The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but I also realize that you responded to my response to the argument. So should I simply ignore you, or what´s your point in saying this?

I'm sorry. I don't remember what I responded to, so that might be the problem here. I went back into my past posts and can't find it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just answered your question in no uncertain terms.

No you didn't.

You said: You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though, it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

You didn't tell me if you believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. You told me it needed another thread and that it is not classified as genocide but you didn't answer my question. Will you answer my question or continue to evade it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No you didn't.

You said: You asked whether I believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. Obviously this would require its own thread (presumably in the History subforum) to do the topic justice. For the sake of this discussion though, it is not classified as a genocide by the common definition of the term (i.e., "the intent to systematically eliminate a cultural, ethnic, linguistic, national, racial or religious group").

You didn't tell me if you believed the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of genocide. You told me it needed another thread and that it is not classified as genocide but you didn't answer my question. Will you answer my question or continue to evade it?

How much clearer do I need to make it? For the sake of this discussion, I don't consider it an act of genocide, based on the common definition of the term (given above). Do I need to spell it out further for you?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So is this the reason you haven't answered my question?

Probably, forgive me because its been so long but what was your question?

 

[bhsmte]

To be clear, you are saying that you would kill men, women, and children at the behest of Yahweh?

No way you get an answer to that question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How much clearer do I need to make it? For the sake of this discussion, I don't consider it an act of genocide, based on the common definition of the term (given above). Do I need to spell it out further for you?

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, we know that not only men but women, children, fetuses and animals were killed just as in the case of the Old Testament account in discussion but in this you claim it is genocide. The group first attacked and killed the old, young and pregnant of the Jews and would have finished them off if not for the defensive action taken by the Jews by God's command. You call that genocide. You call me immoral for saying that if my people including the old, sick, young and pregnant were being killed that I go and kill their old, sick, young and pregnant. This is very much as much self defense as it was when the US bombed Japan. Can explain why you view one as genocide and not the other?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How much clearer do I need to make it? For the sake of this discussion, I don't consider it an act of genocide, based on the common definition of the term (given above). Do I need to spell it out further for you?

You can answer by saying you personally feel whether or not it is genocide or not. It is very simple.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No way you get an answer to that question.

I answered this on post #566

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I found this:

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

So Craig get's credit for phrasing it the way Sapiens does, but "through the centuries"? It could have had a lot of forms over time, but the way it is phrased here and Sapiens' way isn't your way. So I guess it's you and me versus Sapiens! Haha![/QUOTE}

I know this is an old post but I just wanted to clarify why I do not think WLC's Moral Argument proves or disproves the existence of God. It all goes back to premise 2 and the claim that objective morality exists. You see, in order for anything to be objectively true or false it would require that claim to be determined by an undeniable fact as its standard. If something is objectively good, it would be good regardless of anyone's opinion. This poses a huge problem because technically if everyone all agreed that something is good/bad or right/wrong, that would still not prove that it is objectively good/bad or right/wrong because it uses unanimous subjective opinion as the standard and not undeniable facts. Like if everyone all agreed that the earth was flat. Would that make the flat earth objectively true? No, everyone would be objectively wrong despite the unanimous consensus. So how can we prove that something is objectively moral despite the unanimous consensus? I don't know how to prove that and I don't think anyone can. The moral argument is based on the hypothetical "if objective morality does exist", its standard must come from a being with intelligence to have created humanity with a purpose. Whatever that purpose is, that purpose would be the undeniable fact that would be set as the standard to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong. Notice that I use the term a God, gods, being with intelligence and not specifically [the God of Abraham]. Because technically, for objective morality to exist, it could be ANY God or being with intelligence and is not limited to just one. This poses another major problem because how do we know which God is truly the objective standard? It would be like my knife analogy . Somebody created the knife with the intended purpose of cutting. If several people disagreed to what the purpose of the knife should be, they would all be objectively wrong and the one person who created the knife would be objectively right. So the problem is this, "Which religion is the one who created the knife and which ones are saying the purpose of a knife should be to cook my breakfast?"

In conclusion, I think WLC has it wrong with the premise:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

Rather it should be:
Premise 1: Objective moral values cannot exist without a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) who created humanity for an intended purpose.

Premise 2: Objective moral values either exist or the do not exist.

Conclusion: If you believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) exists. If you do not believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that humanity was never created for any intended purpose by a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) but it is still possible for a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) to have created humanity without an intended purpose.

