Does morality exist without God? (2)

[Insane_Duck]

First Link = Less than convincing.

1. Do you have a less (obviously) biased website with cited sources?
2. This mentioned that the oldest OT in existence is 2,200 years old. (and not even all the books date this old) This leaves literally thousands of years (if you assume the events were transcribed by Moses, which isn't the historical view) of oral tradition. There is no mention of scribes recording the OT back further than 200 B.C. (according to the article) And the super careful recording didn't come about until a millennium after that. In this space of time there was the possibility of huge changes, especially in the illiterate back-alleys of the middle east.
3. There was plenty of space between the writing down and the actual events that happened in the NT. Before this there was only hearsay and anecdotal accounts.
4. There isn't any Roman evidence to back-up a census, the crucifixion, or any miracles. (as well as tonnes of missing evidence from extra-biblical sources regarding OT events) There are only a few dubious non-affiliated sources (such as Josephus) who didn't live at the time of Christ, and historians now doubt parts of their accounts. (accounts they would have gleaned from the hearsay +100 years down the line) And they also only indirectly mention NT events, excluding any miracles.

I'll read the second link later.

 

[MoonLancer]

I know this thread is about morality existing without God, but I need to let you and other Non-Christians know that Christians have profound respect for the inspired writings of the Bible, because, “All scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

However, the Old Testament as a law for God's people was removed by the death of Christ. Christians, therefore, are not to observe the Old Testament as the law for God's service today.

The Old Testament was written as a shadow of a new and better way which is the New Testament. Hebrews 10:1 says, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

The old covenant was written for our learning. In Romans 15:4 Paul wrote, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."

Jesus himself had a very different view on the matter. He still called it the law and insisted it not be broken.

 

[Deaver]

First Link = Less than convincing.

1. Do you have a less (obviously) biased website with cited sources?
2. This mentioned that the oldest OT in existence is 2,200 years old. (and not even all the books date this old) This leaves literally thousands of years (if you assume the events were transcribed by Moses, which isn't the historical view) of oral tradition. There is no mention of scribes recording the OT back further than 200 B.C. (according to the article) And the super careful recording didn't come about until a millennium after that. In this space of time there was the possibility of huge changes, especially in the illiterate back-alleys of the middle east.
3. There was plenty of space between the writing down and the actual events that happened in the NT. Before this there was only hearsay and anecdotal accounts.
4. There isn't any Roman evidence to back-up a census, the crucifixion, or any miracles. (as well as tonnes of missing evidence from extra-biblical sources regarding OT events) There are only a few dubious non-affiliated sources (such as Josephus) who didn't live at the time of Christ, and historians now doubt parts of their accounts. (accounts they would have gleaned from the hearsay +100 years down the line) And they also only indirectly mention NT events, excluding any miracles.

I'll read the second link later.

Would it really make a difference what site I refer you to? I don't know, but I doubt that when you are presenting a viewpoint that you would refer someone to a website that contradicts your view point. Apologetics Press presents scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in apologetics among the churches of Christ. It has a fulltime professional writing staff, assisted by an auxiliary staff of scientists and other writers.

If you have concerns with the accuracy of what they write, I would suggest you contact them and I am sure they will respoond.

 

[Deaver]

Jesus himself had a very different view on the matter. He still called it the law and insisted it not be broken.

If you read the Bible in context you will find the teachings of Jesus and other New Testament teachings make it clear that Christians are not required to follow the Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, sacrifice, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. This is also supported by the Council of Jerusalem (50 AD)

Christians still look to the Old Testament scripture for moral and spiritual guidance. But when there seems to be a conflict between Old Testament laws and New Testament principles, we must follow the New Testament because it represents the most recent and most perfect revelation from God

However, freedom from the Old Testament Law is not a license for Christians to relax their moral principles. The moral and ethical teachings of Jesus and His apostles call for even greater self-discipline than those of the Old Testament.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Would it really make a difference what site I refer you to? I don't know, but I doubt that when you are presenting a viewpoint that you would refer someone to a website that contradicts your view point. Apologetics Press presents scripturally sound and scientifically accurate materials in apologetics among the churches of Christ. It has a fulltime professional writing staff, assisted by an auxiliary staff of scientists and other writers.

If you have concerns with the accuracy of what they write, I would suggest you contact them and I am sure they will respoond.

They didn't cite sources, which was my problem. (and they have an obvious incentive to declare the bible true, but for now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this)

Did you address the other three points? All of them assumed the article got it's facts right.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think most of us feel that way. However, can you share with us what standard you use to know whether you made a "good moral judgment".

Yes, it's personal flourishing as reflected in various ethical virtues and values. This is something rooted in the objective nature of human well-being. It isn't a mystery to know when one is being destructive of life-nourishing human values. You can know when you are harmful to others or yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verv]

mmmm so are we buddhists inmoral just because we don't believe in your deity?

You are incapable of achieving pure morality.

