Does morality exist without God?

[Belk]

No, the question is, "Is B dependent upon A".

Fair enough. In which case if we have to determine if if A exists before we can determine if B is dependent upon it.

 

[rjc34]

Fair enough. In which case if we have to determine if if A exists before we can determine if B is dependent upon it.

Well first things first someone needs to define in a falsifiable way first

 

[chris4243]

Fair enough. In which case if we have to determine if if A exists before we can determine if B is dependent upon it.

Not really. I can confidently say that a purple swan will have feathers, even though I've never seen a purple swan. It's part of the definition of swan. Or if I ask whether morality can exist without invisible pink unicorns, you can confidently answer no.

Of course, it is necessary to define terms. By God with a capital G on Christian Forums, I assume that would be YAHWEH, which is fairly well-defined. However "morality" might not be. Is "morality" defined as "commands from God", or "a system for telling right from wrong"? The first of these would lead to the conclusion, if morality exists then God exists, however it would cause people to question whether morality exists so won't serve as a proof for God.

 

[rjc34]

Or if I ask whether morality can exist without invisible pink unicorns, you can confidently answer no.

On what grounds exactly can you dismiss that the Invisible Pink Unicorn was the creator of morality?

 

[Upisoft]

I can confidently say that a purple swan will have feathers, even though I've never seen a purple swan.

It is obvious that you must have the ability to be confident about things you have not seen to be a Christian. However that proves nothing. Are you that confident that Bluetooth is used for chewing?

 

[Belk]

Not really. I can confidently say that a purple swan will have feathers, even though I've never seen a purple swan. It's part of the definition of swan. Or if I ask whether morality can exist without invisible pink unicorns, you can confidently answer no.

Of course, it is necessary to define terms. By God with a capital G on Christian Forums, I assume that would be YAHWEH, which is fairly well-defined. However "morality" might not be. Is "morality" defined as "commands from God", or "a system for telling right from wrong"? The first of these would lead to the conclusion, if morality exists then God exists, however it would cause people to question whether morality exists so won't serve as a proof for God.

You assume a purple swan will have feathers based on your understanding of what a swan is. However, until we find a purple swan we can only guess at it's characteristics. It might be that we find featherless purple swans in which case all our presuppositions go out the window.

Yahweh is even more difficult. We have no dealings with gods on a regular basis so we only have biblical teachings to go off of. Add to that the fact that he is defined in terms that we do not truly comprehend. Things like "forever" and "unchanging" while understood in an abstract way, are really beyond our keen.

There are, for example, still many discussions in theological circles on if God created morality or if morality is an absolute that only God understands completely.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Fair enough. In which case if we have to determine if if A exists before we can determine if B is dependent upon it.

Why? A could be something we know doesn't exist, but that doesn't invalidate the relation. "If it rained on the Moon, the Moon would be wet". We know it doesn't rain on the Moon, but if it did, then the Moon would indeed be wet. A implies B, even though we know that A is false.

 

[Upisoft]

Why? A could be something we know doesn't exist, but that doesn't invalidate the relation. "If it rained on the Moon, the Moon would be wet". We know it doesn't rain on the Moon, but if it did, then the Moon would indeed be wet. A implies B, even though we know that A is false.

Given the fact that the temperature on Moon goes from way below freezing point during the night to much more than the boiling point (which is quite low as moon has no substantial atmosphere) I doubt it would be wet. So, it is quite bad to make conclusions if you don't have all required data first.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Given the fact that the temperature on Moon goes from way below freezing point during the night to much more than the boiling point (which is quite low as moon has no substantial atmosphere) I doubt it would be wet.

Well yes, that's why we know it doesn't actually rain on the Moon. But if, somehow, clouds and and atmosphere were poofed into existence on the Moon, and precipitation began to fall, is it unreasonable to conclude that, in that particular scenario, the Moon's surface would become, in the broadest sense of the term, wet?

Or, consider this. If you looked like an attractive women, then straight males would generally find you attractive. You (presumably) don't, but does the fact that the premise is false invalidate the logic?

Basically what I'm saying is, the soundness of premises and the validity of logical inferences are unrelated. We talk about hypotheticals all the time, both explicitly on CF and implicitly in our everyday lives. I don't understand why you and Belk aren't able to discuss the hypothetical "Is B dependent upon A" simply because you reject the premise that A is true - it's a hypothetical, the whole point is that we assume for argument's sake that A is true.

 

[Upisoft]

Well yes, that's why we know it doesn't actually rain on the Moon. But if, somehow, clouds and and atmosphere were poofed into existence on the Moon, and precipitation began to fall, is it unreasonable to conclude that, in that particular scenario, the Moon's surface would become, in the broadest sense of the term, wet?

Well, that was my point. You asked "if it rained on the Moon. ..", I didn't know that you are thinking about "clouds and atmosphere poofing into existence". Thus I had no enough information to make a conclusion. So, the question actually is very dependent on the definition. If it was about magic rain that just happens, then the answer is "no", it would be not wet. If the definition is "magic clouds and atmosphere" then the answer could be "yes". So, actually you question has no definite answer.

 

[sandwiches]

Why? A could be something we know doesn't exist, but that doesn't invalidate the relation. "If it rained on the Moon, the Moon would be wet". We know it doesn't rain on the Moon, but if it did, then the Moon would indeed be wet. A implies B, even though we know that A is false.

The problem is there is no established relationship in the god/morality question:

Rain therefore wet != God therefore morality.

 

[Upisoft]

The problem is there is no established relationship in the god/morality question:

Rain therefore wet != God therefore morality.

That too, but even with established relationship ill-defined questions have no actual meaning as I've shown.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

good is good

evil is evil yes??



so how is white magic good

so black magic is bad?

hm hm

That too, but even with established relationship ill-defined questions have no actual meaning as I've shown.

 

[rjc34]

so how is white magic good

so black magic is bad?

Or...no magic exists...?

 

[chris4243]

That too, but even with established relationship ill-defined questions have no actual meaning as I've shown.

The problem then isn't the existence or not of the hypothesis, the problem is that it is ill-defined.

 

[Upisoft]

good is good

evil is evil yes??



so how is white magic good

so black magic is bad?

hm hm

Let's talk about purple magic. White and black are boring.

 

[Upisoft]

The problem then isn't the existence or not of the hypothesis, the problem is that it is ill-defined.

Former follows from latter.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

skeptics

scoffers are prevelant ..

Gotta disagree here. Atheist disagree with religion because of the religious, not because of the religion. Kinda the same problem Gandhi had with Christianity.

 

[badtim]

Let's talk about purple magic. White and black are boring.

personally i'm a bigger fan of green, but once you learn it, you run up against your human limitations and then everything becomes un-fun. only way out is to forget it all

(obligatory Jack Vance reference)

 

[Niels]

Nothing exists without God, and atheists are as capable of moral behavior as the rest of us.