Can you be good without God?

[MennoSota]

Morality does not need to be objective to exist without your god, even if your god did exist that would not make morality objective, you would merely value his person and his opinion... that is not objective.

Arguing that morality is not objective has nothing to do with where morals come from. Arguing that I can't prove that my morality is the one true moral system does not establish or provide that morality comes from god. You are only demonstrating that you think the moral system based on god is best and that you don't know how to have morality without the god... and that makes you a sociopath, not me.

You saying that you can't imagine morality existing without god is your problem, I know I have a moral system, I don't need to prove that it's best and it will never depend on your god.

If God does not exist, morality is anything you call it and it changes like a sand dune.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of course they are not God's moral law. They are laws under the Mosaic Covenant, which Israel was to use as a nation.

In your opinion are those words not inspired by, or endorsed by god?

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is no objective right or wrong with a God, either.

I have to disagree with that one. There are objective facts that we base moral judgments off of.

Granted, the existence of a god is irrelevant to those facts.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If God does not exist, morality is anything you call it and it changes like a sand dune.

No, it's not. We have a definition of what morality is.

Morality (noun): Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

[Davian]

If God does not exist, morality is anything you call it

I call it a particular system of values and principles of conduct held by a society.

and it changes like a sand dune.

I dunno. I suspect that one could look to the past, and see similar values in those that lived before us, in that they would rather not be hurt, stolen from, or have their home burned down.

We don't need gods to know that.

 

[Hikarifuru]

If God does not exist, morality is anything you call it and it changes like a sand dune.

That has nothing to do with whether or not morality exists without god.

Even of god did exist, morality is still anything you call it, your opinion that god's opinion is important is subjective in itself. God existing would not make any moral system objective. You merely value the god, that's subjective.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I have to disagree with that one. There are objective facts that we base moral judgments off of.

Granted, the existence of a god is irrelevant to those facts.

But part of your argument being objective doesn't mean you aren't just forming an opinion off of it. It is a fact that medicine makes people live longer, but it is your opinion that people should live longer.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Of course they are not God's moral law. They are laws under the Mosaic Covenant, which Israel was to use as a nation.

They are also laws and commands that your god made so they reflect his values.

In addition the numerous prophecies where he says he will make women be raped force them to miscarry.

 

[Achilles6129]

If "good" and "evil" are subjective terms applied to specific acts, then the proof of an individual's interpretation of those words will be their definitions of those words. Which means that anyone can be good without a god, since even a god's interpretation would be subjective.

If "good" and "evil" are objective terms applied to specific acts, then they exist and can be proven independently of any god. Anyone can be good without a god in this case because of the objective nature of the terms.

So yeah, everyone can be good without a god...

In that case, if good/evil are subjective, then there is really no such thing as good/evil, since everyone's definition would be different. If good/evil are objective, which they must be in order to exist in any meaningful sense, then we're back to where we started, meaning that you have to prove what good/evil are.

 

[quatona]

I have to disagree with that one. There are objective facts that we base moral judgments off of.

We don´t disagree on the latter. We may disagree, though, in the question whether that renders those moral judgements themselves "objective" (basically just a semantics question). I find that bordering an equivocaton of "objective".

Granted, the existence of a god is irrelevant to those facts.

Yep, that was my point. If, as was the poster´s claim, there is no objective morality without a God, there is no objective morality with a God, either.

 

[Achilles6129]

Of course they are not God's moral law. They are laws under the Mosaic Covenant, which Israel was to use as a nation.

Actually, I disagree. Everything God says and does is a reflection of his nature and moral character. Therefore, it cannot be wrong to sell your daughter as a slave. And, as a matter of fact, slavery itself can't be wrong.

 

[quatona]

Of course they are not God's moral law. They are laws under the Mosaic Covenant, which Israel was to use as a nation.

Oh look, moral relativism.

 

[Stellar Vision]

This belongs in Ethics and Morality.

 

[Achilles6129]

They are also laws and commands that your god made so they reflect his values.

In addition the numerous prophecies where he says he will make women be raped force them to miscarry.

1) You are correct: everything God says/does is a reflection of his nature and moral character.

2) Scripture never condones rape. However, you are correct in that there are prophecies where God says he will bring nations against people who will rape women, etc. That doesn't mean that God approves of this behavior, but I think you are correct to a certain extent when you say that he uses it as punishment. However, just because God uses something as punishment doesn't necessarily mean he approves it: remember, rape gets the death penalty in the Torah.

I also want to remind everyone that according to the rules of this forum we cannot discuss apologetics (which means we can't discuss interpretations of Scripture passages) on this forum. I find this rule to be unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do. I've had threads shut down for it before.

 

[MennoSota]

Oh look, moral relativism.

Nope. Do you know about the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant? Do you know what God's moral laws are as compared with God's laws given to Moses for the nation of Israel?

 

[quatona]

Nope. Do you know about the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant? Do you know what God's moral laws are as compared with God's laws given to Moses for the nation of Israel?

If Israel gets different moral laws than the rest of the world (or a "covenant" that makes prescriptions that differ from the moral laws), that´s moral relativism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But part of your argument being objective doesn't mean you aren't just forming an opinion off of it. It is a fact that medicine makes people live longer, but it is your opinion that people should live longer.

The fact that I think people should live longer is irrelevant to the discussion.

There are good actions, and there are harmful actions. If you gave medicine to an otherwise healthy person who was suffering from a minor illness, and that medicine allowed them to heal up and recover, then you have by definition benefitted them. Their health has improved, that is objective.

Giving that person medicine and helping them out creates far more positive consequences than negative. Therefore, it is a moral act.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We don´t disagree on the latter. We may disagree, though, in the question whether that renders those moral judgements themselves "objective" (basically just a semantics question). I find that bordering an equivocaton of "objective".

You may have slightly misunderstood my point.

Moral judgments are necessarily subjective, as all judgments are.

However, those judgments are based on objective facts. That's where the objective basis to morality rests. There is no such thing as a subjective fact.

 

[MennoSota]

If Israel gets different moral laws than the rest of the world (or a "covenant" that makes prescriptions that differ from the moral laws), that´s moral relativism.

No, it's God's sovereign right.

You are subject under God, no matter how much you complain.

 

[Davian]

No, it's God's sovereign right.

You are subject under God, no matter how much you complain.

God who?