Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

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.

What does any of that have to do with either of the two premises of the moral argument? I thank you for your diligence in writing what you did, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the moral argument for God's existence.

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 are misreading the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion reads as follows:

3. Therefore, God exists.

What it does not say is that a "morally pertinent God exists."

Once again, you, like ken, are trying to erect a strawman to argue against instead of directly tackling the premises. This is fallacious.

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:

​

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.

There is no need whatsoever for me to explain how God can be the source of objective moral values and duties when you have not accepted any of the premises of the argument. Until you accept the premises of the argument to be more plausibly true than their denials, I have no obligation to do what you are demanding I should do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What does any of that have to do with either of the two premises of the moral argument? I thank you for your diligence in writing what you did, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the moral argument for God's existence.

Didn't you read the rest of my post? I said that it relates to what follows from the moral argument and to your assertion that your God is morally perfect.

You are misreading the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion reads as follows:

3. Therefore, God exists.

What it does not say is that a "morally pertinent God exists."

It is implied. A theist who believes in a deity that lacks moral concerns can make little use of the moral argument. Thus, contrary to your assertion, the moral argument cannot be used by any theist to argue for the existence of any deity. It implies the existence of morally pertinent deity.

Once again, you, like ken, are trying to erect a strawman to argue against instead of directly tackling the premises. This is fallacious.

I have already tackled the premises several times. Most recently here.

There is no need whatsoever for me to explain how God can be the source of objective moral values and duties when you have not accepted any of the premises of the argument. Until you accept the premises of the argument to be more plausibly true than their denials, I have no obligation to do what you are demanding I should do.

This is a very lame excuse for not answering the question.

Here is the question again:

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?

 

[KCfromNC]

The only problem is that you are not using my "god" at all, but one of your own making.

Yeah, I traveled back in time to write the Bible just so I could reference it in this thread...

Making up my own god by quoting the Bible. Good one.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I am attacking the argument in the context of which you are using it. You believe only in the Christian God so I attack the argument in the context of the Christian God. Now if a Hindu or somebody who worships another God wants to use the argument I will attack it in the context of which they choose to use it.

K

 

[essentialsaltes]

There is no need whatsoever for me to explain how God can be the source of objective moral values and duties when you have not accepted any of the premises of the argument. Until you accept the premises of the argument to be more plausibly true than their denials, I have no obligation to do what you are demanding I should do.

'Unless you agree with me, you can't disagree with me [and I don't have to support my arguments].'

If this is truly a problem for you, you can always mentally apply hypothetical preludes to these questions. "If a hypotehtical person accepted your premises, how would you answer her objection that..."

 

[Elioenai26]

Didn't you read the rest of my post?

Yes.

I said that it relates to what follows from the moral argument

Since you are eager to discuss what logically follows from the argument, am I corrrct to say that you agree with the argument, and that it is more probable that God exists than not?

and to your assertion that your God is morally perfect.

My personal beliefs are immaterial to this discussion.

It is implied. A theist who believes in a deity that lacks moral concerns can make little use of the moral argument.

What does that have to do with premise (1) or (2)?

Thus, contrary to your assertion, the moral argument cannot be used by any theist to argue for the existence of any deity. It implies the existence of morally pertinent deity.

The moral argument can be used by anyone regardless of their beliefs. The argument is inherently philosophical, not religious in nature.

This is a very lame excuse for not answering the question.

I believe it is a very good reason not to answer your impertinent questions.

 

[Elioenai26]

'Unless you agree with me, you can't disagree with me [and I don't have to support my arguments].'

If this is truly a problem for you, you can always mentally apply hypothetical preludes to these questions. "If a hypotehtical person accepted your premises, how would you answer her objection that..."

To do what you are suggesting would be to engage in defending a strawman. The point of the matter is that if a person denies either of the two premises, then I am obligated first and foremost to handle the objections to the premises, not to defend the conclusion of the argument when the conclusion hasn't even been reached yet. This is basic stuff here. Now if a person cannot raise a competent case against the premises, then they stand, and then discussion regarding the conclusion can begin.

Focus on the premises, and build a case against them. That is all you or anyone can do at this point.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am attacking the argument in the context of which you are using it. You believe only in the Christian God so I attack the argument in the context of the Christian God. Now if a Hindu or somebody who worships another God wants to use the argument I will attack it in the context of which they choose to use it.

K

This is an ad hominem fallacy. My personal beliefs simply are not pertinent to the argument I have presented.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is an ad hominem fallacy. My personal beliefs simply are not pertinent to the argument I have presented.

They are if you're trying to use the argument to convince someone of your personal beliefs!

K

 

[Elioenai26]

They are if you're trying to use the argument to convince someone of your personal beliefs!

K

I am not trying to convince anyone of my personal beliefs. I am pretty sure all of you are already convinced that I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that through Him and Him alone is offered the remission of sins.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not trying to convince anyone of my personal beliefs. I am pretty sure all of you are already convinced that I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that through Him and Him alone is offered the remission of sins.