Pure morality would come from the one source...

Oh, well, perhaps it is rooted in the same source; that is a debate people can have. Perhaps it isn't.

Do not try to turn it around, though, into one of those accusing and spiteful concepts.

The idea is a lot more dynamic than you would give it credit.

 

[Insane_Duck]

You are incapable of achieving pure morality.

Pure morality would come from the one source...

Oh, well, perhaps it is rooted in the same source; that is a debate people can have. Perhaps it isn't.

Do not try to turn it around, though, into one of those accusing and spiteful concepts.

The idea is a lot more dynamic than you would give it credit.

1. How do you know your source is the right source?
2. Why does pure morality have to come from one source?

 

[quatona]

You are incapable of achieving pure morality.

Everyone can declare their morality "pure".

Pure morality would come from the one source...

Just because you say so?

 

[Verv]

1. How do you know your source is the right source?
2. Why does pure morality have to come from one source?

You are bringing this back to the origin of the debate.

"How do you know your source is the right source?"

Well, now we are off-topic, and that is a debate people have been having for milllennia.

"Why does morality have to come from one source?"

I thought you would know the answer to this question...

First, if something is to be 'objective,' it has to have an objective measuring system.

Without God, what would be the measuring system for a moral action?

Philosophers have been debating this issue for 2,500 years and are nowhere near close to what an answer is...

And as philosophy/reason cannot solve any such question of morality, the only viable alternative is the notion that there is an objective morality decreed by Godhead that is above us.

It's pretty simple, really.

Everyone can declare their morality "pure".


Just because you say so?

(1) Yes, they can. And then we debate it.

You haven't made any point but you do have a knack for stating the obvious.

(2) And you also have a knack for statements that are generally irrelevant.

Of course not 'just because I say so.'

That is explained above, though, if you would like to read on it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

To the OP question:

For me the answer is that somewhere conscious beings evolved such that thet could experience 'value states'. Hunger is one example, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is another, aesthetic experience is another. To me the core of morality is about living in, managing, or simply responding to such a value-world.

The concept of God does not seem to be needed to explicate thic idea.

 

[quatona]

(1) Yes, they can. And then we debate it.

You haven't made any point but you do have a knack for stating the obvious.

No, actually I don´t - my knack for stating the obvious is triggered only when someone makes an ex cathedra claim without any argument or support attached to it.

(2) And you also have a knack for statements that are generally irrelevant.

Of course not 'just because I say so.' That is explained above, though, if you would like to read on it.

Even upon rereading your post carefully I fail to see any explanation as to why "pure morality" must have a single source - apart from you claiming so.
Never before have I seen the term "pure morality", so some explanation might be in order.

 

[Deaver]

Yes, it's personal flourishing as reflected in various ethical virtues and values. This is something rooted in the objective nature of human well-being. It isn't a mystery to know when one is being destructive of life-nourishing human values. You can know when you are harmful to others or yourself.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I accept that. However, how and where did you get those various virtues and values?

 

[Deaver]

To the OP question:

For me the answer is that somewhere conscious beings evolved such that thet could experience 'value states'. Hunger is one example, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is another, aesthetic experience is another. To me the core of morality is about living in, managing, or simply responding to such a value-world.

The concept of God does not seem to be needed to explicate thic idea.

Do you have any evidence that concious beings evolved the ability to experience value states? Also, I don't believe, your three examples are issues of morality.

 

[Deaver]

They didn't cite sources, which was my problem. (and they have an obvious incentive to declare the bible true, but for now I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this)

Did you address the other three points? All of them assumed the article got it's facts right.

Here you go.

2. This mentioned that the oldest OT in existence is 2,200 years old. (and not even all the books date this old) This leaves literally thousands of years (if you assume the events were transcribed by Moses, which isn't the historical view) of oral tradition. There is no mention of scribes recording the OT back further than 200 B.C. (according to the article) And the super careful recording didn't come about until a millennium after that. In this space of time there was the possibility of huge changes, especially in the illiterate back-alleys of the middle east.

If you are saying there was a gap of time between the events and when Moses wrote of them, you are correct. However, Moses was the original author of the first books of the Old Testament and he wrote them through the inspiration of God. Then the tedious process of making copies (described in the Apologetics Press article) began.

3. There was plenty of space between the writing down and the actual events that happened in the NT. Before this there was only hearsay and anecdotal accounts.

I believe item 3 will be cleared up through this link:

Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?

4. There isn't any Roman evidence to back-up a census, the crucifixion, or any miracles. (as well as tonnes of missing evidence from extra-biblical sources regarding OT events) There are only a few dubious non-affiliated sources (such as Josephus) who didn't live at the time of Christ, and historians now doubt parts of their accounts. (accounts they would have gleaned from the hearsay +100 years down the line) And they also only indirectly mention NT events, excluding any miracles.

If you choose not to consider the, literally thousands, of articles that are available to address the subject of your item 4 comment, that is your choice.

