Does morality exist without God? (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
What choice does someone have when they refuse to recognize the existence of God when it comes to explaining morality? Only one – it must have originated within man. This becomes a problem, because man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced by the long, meandering, and chance process of evolution. See the problem.
It´s only a problem for those who expect morality to be something else than man made.

Matter, by itself, does not have the power to “evolve” any sense of moral consciousness. If there is no purpose in the universe (which is the position evolutionists are forced to take), then there is no purpose to morality or ethics.
We can give it purpose. That´s sufficient for me.

Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.
You are describing reality. So God doesn´t exist?

For me, I believe
(emphasis added)
`nuff said. As you correctly stated, everyone has their own views. Like, you have yours. :)
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
When people say that humans feel responsibility for wrong action, they are recognizing that there is indeed within each man, woman, and child a sense of moral responsibility which comes from the fact that God is our Creator and have been made in His spiritual image.
Doesn´t follow.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
For me, I believe the truth of the matter is, that an approach which states that morals originate in the mind of God is consistent both logically and internally; only the approach that calculates God into the Universe can provide an objective, absolute set of morals and ethics.
IOW: without God there´s no God given morality.
We can agree on that. I mean, that´s trivial.
(What we don´t agree upon: That a God given morality would be objective and absolute. It would merely be God´s subjective opinion.)
 
Upvote 0

Deaver

A follower of Christ
May 25, 2011
485
22
Colorado, USA
Visit site
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We're far from the last, but no, I don't see the problem.


Some who reject God live lives of diversion and merriment. Their fleshly pursuits seem to yield a carefree and gratified existence. The Bible says there is a certain measure of delight to be had in sin. The problem is that this is temporary; life in this world is short. Sooner or later, the hedonist, like the prodigal son in the parable, finds that worldly pleasure is unsustainable.

However, not everyone who rejects God is an empty pleasure-seeker. There are many unsaved people who live disciplined, sober lives—happy and fulfilled lives, even. The Bible presents certain moral principles which will benefit anyone in this world: fidelity, honesty, self-control, etc. But, again, without God man has only this world. Getting smoothly through this life is no guarantee that we are ready for the afterlife.


That really is the message of the Bible – how to secure eternity. (topic for another thread)

Why doesn't it? Humans create purpose for themselves (even if it's to devote oneself to their religion, it is still a someone's choice to do so). Being moral usually has a greater societal benefit than being immoral (unless you're very good at getting away with it), so I'd say there's lots of purpose.


So as we look around the world and see how different cultures live, how does “Being moral usually has a greater societal benefit than being immoral” fit.

Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.


Which is what they do anyway.


But does that make it right?

Which would be considered immoral by another person's God. You have to prove your god even exists before you can even begin to posit that he is the source of ultimate morality.

There is only one God. I don’t have to prove there is a God. He speaks to you just as He does to me. We both have to make a choice.


[quote}Except he does change, from bloodthirsty and vengeful in the OT to the "so loved the world" stage in the NT, to the mysteriously completely absent aside from the claims of charlatans and the misguided in modern time. And that's just the Abrahamic god.[/quote]

If you put the entire Bible in context it becomes abundantly clear that God is immutable. You can not take a piece of scripture from here and one from there and draw an accurate picture of God.

That's a mighty big assumption, considering you first need to prove there is a God, then that he is the Abrahamic God, then what is written about him is indeed correct. Even then, it doesn't explain the humongous rift even among Christians, let alone all of humanity, between what constitutes moral and immoral.

To prove the existence of God, let’s begin with the law of cause and effect which states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. We have an observable universe, and we know that nothing comes from nothing. Following that I believe that He is the God from the beginning to the end of the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Gishin

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2008
4,621
270
37
Midwest City, Oklahoma
✟6,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
[/font]

Some who reject God live lives of diversion and merriment. Their fleshly pursuits seem to yield a carefree and gratified existence. The Bible says there is a certain measure of delight to be had in sin. The problem is that this is temporary; life in this world is short. Sooner or later, the hedonist, like the prodigal son in the parable, finds that worldly pleasure is unsustainable.

I am sure that atheists and non-christians in America really don't live life much differently than you.


However, not everyone who rejects God is an empty pleasure-seeker. There are many unsaved people who live disciplined, sober lives—happy and fulfilled lives, even. The Bible presents certain moral principles which will benefit anyone in this world: fidelity, honesty, self-control, etc. But, again, without God man has only this world. Getting smoothly through this life is no guarantee that we are ready for the afterlife.