 

[Moral Orel]

We were attacking them because they attacked us and would have continued until we submitted with many deaths of American's in the process. Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is defined as the use of violence, or threatened use of violence, in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. The bombs were used in self-defense against violence to achieve a political/ideological aim. When the US bombed Japan it was not to further our aims but to keep intact our own against an enemy wishing to over take us.

Definition from the FBI here:

"Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law"

Nukes are definitely dangerous, no debate there. Violation of federal and state laws is only there because this is actual legal code for someone who would be prosecuted by us.

"Appear to be intended
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;"

Scare the Japanese populace to not back the war effort.

"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or"

Scare the Japanese politicians to not back the war effort.

"(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"
Going to war is part of the conduct of a government, and it definitely qualifies as mass destruction.

There is more to the definition you can read as to whether it is domestic or international (this would of course be international) but there is nothing that is part of the definition that says it has to be an individual, or private organization, or government that is acting.

There is also nothing about "who started it". That has nothing to do with whether something is a terrorist act or not.

And your definition fits as well until you call it self defense, which is has nothing to do with whether it is terrorism or not. I'm not saying the Japanese were good guys at all, not in the slightest. What I say about our conduct has no bearing whatsoever on what I think of their conduct. But we didn't bomb a military installation did we?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I reposted this because I screwed up the last one with the quote brackets.

I know this is an old post but I just wanted to clarify why I do not think WLC's Moral Argument proves or disproves the existence of God. It all goes back to premise 2 and the claim that objective morality exists. You see, in order for anything to be objectively true or false it would require that claim to be determined by an undeniable fact as its standard. If something is objectively good, it would be good regardless of anyone's opinion. This poses a huge problem because technically if everyone all agreed that something is good/bad or right/wrong, that would still not prove that it is objectively good/bad or right/wrong because it uses unanimous subjective opinion as the standard and not undeniable facts. Like if everyone all agreed that the earth was flat. Would that make the flat earth objectively true? No, everyone would be objectively wrong despite the unanimous consensus. So how can we prove that something is objectively moral despite the unanimous consensus? I don't know how to prove that and I don't think anyone can. The moral argument is based on the hypothetical "if objective morality does exist", its standard must come from a being with intelligence to have created humanity with a purpose. Whatever that purpose is, that purpose would be the undeniable fact that would be set as the standard to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong. Notice that I use the term a God, gods, being with intelligence and not specifically [the God of Abraham]. Because technically, for objective morality to exist, it could be ANY God or being with intelligence and is not limited to just one. This poses another major problem because how do we know which God is truly the objective standard? It would be like my knife analogy . Somebody created the knife with the intended purpose of cutting. If several people disagreed to what the purpose of the knife should be, they would all be objectively wrong and the one person who created the knife would be objectively right. So the problem is this, "Which religion is the one who created the knife and which ones are saying the purpose of a knife should be to cook my breakfast?"

In conclusion, I think WLC has it wrong with the premise:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

Rather it should be:
Premise 1: Objective moral values cannot exist without a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) who created humanity for an intended purpose.

Premise 2: Objective moral values either exist or the do not exist.

Conclusion: If you believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) exists. If you do not believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that humanity was never created for any intended purpose by a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) but it is still possible for a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) to have created humanity without an intended purpose.[/

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, so you're arguing against the OP right along with me. I know what your argument is, and it is in contrast to the OP's version of the moral argument, so we agree that the argument presented fails.

 

[quatona]

I reposted this because I screwed up the last one with the quote brackets.

I know this is an old post but I just wanted to clarify why I do not think WLC's Moral Argument proves or disproves the existence of God. It all goes back to premise 2 and the claim that objective morality exists. You see, in order for anything to be objectively true or false it would require that claim to be determined by an undeniable fact as its standard. If something is objectively good, it would be good regardless of anyone's opinion. This poses a huge problem because technically if everyone all agreed that something is good/bad or right/wrong, that would still not prove that it is objectively good/bad or right/wrong because it uses unanimous subjective opinion as the standard and not undeniable facts. Like if everyone all agreed that the earth was flat. Would that make the flat earth objectively true? No, everyone would be objectively wrong despite the unanimous consensus. So how can we prove that something is objectively moral despite the unanimous consensus? I don't know how to prove that and I don't think anyone can. The moral argument is based on the hypothetical "if objective morality does exist", its standard must come from a being with intelligence to have created humanity with a purpose. Whatever that purpose is, that purpose would be the undeniable fact that would be set as the standard to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong. Notice that I use the term a God, gods, being with intelligence and not specifically [the God of Abraham]. Because technically, for objective morality to exist, it could be ANY God or being with intelligence and is not limited to just one. This poses another major problem because how do we know which God is truly the objective standard? It would be like my knife analogy . Somebody created the knife with the intended purpose of cutting. If several people disagreed to what the purpose of the knife should be, they would all be objectively wrong and the one person who created the knife would be objectively right. So the problem is this, "Which religion is the one who created the knife and which ones are saying the purpose of a knife should be to cook my breakfast?"

