Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I don't think you realise how pompous the above text reads, and I certainly won't go into that. But the objection still holds: the first premise is a tautology. You've defined the concept of 'objective moral values' as "moral values and duties which stem from God as their locus". You go on to say that these objective values do not have a reality separate from God. This means that their objectivity is inseparable from their divine reality. By defining objective moral values in this way, you've made the first premise tautological: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (which are defined as those values which stem from God) do not exist either. I can see why you think that atheists must accept your first premise. They must accept it because it is trivially true.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

This argument is as unsound as the gk chesterton quote in the OPs signature.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

If you didn't want to discuss the morality of killing babies, why did you bring it up in the first place? You seem kind of confused as to what you actually want to discuss here.

But in any case, I've established that the word of God says it is good to dash babies' heads against rocks. Many cultures disagree. This disagreement is yet more evidence that morality is subjective and not objective, thus disproving premise #2.

 

[KCfromNC]

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).

Yep, and showing that a premise is fabricated out of thin air is sufficient to meet these conditions, at least for those of us who care if logical arguments are in any way connected to the reality we inhabit.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

True, but the answer is the same even if God does exist. The problem here is that there's no "justifiable basis for grounding objective moral values and duties" due to the lack of evidence for and considerable evidence against that concept in the first place. That's true whether or not god(s) are or are not involved.

Worrying about how/if god is involved is putting the cart before the horse here.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you didn't want to discuss the morality of killing babies, why did you bring it up in the first place? You seem kind of confused as to what you actually want to discuss here.

But in any case, I've established that the word of God says it is good to dash babies' heads against rocks. Many cultures disagree. This disagreement is yet more evidence that morality is subjective and not objective, thus disproving premise #2.

I don't think you really believe that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't think you really believe that.

Oh, I would bet that he does. It's not an uncommon view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Funny, I didn't know that Plato used the internet. You learn something new here every day.

Divine command theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't think you realise how pompous the above text reads, and I certainly won't go into that. But the objection still holds: the first premise is a tautology. You've defined the concept of 'objective moral values' as "moral values and duties which stem from God as their locus". You go on to say that these objective values do not have a reality separate from God. This means that their objectivity is inseparable from their divine reality. By defining objective moral values in this way, you've made the first premise tautological: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (which are defined as those values which stem from God) do not exist either. I can see why you think that atheists must accept your first premise. They must accept it because it is trivially true.

Just examine some of the main line arguments from contemporary evolutionary ethicists. Don't take my word for it. Read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Read Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell, Dawkins etc etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just examine some of the main line arguments from contemporary evolutionary ethicists. Don't take my word for it. Read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape. Read Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell, Dawkins etc etc.

I have read them. What do they have to do with your tautology?

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think you really believe that.

It must be convenient to believe that, but I see no rational reason why you should.

I'll take this baseless accusation of lying as an admission you can't actually address the points I raise.

 

[Elioenai26]

Oh, I would bet that he does. It's not an uncommon view.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In theory, many impractical ideas are not uncommon. Anyone can be a relativist on an internet forum. But when the rubber meets the road, no one can be a moral relativist. Especially when the relativist himself is the recipient of another relativist's subjective views which conflict his own.

That is evidenced here by the moral outcries against the God of the Bible. The same atheists who deny objective moral values and duties are the very ones who think God is objectively wrong in sending people to hell who are unrepentant.

This is the whole point of the argument and what I have said cannot be denied or explained away. It is what it is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In theory, many impractical ideas are not uncommon. Anyone can be a relativist on an internet forum. But when the rubber meets the road, no one can be a moral relativist. Especially when the relativist himself is the recipient of another relativist's subjective views which conflict his own.

A subjectivist about moral value is not necessarily a moral relativist.

That is evidenced here by the moral outcries against the God if the Bible. The same atheists who deny objective moral values are the very ones who think God is objectively wrong in sending people to hell.

That raises an interesting question. If God orders the killing of some group of people, is it wrong?

 

[Elioenai26]

It must be convenient to believe that, but I see no rational reason why you should.

I'll take this baseless accusation of lying as an admission you can't actually address the points I raise.

But you are not a moral relativist and you know yourself you don't live like one either.

 

[Elioenai26]

A subjectivist about moral value is not necessarily a moral relativist.

It doesn't matter what title you give yourself. You do not live as if there are no objective moral values. Period.

 

[quatona]

In theory, many impractical ideas are not uncommon. Anyone can be a relativist on an internet forum. But when the rubber meets the road, no one can be a moral relativist. Especially when the relativist himself is the recipient of another relativist's subjective views which conflict his own.

I have asked you before:
Please explain what you would expect a true subjectivist to do when the rubber meets the road, and how it´s impossible for him to do that.
What exactly is it that moral subjectivism would prevent someone from doing?

That is evidenced here by the moral outcries against the God if the Bible. The same atheists who deny objective moral values are the very ones who think God is objectively wrong in sending people to hell.

This statement is inaccurate.

 

[KCfromNC]

In theory, many impractical ideas are not uncommon. Anyone can be a relativist on an internet forum. But when the rubber meets the road, no one can be a moral relativist. Especially when the relativist himself is the recipient of another relativist's subjective views which conflict his own.

That is evidenced here by the moral outcries against the God if the Bible. The same atheists who deny objective moral values are the very ones who think God is objectively wrong in sending people to hell.

Maybe you should figure out if you really think God tells you it is good to kill babies, as exemplified by the verse I quoted. And which you keep trying to ignore. After that maybe then we can dig into the failings of other moral systems.

 

[Elioenai26]

That raises an interesting question. If God orders the killing of some group of people, is it wrong?

This is another red herring. If you want to start a new thread, I would love to defend the DCT.

 

[quatona]

It doesn't matter what title you give yourself. You do not live as if there are no objective moral values. Period.

"Period" is not a particularly strong argument where I come from.
Again:
How would someone live when there are no objective moral values?
What would I need to do in order to be a practicing moral subjectivist?

 

[KCfromNC]

But you are not a moral relativist and you know yourself you don't live like one either.

It must be easy to pretend to be right when you get to lie about the beliefs and practices of everyone else around you. If it we me, though, the fact I had to do so would raise some red flags about what I hold true. I guess not everyone follows that approach.