And if there is no afterlife, what then? I believe I have only this life, so I need to make the best of it. The bible has moral principles, but it is only one of many. You are making the choice to follow it. You don't follow the bible because it's true, you follow it because you think its true, and therefore using your own subjective reasoning and claiming it is an objective morality.


That really is the message of the Bible – how to secure eternity. (topic for another thread)


I don't believe there is one, and if there is, I'd probably rather be destroyed.


So as we look around the world and see how different cultures live, how does “Being moral usually has a greater societal benefit than being immoral” fit.


Sometimes better than others.


Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.
But does that make it right?

People have been asking this long before either of us were born, and since the dawn of humanity what is considered moral when and where has shifted so often that to claim there is a time tested single "true" morality is laughable.


There is only one God. I don’t have to prove there is a God. He speaks to you just as He does to me. We both have to make a choice.

I don't believe there is any God, let alone one. The burden is on you to prove it or else your claims of objective morality have no leg to stand on. I hear no voices, and I cannot choose to believe something if I am not convinced.

If you put the entire Bible in context it becomes abundantly clear that God is immutable. You can not take a piece of scripture from here and one from there and draw an accurate picture of God.

I have read the bible, and there are many interpretations of God as there is different denominations, and I have yet to find one where God resembles anything I would find admirable.

To prove the existence of God, let’s begin with the law of cause and effect which states that every material effect must have an adequate cause that existed before the effect. We have an observable universe, and we know that nothing comes from nothing. Following that I believe that He is the God from the beginning to the end of the Bible.

Where did God come from?
"He is outside our time, space, and our understanding" is the standard answer, and I think it's a cop out. There's no shame in saying "I don't know". We don't understand everything about the universe, but it doesn't mean we just make things up and leave it at that. It's odd that the more we understand things, the less things spirits and gods get to take credit for.

Answers in bold.
 
Upvote 0

Deaver

A follower of Christ
May 25, 2011
485
22
Colorado, USA
Visit site
✟15,732.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Doesn´t follow.

Let me approach this way.

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good”. Our conscience or “moral compass” is an indication of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.
 
Upvote 0

Insane_Duck

Because ducks are just awesome like that.
May 29, 2011
1,392
22
✟1,763.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Let me approach this way.

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good”. Our conscience or “moral compass” is an indication of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.
Hint: If God is all knowing and made Adam and Eve, he would know all the choices they would make and would therefor be responsible for their sin.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,244
624
서울
✟31,762.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
First off, no one ever said there had to be an objective morality. Mortality may very well be a human construction. From a humanist perspective, you can have objective morals without having absolute morals.

That is true.

However, if morality is purely a human construct, it is incredibly fallible. If it is merely human... Well, this is why this thread exists.

It makes atheists appear to have a far weaker stance on moral issues than those who get their morality inspired from God(s).

No, actually I don´t - my knack for stating the obvious is triggered only when someone makes an ex cathedra claim without any argument or support attached to it.


Even upon rereading your post carefully I fail to see any explanation as to why "pure morality" must have a single source - apart from you claiming so.
Never before have I seen the term "pure morality", so some explanation might be in order.

If morality has multiple sources, there is a very good chance that it is not objective, and that these sources may theoretically differ.

Let's put it this way:

If morality is subjective and only applies to the interpretation of the individual what occurs, then our moral codes are no greater than the individuals who create them or abide by them, and the rationale for following such morals is far weaker than...

If God distinguishes between right and wrong and it is regarded as an objective truth.
 
Upvote 0

Insane_Duck

Because ducks are just awesome like that.
May 29, 2011
1,392
22
✟1,763.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
That is true.

However, if morality is purely a human construct, it is incredibly fallible. If it is merely human... Well, this is why this thread exists.

It makes atheists appear to have a far weaker stance on moral issues than those who get their morality inspired from God(s).
That is terrible logic. Since we are talking about the true nature of morality there is no "stronger". If atheists are right then Christians have subjective morality just like them. If Christians are right then atheists base their morals on imperfect, human standards. No one is stronger than the other until one is proven right.

If morality has multiple sources, there is a very good chance that it is not objective, and that these sources may theoretically differ.

Let's put it this way:

If morality is subjective and only applies to the interpretation of the individual what occurs, then our moral codes are no greater than the individuals who create them or abide by them, and the rationale for following such morals is far weaker than...