In conclusion, I think WLC has it wrong with the premise:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

Rather it should be:
Premise 1: Objective moral values cannot exist without a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) who created humanity for an intended purpose.

Premise 2: Objective moral values either exist or the do not exist.

Conclusion: If you believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) exists. If you do not believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that humanity was never created for any intended purpose by a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) but it is still possible for a God (or other intelligent creator of humanity) to have created humanity without an intended purpose.[/

That´s already much better, but I think it has still flaws.
E.g. treating "purpose intended by the creator" and "objective purpose" as synonyms is questionable. Personally, I wouldn´t know what renders it "objective".
But of course you are free to define words the way you want to. However, if we work from the idea that "objective" means "intended (by a creator) - and nothing else" the entire argument is redundant. The definition already tells the whole story: Purpose requires a creator, by definition.

Another questionable point: The assumption that what´s true for "purpose" is therefore true for "values" (but, of course, you also are free to define "values" as "values held by a creator" and thereby render the entire argument tautological/redundant).

 

[Davian]

I was under the impression (wrong I guess) that you didn't believe in free will but in determinism.

I do not see how the two are necessarily incompatible.

I would be open to being shown that opinion is incorrect. I have read many articles from current scientists who feel our free will is an illusion. It seems to me that at least a majority of them believe in determinism. If you have something that would show that the majority of scientists do not believe in determinism I would be glad to look at it.

I would be open to being shown that your opinion is correct. You do the work, rather than shifting the burden to others.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That´s already much better, but I think it has still flaws.
E.g. treating "purpose intended by the creator" and "objective purpose" as synonyms is questionable. Personally, I wouldn´t know what renders it "objective".
But of course you are free to define words the way you want to. However, if we work from the idea that "objective" means "intended (by a creator) - and nothing else" the entire argument is redundant. The definition already tells the whole story: Purpose requires a creator, by definition.

Another questionable point: The assumption that what´s true for "purpose" is therefore true for "values" (but, of course, you also are free to define "values" as "values held by a creator" and thereby render the entire argument tautological/redundant).

How about this?

Premise 1: Objective morals and values cannot exist without a God.
Premise 2: Objective moral values either exist or the do not exist.

Conclusion: If you believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that a God exists. If you do not believe that objective moral values exist, that does not necessarily mean a God cannot exist.

 

[quatona]

How about this?

Premise 1: Objective morals and values cannot exist without a God.
Premise 2: Objective moral values either exist or the do not exist.

Conclusion: If you believe that objective moral values exist, you have to believe that a God exists. If you do not believe that objective moral values exist, that does not necessarily mean a God cannot exist.

I still think it´s more a tautology than a syllogism - seeing that it requires you to have defined "objective" as "intended/prescribed/determined... by the creator". You would just have to spell out your implicit definition, and the entire syllogism would just lead back to its (unspoken) premise.
The interesting part, however: The more accurate the argument gets, the more trivial it gets.
I´m not sure there is much point in completely restructuring a terrible argument. When neither the premises nor the conclusions remain, when new definitions are applied (and on top it becomes a triviality to the point of being tautological) in order to arrive at a result without logical faults, I think we can just lean back and conclude "the original moral argument is a mess. There´s no way to save it.".

 

[anonymous person]

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

 

[bhsmte]

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

What objective moral values?

 

[anonymous person]

What objective moral values?

Would you think Bob had done something bad if he deliberately misrepresented well evidenced science to justify his belief that you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe what he believes?

Yes, no, I don't understand the question, or I won't answer the question....

Which is it?

 

[bhsmte]

Would you think Bob had done something bad if he deliberately misrepresented well evidenced science to justify his belief that you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe what he

Yes, no, I don't understand the question, or in won't answer the question....

Which is it?

And this has what to do, with establishing objective moral values?