Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,949
✟484,092.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He is right. You cannot erect your own false god who is no god, and use that as a point of argument unless you wish to fight strawmen.

I find it amusing that Christian apologists have to resort to blaming and attacking me for quoting the Bible as part of their defense of their god. I guess the end justifies the means - but I would think that eliminating the god of the Bible in the path to victory would make any sort of success a bit hollow.
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
I find it amusing that Christian apologists have to resort to blaming and attacking me for quoting the Bible as part of their defense of their god. I guess the end justifies the means - but I would think that eliminating the god of the Bible in the path to victory would make any sort of success a bit hollow.

Intentional misdirection
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Your logical fallacy is black-or-white

Your logical fallacy is bandwagon



I'm sorry, but you telling me to contemplate whether genocide is objectively wrong, right after you have told me that you would participate in a genocide, reeks of foul hypocrisy.

Foul hypocrisy? If genocide is not objectively wrong, your words really have no meaning to me. I could sit here and say it is my opinion that you are foul for judging me. We could go back and forth all day.

Now you know why you, nor anyone else can live as a true moral relativist. My point to you has been made.

It is just your opinion that genocide is wrong. You also acknowledge that others may disagree with you and have the right to do so.

That is why this argument is so powerful. You cannot even bring yourself to say that genocide is objectively wrong, even though you know it is. You cannot even agree to premise two, but would rather have us all believe it is just your opinion that genocide is wrong.

Why not just say that premise (2) is more plausibly true than its denial? What do you lose by agreeing with that?
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
In #1; why do you assume God must exist in order for objective moral values and duties to exist?

K

Do you think objective moral values exist?
Do you believe God exists?

If you answer no to both questions, then you agree with premise (1).

I know you do not think that God exists, so if you want me to answer your question, you will have to agree that objective moral values and duties exist apart from God. If that is the case then how do you account for them?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Do you think objective moral values exist?
Do you believe God exists?

If you answer no to both questions, then you agree with premise (1).

I know you do not think that God exists, so if you want me to answer your question, you will have to agree that objective moral values and duties exist apart from God. If that is the case then how do you account for them?
I believe each person is capable of their own individual objective, and subjective moral values, thus they vary from person to person. If I did not believe in objective moral values, I would recognize I would not have to believe in God to believe they do exist.

K
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
I believe each person is capable of their own individual objective, and subjective moral values, thus they vary from person to person. If I did not believe in objective moral values, I would recognize I would not have to believe in God to believe they do exist.

K

The phrase "individual objective" is an oxymoron.

Although I understand what you are trying to say.

However, you still did not answer my question:

Do you believe that there exists certain moral values and judgments that exist regardless of what people's subjective opinions might be? Yes or no?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I am asking YOU, do YOU think genocide is objectively wrong? Yes or No?

Killing an infant because it belongs to a certain race or creed is objectively wrong. There is no opinion related to it. It is immoral. That you excuse such behavior because God commands it would actually support the idea that we can not have objective morality if God does exist.
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Now you know why you, nor anyone else can live as a true moral relativist. My point to you has been made.

It is just your opinion that genocide is wrong. You also acknowledge that others may disagree with you and have the right to do so.

Yes, and in fact there are people who have believed that genocide is acceptable, and others who have (or will) go on to carry it out. What would I do about it regardless of whether objective morality exists or does not?

For instance, if I were to go back in time somehow, and tell the Israelites that genocide was objectivel wrong, that raping women was objectively wrong, and that taking slaves was objectively wrong. They would simply say "No, it isn't" and then get on with it. In fact, they would claim that genocide was commanded by God Himself. For that matter, it was less than 20 years ago that the Hutu decided that genocide against Tutsi was not only acceptable, but necessary despite protests from their government and the international community. How should we have explained to the Hutu that genocide is objectively wrong, and why didn't you?

For that matter, I keep reminding you that not keeping to kosher dietary restrictions is objectively wrong, and you keep ignoring that. It's the same thing.

That is why this argument is so powerful. You cannot even bring yourself to say that genocide is objectively wrong, even though you know it is.

How do we know that it is? How would we convince the Israelites that it is?

You cannot even agree to premise two, but would rather have us all believe it is just your opinion that genocide is wrong.

Well, no. It's his opinion, my opinion, and I'm going to presume your opinion as well? This makes such a discussion difficult. What you need is someone with the opinion that genocide is permissable.

Why not just say that premise (2) is more plausibly true than its denial? What do you lose by agreeing with that?

It isn't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Asvin

Legend
Aug 13, 2010
10,954
1,149
✟24,934.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Killing an infant is NOT objectively wrong. Just because the majority of people agree that doing such a thing is wrong, it does not follow that it is objectively wrong. Even if everyone believes if it is wrong, it still doesn't follow that it is objectively wrong. My earlier replies rationally explain why morality cannot be "objective."

