Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

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

I know you affirm at least one of the premises. You affirm at least (2). You know how I know that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I know you affirm at least one of the premises. You affirm at least (2). You know how I know that?

I don't care how you claim to know that. You are dodging the question.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't care how you claim to know that. You are dodging the question.

So you do affirm (2)?

Yes or no?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you do affirm (2)?

Yes or no?

As I said earlier, I feel no obligation to return you the favour of answering your questions when you have repeatedly evaded my own. This latest question of mine is part of a whole series that you have dodged, so no I will not respond to that question until you have answered this:

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?

 

[Elioenai26]

As I said earlier, I feel no obligation to return you the favour of answering your questions when you have repeatedly evaded my own. This latest question of mine is part of a whole series that you have dodged, so no I will not respond to that question until you have answered this:

If I were to say: Yes, I would kill the child, then....

1. If you do not affirm premise (2) of the moral argument, then all you could say is that it was your opinion that I and my God were despicable, immoral, wrong, evil, genocidal etc. etc.

And in response, I could simply say that I, my God, and the Israelites were of the opinion that it was right.

So where does that leave you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I were to say: Yes, I would kill the child, then....

1. If you do not affirm premise (2) of the moral argument, then all you could say is that it was your opinion that I and my God were despicable, immoral, wrong, evil, genocidal etc. etc.

And in response, I could simply say that I, my God, and the Israelites were of the opinion that it was right.

So where does that leave you?

If you were to say yes? Are you in fact saying that yes you would, in those circumstances, have killed that child?

 

[Elioenai26]

If you were to say yes? Are you in fact saying that yes you would, in those circumstances, have killed that child?

I already gave you the answer to your question. Now, what is the point again?

I mean surely, you would not condemn the Israelites for doing anything wrong would you?

I mean after all, you do not think that there are any objective moral values. You think morality is relative to the culture right?

So what then, one culture kills a few boys and girls that are caught in a bloody judgment at the behest of their God. They saw it as a morally commendable act. Who are you to judge them?

You see Archaeopteryx, your very own intuitive sense of objective right and wrong will not let you agree to what I am saying will it?

Do you see now why I say you affirm premise (2)?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I already gave you the answer to your question. Now, what is the point again?

I mean surely, you would not condemn the Israelites for doing anything wrong would you?

I mean after all, you do not think that there are any objective moral values. You think morality is relative to the culture right?

So what then, one culture kills a few boys and girls that are caught in a bloody judgment at the behest of their God. They saw it as a morally commendable act. Who are you to judge them?

You see Archaeopteryx, your very own intuitive sense of objective right and wrong will not let you agree to what I am saying will it?

Do you see now why I say you affirm premise (2)?

I see now that you have absolutely no basis for any sort of 'objective' morality and that your repeated insistence to the contrary is nothing more than mere posturing. Not only would excuse genocide and call it 'good', but if commanded to do so, you would participate in it! I don't think you, of all people, are in any position to lecture us on what is 'objectively' wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

I see now that you have absolutely no basis for any sort of 'objective' morality and that your repeated insistence to the contrary is nothing more than mere posturing. Not only would excuse genocide and call it 'good', but if commanded to do so, you would participate in it! I don't think you, of all people, are in any position to lecture us on what is 'objectively' wrong.

Wait a minute. Listen to yourself.

Are you saying that genocide is objectively wrong?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wait a minute. Listen to yourself.

Are you saying that genocide is objectively wrong?

I am saying that you have no basis for asserting that it is 'objectively' wrong because your moral system isn't about objectivity at all, it is about obedience to a supernatural despot.

 

[Elioenai26]

I am saying that you have no basis for asserting that it is 'objectively' wrong because your moral system isn't about objectivity at all, it is about obedience to a supernatural despot.

I am asking YOU, do YOU think genocide is objectively wrong? Yes or No?

Your hesitancy to answer the question is indicative of how strong this argument really is. Deep down, at the end of the day, we all intuitively know that some things are really really, objectively wrong. You know it, I know it, and everyone else here knows that genocide is really really wrong.

 

[seeking Christ]

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.

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am asking YOU, do YOU think genocide is objectively wrong? Yes or No?

If I didn't think that it was wrong I wouldn't be condemning your willingness to participate in genocide, would I? The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that (contrary to you insistence) your theism doesn't provide you with an 'objective' moral system. 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 claim that, in those circumstances, you would kill an innocent child in loving obedience to your 'morally perfect' God, and then you have the temerity to preach to others about objective morals? Your credibility has gone out the window. You are a genocide apologist.

 

[seeking Christ]

I see now that you have absolutely no basis for any sort of 'objective' morality and that your repeated insistence to the contrary is nothing more than mere posturing. Not only would excuse genocide and call it 'good', but if commanded to do so, you would participate in it! I don't think you, of all people, are in any position to lecture us on what is 'objectively' wrong.

The only thing you see is that you miss the point entirely. Carry on

 

[seeking Christ]

The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that (contrary to you insistence) your theism doesn't provide you with an 'objective' moral system. If you call genocide 'good' when your God commands it, and insist that it 'evil' otherwise, then that is not an objective moral system.

At least I can credit you for your use of the word "seems," but again you have failed to perceive that this dilemma is exactly why such stories are still included in Scripture.

Instead it is system in which morality is defined by obedience to a divine despot.

All you've done here is drawn conclusion based on that which you have never considered. And that is exactly how much consideration your false conclusions deserve.

You claim that, in those circumstances, you would kill an innocent child in loving obedience to your 'morally perfect' God

You have merely drawn hasty conclusions

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[Elioenai26]

If I didn't think that it was wrong I wouldn't be condemning your willingness to participate in genocide, would I? The point that you seem to be missing, however, is that (contrary to you insistence) your theism doesn't provide you with an 'objective' moral system. 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 claim that, in those circumstances, you would kill an innocent child in loving obedience to your 'morally perfect' God, and then you have the temerity to preach to others about objective morals? Your credibility has gone out the window. You are a genocide apologist.

So you affirm premise (2) then? I mean, if not then its your opinion against the Israelite's opinion. And they win because they are several million in number and you are one young man.

So which is it? Clearly you think genocide is wrong. But is it wrong independently of people's beliefs and opinions? Think about that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So you affirm premise (2) then? I mean, if not then its your opinion against the Israelite's opinion. And they win because they are several million in number and you are one young man.

Your logical fallacy is black-or-white

Your logical fallacy is bandwagon

So which is it? Clearly you think genocide is wrong. But is it wrong independently of people's beliefs and opinions? Think about that.

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.

 

[Ken-1122]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

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

K

 

[Asvin]

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

K

Because he can't think of any other way!