The Moral Argument (revamped)

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

My pastor has said rightly, the fact that our conscience is higher than our moral performance, reveals that the source of our morality is higher than us, and finds it's roots in God himself.

any thoughts?

Also I thought I may add a bit from Norman Geisler (who has a pHd in philosophy)

In norman geisler's book he summarizes CSLewis's version of the moral argument, Here it is:

"1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
(a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do). (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral
persons are).

3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise all moral
effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is
not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the
standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
The Moral Law Is Not Herd Instinct. Lewis anticipates and persuasively answers major
objections to the moral argument. Essentially, his replies are:
What we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct or else the stronger impulse
would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to
help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would
always be right, but they are not. Even love and patriotism are sometimes wrong.
The Moral Law Is Not Social Convention. Neither can the moral law be mere social
convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For
example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every
society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if
society were the basis of the judgments.
The Moral Law Differs from Laws of Nature. The moral law is not to be identified with the
laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought) as are moral laws.
Factually convenient situations (the way it is) can be morally wrong. Someone who tries to trip
me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy,
because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so. We did not create it; it is
impressed on us from without. If it were fancy, then all value judgments would be meaningless,
including such statements as “Hate is wrong.” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not
a description or a merely human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral
Prescriber beyond us. As Lewis notes, this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He
can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
Injustice Does Not Disprove a Moral Law Giver. The main objection to an absolutely perfect
Moral Law Giver is the argument from evil or injustice in the world. No serious person can fail
to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of
perfect. But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God? Lewis’
answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely
perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect (see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF).
For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to
be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis
recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked
unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when
I called it unjust. . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God
collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not
simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying
to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was
senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of
justice—was full of sense. [Mere Christianity, 45, 46]"

above section from:
Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (498–501).
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
 
Last edited:

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,604
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,105.00
Faith
Atheist
We evolved as a social species. By definition, that means we cooperate ... it's what it is to be a 'social species'. Dolphins, chimps, various birds, are social species. That means that there is some level of cooperation between members of the species.

Those things that are perceived to hurt society are deemed immoral. Those things that benefit the society are deemed moral. Those things that neither help nor harm are amoral.

Empathy is what we term that drive inside to cooperate. Those individuals that fail to demonstrate empathy are deemed asocial at best and perhaps psychopaths or sociopaths at worst. Society works to enforce whatever the current standards of cooperative behavior. Those individual that fail to cooperate in some degree are punished in some degree (fairly and in good measure or not). All social species judge and punish the outlier.

I am entitled to judge any being according to my standards. I am who and what I am and nothing other. As a member of my species, I am biologically bound to render judgement on anything and everything, from a good burger to a bad god. By what basis do I judge? By that bases that have formed in me due to where I am in history and evolution.

You present me a god. I *must* evaluate whether that presentation is of a good or bad god. I *must*. I cannot do other. Will this be different than my ancestors judged? Almost certainly. Will it be different than the judgments of my descendants? Almost certainly. Does that matter? No. I can only do what I can do.

If your god tortures babies, than I--regardless of what any other may judge--judge him evil.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
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:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

any thoughts?

Well, after much study, it appears quite simple, for me anyways....

The moral argument is irrelevant, quite frankly. If God does exist, God could do whatever God wants, and it would not matter if none, all, or other, agree. If God does not exist, we are left to come up with our own conclusions; just like we do in economics, (while not postulating a God's necessity to do so for 'objectivity') :)

You could also sprinkle in Euthyphro's dilemma for kix.
..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Those things that are perceived to hurt society are deemed immoral. Those things that benefit the society are deemed moral. Those things that neither help nor harm are amoral.

What about the conflict between the individual and the society? If the flourishing of the society requires the sacrifice of the individual, if it requires that he or she be worn down under an exploitative engine that only cares about profit and the good of the state, is this moral or immoral?

I don't think reducing morality to social dynamics fully captures some of the strong humanistic tendencies we've developed.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We evolved as a social species. By definition, that means we cooperate ... it's what it is to be a 'social species'. Dolphins, chimps, various birds, are social species. That means that there is some level of cooperation between members of the species.

Those things that are perceived to hurt society are deemed immoral. Those things that benefit the society are deemed moral. Those things that neither help nor harm are amoral.

Empathy is what we term that drive inside to cooperate. Those individuals that fail to demonstrate empathy are deemed asocial at best and perhaps psychopaths or sociopaths at worst. Society works to enforce whatever the current standards of cooperative behavior. Those individual that fail to cooperate in some degree are punished in some degree (fairly and in good measure or not). All social species judge and punish the outlier.

I am entitled to judge any being according to my standards. I am who and what I am and nothing other. As a member of my species, I am biologically bound to render judgement on anything and everything, from a good burger to a bad god. By what basis do I judge? By that bases that have formed in me due to where I am in history and evolution.

You present me a god. I *must* evaluate whether that presentation is of a good or bad god. I *must*. I cannot do other. Will this be different than my ancestors judged? Almost certainly. Will it be different than the judgments of my descendants? Almost certainly. Does that matter? No. I can only do what I can do.

If your god tortures babies, than I--regardless of what any other may judge--judge him evil.

Well, after much study, it appears quite simple, for me anyways....

The moral argument is irrelevant, quite frankly. If God does exist, God could do whatever God wants, and it would not matter if none, all, or other, agree. If God does not exist, we are left to come up with our own conclusions; just like we do in economics, (while not postulating a God's necessity to do so for 'objectivity') :)

You could also sprinkle in Euthyphro's dilemma for kix.
..

