The Moral Argument (revamped)

[Moral Orel]

I tried to believe your first few sentences, just to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you instantly crushed that trust by flaming and belittling soon afterward. So, no more replies to you sir. You can flame all you want, all by yourself.

The offer will always be there should manners and politeness ever be something that you concern yourself with.

 

[Uber Genius]

As soon as you make headway they just start mocking, some in fact have told me that they have no reservations against mocking other people's viewpoints. It's not really about evidence for them, it's about not wanting to be accountable to God for their fornication, drunkenness, homosexuality, and pornography.

Yes I agree about the tactics however I don’t know what their motive is. We have Julian Huxley inference (just wanted to justify being god of my own morality but
others like guys like Mahatma Ghandhi are using fallacy for other reasons.


So for me the jury is out on why so many appeal to fallacy here. It is the easy button to say they don’t have anybwdicationnin logic but then we run into the intellectuals of the New Atheists and they all have more than adequate education in fallacious reasoning to recognize they are making false claims. Yet they publish books by the millions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes I agree about the tactics however I don’t know what their motive is. We have Julian Huxley inference (just wanted to justify being god of my own morality but
others like guys like Mahatma Ghandhi are using fallacy for other reasons.


So for me the jury is out on why so many appeal to fallacy here. It is the easy button to say they don’t have anybwdicationnin logic but then we run into the intellectuals of the New Atheists and they all have more than adequate education in fallacious reasoning to recognize they are making false claims. Yet they publish books by the millions.

well the motive seems to be obvious. As a former christian, they realize that the christianity was a mistake they made. And they don't want others to make the same mistake. So mocking it, is one way to do that. That is the nicest way I have put it.

 

[cvanwey]

the moral argument for God's existence is basically summed up like this, real simple. How does an atheist account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil? Or a God who loves babies, Good? Who or what law does an atheist adhere to to make that call? IT is the moral law. If the moral law does not exist, then we are forced to vote for morality in which the atheist is forced to declare that there is not proper moral ground to declare any act of God evil without evidence (as voting for morality is not empirical methodology).

even stanford encyclopedia of philosophy states this:

Even IF everything you state IS true, you have one simple task.... Demonstrate the mere existence of not only A GOD, but more importantly, your God.

As of thus far, philosophers have disputed, wrestled, and/or debated for/against the possible mere existence of God(s) for millennia. We are no closer to resolve on this topic.

As for the last couple of years in my exploration process, I have concluded that the 'moral argument' seems to be nothing more than a 'distracter,' (i.e.) theists will use follow-up questions such as... "Oh yea, what's your standard for saying that this event in the Bible is bad?" And so on...

Okay, great... I read, in your other on-going thread, that you are a baseball fan. So let's use analogy here...

I'm going to pitch a fat juicy one right over center plate to the clean-up batter --> (you)... Meaning, objective/absolute morality cannot be accounted for without an absolute/objective law maker/law giver/etc...

We are right back to where we started though. Meaning, you must demonstrate the mere existence of this asserted force. Otherwise, you are getting your opponent to argue 'why' something is 'wrong', while never actually having even demonstrating the existence of this necessary force/agent.

In conclusion, how is THIS TOPIC really any different than your other topic 'Argument for God's Existence?'

As it stands, we have several demonstrated mechanisms to 'judge' the 'rightness / wrongness' of an action - (i.e.) homeostasis (Maslow's hierarchy), consequentialism, cooperation, game theory, empathy, evolution (tribalism), reciprocal altruism, humans being extremely altricial, and elders teaching the younger ones how to co-exist in society, which all keeps the anarchy at bay.

Are the above methods objective/absolute? WHO CARES! These are the 'proven' methods in which humans 'judge' deemed 'moral actions.'

Now ALL you need to do, is demonstrate the existence of not only A GOD, but YOUR God, and the rest is gravy.

Your move

And once full concession has been conceded; that Yahweh exists, we can then move on to phase two...

God has His opinions about 'right/wrong.' I have my opinions about 'right/wrong.' Really the only reason God wins, over me, is because He would have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him.

