Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

Just skimming through this thread and there appears my name:


Can't seem to remember having done anything along those lines.

So you assert that there is a basis for objective moral values?

 

[Elioenai26]

Then good thing I posted it in response to your question below rather than as a response to the OP of the thread.

The expected answer to the question I posited is a support for premise (2). Your supplying of a passage of scripture in no way even remotely addresses either of the premises of the moral argument, therefore it is a red herring.

 

[Elioenai26]

If morality is a function of objectivity, then objectivity must serve subjectivity, as far as morality is concerned, not the other way around.

All of the above at first glance seems to be non-sensical. Who said morality is a function of objectivity? Who said morality was a "function" of anything?

What is meant by objectivity must serve subjectivity?

 

[Elioenai26]

The application of this definition renders the argument in the OP circular (or, if you will, it is defining God into existence).
As I said many posts ago the actual content is: Without God there can´t be any God given morality.

Objective moral values and duties being applicable to us (I know not who else they would be applicable to) in no way renders the argument circular. It seems to me this objection here is just a misconstrual of how the argument, specifically premise (1) is formulated.

Dialectically speaking, the only way I, or any other proponent of the moral argument could be said to arguing in a circle or begging the question would be if the only reason we believe (1) is true is because we believe the conclusion of the argument to be true. I have never claimed that the reason we should accept (1) is because it is trivially true. What I have done, and what I have already done several times here is to appeal to the reasons atheists themselves give for thinking (1) to be true. Atheists like the ones I have already listed and others like Nietzsche, Russell, or Sartre do not regard (1) as merely trivially true, but actually true. So dialectically, anyone who desires to utilize the moral argument in speaking to an atheist is perfectly justified in doing so.

 

[Elioenai26]

Where do you get the idea that atheists must be omniscient? Why are atheists (or anyone else) obliged to produce a complete description of the origins and function of human psychology and society? There's no requirement to provide the detailed naturalistic origins of these phenomena to see that a baseless assertion that goddditit has no merit as an explanation.

The moral argument is dealing with the ontological explanation of objective MORAL values and duties.

If an atheist wishes to deny either of the premises, then he is obligated to produce either a coherent, logical, and substantiated undercutting defeater to the premise(s) or a coherent, logical, and substantiated rebutting defeater to the premise(s).

In the atheists case with the moral argument, the majority of atheists affirm (1). They also, when pressed, affirm (2). In fact, in the academic arena, the moral argument is usually challenged by non-theists on the basis of a dilemma designed to show that objective moral values are independent of God which is an indirect way of challinging (1) i.e the Euthyphro Dilemma which essentially says that moral values are either independent of God (if He wills them because they are good) or they are arbitrary (if they are good just because God wills them). Since they aren't arbitrary, they must be independent of God. The only point of attack that any atheist who is concerned with their reputation will be able to take is to try and posit an argument that is a rebutting defeater of (1). Premise (2) is rarely if ever challenged because to deny that there are some things that are objectively wrong is to portray oneself as being morally deficient at best.

 

[Davian]

Objectively in the sentence is used to mean independent of subjective opinions or beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.

What did I say that was in contradiction to that?

 

[Davian]

If morality is a function of objectivity, then objectivity must serve subjectivity, as far as morality is concerned, not the other way around.

All of the above at first glance seems to be non-sensical. Who said morality is a function of objectivity? Who said morality was a "function" of anything?

What is meant by objectivity must serve subjectivity?

No, it is just nonsensical. Have you not followed his threads?

 

[quatona]

Objective moral values and duties being applicable to us (I know not who else they would be applicable to) in no way renders the argument circular.

Of course not - and that was not what I said.

Dialectically speaking, the only way I, or any other proponent of the moral argument could be said to arguing in a circle or begging the question would be if the only reason we believe (1) is true is because we believe the conclusion of the argument to be true.

Of course, this is not the only way the argument could turn out to be circular.