What about the conflict between the individual and the society? If the flourishing of the society requires the sacrifice of the individual, if it requires that he or she be worn down under an exploitative engine that only cares about profit and the good of the state, is this moral or immoral?

I don't think reducing morality to social dynamics fully captures some of the strong humanistic tendencies we've developed.

so under a theoretical, if you believed in God. And God happened to torture babies for fun. You would look at Him as evil, correct? So you are using morality at that point. My question is where did that morality come from? How did it evolve? If it is a social construct than it is not absolute. Yet a God torturing babies for fun, we would all absolutely call evil. So why is it that everyone in the world regardless of culture or religion would view that God as evil? Why is it that somethings are absolutely evil or good?
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
so under a theoretical, if you believed in God. And God happened to torture babies for fun. You would look at Him as evil, correct? So you are using morality at that point. My question is where did that morality come from? How did it evolve? If it is a social construct than it is not absolute. Yet a God torturing babies for fun, we would all absolutely call evil. So why is it that everyone in the world regardless of culture or religion would view that God as evil? Why is it that somethings are absolutely evil or good?

I think you might want to read my prior response again?
 
Upvote 0

SinoBen

Active Member
May 23, 2018
249
103
Brisbane
✟21,698.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We evolved as a social species. By definition, that means we cooperate ... it's what it is to be a 'social species'. Dolphins, chimps, various birds, are social species. That means that there is some level of cooperation between members of the species.

I have a worm farm at the back patio, a whole colony of them living in their multi-deck plastic condo. They are Eisenia fetida aka red wrigglers. They also have "evolved" as a social species forming active herds or swarms. They use touch to communicate with each other and likes to go together in groups particularly when feeding under some sizeable morsel of food... in their natural habitat it would be a cow pat or horse pile.

Those things that are perceived to hurt society are deemed immoral. Those things that benefit the society are deemed moral. Those things that neither help nor harm are amoral.

Empathy is what we term that drive inside to cooperate. Those individuals that fail to demonstrate empathy are deemed asocial at best and perhaps psychopaths or sociopaths at worst. Society works to enforce whatever the current standards of cooperative behavior. Those individual that fail to cooperate in some degree are punished in some degree (fairly and in good measure or not). All social species judge and punish the outlier.

Looking around the world at various "societies" past and current, I can't help notice how some likes to eat human flesh. One likes to tie up enemies and cut pieces of flesh here and there as they dance around, cook the flesh and eat it all in front of the one loosing flesh. In past history we are told of the Aztecs who likes to rip beating hearts out of volunteers. And many more. They deemed it beneficial to society to do so, I think they even count it as spiritually and morally responsible things to do.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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:

"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."

Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

any thoughts?
I believe the atheist account for morality is rather simple. Morality exists, however it is subjective to the individual and does not exist in an absolute sense.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Selene03
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
How does an atheist account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil?
Good question. And I find it very interesting that neither you nor anyone else has ever found an "objective" answer. Not even those whose theology demands it.

If have raised this question several times before. Usually, I get responses like "It's obvious." via "What, you don't believe it is evil?" to "What kind of monster are you that you ask such a question?"

But no answer.

Why is that?
 
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

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Moral facts are a part of the battery of myths we have adopted as a society in order to justify cooperation at the cost of individual selfish gain. There are obvious practical benefits to cooperation, and moral behavior is heavily incentivized by our innate sense of empathy, but the myth of moral facts comes in handy when the individual benefits aren’t so obvious.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,403
15,550
Colorado
✟427,815.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...."the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation.".....
Surprising?

Why is it surprising that we take note of what behaviors cause some individuals and cultures to thrive and others to wither?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe the atheist account for morality is rather simple. Morality exists, however it is subjective to the individual and does not exist in an absolute sense.
then how can you call God evil, under any circumstance? For example every atheist I have talked to said a God would be evil if he tortured babies for fun. If morality is not absolute, then your condemnation of anything is simply your opinion and not worth reading, listening to, or posting on here for that matter, as it would simply be one persons viewpoint. And not the collective.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Moral facts are a part of the battery of myths we have adopted as a society in order to justify cooperation at the cost of individual selfish gain. There are obvious practical benefits to cooperation, and moral behavior is heavily incentivized by our innate sense of empathy, but the myth of moral facts comes in handy when the individual benefits aren’t so obvious.
thanks for the response please see my last post on this. The Moral Argument (revamped)
 
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Surprising?

Why is it surprising that we take note of what behaviors cause some individuals and cultures to thrive and others to wither?
so you agree there are moral absolutes? And moral facts? I would too! Welcome.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

danny ski

Newbie
Jan 13, 2013
1,867
506
✟34,912.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
You don't need a Gd to lead a moral life. Morality is physically ingrained in our psyche- as witnessed by the PTSD reactions among people involved in taking lives- be that soldiers, executioners or mass murders. More so, the history of a human development and organization is purely based on what we would consider morality. A lack of morality is actually and widely considered a mental deficiency, an abnormality.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The same way we judge anyone else: by the standards we have adopted for practical and empathic reasons.

You don't need a Gd to lead a moral life. Morality is physically ingrained in our psyche- as witnessed by the PTSD reactions among people involved in taking lives- be that soldiers, executioners or mass murders. More so, the history of a human development and organization is purely based on what we would consider morality. A lack of morality is actually and widely considered a mental deficiency, an abnormality.

yes and ethics are not situational. Murder for no reason is not looked well upon in any culture. Murder can have many motives, but say for example murder without any motive. That is not looked upon as favorable in any culture that I know of. This is an example that proves morals are absolute, regardless of religion and culture.
 
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