Desire for absolutes as argument for God

[variant]

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.

I find little difference between arguing that God is on ones side and simply arguing for basic morality. I think the former complicates the idea with religious doctrine that is just as questionable as any moral premise, but held sacred and immovable by certain people.

This means that a great many harms are done by people who think themselves virtuous in the cloak of religious doctrine.

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.

Then we agree on something I guess.

 

[cloudyday2]

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.

Mostly I have been puzzled by the popularity of this argument among Christians who seem intelligent and educated. I was wondering if I had overlooked something in the argument, because it seemed so obviously flawed yet many people use it.

 

[cloudyday2]

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

That one went over my head. I would be curious what you mean if you feel like explaining.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I was wondering if I had overlooked something in the argument,

Yeah, I heard you say what your reasoning was, and if you don't mind my being honest, I sorta doubted it.

 

[cloudyday2]

... and then on the other side, there is actually being right in doing what we were doing in the name of God.

Even in the case of human legal codes, there are times when the legally righteous choice is not obvious. Finding the morally righteous choice can be even less obvious. In many cases there needs to be a trial and a judgment. God's Law doesn't give us absolutes either IMO. We should admit that everything is shades of gray, and the shades we see are subjective.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yeah, I heard you say what your reasoning was, and if you don't mind my being honest, I sorta doubted it.

Nope, as far as I know I was being sincere. I've never taken a philosophy class. Most of the people who like this argument for God seem to be schooled in philosophy. Sometimes these arguments are subtle and hard to explain to the casual observer, making them appear silly when they aren't.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That one went over my head. I would be curious what you mean if you feel like explaining.

Presuppositionalists tend to believe in absolute truth - the nonsensical notion that an idea is true or false independent of any logical framework.

So then I ask them if parallel lines cross and their answer is revealing.

If they simply quote the dictionary, then I know that they are mathematically illiterate because most dictionaries define the notion of "parallel" with its characteristic consequence, *not* the actual definition of what it is for two lines to be parallel. This is important because if we don't make the assumption that parallel lines never cross, then we can generate non-Euclidean geometry (geometry on the sphere).

(It goes without saying that I never receive the response, "It depends on if you're describing Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometry.")

If they say that it doesn't matter, or can't be known, or etc., then I ask them what exactly their "absolute logical truths" are and how they are of any use if they cannot describe anything other than, say, X is X and cannot not be X.

And if they answer yes or no then they plunge headfirst into the trap: answer yes and they disavow Euclidean geometry; answer no and they disavow non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Hi, while this was not directed at me I'd like to point you in the direction of fine tuning as being your best bet.

 

[Larniavc]

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?

And it's not even true.

Sometimes God's fine with dashing baby's skulls out...

 

[cloudyday2]

And it's not even true.

Sometimes God's fine with dashing baby's skulls out...

Also, even if God does exist and have some absolute moral standard, it doesn't help any of us mortals, because God is unwilling or unable to explain this moral standard clearly. The Bible doesn't provide a consistent moral standard. The Christians must make their own judgments about right and wrong - just like the atheists. So how is the hypothetical existence of this moral standard solving our problems?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even in the case of human legal codes, there are times when the legally righteous choice is not obvious. Finding the morally righteous choice can be even less obvious. In many cases there needs to be a trial and a judgment. God's Law doesn't give us absolutes either IMO. We should admit that everything is shades of gray, and the shades we see are subjective.

I actually agree, and that is what I was trying to say with the later portion of my previous comment which you cited here.

So, when I said, "...on the other side, there is actually being right in doing what we were doing in the name of God," what I meant to imply was that we have a difficult time in knowing whether or not we actually ARE in a state of being right when attempting to discern what we think God's Will is on any particular social/ethical situation.

Unless God shows up at least occasionally to correct us in our hermeneutical applications of the Bible, then even if God exists, we will not likely perfectly apply 'right and wrong' as it actually is (whatever that is, and assuming that there is a God, of course).

Is this clearer? In essence, I agree with atheists here that God's existence, if He exist, and even with a Bible in the hand of the Christian, does not guarantee that Christians will all understand right and wrong as it is intended to be. The main difference is that I'd say that if there is a God, there definitely is a right and wrong to every moral matter, but our limited (somewhat relative) human perceptions, conceptions, and emotions will keep us in the 'Gray Zone' on a number of things.

p.s I also tend to think that, biblically speaking, God didn't give us 'all the answers' because He made us to be "moral agents" and able to discern at least some things for ourselves.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Larniavc]

I actually agree, and that is what I was trying to say with the later portion of my previous comment which you cited here.

So, when I said, "...on the other side, there is actually being right in doing what we were doing in the name of God," what I meant to imply was that we have a difficult time in knowing whether or not we actually ARE in a state of being right when attempting to discern what we think God's Will is on any particular social/ethical situation.

Unless God shows up at least occasionally to correct us in our hermeneutical applications of the Bible, then even if God exists, we will not likely perfectly apply 'right and wrong' as it actually is (whatever that is, and assuming that there is a God, of course).