If God distinguishes between right and wrong and it is regarded as an objective truth.
This falls victim to the same failed logic. No one morality is stronger because only one exists. (i.e. morals are absolute or not, who ever is right is right about the morals of all people) If I am right, your morals aren't from God and are therefor not superior. If I am wrong then your morals are from God (assuming you were right) and are therefor superior. You can't assess them on any value other than truth.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Without God, everyone would have their own view of right and wrong. Humans end up following the rules of relativism; hedonism; utilitarianism; situationism; or determinism.

The issue isn't whether or not people would have their own views of right and wrong, but if there is a correct set of views of right and wrong, and can we in principle learn what those views are?

With God, the world would still have a variety of views. God does not solve this problem. Perhaps you are thinking that people could go to God for ethics (and which God? Which religion? Which denomination? Which theologian?), but without God people could in principle reason their way to a correct set of views.

Simply naming a set of views (and you've left a bunch off of that list, such as virtue ethics), doesn't mean that no views are correct or that no views are better defended than others. It may be that ethics isn't easy, but that doesn't mean that atheists can't discover genuine moral values, and if God does not exist, atheists might be the only ones to find a correct set of views of right and wrong.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
If morality has multiple sources, there is a very good chance that it is not objective, and that these sources may theoretically differ.
I don´t understand how you use the word "objective" here.

Personally, I´d also like to see everyone agree on questions of morality. The existence or non-existence of God doesn´t seem to make a difference there, though.

Let's put it this way:

If morality is subjective and only applies to the interpretation of the individual what occurs, then our moral codes are no greater than the individuals who create them or abide by them, and the rationale for following such morals is far weaker than...

If God distinguishes between right and wrong and it is regarded as an objective truth.
You keep operating with terms like "greater", "pure" etc. without giving them a definition beforehand that allows for discussion.

However, the bolded part we agree upon: It would be desirable that everyone regarded the same set of morals as true (for this, though, it doesn´t matter what their source is.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Let me approach this way.

Morally, man was created in righteousness and perfect innocence, a reflection of God’s holiness. God saw all He had made (mankind included) and called it “very good”. Our conscience or “moral compass” is an indication of that original state. Whenever someone writes a law, recoils from evil, praises good behavior, or feels guilty, he is confirming the fact that we are made in God’s own image.
You start preaching your religious ideology here instead of continuing the discussion.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,421
345
✟49,085.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Do you have any evidence that concious beings evolved the ability to experience value states?
I believe that the mind and therefore experiences evolved. There is evidence for the evolution of the brain, and the dependence of experience on the brain too. So the evolution of experience more or less proven. And then we just have to observe the fact the we experience value, to then infer that this too has evolved. This concept of experiencing value might not sound over familiar, but examples are valuing work, seeing beauty, and also (for a more familiar example) there is the utilitarian idea that happiness is an 'intrinsic good' or 'value in itself'.
Also, I don't believe, your three examples are issues of morality.
They seem to me to be examples of experiencing value. I would say that we deem things like inflicting suffering as immoral (read undesirable, not recommended) because it is experienced as being of negative value. From there I generalize that ethics is (or maybe ought to be conceived as being...) about regulating our experience of value. This is very similar to utilitarianism in fact, if not the same (I am not actually a scholar on the topic).
Matter, by itself, does not have the power to “evolve” any sense of moral consciousness.
On what principle or evidence do you base that claim?

If there is no purpose in the universe (which is the position evolutionists are forced to take), then there is no purpose to morality or ethics.
Likewise "if there is no purpose in the universe there is no in the farmer sowing seeds in his fields"? You shopuld ask yourself this question: if there is no purpose in the universe where do we humans get our understanding of the term "purpose" from exactly?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
I don’t have to prove there is a God.
You do if you or any other Christian wants to argue that the Christian God is the source of morality. For any argument to be sound, its premises must be true so for your argument to be sound, you need to prove that the Christian God is real. If Christians cannot establish the validity or truth of their claims then why should anyone believe them?
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
44
✟24,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
You do if you or any other Christian wants to argue that the Christian God is the source of morality. For any argument to be sound, its premises must be true so for your argument to be sound, you need to prove that the Christian God is real. If Christians cannot establish the validity or truth of their claims then why should anyone believe them?

Exactly. EXACTLY. This is at the root of a great number of moral and ethical dilemmas, yet the mods forbid us to discuss it. :(
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.