Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

No, I am not affirming your God concept by showing you the contradictions in it. I notice that you avoided my question, which is not entirely atypical. However, I am curious as to what the answer will be.

If you are not affirming the existence of God, then what is your point in saying that He is despicable?

Are you saying that the concept is despicable?

If so, then what does that have to do with either premise of the moral argument?

The Moral Argument argues that God exists, it lays no specific demands on the proponent of the argument to defend the Judeo-Christian God which you describe as being despicable. Any theist can utilize this argument. A deist, a Muslim, etc. etc. So what is your point?

You also seem to be affirming premise (2) of the moral argument when you lament on the despicability of this God concept. Are you saying that these commands were actually morally wrong, regardless of what people's beliefs and opinions were about them?

 

[Asvin]

Your analogy fails because you assume concepts cannot be objective. However, the Peano Axioms deal with mathematical concepts and propositions which are not concrete but abstract concepts. We do not say that it is just our opinion that 2+2=4 or that 2x2=4, but rather that it is objectively true, that 2+2=4 and that 2x2=4. It is true in America just as it is true in China, regardless of one's beliefs regarding the answer.

So your analogy fails. Of course there are other examples, among which are examples such as objective moral values and duties.

LOL! Numbers are concepts that relate objects. Two chairs + two chairs = four chairs. We (human apes) created the number system so that it is convenient for us to do mathematics. Can you draw a picture of the number 2? Not a digit or a letter, but the actual number 2 that exists "out there"? Can you? For example, you know how to write out or "draw" the word "car" or maybe represent it with some symbol, but can you draw an actual car that exists? OF COURSE! All I am asking for you to prove is that numbers are "objectively true." Of course, first you have to define what the word "true" means unless you want to you use it ambiguously.

 

[Ken-1122]

If you are not affirming the existence of God, then what is your point in saying that He is despicable?

Are you saying that the concept is despicable?

I think he is saying hypothetically speaking; if your God existed, and everything the bible says of him is true, he is despicable

If so, then what does that have to do with either premise of the moral argument?

The moral argument implies he is moral; his actions indicate otherwise thus dispelling the moral argument

The Moral Argument argues that God exists, it lays no specific demands on the proponent of the argument to defend the Judeo-Christian God which you describe as being despicable. Any theist can utilize this argument. A deist, a Muslim, etc. etc. So what is your point?

The moral argument only works for those who believe in God and believe he is the source of morality; it will never work for those who don’t believe and consider his claimed actions immoral. IOW the moral argument will only work for those ‘preachin to the choir” as they say

K

 

[quatona]

If you are not affirming the existence of God, then what is your point in saying that He is despicable?

You do not understand how one can make a statement about a character in a book, a movie, the theater, TV, a painting... - without affirming that this person actually existed? Does this really have to be explained to you?

 

[Elioenai26]

LOL! Numbers are concepts that relate objects. Two chairs + two chairs = four chairs. We (human apes) created the number system so that it is convenient for us to do mathematics. Can you draw a picture of the number 2? Not a digit or a letter, but the actual number 2 that exists "out there"? Can you? For example, you know how to write out or "draw" the word "car" or maybe represent it with some symbol, but can you draw an actual car that exists? OF COURSE! All I am asking for you to prove is that numbers are "objectively true." Of course, first you have to define what the word "true" means unless you want to you use it ambiguously.

What does any of what you just said have to do with either of the two premises of the moral argument?

 

[Elioenai26]

I think he is saying hypothetically speaking; if your God existed, and everything the bible says of him is true, he is despicable

And that would be his opinion. How does that have any bearing on the moral argument?

The moral argument implies he is moral; his actions indicate otherwise thus dispelling the moral argument

The moral argument does not argue for the existence of the God the Old Testament specifically. So the point is moot.

The moral argument only works for those who believe in God and believe he is the source of morality; it will never work for those who don’t believe and consider his claimed actions immoral. IOW the moral argument will only work for those ‘preachin to the choir” as they say

K

You are wrong. I can name at least one atheist who after coming to grips with the implications of the Moral Argument, renounced his atheism. C.S. Lewis was his name.

 

[Elioenai26]

You do not understand how one can make a statement about a character in a book, a movie, the theater, TV, a painting... - without affirming that this person actually existed? Does this really have to be explained to you?

No.

But he is using the actions of a character whom he maintains is a fictional concept as an objection to a premise in a syllogistic argument.

The most he can say is that it is his opinion that if this God exited, he would despicable. Opinions however are not persuasive in making a case for one's views in philosophical argumentation.

And this is purely hypothetical. I can use hypotheticals all day long to argue my point, but I tend not to rely to heavily on them because they are by nature, less convinvincing than sound arguements based on inductive and deductive reasoning.