 

[createdtoworship]

Even IF everything you state IS true, you have one simple task.... Demonstrate the mere existence of not only A GOD, but more importantly, your God.

nothing you have said this far has refuted the OP.
I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God. Firstly if you see something made, you know it had a maker. You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker. The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause. IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational. So it must have had a cause. Again, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point. So again I go back to the original statement, if you see something made, you know it had a maker. This is solid logic without any external evidence needed. Now for the christian part:
Imagine baking a cake in which no ingredients currently exist. If you can't do that, then a creator can't create a universe in which He did not have intelligence. If it is a character trait that is valuable in the universe, versus not valuable, like evil. Then yes the creator would have to have that character trait. I look at this as basic causation. Any effect in the universe must have a cause, the greatest effect (the universe), must have had the greatest cause. We see love in the universe so logically the creator would have to have that character trait. Evil again, is a lack of character. Or a not doing of something you should. So God naturally would not be required to have that trait because it's a lack of a trait. God would only be required to have love, intelligence and any other positive character trait like patience for example. this is very close to the Christian God. Intelligent, patient, loving, forgiving.

 

[Moral Orel]

Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang.

Bandwagon Fallacy

 

[cvanwey]

nothing you have said this far has refuted the OP.

I never tried. A matter of fact, as I stated, I lobbed a slow one right down the middle for you to take a swing at... Let's see how you do.

I can not only prove God's existence, but I can prove that the God that exists is very similar to a Christian God.

Nice, then the 'great debate' is just about over, what'za got?

Firstly if you see something made, you know it had a maker.

Mistake #1. You are begging the question. How do we determine what is 'made'? I would assume you also mean 'created' with intelligent conscious intent?

You don't even have to get into intelligent design at all for this point. Simply if you see something made, you know it had a maker.

Mistake #2. Okay, you just repeated the same thing as above. Again, what exactly was 'made/created' from some 'creator'?

The fact that the universe is an effect, means it had a cause.

I guess I agree, in the sense that something prior to known measurable 'time' happened, and the current effect is the state in which we perceive ourselves upon now, sure...

IF the largest effect in existence did not have a cause, then essentially that would disqualify all of the laws of cause and effect, which would be irrational.

Mistake #3. Wait a minute. How do we know our current state of our 'known' local 'universe' is the largest cause?

Mistake #4. Why automatically assume this unknown 'cause' was a God, or Yahweh?

The laws of cause/effect don't need to be violated, even using your argument. Why? The universe could still very well be eternal, and we can only measure the state of our current local 'universe'. Maybe prior to this 'big bang', was the end of a prior universe/other.?.?

But to instead assert that the 'big bang' WAS the sheer beginning of anything at all, besides God, is fallacious reasoning.

So it must have had a cause.

I would agree, that 'made' items have makers. But now we just need to determine what specific attributes determine a 'made' item?

Most scientists believe the universe had a big bang. Because of the fact the universe is expanding, and that if you reverse that there was a singularity at one point.

Mistake #5. Bandwagon fallacy... Most scientists also believe in evolutionary theory, due to the evidence. So this must mean you except evolution by natural selection in it's entirety, right? If not, then you need to stop tripping all over yourself.

Now for the christian part:

Why bother, until you actually justify your prior unfounded assertions.

I again reiterate... The moral argument really gets us nowhere. I happily admit that morals are no more absolute/objective than say... politics or economics. And yet, we get by. Case and point, if most's opinion was that killing was not 'bad', then it might be safe to say the human race would also be extinct; just like many other species. We would not have the luxury to post here, squabbling over how morals 'need to be objective.' Well, they aren't, even if you somehow proved the existence of your 'moral agent'. Why, because like I stated in my last post, 'God would have His opinions about 'right/wrong', and would I have my opinions about 'right/wrong.' Really the only reason God wins, over me, is because He would have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him.

At least demonstrate that your God exists, so we can put the 'knowledge of God's existence' assertion to bed.' Until then, you are placing the cart before the horse.

 

[Moral Orel]

The laws of cause/effect don't need to be violated, even using your argument.

