Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I have done all that I have decided needs to be done regarding premise (2). As I said earlier, you can accept it or reject it. The choice is yours. You reject it and I understand why you do, and accept that. Once again, I hope you have a great day.

I reject it, obviously, because it's solely an appeal to authority, which no experienced debater would commit.

What about #1?

 

[quatona]

I understand your position, and thank you for sharing it with me.

I understand you have run out of arguments or ways to support your initial argument.

 

[quatona]

To condemn something means to judge as being worthy of condemnation.

Ok.

But in order to judge something that someone does or believes, you would have to have some type of standard to appeal to in judgment that is above and beyond the two of you.

Doesn´t follow. I could condemn something just on grounds of my personalm subjective standards.
Your idea that any subjective condemnation implies an objective condemnation is a misinterpretation.

Since for the relativist, everything is relative, you have no standard to appeal to except for your own opinion.

Again: We are talking objective vs. subjective, not absolute vs. relative.
I have my subjective standards. You have yours. You need to show how there are objective standards.

Everyone has opinions however. The one you condemn could condemn you for being judgmental.

Sure, and they will. That´s reality, confirmed over and over again.
Enter Elionenai, claiming that one of these positions are objective. Go ahead, substantiate it.

I do not recall if you have or not. I don't really care personally.

Then please refrain from making this assertion part of your argument.

 

[Davian]

The rules of literary interpretation determine whether a passage of literature is to be taken as literal, figurative, etc. etc. In order to determine which passages are literal in the Genesis account, one has to factor in a number of things in making a final determination.

Does that process involve starting with the conclusion that you want to reach?

This Truth I speak of is a person. His name is Jesus.

Preaching again.

He knows how old the earth is and stuff like that.

He knew lots of stuff. I would hope so, if he was a god.

Personally, I do not feel the need to know how old the earth is.

You did seem to go on about it in posts like this one.

I am confused. How was my request in the OP a red herring, if as you say, my behavior in the following posts were indicative of me not minding derails? I am not against answering questions that can in some way be related back to the topic, but I am not obligated to answer and facilitate in the derailing of a thread to the point where it becomes completely indistinguishable from the OP.

I will retract that. I will take it that your request to refrain from logical fallacies was meant for others, not yourself.

 

[Tnmusicman]

If god(s) existed we wouldn't be having this discussion...

IF God existed?? Proof please that God does not exist.

 

[Elioenai26]

IF God existed?? Proof please that God does not exist.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

IF God existed?? Proof please that God does not exist.

God is a hypothetical in this discussion. No adequate evidence of god's existence has ever been offered.

 

[Davian]

IF God existed?? Proof please that God does not exist.

In the absence of your ability to demonstrate the existence of this "God", are either of you seriously expecting someone to prove a negative?

Why are theists so eager to shift the burden of evidence?

 

[Tnmusicman]

In the absence of your ability to demonstrate the existence of this "God", are either of you seriously expecting someone to prove a negative?

Why are theists so eager to shift the burden of evidence?

Because the statement was made that if God existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. That, in itself, is a claim to knowledge (albeit in a roundabout way) so it's not about shifting the BOP but if the atheist/agnostic side of the equation is going to start with the claims that God doesn't exist then,just like atheists do with theists, we are going to ask you to provide proof for *your* claims.

 

[Tnmusicman]

In the absence of your ability to demonstrate the existence of this "God", are either of you seriously expecting someone to prove a negative?

Why are theists so eager to shift the burden of evidence?

Btw, you *can* prove some negatives.

 

[Davian]

Because the statement was made that if God existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. That, in itself, is a claim to knowledge (albeit in a roundabout way) so it's not about shifting the BOP but if the atheist/agnostic side of the equation is going to start with the claims that God doesn't exist then,just like atheists do with theists, we are going to ask you to provide proof for *your* claims.

But you did not point out that he made a knowledge claim (in a roundabout way or any other);

You asked: "Proof please that God does not exist." That is clearly shifting the burden of evidence, and worse, in the form of asking someone to prove a negative. Elio quickly jumped on your wagon.

Look what Elio did on post #3 of this thread; in his second post in this thread he tried to put words in my mouth, to move the burden of evidence to me.

Things went downhill from there.

 

[Davian]

Btw, you *can* prove some negatives.

On the subject of deities, I'm not expecting "proof" either way.

I do consider absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

 

[JGG]

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it.

By this description, not being kosher is objectively wrong. Eli, do you stay kosher?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There are, I suppose, several ways of explaining what the word objective means when referring to the moral argument. They all have the same meaning. I will let Dr. Craig's working definition be the one we will use here. It is as follows:

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God | Reasonable Faith

That's not how you defined the concept of 'objective moral values' earlier in this thread. You defined objectivity as inseparable from God and objective moral values as those values which "stem from God as their locus". This renders your first premise tautological. As quantona pointed out, you are trying to define God into existence.

If we accept Craig's definition, then it is not clear why we are obligated to accept (1). He certainly doesn't give us any reason to do so beyond claiming that people generally accept the premise, which is nothing more than an appeal to popular opinion.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

To note: I am not saying that because the aforementioned people recognize that there are objective moral values and duties, that it necessarily follows that objective moral values and duties necessarily exist.