 

[Deaver]

If possible, I want to bring this back to the topic posed by the OP. Morality is the habit of following the rules of proper conduct. I think we all agree what a person believes greatly impacts how a person acts.

What choice does someone have when they refuse to recognize the existence of God when it comes to explaining morality? Only one – it must have originated within man. This becomes a problem, because man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced by the long, meandering, and chance process of evolution. See the problem.

Matter, by itself, does not have the power to “evolve” any sense of moral consciousness. If there is no purpose in the universe (which is the position evolutionists are forced to take), then there is no purpose to morality or ethics.

Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.

For me, I believe the truth of the matter is, that an approach which states that morals originate in the mind of God is consistent both logically and internally; only the approach that calculates God into the Universe can provide an objective, absolute set of morals and ethics.

The main idea of ethics based on God concerns the relationship of man to his Creator. Why, because true morality is based on the fact of the unchanging nature of Almighty God. Therefore, He is the unchanging standard of moral law. His perfectly holy nature is the foundation upon which “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “evil” are built.

When people say that humans feel responsibility for wrong action, they are recognizing that there is indeed within each man, woman, and child a sense of moral responsibility which comes from the fact that God is our Creator and have been made in His spiritual image.

 

[Insane_Duck]

You are bringing this back to the origin of the debate.

"How do you know your source is the right source?"

Well, now we are off-topic, and that is a debate people have been having for milllennia.

"Why does morality have to come from one source?"

I thought you would know the answer to this question...

First, if something is to be 'objective,' it has to have an objective measuring system.

Without God, what would be the measuring system for a moral action?

Philosophers have been debating this issue for 2,500 years and are nowhere near close to what an answer is...

And as philosophy/reason cannot solve any such question of morality, the only viable alternative is the notion that there is an objective morality decreed by Godhead that is above us.

It's pretty simple, really.



(1) Yes, they can. And then we debate it.

You haven't made any point but you do have a knack for stating the obvious.

(2) And you also have a knack for statements that are generally irrelevant.

Of course not 'just because I say so.'

That is explained above, though, if you would like to read on it.

First off, no one ever said there had to be an objective morality. Mortality may very well be a human construction. From a humanist perspective, you can have objective morals without having absolute morals.

 

[Gishin]

If possible, I want to bring this back to the topic posed by the OP. Morality is the habit of following the rules of proper conduct. I think we all agree what a person believes greatly impacts how a person acts.
Ok
What choice does someone have when they refuse to recognize the existence of God when it comes to explaining morality? Only one – it must have originated within man. This becomes a problem, because man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced by the long, meandering, and chance process of evolution. See the problem.
We're far from the last, but no, I don't see the problem.
Matter, by itself, does not have the power to “evolve” any sense of moral consciousness. If there is no purpose in the universe (which is the position evolutionists are forced to take), then there is no purpose to morality or ethics.
Why doesn't it? Humans create purpose for themselves (even if it's to devote oneself to their religion, it is still a someone's choice to do so). Being moral usually has a greater societal benefit than being immoral (unless you're very good at getting away with it), so I'd say there's lots of purpose.
Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.
Which is what they do anyway.
For me, I believe the truth of the matter is, that an approach which states that morals originate in the mind of God is consistent both logically and internally; only the approach that calculates God into the Universe can provide an objective, absolute set of morals and ethics.
Which would be considered immoral by another person's God. You have to prove your god even exists before you can even begin to posit that he is the source of ultimate morality.
The main idea of ethics based on God concerns the relationship of man to his Creator. Why, because true morality is based on the fact of the unchanging nature of Almighty God. Therefore, He is the unchanging standard of moral law. His perfectly holy nature is the foundation upon which “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “evil” are built.
Except he does change, from bloodthirsty and vengeful in the OT to the "so loved the world" stage in the NT, to the mysteriously completely absent aside from the claims of charlatans and the misguided in modern time. And that's just the Abrahamic god.
When people say that humans feel responsibility for wrong action, they are recognizing that there is indeed within each man, woman, and child a sense of moral responsibility which comes from the fact that God is our Creator and have been made in His spiritual image.
That's a mighty big assumption, considering you first need to prove there is a God, then that he is the Abrahamic God, then what is written about him is indeed correct. Even then, it doesn't explain the humongous rift even among Christians, let alone all of humanity, between what constitutes moral and immoral.

Answers in bold.

 

[Insane_Duck]

If you are saying there was a gap of time between the events and when Moses wrote of them, you are correct. However, Moses was the original author of the first books of the Old Testament and he wrote them through the inspiration of God. Then the tedious process of making copies (described in the Apologetics Press article) began.

Prove it.

If you choose not to consider the, literally thousands, of articles that are available to address the subject of your item 4 comment, that is your choice.

I have seen many, and the ones that are proponents of a historical Jesus aren't remotely convincing.

Again, I'll look at the link in a bit.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

read the book

revelation 17: 5-9