I could do as he is doing and say something to the effect that: "If it is possible that God exists, then He necessarily exists in all possible worlds". I doubt anyone here would be persuaded to believe in God on the basis of this hypothetical however.

Nor does any of the above have any bearing on either of the two premises of the moral argument.

 

[Asvin]

What does any of what you just said have to do with either of the two premises of the moral argument?

YOU are the one claiming to know that objective morality exists independent of our likes or preferences. I asked you to draw me a picture of this "objective" thing that you claim exists somewhere out there. You refuse to do so. I also explained how morality is a concept just like motion, justice, love, happiness, etc. Can you draw any of these? NO! If you can't draw it, it is NOT OBJECTIVE! I don't see what's so hard to understand!!

 

[Ken-1122]

The moral argument does not argue for the existence of the God the Old Testament specifically.

I never said it did! I am saying many Christians use the moral argument to argue for the existence of the God of the Old Testament. We are pointing out why it is an ineffective argument

K

 

[Hawisher]

You are wrong. I can name at least one atheist who after coming to grips with the implications of the Moral Argument, renounced his atheism. C.S. Lewis was his name.

Something you're forgetting is that it was competently presented by someone who had actually given it a great deal of careful thought, circumstances under which even the ontological argument can become effective.

I never said it did! I am saying many Christians use the moral argument to argue for the existence of the God of the Old Testament. We are pointing out why it is an ineffective argument

Something to bear in mind (and remember, I don't really like the moral argument at all, despite having something of a crush on C. S. Lewis), is that without knowledge of the Lord's actions in the infinity of the afterlife, knowledge of what would otherwise be referred to as atrocities is essentially useless.

 

[Ken-1122]

Something to bear in mind (and remember, I don't really like the moral argument at all, despite having something of a crush on C. S. Lewis), is that without knowledge of the Lord's actions in the infinity of the afterlife, knowledge of what would otherwise be referred to as atrocities is essentially useless.

No offence intended, but that is a very poor excuse. Infinite knowledge is not necessary in order to know that preying upon the weak and killing of the innocent is wrong.

K

 

[Hawisher]

No offence intended, but that is a very poor excuse. Infinite knowledge is not necessary in order to know that preying upon the weak and killing of the innocent is wrong.

K

You misunderstand. I'm saying that what happens in this world is so small as to be insignificant compared to what happens in the afterlife.

 

[Ken-1122]

You misunderstand. I'm saying that what happens in this world is so small as to be insignificant compared to what happens in the afterlife.

I'm not talking about what happens in the "afterlife" (assuming such a thing exists) I'm talking about what happens now! Wrong is wrong, and there is no getting around it. Admit it; if somebody else was doing that stuff, you would be outraged.

K

 

[Hawisher]

I'm not talking about what happens in the "afterlife" (assuming such a thing exists) I'm talking about what happens now! Wrong is wrong, and there is no getting around it. Admit it; if somebody else was doing that stuff, you would be outraged.

K

Somebody else can't compensate for those actions by adjusting the afterlives of those affected.

 

[Ken-1122]

Somebody else can't compensate for those actions by adjusting the afterlives of those affected.

Are you suggesting the Midenites, Amalikes and others God (supposedly) ordered slaughtered during war get to go to heaven?

K

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm not talking about what happens in the "afterlife" (assuming such a thing exists) I'm talking about what happens now! Wrong is wrong, and there is no getting around it. Admit it; if somebody else was doing that stuff, you would be outraged.

K

Sounds like you are a moral absolutist. Bravo! Bravo!

 

[Elioenai26]

YOU are the one claiming to know that objective morality exists independent of our likes or preferences. I asked you to draw me a picture of this "objective" thing that you claim exists somewhere out there. You refuse to do so. I also explained how morality is a concept just like motion, justice, love, happiness, etc. Can you draw any of these? NO! If you can't draw it, it is NOT OBJECTIVE! I don't see what's so hard to understand!!

Objective in the moral argument is used to connote something that is independent of people's conceptions or perceptions.

I do not have to "draw" values and duties in order to show they are objective. I do not even know where you could have gotten that idea from.

 

[Elioenai26]

I never said it did! I am saying many Christians use the moral argument to argue for the existence of the God of the Old Testament. We are pointing out why it is an ineffective argument

K

But I am not using the argument to argue specifically for the God of the Old Testament, so why are you bringing it up in this thread?

 

[Davian]

But I am not using the argument to argue specifically for the God of the Old Testament, so why are you bringing it up in this thread?

Is that a different "God" than the one in the New Testament?

 

[Sectio Aureo]

But I am not using the argument to argue specifically for the God of the Old Testament, so why are you bringing it up in this thread?

Oh, so christianity is polytheistic now? Or perhaps you are really hindu?