Is this clearer? In essence, I agree with atheists here that God's existence, if He exist, and even with a Bible in the hand of the Christian, does not guarantee that Christians will all understand right and wrong as it is intended to be. The main difference is that I'd say that if there is a God, there definitely is a right and wrong to every moral matter, but our limited (somewhat relative) human perceptions, conceptions, and emotions will keep us in the 'Gray Zone' on a number of things.

p.s I also tend to think that, biblically speaking, God didn't give us 'all the answers' because He made us to be "moral agents" and able to discern at least some things for ourselves.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

And it is only right according to God.

I can't see when dashing the skulls of babies out can be moral.

And if it is moral because God says so then God's morals different from a child killer in what way? (Rhetorical).

 

[Khalliqa]

I actually agree, and that is what I was trying to say with the later portion of my previous comment which you cited here.

So, when I said, "...on the other side, there is actually being right in doing what we were doing in the name of God," what I meant to imply was that we have a difficult time in knowing whether or not we actually ARE in a state of being right when attempting to discern what we think God's Will is on any particular social/ethical situation.

Unless God shows up at least occasionally to correct us in our hermeneutical applications of the Bible, then even if God exists, we will not likely perfectly apply 'right and wrong' as it actually is (whatever that is, and assuming that there is a God, of course).

Is this clearer? In essence, I agree with atheists here that God's existence, if He exist, and even with a Bible in the hand of the Christian, does not guarantee that Christians will all understand right and wrong as it is intended to be. The main difference is that I'd say that if there is a God, there definitely is a right and wrong to every moral matter, but our limited (somewhat relative) human perceptions, conceptions, and emotions will keep us in the 'Gray Zone' on a number of things.

p.s I also tend to think that, biblically speaking, God didn't give us 'all the answers' because He made us to be "moral agents" and able to discern at least some things for ourselves.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Hi, I have a question sparked by your response. What is the yardstick you use to measure when a positive change is human or when it is a divine being? When the prevailing religious thought is that slavery, for instance, is right and good- and thereafter the community continues to thrive and progress (meaning nothing has come to smite it off the earth or anything) and it is HUMANS that correct their thinking. Do you attribute it to "god" ? Why or why not? And if it were humans that continued it and people suffered would you attribute that to god? Why or why not?

I usually receive a response that it is because god is good.. necessitating a preconditioned response to anything good not really assessing the source.. or defining and differentiating the source for that matter..

What do you think?

 

[anonymous person]

Hi, I have a question sparked by your response. What is the yardstick you use to measure when a positive change is human or when it is a divine being? When the prevailing religious thought is that slavery, for instance, is right and good- and thereafter the community continues to thrive and progress (meaning nothing has come to smite it off the earth or anything) and it is HUMANS that correct their thinking. Do you attribute it to "god" ? Why or why not? And if it were humans that continued it and people suffered would you attribute that to god? Why or why not?

I usually receive a response that it is because god is good.. necessitating a preconditioned response to anything good not really assessing the source.. or defining and differentiating the source for that matter..

What do you think?

Slavery being right and good has never been the prevailing view in Christianity. That misconception needs to be addressed first.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The main difference is that I'd say that if there is a God, there definitely is a right and wrong to every moral matter, but our limited (somewhat relative) human perceptions, conceptions, and emotions will keep us in the 'Gray Zone' on a number of things.

So... which horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma are you grasping?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Slavery being right and good has never been the prevailing view in Christianity. That misconception needs to be addressed first.

But genocide has been good on occasion, right?

 

[Khalliqa]

Slavery being right and good has never been the prevailing view in Christianity. That misconception needs to be addressed first.

I'm listening..

 

[zippy2006]

Presuppositionalists tend to believe in absolute truth - the nonsensical notion that an idea is true or false independent of any logical framework.

Actually, ironically you have a great deal in common with Presuppositionalists, for they believe that every idea can be traced back to a logical system of presuppositions--what you would call axioms--and that there is no neutral or mediating system by which opposing sides can be reconciled. They then claim that the Biblical presuppositions are the correct, self-authenticating, presuppositions, and they refuse to enter into argument with those who reject the Biblical system since there is no mediating system.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, ironically you have a great deal in common with Presuppositionalists, for they believe that every idea can be traced back to a logical system of presuppositions--what you would call axioms--and that there is no neutral or mediating system by which opposing sides can be reconciled. They then claim that the Biblical presuppositions are the correct, self-authenticating, presuppositions, and they refuse to enter into argument with those who reject the Biblical system since there is no mediating system.

Ok... so how can you tell if parallel lines cross? Is that axiom laid down in your scripture? I do not think that even the most informal system of logic is hinted at in scripture.

 

[zippy2006]

Mostly I have been puzzled by the popularity of this argument among Christians who seem intelligent and educated. I was wondering if I had overlooked something in the argument, because it seemed so obviously flawed yet many people use it.

Yet you seem to have a hard time correctly phrasing the argument:

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

That is a terrible mischaracterization of the argument, which I provided here. It is a strawman par excellence.

If you want to learn more about it, I would suggest reading or listening to William Lane Craig, who focuses on this argument at length. For our purposes, we can just look at premise 2. Take murder. Do you believe murder is wrong, unjust? If you or a loved one were murdered would you say that an objective wrong had been done to you? If you would, as most people would, then you already hold premise 2.

Apparently Craig prefers the modus tollens presentation, taking the contrapositive of my first premise:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
   
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
   
3. Therefore, God exists.