Desire for absolutes as argument for God

[cloudyday2]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

I always ask these people whether parallel lines cross and that is enough to demonstrate the uselessness of their worldview.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

This depends on how "silly" you think someone like Immanuel Kant actually was.

My point in saying this is not that Immanuel Kant was a Christian and believed in God because he thought that the existence of moral principals dictated or acknowledgment of God's actual existence, but rather that even Kant, with his form of Transcendental Idealism and agnosticism, understood that without a god to make objective our attempts at morality or ethics, we're all pretty much doing what we want to do. So, whether we individually agree with Kant or not, someone like him thought it was necessary to posit the existence of a god as a rational projection. That's the short of it.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[zippy2006]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

The argument runs something like this:

1. If objective standards exist, then God exists.
2. Objective standards exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you disagree with premise 1 or premise 2?

Edit: Defense of premise 1; defense of premise 2.

 

[variant]

This depends on how "silly" you think someone like Immanuel Kant actually was.

Generally very.

My point in saying this is not that Immanuel Kant was a Christian and believed in God because he thought that the existence of moral principals dictated or acknowledgment of God's actual existence, but rather that even Kant, with his form of Transcendental Idealism and agnosticism, understood that without a god to make objective our attempts at morality or ethics, we're all pretty much doing what we want to do. So, whether we individually agree with Kant or not, someone like him thought it was necessary to posit the existence of a god as a rational projection. That's the short of it.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

The objective part of morality is the consequences of our actions.

Wanting morality to be objective beyond that isn't a compelling argument for a God. Either God exists or it does not, and either morality is objective or subjective or some other description, it will never follow that you wanting something to be true is a compelling argument for it to be true.

 

[cloudyday2]

The argument runs something like this:

1. If objective standards exist, then God exists.
2. Objective standards exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Do you disagree with premise 1 or premise 2?

I disagree with both 1 and 2.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Generally very.



The objective part of morality is the consequences of our actions.

Wanting morality to be objective beyond that isn't a compelling argument for a God. Either God exists or it does not, and either morality is objective or subjective or some other description, it will never follow that you wanting something to be true is a compelling argument for it to be true.

I don't think I said that 'I' specifically 'want' something to be true, variant. But, thanks for commenting. I was simply pointing out to Cloudy that someone like Kant thought morality pointed to a rational position involving God.

However, even though I don't agree with everything Kant thought related to his Transcendental Idealism, he was not by any means 'silly.' My atheist professors at the university didn't think Kant was silly either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

The other argument I might pose is that without God, there is little to no objective axiological approach to ethics and/or morality, despite the fact that we can objectively say that most people will say "ouch!!!" when done wrong.

In other words, there is nothing written in the sky that tells us whether we should be Utilitarians, Deontologists, Pragmatists, Prima-Facie Ethicists, Virtue Ethicists, or advocates of an Ethics of Care, among some others. So, how we approach 'ethics' and 'morality' is an open question...despite all the chutzpah about how 'common' morality is supposedly among everyone in today's world.

 

[variant]

I don't think I said that 'I' specifically 'want' something to be true, variant. But, thanks for commenting. I was simply pointing out to Cloudy that someone like Kant thought morality pointed to a rational position involving God.

That, I think is the argument. Which I find vacuous.

However, even though I don't agree with everything Kant thought related to his Transcendental Idealism, he was not by any means 'silly.' My atheist professors at the university didn't think Kant was silly either.

Philosophy professors are notoriously more forgiving to Kant than I would be.

Kant tried to formulate purely rational standards of morality, which is why I find it a bit silly.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence.

Then I'd recommend you bring up one of those arguments that are not so silly and we can see what we can do with it.

Or what's your idea of the least silliest argument to Gods existence? That is if you are as interested in proving his existence...something I assume might be possible from an Agnostic.

That would at least put us closer to a possible beneficial end here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That, I think is the argument. Which I find vacuous.



Philosophy professors are notoriously more forgiving to Kant than I would be.

Kant tried to formulate purely rational standards of morality, which is why I find it a bit silly.

So, is it safe to assume that you prefer partially rational standards of morality? Or perhaps emotive standards of morality?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I often hear the argument that "I believe in God, because without God there would be no objective standards for morality, truth, etc."

This seems to be the silliest argument I have heard for God's existence. I agree that life would be simpler with some objective standards from God, but that doesn't imply that God exists. Is there more to this argument that I have missed?

Anyway, I agree that to simply realize that there is a need for an objective authority to regulate right and wrong does not necessitate that there is such an objective moral authority. I wish it could be that easy.

 

[variant]

So, is it safe to assume that you prefer partially rational standards of morality? Or perhaps emotive standards of morality?

Well the problem with Kant's theorem is that if you take it to it's logical conclusion, you would act on principle every time without regard to the real world consequences of your actions.

Thus I don't see it as a proper guide for real world morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well the problem with Kant's theorem is that if you take it to it's logical conclusion, you would act on principle every time without regard to the real world consequences of your actions.

Thus I don't see it as a proper guide for real world morality.

Yes, in some ways his sense of duty (through the "Categorical Imperative") could be restrictive, and in some scenarios involving extreme ethical dilemmas it could prove to be somewhat detrimental. But, if we had a God, it would make some things easier, like responding to tyrants ...

 

[cloudyday2]

Or what's your idea of the least silliest argument to Gods existence? That is if you are as interested in proving his existence...something I assume might be possible from an Agnostic.

I would use a more scientific approach. I would look at past data and form a hypothesis about God's behavior if He exists. Then I would test that hypothesis somehow.

When I was in college, I began to doubt Christianity, so I thought that if I experienced the Holy Spirit then I would have some evidence. That evidence wouldn't something I could publish in a scientific journal, but it would be something. Something would be better than nothing.

To say that we want absolute moral standards, and God can provide those standards, therefore God exists ... that is silly to me.

 

[variant]

Yes, in some ways his sense of duty (through the "Categorical Imperative") could be restrictive, and in some scenarios involving extreme ethical dilemmas it could prove to be somewhat detrimental. But, if we had a God, it would make some things easier, like responding to tyrants ...

You find responding to tyrants difficult without appealing to God?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You find responding to tyrants difficult without appealing to God?

No, it's quite easy either way. Except, with God in your corner, you know you're doing the right thing.

 

[variant]

No, it's quite easy either way. Except, with God in your corner, you know you're doing the right thing.

People claim God is in their corner for all sorts of things I would call immoral.

I doubt we don't share this experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People claim God is in their corner for all sorts of things I would call immoral.

Well, sure they do. But that's not saying a whole lot since many of the things they claim can be objected to even by other religious people (or even by one Christian to another Christian, etc.) On ones side, there is the existential act of claiming all sorts of things in the name of god based upon one's relative understanding of one's religion, and then on the other side, there is actually being right in doing what we were doing in the name of God.

Of course, I fully recognize that the above of which I speak can be a wicked knot to unravel. But, I don't have to worry that if I'm protecting people form being murdered by a tyrant, then I can still be 'authorized by God' to tell little white lies if needed to try to succeed in protecting those persons. That's something that Kant would have a difficult time in justifying.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I would use a more scientific approach.

I understand, but it did seem you had some interest in this approach as well...just trying to turn it to something positive. But in the end, it's your thread to carry out your own purpose.