the comments, so I won't elaborate to much.
1) Morals developed as part of behavioral evolution to maintain societal order.
2) Utilitarianism and Deontology are two systems of morals. They conflict. Therefor morals are not objectively placed in us, therefore they do not demand God.
The argument itself behind this proposition makes no sense. If you can prove, independently of involving god, that morals exist, on what basis do you have to then include god in the question? If you're proving morals exist with god, and therefore god exists, then that's just circular logic mate.
If God was the source of morality, then moral judgments would be universal and undeniable. Ethical statements lack cognitive content, and therefore cannot be true or false, from a non-cognitivist perspective. Plus, if we get morals from a higher power, we would not be acting morally, we would only be obedient.
Take a moment and look at the main 'morals'. Do not kill, help others etc. What these ALL do is make sure every human is alive healthy and happy- something which sounds a lot like an evolution. Morality is an evolved physocological human concept that is a way of humans keeping all other humans alive and well, making sure the species survives and thrives etc etc. The morals themselves are just ideas implemented after thousands of years of evolution to make sure the species survives.
Morality is factual and objective not based on gods biased opinion and subjective. F f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f fffff f f f f ff f f ff ff f f fff f f ff ff