Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

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

Who are you referring to?

 

[Elioenai26]

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

The Moral argument is not exclusively a Christian argument. I have already stated that any theist can use the argument. A deist, a Muslim, etc. etc. can use the argument as one line of philosophical evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Davian]

Who are you referring to?

The subject in the sentence.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Please be specific and identify precisely which deity hypothesis you attempting to affirm.

 

[madaz]

Who are you referring to?

Elioenai...please...

 

[Elioenai26]

The subject in the sentence.

Please be specific and identify precisely which deity hypothesis you attempting to affirm.

Elioenai...please...

God as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The “classical” conception of God includes God's necessary existence (see Plantinga 1974a, 1974b, 1980; Morris 1987a (in particular chapter 7, “Absolute Creation,” written with Christopher Menzel), 1987b; Wierenga 1989; Adams 1983; and MacDonald 1991). Perhaps the strongest motivation for thinking that God exists necessarily is perfect-being or Anselmian theology. On an“Anselmian” conception of God, God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections.

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Davian]

The Moral argument is not exclusively a Christian argument. I have already stated that any theist can use the argument. A deist, a Muslim, etc. etc. can use the argument as one line of philosophical evidence for the existence of God.

God as defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The “classical” conception of God includes God's necessary existence (see Plantinga 1974a, 1974b, 1980; Morris 1987a (in particular chapter 7, “Absolute Creation,” written with Christopher Menzel), 1987b; Wierenga 1989; Adams 1983; and MacDonald 1991). Perhaps the strongest motivation for thinking that God exists necessarily is perfect-being or Anselmian theology. On an“Anselmian” conception of God, God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections.

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So you are saying that this "God" could be your "God", a deistic "God" and a Muslim "God"?

And what about these "Other Necessary Beings"? Whose are those?

BTW, I don't see anything about morals in your link.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you are saying that this "God" could be your "God", a deistic "God" and a Muslim "God"?

The Moral Argument is used by theists of a wide range of theisitic variants. The argument argues that the Greatest Conceivable Being, a.k.a in the English Language - "God", exists as the Highest Good or Summum Bonum. I have already stated this several times.

And what about these "Other Necessary Beings"? Whose are those?

I do not understand the question.

BTW, I don't see anything about morals in your link.

You were not supposed to see anything about morals in the link I provided.

 

[Davian]

The Moral Argument is used by theists of a wide range of theisitic variants. The argument argues that the Greatest Conceivable Being, a.k.a in the English Language - "God", exists as the Highest Good or Summum Bonum. I have already stated this several times.

I do not understand the question.

You were not supposed to see anything about morals in the link I provided.

So all I have is your assertion that it has anything to do with the OP?

 

[Elioenai26]

So all I have is your assertion that it has anything to do with the OP?

What are you referring to when you say "it"?

 

[Asvin]

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.

Again.. there are only two categories.. objects and concepts... concepts are made by man and cannot be objective.. objective in the sense that you use. The way you use it suggests that objective morality exists somewhere "out there." This is why I ask you to draw a picture of it. If you say a car exists objectively, independent of people's conceptions and perceptions, then you have admitted that it exists "out there." It may be in your garage, driveway, etc. This enables you to draw it. Now substitute the car with objective morality. Picture please!!!

 

[Davian]

What are you referring to when you say "it"?

Nevermind.

I will leave you to tend your train wreck.

 

[Elioenai26]

Again.. there are only two categories.. objects and concepts... concepts are made by man and cannot be objective.. objective in the sense that you use. The way you use it suggests that objective morality exists somewhere "out there." This is why I ask you to draw a picture of it. If you say a car exists objectively, independent of people's conceptions and perceptions, then you have admitted that it exists "out there." It may be in your garage, driveway, etc. This enables you to draw it. Now substitute the car with objective morality. Picture please!!!

Are you serious or are you just playing? I cannot determine honestly whether you are being serious or not.

I have never suggested that morality exists somewhere "out there". I have never said that.

 

[Elioenai26]

Nevermind.

I will leave you to tend your train wreck.

Thanks.

 

[Asvin]

Are you serious or are you just playing? I cannot determine honestly whether you are being serious or not.

I have never suggested that morality exists somewhere "out there". I have never said that.

Okay then... what does it mean to say that objective morality exists, as you say in premise 2?

 

[Ken-1122]

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?

Are you as a Christian claiming that there are other Gods that exist other than the one described in the Old and New Testament? If not than you ARE using it to argue for the God of the Old and New Testament because it is the only God (according to you) that exists!

K

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

I am saying that the actions of the Biblical God are not exemplary of the actions of a morally perfect being. Whether or not I believe that such a God exists is not germane to the point. What is relevant is that you believe he exists, and you believe he commanded these actions, and you believe he is morally perfect, and you think you can somehow reconcile these beliefs with each other.

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?

It does indeed lay specific demands on the theist who wishes to use the argument. A theist who believes that God exists, but that he has nothing to do with morality (objective or otherwise), cannot use the argument to effectively argue for the God he believes in. The conclusion of the Moral Argument isn't simply that God exists; it concludes that a morally pertinent God exists.

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?

You still haven't answered my question, so I see no reason why I should return the favour. Just to remind you of what that question is:

Tell me, if you were there when your God commanded the slaughter of men, women, children, what would you do? Suppose that you come across a child who had been hiding. Your sword still glows red from the blood of her parents who you had just butchered in loving obedience to your 'morally perfect' God. The command is that you are to kill this child who is, by now, terrified and begging you to spare her life. What do you do?

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

It concerns what follows from the argument. You asserted that your God is morally perfect and that 'objective' morality stems from his morally perfect being. Yet you must reconcile how a morally perfect being, from whom 'objective' morality originates, can command what you insist is objectively evil (the destruction of a whole people) and still maintain moral perfection and moral objectivity. If you call the destruction of a whole people 'good' when your God commands it, and insist that it 'evil' otherwise, then that is not an objective moral system. It is system in which morality is defined by obedience to a divine despot.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

In your first definition, 'objective' values were defined as those values that stem from God as their locus. This rendered your first premise tautological: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (defined as those values which stem from God) do not exist either.

According to your second definition, 'objective' values are those values which exist independent of personal perception and conception. You have described God as a person. From your definition of 'objective', it would follow logically then that 'objective' values must also be independent of God as he is, in your view, a person.

 

[Elioenai26]

Are you as a Christian claiming that there are other Gods that exist other than the one described in the Old and New Testament? If not than you ARE using it to argue for the God of the Old and New Testament because it is the only God (according to you) that exists!

K

You are attempting to attack a strawman instead of either of the two premises of the moral argument. The proponent of the moral argument is under no constraint to defend or make a case for the Judeo Christian God. God as used in the moral argument is the philosophical concept as is defined in my post #826. This definition comes straight out of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and makes no reference to any inherently religious understanding of God.

 

[Elioenai26]

Okay then... what does it mean to say that objective morality exists, as you say in premise 2?

Please reference post #373.