Lemme put it this way; if you are gonna try to use this argument for the God of the bible, I will say this argument is ineffective. If you are gonna use it for any other God, I will refrain from comment until I get further details of this other God. Fair enough?

K

 

[Elioenai26]

Lemme put it this way; if you are gonna try to use this argument for the God of the bible, I will say this argument is ineffective.

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as:

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. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, if you will note, this is the third time that I have supplied this definition and stated that it is in this conceptualization that the word "God" is used in the Moral Argument I have supplied.

If you are gonna use it for any other God, I will refrain from comment until I get further details of this other God. Fair enough?

K

The above definition should be sufficient for you to understand and use to formulate a case against premise (1) or (2) of the moral argument if you happen to disagree with either one of them.

 

[Ken-1122]

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as:

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. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, if you will note, this is the third time that I have supplied this definition and stated that it is in this conceptualization that the word "God" is used in the Moral Argument I have supplied.



The above definition should be sufficient for you to understand and use to formulate a case against premise (1) or (2) of the moral argument if you happen to disagree with either one of them.

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. I don't know why you would go through the trouble of such a lengthy response if you are gonna refuse to respond to what I am saying.

K

 

[Elioenai26]

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. I don't know why you would go through the trouble of such a lengthy response if you are gonna refuse to respond to what I am saying.

K

In your post, you made two statements and asked one question.

Statement 1: "if you are gonna try to use this argument for the God of the bible, I will say this argument is ineffective."

To which I replied:

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as:

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. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

Notice in the above, "God of the bible" is not mentioned, but rather the classical monotheistic conceptualization is given. Therefore, the argument does not argue at all specifically for the God of the Bible. Which means that according to you, the argument should not be ineffective, but effective based on the criteria you gave.

Statement 2: "If you are gonna use it for any other God, I will refrain from comment until I get further details of this other God."

To which I replied:

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as:

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. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

God and Other Necessary Beings (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, if you will note, this is the third time that I have supplied this definition and stated that it is in this conceptualization that the word "God" is used in the Moral Argument I have supplied.



The above definition should be sufficient for you to understand and use to formulate a case against premise (1) or (2) of the moral argument if you happen to disagree with either one of them.

The above was furnished because you said you needed further information before you commented on it.

You then asked the question: "Fair enough?"

I say, fair enough.

Now are you ready to comment on it?

 

[Ken-1122]

In your post, you made two statements and asked one question.

Statement 1: "if you are gonna try to use this argument for the God of the bible, I will say this argument is ineffective."

To which I replied:

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Fair enough. So this argument is only used to argue for the existence of the God that is defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which nobody cares about. I have no interest in discussing that God so I guess our conversation is over.

Peace
ken

 

[Elioenai26]

Fair enough. So this argument is only used to argue for the existence of the God that is defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which nobody cares about. I have no interest in discussing that God so I guess our conversation is over.

Peace
ken

Thank you for your time. Have a great evening.

 

[Loudmouth]

This argument is used to argue for the existence of God as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as:

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. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

So you define God as something that has to exist, and then stand stunned when your conclusion states that GOd exists.

You have a very tight circle for an argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you define God as something that has to exist, and then stand stunned when your conclusion states that GOd exists.

God's necessity as it is understood by theologians and philosophers of religion is in no way shape or form pertinent to the moral argument for His existence.

I do not stand stunned when the conclusion states that God exists because the argument is not for me at all. I do not need the argument to tell me that God exists. I know Him personally and intimately without the argument.

Now, if you are a moral relativist, and are willing to be shown why you cannot be one consistently, then I am willing to show you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since you are eager to discuss what logically follows from the argument, am I corrrct to say that you agree with the argument, and that it is more probable that God exists than not?

No. I've already made clear why I don't agree with the argument.

My personal beliefs are immaterial to this discussion.

Then you shouldn't have introduced them into the discussion.

What does that have to do with premise (1) or (2)?

It is a reply to your comment that any theist can use the argument.

The moral argument can be used by anyone regardless of their beliefs. The argument is inherently philosophical, not religious in nature.

I've already refuted this.

I believe it is a very good reason not to answer your impertinent questions.

Another lame excuse. I've already stated why the question is pertinent. Now we are just waiting on your answer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

To do what you are suggesting would be to engage in defending a strawman. The point of the matter is that if a person denies either of the two premises, then I am obligated first and foremost to handle the objections to the premises, not to defend the conclusion of the argument when the conclusion hasn't even been reached yet. This is basic stuff here. Now if a person cannot raise a competent case against the premises, then they stand, and then discussion regarding the conclusion can begin.

Focus on the premises, and build a case against them. That is all you or anyone can do at this point.

We have already done that. You continue to pretend that the premises have remained untouched.