There's no such thing as a "Law of Cause and Effect". Apologists made it up.

 

[Moral Orel]

@cvanwey
It is kind of funny, but you know I'm not joking, right? People try to conceptualize causality like they try to conceptualize morality, but there is no "Law" like the Law of Non-Contradiction.

 

[cvanwey]

@cvanwey
It is kind of funny, but you know I'm not joking, right? People try to conceptualize causality like they try to conceptualize morality, but there is no "Law" like the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Would you mind elaborating a bit more?

 

[Moral Orel]

Would you mind elaborating a bit more?

Try Googling "Law of Causality". Can you find any scholarly source that actually refers to a "Law"? It isn't a Law of Thought like the Law of Non Contradiction, and it isn't a law of physics, so what is it?

Causality is a philosophical pursuit, but there is no "Law" about how it has to work.

 

[cvanwey]

Try Googling "Law of Causality". Can you find any scholarly source that actually refers to a "Law"? It isn't a Law of Thought like the Law of Non Contradiction, and it isn't a law of physics, so what is it?

Causality is a philosophical pursuit, but there is no "Law" about how it has to work.

I guess I'm giving my opponent too much credit, without verification. I'm trying to apply my focus on how I feel, after many debates with theists; that the 'moral argument' itself seems to be nothing more than a red herring.

If I had a nickel for every time a theist would tell me, after I commented on a 'bad' part of the Bible; 'Oh yea, what's your standard?' I would have at least a few bucks... As if they feel they have a 'gotcha' moment.

And the kicker is, they would most likely not have the rebuttal comments they do, if they did not already agree with my position...

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess I'm giving my opponent too much credit, without verification.

Yeah, I only just recently looked into it too. Grady's not talking to me, but try asking him what the "Law of Causation" is and for a source you can read about it. Ed and I are having that same argument in the other thread.

 

[cvanwey]

Yeah, I only just recently looked into it too. Grady's not talking to me, but try asking him what the "Law of Causation" is and for a source you can read about it. Ed and I are having that same argument in the other thread.

Maybe we won't need to...? @Ed1wolf can chime in as well... He is asserting the same law towards me. (i.e.)

'Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have demonstrated the scientific evidence that He exists (BB theory and law of causality), but there is also philosophical evidence and historical evidence.'

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe we won't need to...? @Ed1wolf can chime in as well... He is asserting the same law towards me. (i.e.)

'Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have demonstrated the scientific evidence that He exists (BB theory and law of causality), but there is also philosophical evidence and historical evidence.'

Don't count on it. Ed takes a long time to reply. You can follow along in the other thread if you like. I already asked him to point that "Law" out to me, and he told me to brush up on my Aristotle. So I looked up his Four Causes that Aristotle posits are necessary to explain causality, and I found that Christianity asserts that one of them isn't necessary, therefore violating Aristotle's conception of causality. There needs to be something for God to act on to cause the universe to be, and creation ex nihilo says that thing isn't necessary, so "Law" violated.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never tried. A matter of fact, as I stated, I lobbed a slow one right down the middle for you to take a swing at... Let's see how you do.



Nice, then the 'great debate' is just about over, what'za got?



Mistake #1. You are begging the question. How do we determine what is 'made'? I would assume you also mean 'created' with intelligent conscious intent?



Mistake #2. Okay, you just repeated the same thing as above. Again, what exactly was 'made/created' from some 'creator'?



I guess I agree, in the sense that something prior to known measurable 'time' happened, and the current effect is the state in which we perceive ourselves upon now, sure...



Mistake #3. Wait a minute. How do we know our current state of our 'known' local 'universe' is the largest cause?

Mistake #4. Why automatically assume this unknown 'cause' was a God, or Yahweh?

The laws of cause/effect don't need to be violated, even using your argument. Why? The universe could still very well be eternal, and we can only measure the state of our current local 'universe'. Maybe prior to this 'big bang', was the end of a prior universe/other.?.?

But to instead assert that the 'big bang' WAS the sheer beginning of anything at all, besides God, is fallacious reasoning.