Elioenai26, do you agree with Dr. William Lane Craig in his belief that objective moral values are "grounded" in god's nature? I have watched some of his debates and in one of them, he said that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma because good things are good because god is good. He is by nature good and his commandments "flow" from his nature. If this is what you believe, then my earlier objections are fatal to the moral argument as you formulated it in your OP!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Elioenai26, do you agree with Dr. William Lane Craig in his belief that objective moral values are "grounded" in god's nature? I have watched some of his debates and in one of them, he said that the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma because good things are good because god is good. He is by nature good and his commandments "flow" from his nature. If this is what you believe, then my earlier objections are fatal to the moral argument as you formulated it in your OP!

Holy fatal flaw fallacy Batman!
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
but would rather have us all believe it is just your opinion
What do you mean - "just"? I´m sure his opinion is quite significant to him, just as yours is to you.

Actually, my opinion is so significant to me that even if there turned out to be an "objective morality" and even if this "objective morality" turned out to dictate me to, say, kill all my neighbours I still wouldn´t do it.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Killing an infant because it belongs to a certain race or creed is objectively wrong. There is no opinion related to it. It is immoral.

Ok. We finally have someone who is rational and honest enough to admit here that it is objectively wrong to kill an infant because it belongs to a certain race.

This is progress indeed!

:puff:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

seeking Christ

Guest
Ok. We finally have someone who is rational and honest enough to admit here that it is objectively wrong to kill an infant because it belongs to a certain race.

This is progress indeed!

:puff:

Ok, you're the OP correct? I think everyone could either agree that killing an infant is wrong, or at the very least that positing it is somehow ok under some very complex situation(s) is VERY troubling, and difficult to come to grips with, much less understand.

How does this point relate to your thread premise?
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
When I use the word "just", I mean to impress the idea of opinion and nothing else or nothing plus the opinion i.e. the bare opinion grounded in nothing else other than one's own subjective ideals.

If I may say so, it's not just an opinion. It's a well reasoned philosophical argument, and societal imperative. But yes, if you want to boil it down to just an opinion, yes, that's all it is. How would you demonstrate an alternative?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
When I use the word "just", I mean to impress the idea of opinion and nothing else or nothing plus the opinion i.e. the bare opinion grounded in nothing else other than one's own subjective ideals.
You are speaking as though there is something beyond this "just". Can you make a case for it?
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Yes, and in fact there are people who have believed that genocide is acceptable,

So? That does not mean that genocide is not objectively wrong. Some people believed the earth was flat, does that mean that there is no objective reality about the shape of the earth? Of course not. Some people in mental hospitals think they are Napolean, does that mean there is not an objective reality regarding their identity? Of course not. This objection fails because you are saying that just because people disagree on whether or not a certain action is or is not moral, that that necessarily means there is no objective moral dimension to the matter.

For instance, if I were to go back in time somehow, and tell the Israelites that genocide was objectivel wrong, that raping women was objectively wrong, and that taking slaves was objectively wrong. They would simply say "No, it isn't" and then get on with it. In fact, they would claim that genocide was commanded by God Himself. For that matter, it was less than 20 years ago that the Hutu decided that genocide against Tutsi was not only acceptable, but necessary despite protests from their government and the international community. How should we have explained to the Hutu that genocide is objectively wrong, and why didn't you?

You are really amazing me here. Do you mean to tell me that the Hutu were justified in committing genocide just because it was their subjective opinion that the Tutsi needed to be wiped out?

Well, no. It's his opinion, my opinion, and I'm going to presume your opinion as well? This makes such a discussion difficult. What you need is someone with the opinion that genocide is permissable

You are saying that genocide is permissable if a race decides it is. That is what I gather from all of what you just said. You are the one saying there are no objective moral values and that no one can say any act, however atrocious is objectively wrong and therefore right and wrong are left to the individual opinions of men, many of which will use these opinions to formulate genocidal regimes.

Your position should demonstrate to you why moral subjectivism is not tenable and definently not livable.

You seem to be overlooking the glaring fact that the vast majority of people in the world live as if there are objective moral values. The handful you have picked out are the overwhelming minority who decide to base their actions off of a radically abnormal view of humanity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
E

Elioenai26

Guest
Ok, you're the OP correct? I think everyone could either agree that killing an infant is wrong, or at the very least that positing it is somehow ok under some very complex situation(s) is VERY troubling, and difficult to come to grips with, much less understand.

How does this point relate to your thread premise?

One would think that we could all agree that murdering an infant is objectively wrong. But you would be amazed. Several here say that it is not objectively wrong.

It relates to the second premise of the moral argument which states:

(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.

Loudmouth has just affirmed premise (2), so in order to avoid the conclusion of the argument, he has to deny (1).
 
Upvote 0