What I have done, and what I have already done several times here is to appeal to the reasons atheists themselves give for thinking (1) to be true. Atheists like the ones I have already listed and others like Nietzsche, Russell, or Sartre do not regard (1) as merely trivially true, but actually true. So dialectically, anyone who desires to utilize the moral argument in speaking to an atheist is perfectly justified in doing so.

It would be if you were speaking to atheists who hold that opinion.
I for one do not even see how and why God´s opinion must be considered objective or binding for us.

 

[Davian]

The moral argument is dealing with the ontological explanation of objective MORAL values and duties.

How does "God" explain anything, when you have not defined what you mean by it, in some testable fashion? How am I to establish that "God" does not exist?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Actually, I wouldn't agree that most atheists would agree with (1); and they generally don't agree with (2). God provides at best an external, but still subjective morality. And we have no evidence that objective morality exists.

Sorry if I'm late to the party.

 

[Elioenai26]

Implicit in (1) is the idea that the only way for objective moral values to exist is for deities to exist. I reject that idea.

Implicit in (1) is that the best explanation for the existence of moral values and duties is God. God in this premise of course is referring to the greatest conceivable being.

I understand completely that you reject that idea. Now, since you reject the idea, I am guessing you have some kind of reason why you reject it, and an argument that would support your reason. I would like to see it.

Must necessarily be subjective? You need to explain this further. Why must it be subjective if it, like many other abilities, evolved?

The issue here for evolutionary theorists is the nature of moral values and duties in a purely naturalistic universe. Under a purely naturalistic evolutionary theory, there is no justifiable warrant for seeing homosapiens as being intrinsically any different than lets say a baboon, or any other animal. Homosapiens like any other life form on earth, have no intrinsic worth or value the way they do under a theistic worldview. Homosapiens are just complex collections of atoms. Bertrand Russell self proclaimed agnostic and atheist talks about it when he said that homosapiens are:

"the product of causes ... his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms, that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand ... "[65]

Richard Dawkins has this to say about homosapiens:

Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
— Richard Dawkins

The Blind Watchmaker (1986), 5.

“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. . . . DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”
— Richard Dawkins

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life(1995), 133.

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous—indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.
— Richard Dawkins

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), 112.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. -Richard Dawkins

The atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, confirms this point:

"The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.
I appreciate that when someone says, "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory."​

http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/rightorwrong/page3.html​

So you see Achaeopteryx, under naturalism, we're all family. Those in the pictures above are probably what our ancestors looked like. We are just advanced primates, the by-products of star dust and rock. We are not intrinsically valuble or sacred, or any of those things which theists say we are. We are animals, nothing more, nothing less. Theisitc concepts like meaning, destiny, immortality, righteousness, significance, etc. etc. are absent from naturalism because there is no ontic referrent. There is no loving, all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator Mind behind the universe and humanity. There is no standard to which we aspire and to which we measure our progress. Everything is horizontal. There is no vertical relationship for us to be a part of. No upward path in which we are to walk or journey on. Therefore, since our relationships and existence are aimed at survival and reproduction, everything is horizontally oriented. Since there is nothing beyond us animals and insects and birds and fish, our concept of morality, which is nothing more than an aid to survival, has no objective foundation. The theist can rightly and justifiably say that raping children is evil and wrong because each and every human being is creted in the Image of the Creator and is of infinite value and worth and are sacred. On naturalism, raping teenage girls might actually aid in the survival of a species if there were not enough fertile adult females to reproduce with with. On naturalism, if one clan of homosapiens suffered the loss of life of some of its women due to some disease, then they would be doing what was "right" if the men of that clan went to a neighboring clan and killed all of the alpha males and kidnapped the young women to rape and reproduce with. They would simply be ensuring that their clan survived and reproduced.

Scenarios like this show us why on naturalism, there simply cannot be such a thing as an objective moral value or duty. All things must be relative, because the only objective in evolution is to evolve!

 

[Elioenai26]

Actually, I wouldn't agree that most atheists would agree with (1); and they generally don't agree with (2). God provides at best an external, but still subjective morality. And we have no evidence that objective morality exists.

Sorry if I'm late to the party.