I would agree, that 'made' items have makers. But now we just need to determine what specific attributes determine a 'made' item?



Mistake #5. Bandwagon fallacy... Most scientists also believe in evolutionary theory, due to the evidence. So this must mean you except evolution by natural selection in it's entirety, right? If not, then you need to stop tripping all over yourself.



Why bother, until you actually justify your prior unfounded assertions.

I again reiterate... The moral argument really gets us nowhere. I happily admit that morals are no more absolute/objective than say... politics or economics. And yet, we get by. Case and point, if most's opinion was that killing was not 'bad', then it might be safe to say the human race would also be extinct; just like many other species. We would not have the luxury to post here, squabbling over how morals 'need to be objective.' Well, they aren't, even if you somehow proved the existence of your 'moral agent'. Why, because like I stated in my last post, 'God would have His opinions about 'right/wrong', and would I have my opinions about 'right/wrong.' Really the only reason God wins, over me, is because He would have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him.

At least demonstrate that your God exists, so we can put the 'knowledge of God's existence' assertion to bed.' Until then, you are placing the cart before the horse.

I apologize. I love debating with you. But I concede this argument with you. you can look at it as a win for your side. I look at it as not having time to respond today to your argument. Please have patience if I reply with the same exact argument over again, and don't say (I refuted it already), because everything you say here I can adress, but simply don't want to at this time. My time is precious. And I feel the argument I gave was solid, and your reply very weak. So it's not about you, it's about me. It's not worth my time to respond to it. I guess you can look at it as a win for you.

 

[cvanwey]

I apologize. I love debating with you. But I concede this argument with you. you can look at it as a win for your side. I look at it as not having time to respond today to your argument. Please have patience if I reply with the same exact argument over again, and don't say (I refuted it already), because everything you say here I can adress, but simply don't want to at this time. My time is precious. And I feel the argument I gave was solid, and your reply very weak. So it's not about you, it's about me. It's not worth my time to respond to it. I guess you can look at it as a win for you.

You really don't need to address every line; just fast forward to the end if you like...

One of my only points, is that the 'moral argument' is a distractor.

(I.E.) If there actually is this asserted God you speak of, and my opinion does not agree with His, how do we determine WHO is right? God would simply state He is right, NO MATTER WHAT 'JUSTIFICATION' I POSED ON MY END. At the end of the day, God would have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him. Thus, even if I felt my 'moral justification' and 'intent' was 'pure', it would not matter to God; if He does not agree with me. Hence, He could just very well send me to hell as a direct result.

In conclusion, it would appear this Yahweh, you assert of, might be more of a 'moral thug', verses an 'omnibenevolent' being? But again, 'what IS 'good'?

I will close with a direct example I have posed to many pastors in the past... I would simply point out to them that it would appear this verse was written by humans, and most likely not commanded by a claimed 'omnibenevolent' agent; in justifying there 'Biblical' actions in taking virgins, and using the 'God card.'

Numbers 31:18 "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.'

I would get all sorts of 'apologetic' answers. But at the end of the day, there would seem to be only one answer which would BE CORRECT. Which is... If God actually does exist, and God actually DID issue this order, it WOULD NOT MATTER WHAT ANY HUMAN THINKS. He can do what He wants, whenever He wants, 'justified' or not.

So I leave you with a closing question, if you should have time to answer...

A woman wants to be a church leader, and another church member tells her that she is not allowed, because God told him to tell her she is not allowed.

Do you believe this man's testimony? Why or why not?

 

[createdtoworship]

You really don't need to address every line; just fast forward to the end if you like...

One of my only points, is that the 'moral argument' is a distractor.

(I.E.) If there actually is this asserted God you speak of, and my opinion does not agree with His, how do we determine WHO is right? God would simply state He is right, NO MATTER WHAT 'JUSTIFICATION' I POSED ON MY END. At the end of the day, God would have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him. Thus, even if I felt my 'moral justification' and 'intent' was 'pure', it would not matter to God; if He does not agree with me. Hence, He could just very well send me to hell as a direct result.