Good, because that would be an argument from authority, which we all know is a logical fallacy, and which you have clearly stated you don't wish to have in this thread.

What I have done is utilized them to demonstrate that:

1. They are experts in their respective fields that have an indepth knowledge of the various aspects of morality, desriptive or normative.

Unproven assertion, but OK.

2. They represent the general consensus among contemporary ethicists that there are indeed objective moral values and duties.

False. Got any actual evidence that that's true?

Note, there is a wide array of posited hypotheses for the ontological explanations of objective moral values and duties, i.e Kantian Moral theory, Natural Law theory, Evolutionary Ethical theory, Divine Command theory, etc. etc. What is not disputed by the general consensus of contemporary academics is that there exists in our capacity for moral judgments, somethings that are objectively frowned upon, and somethings that are objectively encouraged.

Lovely.

Now, the above could be used to formulate an argument ad verecundiam i.e an authoritative syllogistical argument, in support of premise (2) of the Moral Argument, but I believe that the premise already has sufficient epistemic warrant as it is. We as rational human beings simply do not need to be told, convinced, or persuaded that somethings are objectively good and somethings are objectively bad.

The capacity for making moral judgments - constraints vs. compulsions, as it were, says nothing about whether objective morals exist.

Now, it is logically possible that there are no objective moral values and duties and that every rational human being that has ever lived has just been wrong about those things which they have held to be true, but the question is: Is this scenario probable? Is it more probable that human beings are suffering from some sort of delusion regarding specific actions that they intuitively know to be morally reprehensible, or is it more probable that we as humans have this concept of an objective realm of moral values and duties, because they in fact exist?

Yes.

In light of all of the above Icewater, I believe the proponent of the Moral Argument is more than justified in maintaining that premise (2) is more plausibly true than its denial.

You have presented an argument from authority. A fallacy. Why should we believe you?

Now, if anyone wishes to disagree with this, they are free to do so. I do not expect for any atheist here to admit that their resistance to accepting premise (2) of the moral argument has been turned to acceptance via my arguments.

When you present an actual argument rather than a logical fallacy, we might agree with you.

This would require them to admit that they were wrong, and I do not expect anyone here to admit they were wrong. What I do hope is that in their personal time, that they may think long and hard about these topics of discussion and think through their implications.

Coming from you, this is rich.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

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

The moral argument bears the conspicuous feature or characteristic of reverse engineering, in other words the premise(s) are subsequent or as a result of a desired conclusion. This intellectual dishonesty is otherwise known as rationalization. I find it somewhat amusing that you present a logical fallacy as a topic and then request responders to refrain from using any logical fallacies whilst remaining on topic.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The moral argument bears the conspicuous feature or characteristic of reverse engineering, in other words the premise(s) are subsequent or as a result of a desired conclusion. This intellectual dishonesty is otherwise known as rationalization. I find it somewhat amusing that you present a logical fallacy as a topic and then request responders to refrain from using any logical fallacies whilst remaining on topic.

Interesting. And his support for his premises so far also consists of logical fallacies. Notably, argument from authority.

 

[Tnmusicman]

But you did not point out that he made a knowledge claim (in a roundabout way or any other);

You asked: "Proof please that God does not exist." That is clearly shifting the burden of evidence, and worse, in the form of asking someone to prove a negative. Elio quickly jumped on your wagon.

Look what Elio did on post #3 of this thread; in his second post in this thread he tried to put words in my mouth, to move the burden of evidence to me.

Things went downhill from there.

Actually, I don't see him putting words in your mouth. I see him asking you :
" Are you saying premise 2 is false? "
I would consider it putting words in your mouth if he said " Ohhhh, so you think premise 2 is false. Well aren't you just a schmuck"
...or something to that effect.
As stated, I would consider it asking for clarification on your position.

If you will refer to post #409 you will see that I address the issue of madaz' claim of knowledge and they have yet to offer up any "proof" of their claim other than saying it was a hypothetical and that no proof existed for God, which is not true,IMO but it does nothing to address the actual claim of knowledge.

 

[Elioenai26]

The moral argument bears the conspicuous feature or characteristic of reverse engineering, in other words the premise(s) are subsequent or as a result of a desired conclusion. This intellectual dishonesty is otherwise known as rationalization. I find it somewhat amusing that you present a logical fallacy as a topic and then request responders to refrain from using any logical fallacies whilst remaining on topic.

The moral argument as it has been formulated in the OP is logically sound. Therefore, any argument against its construction is aimed at a strawman.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Pardon me, madaz didn't even address my request for evidence. It was answered by someone else so that's even MORE telling. Why is the standard of evidence different for the atheist than the theist? Especially when the atheist is making the same claims of knowledge? It's great that a number of people will pile up on one person and be demanding of an answer over and over but when it comes to the atheist making the same claim of knowledge it's dismissed and excuses are offered because the atheist position *claims* they aren't asserting anything. So, an atheist can make all sorts of claims but doesn't need to back them up because ...........why?? Can't use the atheist isn't making any claims bull on this one.