The majority of atheists on this forum agree that if God does not exist, then there is no justifiable basis for grounding objective moral values and duties. It is to these that this argument is presented.

Everyone here on pain of being seen as a moral reprobate, will affirm (2).

 

[Elioenai26]

How does "God" explain anything, when you have not defined what you mean by it, in some testable fashion? How am I to establish that "God" does not exist?

The above in no way serves to undercut, or rebut either of the two premises of the moral argument.

Now, no atheist who has proven himself worth listening to, when engaging in debate or discussion with a Christian apologist will take the path that you are taking by attempting to insinuate that the word "God" is somehow unintelligible. God is the English word used to denote "The Greatest Conceivable Being".

Your question is reminiscent of something a theological noncognitivist would ask. But once again, logical positivism is dead, and the question as I stated earlier in no way rebuts, or undercuts our warrant for maintaining that (1) and (2) are more plausibly true than their denials.

 

[yasic]

The majority of atheists on this forum agree that if God does not exist, then there is no justifiable basis for grounding objective moral values and duties. It is to these that this argument is presented.

Everyone here on pain of being seen as a moral reprobate, will affirm (2).

Eli, if I am not mistaken only a single atheist agreed with (2) and for completely different reasons than the ones you thought they would for. Many, myself included, freely stated disagreement.

People disagree with your moral constructs and you have failed to convince a single person with your argument.

Do you disagree with this assessment?

 

[Elioenai26]

Eli, if I am not mistaken only a single atheist agreed with (2) and for completely different reasons than the ones you thought they would for. Many, myself included, freely stated disagreement.

People disagree with your moral constructs and you have failed to convince a single person with your argument.

Do you disagree with this assessment?

Of course I disagree with it. I disagree with it chiefly because you cannot convince me that you in practice, are a moral relativist. I just do not believe that in your everyday life, you act as if morality is relative. Of course it is logically possible that you are a moral nihilist/relatvist, but I want to think better of you than that.

It is also important for everyone here to realize is that it is not my aim to convince anyone of anything. I am simply offering arguments and evidence for the existence of God.

I fully recognize the reality conveyed in the saying: You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make him drink.

 

[yasic]

Of course I disagree with it. I disagree with it chiefly because you cannot convince me that you in practice, are a moral relativist. I just do not believe that in your everyday life, you act as if morality is relative. Of course it is logically possible that you are a moral nihilist/relatvist, but I want to think better of you than that.

So in other words your argument goes as follows:

A) From assertions (1) and (2) it follows that (3) God exists.
B) Anybody who says they do not accept (1) and (2) is a liar.
C) Therefore (3) is true.

Do I understand your position correctly?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Objectively in the sentence is used to mean independent of subjective opinions or beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Except you've been using 'objectivity' as synonymous with 'values made by a deity', which renders your argument tautological. You are, as quantona put it, defining God into existence by defining objective values as his values.
I will address the rest of your responses later in the day. I notice that in your other responses you are trying to switch the burden of proof.

 

[Elioenai26]

So in other words your argument goes as follows:

A) From assertions (1) and (2) it follows that (3) God exists.
B) Anybody who says they do not accept (1) and (2) is a liar.
C) Therefore (3) is true.

Do I understand your position correctly?

I am of the persuasion that anyone who denies (2) either does not understand what objective moral values and duties are, or that they are relativists in theory, but not in practice.

 

[Elioenai26]

Except you've been using 'objectivity' as synonymous with 'values made by a deity', which renders your argument tautological. You are, as quantona put it, defining God into existence by defining objective values as his values.
I will address the rest of your responses later in the day. I notice that in your other responses you are trying to switch the burden of proof.

Only on an internet forum would this accusation seem to be applicable. In reality, no non-theistic philosopher would seek to refute the argument by saying what you have just said. I also responded to quatona about why the objection is groundless.

 

[yasic]

I am of the persuasion that anyone who denies (2) either does not understand what objective moral values and duties are, or that they are relativists in theory, but not in practice.

How do you feel moral relativists would act in practice?