In conclusion, it would appear this Yahweh, you assert of, might be more of a 'moral thug', verses an 'omnibenevolent' being? But again, 'what IS 'good'?

I will close with a direct example I have posed to many pastors in the past... I would simply point out to them that it would appear this verse was written by humans, and most likely not commanded by a claimed 'omnibenevolent' agent; in justifying there 'Biblical' actions in taking virgins, and using the 'God card.'

Numbers 31:18 "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.'

I would get all sorts of 'apologetic' answers. But at the end of the day, there would seem to be only one answer which would BE CORRECT. Which is... If God actually does exist, and God actually DID issue this order, it WOULD NOT MATTER WHAT ANY HUMAN THINKS. He can do what He wants, whenever He wants, 'justified' or not.

So I leave you with a closing question, if you should have time to answer...

A woman wants to be a church leader, and another church member tells her that she is not allowed, because God told him to tell her she is not allowed.

Do you believe this man's testimony? Why or why not?

I don't feel like it is a valuable use of my time to respond to you. I sense arrogance and closed mindedness. More than in other posters. You may have valid points, but from my experience with your posts I see very weak arguments that you feel are very strong. It is the pride that you feel they are great arguments that worries me and makes me feel it's not worth my time. So I apologize. I am not blocking you, but I am giving priority to others that are more open and a better use of my time here.

 

[cvanwey]

I sense arrogance and closed mindedness. More than in other posters.

That's funny, this is what I 'sense' from you. And yet, I'm attacking the 'arguments', not you per se. Why not address the points, and not worry about building a 'psychological profile'.

You may have valid points, but from my experience with your posts I see very weak arguments that you feel are very strong.

Well then, that's very interesting, and quite funny quite frankly; as one of my conclusions about morals seems to parallel your cited OP from Norman Geisler. But with one addition. You need to actually demonstrate the existence of this asserted being.

I'm ALSO pointing out that theists, seem to bring up the moral argument, in debate, to 'throw off the sent.' Meaning, a 'non-believer' will mention their opinion, about how a verse is 'bad', and what I've found, is if the opponent might actually agree with them, will impose the 'moral argument' - (i.e.) 'Oh yea, what's your standard for right/wrong?'

That's all

As I've stated prior, morals are really no more 'absolute' than economics or politics. We are humans, with cognitive faculties, and have to get by regardless; if we wish to co-exist...

It is the pride that you feel they are great arguments that worries me and makes me feel it's not worth my time. So I apologize. I am not blocking you, but I am giving priority to others that are more open and a better use of my time here.

Maybe do what THIS FORUM ARENA IS MEANT FOR... Debate. Shut me down with your counter points. It should be easy, since you have labelled my arguments 'weak.' Otherwise, concede the issue and drop the topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's funny, this is what I 'sense' from you. And yet, I'm attacking the 'arguments', not you per se. Why not address the points, and not worry about building a 'psychological profile'.



Well then, that's very interesting, and quite funny quite frankly; as one of my conclusions about morals seems to parallel your cited OP from Norman Geisler. But with one addition. You need to actually demonstrate the existence of this asserted being.

I'm ALSO pointing out that theists, seem to bring up the moral argument, in debate, to 'throw off the sent.' Meaning, a 'non-believer' will mention their opinion, about how a verse is 'bad', and what I've found, is if the opponent might actually agree with them, will impose the 'moral argument' - (i.e.) 'Oh yea, what's your standard for right/wrong?'

That's all

As I've stated prior, morals are really no more 'absolute' than economics or politics. We are humans, with cognitive faculties, and have to get by regardless; if we wish to co-exist...



Maybe do what THIS FORUM ARENA IS MEANT FOR... Debate. Shut me down with your counter points. It should be easy, since you have labelled my arguments 'weak.' Otherwise, concede the issue and drop the topic.

you are asking basic questions that logic itself answers. That is why I worry about your logic. You make questions that are so easy to answer that you should have already done so. This is what I mean by weak. In answering the question for you, it makes you look foolish. So again, I say. Just reread your posts and use logic, and answer for yourself those questions.