Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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?

1. I have continually stressed the point that the discussion on whether morality is objective or subjective can proceed without talk about supernatural entities. I have even alluded to the discussion between Williams and McDowell on external and internal reasons for action. Your depiction of me as some sort of moral relativist who thinks that all opinions are equally justified is a strawman.

2. You have demonstrated that you do not affirm premise (2). I will repeat what I said earlier: If you call genocide 'good' when your God commands it, and insist that it is 'evil' otherwise, then that is not an objective moral system. Instead it is system in which morality is defined by obedience to a divine despot.

3. Yes, foul hypocrisy. Asking me to contemplate whether genocide is objectively wrong, right after you have told me that you would participate in a genocide, reeks of hypocrisy. Insisting that some despicable act is objectively wrong regardless of the specific circumstances surrounding that act, but then making excuses for why it is 'good' when commanded by a deity, reeks of hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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).

Given the way you've defined 'objective', (1) can easily be rejected.

(2) can be discussed without talk of supernatural entities.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
All of morality is just an opinion. How does one define a moral? Is there a unit of measure that can be used to compare

Yes I'd like a moral of flour, please :D (Joking aside, you have a good point)

Oh, and you may want to go read 1 Samuel 15 before you talk about the 'objective' morality of protecting innocent babies.

I already raised the point of all possible Scripture references, and the OP said he simply wouldn't consider the Bible as a moral source. I bet you didn't see that coming any more than I did!
 
Upvote 0
S

seeking Christ

Guest
2. You have demonstrated that you do not affirm premise (2). I will repeat what I said earlier: If you call genocide 'good' when your God commands it, and insist that it 'evil' otherwise, then that is not an objective moral system. Instead it is system in which morality is defined by obedience to a divine despot.

You are entirely off base, due to not listening to what your debating opponent has said, and/or not asking valid questions, likely due to being content to assume. I have done the heavy lifting for you, and your train of thought here is entirely off-base.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You are entirely off base, due to not listening to what your debating opponent has said, and/or not asking valid questions, likely due to being content to assume. I have done the heavy lifting for you, and your train of thought here is entirely off-base.

How is it off base?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Intentional misdirection

Hey, I'm not the Christian poster saying we have to reject the Bible in order to hold on to hope for an objective moral code from God. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious problem in that "Christian" apologetic tactic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,211.00
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).

If unicorns are not purple then there's no Leprechaun's gold at the end of the rainbow.

I'll assume you believe neither clause in this statement. Does that mean you must automatically accept that there's a causal relationship between the color of unicorns and the behavior of Leprechauns? No, of course not, you believe neither are true for reasons other than the premise I've just made up.

Same answer to your claim here.
 
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

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
One would think that we could all agree that murdering an infant is objectively wrong.

You would think so, wouldn't you? However, as soon as you saw that God ordered the murder of infants all of the sudden you thought it was moral if God commands it. So what we have is a moral code that shifts from one day to the next depending on the mood of God. What is immoral one day is moral the next. What you have with a God based morality code is a subjective morality, not an objective one.

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

It is up to you to support your own premises, which you have yet to do. Premise 1 has never been supported by anything approaching a logical or reasoned argument.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Just because different people in different cultures have different perceptions and cultural customs regarding a particular moral value, that does not mean that the underlying value is not objective. For example, the moral duty to respect and protect the lives of innocent little babies is objectively binding. Just because some people throw their newborn babies in a dumpster does not mean that it is ok to throw babies in a dumpster. It simply means that they failed to do what they should have done.

The existence of objective morality only points to the ability of humans to use reason and logic to understand the interactions that occur between humans, and the emotions and pain that these interactions can produce. That's it. No need for a deity or the supernatural. In fact, a belief in a deity can clearly lead to immoral behavior.
 
Upvote 0
E

Elioenai26

Guest
The existence of objective morality only points to the ability of humans to use reason and logic to understand the interactions that occur between humans, and the emotions and pain that these interactions can produce. That's it. No need for a deity or the supernatural.

The above is dealing with various arguments against premise (1) and we will look at those in time.

In fact, a belief in a deity can clearly lead to immoral behavior.

I wholeheartedly agree!

In fact, many ancient near eastern cultures such as the Canaanites and Amalekites made it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies as sacrifices to the gods they worshipped. Molech was one who was worshipped by people placing their newborn babies alive on sacrificical altars and burning them to death while they were alive!

Interestingly enough, it was this very practice that was one of the main reasons why God commanded the Israelites to overthrow these wicked cities and tear down their altars and destroy their idols. This was the immorality that was happening in these places at this time and it grieved God and made Him very sad and angry.
 
Upvote 0

madaz

dyslexic agnostic insomniac
Mar 14, 2012
1,408
25
Gold Coast Australia
✟9,445.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Interestingly enough, it was this very practice that was one of the main reasons why God commanded the Israelites to overthrow these wicked cities and tear down their altars and destroy their idols. This was the immorality that was happening in these places at this time and it grieved God and made Him very sad and angry.

If I was the god as described above, I'd be very embarrassed to instruct my own creations to violently destroy my own creations, because I'm feeling angry, jealous or sad.

Why didn't god just do the "dirty work" himself, let me guess...because objective morality exists?
 
Last edited:
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

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Hey Elioneai26 would you mind responding to my post #879 on pg 88? I never did get a straight answer from you. In case you forgot the question was;
'why do you assume God must exist in order for objective moral values and duties to exist?'

K

Much luck, I'm still looking for an answer on that kosher thing...
 
Upvote 0

JGG

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2006
12,018
2,098
✟58,445.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Interestingly enough, it was this very practice that was one of the main reasons why God commanded the Israelites to overthrow these wicked cities and tear down their altars and destroy their idols. This was the immorality that was happening in these places at this time and it grieved God and made Him very sad and angry.

So, genocide is objectively immoral...unless those people are the enemies of God? Then it's objectively moral?
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
So, genocide is objectively immoral...unless those people are the enemies of God? Then it's objectively moral?

Yes, and God is defined as the summum bonum, you see... And black is white, and war is peace, etc.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
The above is dealing with various arguments against premise (1) and we will look at those in time.

Now would be a good time.;)

I wholeheartedly agree!

In fact, many ancient near eastern cultures such as the Canaanites and Amalekites made it a regular practice to offer their newborn babies as sacrifices to the gods they worshipped. Molech was one who was worshipped by people placing their newborn babies alive on sacrificical altars and burning them to death while they were alive!

Interestingly enough, it was this very practice that was one of the main reasons why God commanded the Israelites to overthrow these wicked cities and tear down their altars and destroy their idols. This was the immorality that was happening in these places at this time and it grieved God and made Him very sad and angry.

So using the God argument clearly leads to a subjective morality. It would seem to me that removing God from the morality argument is the best way to find an objective morality.
 
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