Does morality exist without God?

[ivebeenshown]

Logic and rationality are objective and remain the same regardless of people's viewpoints.

Of course!

If you start at the conclusion that God exists, then statements contrary to that will not fit. However, if we're making sweeping statements of fact, you can't at that position. Not unless you prove it first.

Okay. Well, we know that 'morality' exists in some form or another, and the question of the thread is whether or not morality could 'be' without God.

If you define God as 'being', then nothing could 'be' without God.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

it amazes me that adam n eve were innocent but then sinned

now we are exposed to knowledge n we still sin

whoaaaa

 

[SithDoughnut]

Of course!

Okay. Well, we know that 'morality' exists in some form or another, and the question of the thread is whether or not morality could 'be' without God.

If you define God as 'being', then nothing could 'be' without God.

If you define God as "being", then again the term becomes largely meaningless. The point I'm making is that the only way to have a definition that has to logically apply to reality is to give that definition only one property. Otherwise, you're simply assuming that your particular definition is true.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Questions, or is that enough?

I'll have a look over it, then I'll come back to you, or possibly post a thread over in Exploring Christianity. However, that's enough for the time being; I'm not going to rush into a massive debate without looking into things some more.

 

[ivebeenshown]

If you define God as "being", then again the term becomes largely meaningless.

I don't see how. All beings depend upon the act of existing, or "being", for their existence. To say that God is the very act of existing is to say that God depends upon no other being for his existence, and that all other beings depend upon God for their existence -- including morality.

The point I'm making is that the only way to have a definition that has to logically apply to reality is to give that definition only one property. Otherwise, you're simply assuming that your particular definition is true.

I guess I just don't get your point. My point was firstly that the question "does morality exist without God" has more than one possible answer depending upon what "God" is.

 

[quatona]

If you define God as 'being', then nothing could 'be' without God.

And if you define God as "aeroplane" morality and pretty much everything else can easily exist without God.
Of course, for a theist who defines God as the "necessary creator of everything" nothing could exist without a god. That´s trivial.

If I understand the OP correctly, though (and I am certainly not sure I do in view of his cryptic style) he is trying to establish that the existence of morality is some sort of evidence that there is a God.

 

[razeontherock]

The point I'm making is that the only way to have a definition that has to logically apply to reality is to give that definition only one property. Otherwise, you're simply assuming that your particular definition is true.

This is not good logic. When we use the word "panda," for example, we're assuming an awful lot. I'm assuming you know I'm referring to a fuzzy creature I can see in your avatar, and I'm assuming some stuff I've encountered about them may be true, and if I've ever actually ever seen one in a zoo (which I don't recall) I'm assuming that it was actually a panda and not a hoax. But I've never actually interacted with a panda.

We can still have a "true" definition of panda, and w/o that much we can't discuss the topic. And pandas have many properties! No correlation between # of properties and truthfulness of a definition whatsoever.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And if you define God as "aeroplane" morality and pretty much everything else can easily exist without God.
Of course, for a theist who defines God as the "necessary creator of everything" nothing could exist without a god. That´s trivial.

Correct.

If I understand the OP correctly, though (and I am certainly not sure I do in view of his cryptic style) he is trying to establish that the existence of morality is some sort of evidence that there is a God.

Maybe. If God is defined as the act of existing, then the fact that morality exists is very strong evidence that God exists.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I don't see how. All beings depend upon the act of existing, or "being", for their existence. To say that God is the very act of existing is to say that God depends upon no other being for his existence, and that all other beings depend upon God for their existence -- including morality.

I guess I just don't get your point. My point was firstly that the question "does morality exist without God" has more than one possible answer depending upon what "God" is.

The point is that if you want to demonstrate that morality cannot exist without God, you have two options:

1. Demonstrate the existence of God

2. Define "God" in such a way so that "morality without God" becomes illogical.

I really brought up this argument because of Razeontherock's claim that "existence without God" is nonsensical, which I disagree with, for the above reasons.

 

[SithDoughnut]

This is not good logic. When we use the word "panda," for example, we're assuming an awful lot. I'm assuming you know I'm referring to a fuzzy creature I can see in your avatar, and I'm assuming some stuff I've encountered about them may be true, and if I've ever actually ever seen one in a zoo (which I don't recall) I'm assuming that it was actually a panda and not a hoax. But I've never actually interacted with a panda.

We can still have a "true" definition of panda, and w/o that much we can't discuss the topic. And pandas have many properties! No correlation between # of properties and truthfulness of a definition whatsoever.

You're still not understanding what I mean. Basically, your claim that "existence without God" is nonsensical is equivalent to saying that "a mammal that isn't a panda" is nonsensical. There are lots of different mammals, and likewise there are lots of different potential causes of existence. Therefore, it is possible that there is existence without God. The only way to rationally claim otherwise is to demonstrate that God's existence is a fact, which is pretty much impossible.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You're still not understanding what I mean. Basically, your claim that "existence without God" is nonsensical is equivalent to saying that "a mammal that isn't a panda" is nonsensical. There are lots of different mammals, and likewise there are lots of different potential causes of existence. Therefore, it is possible that there is existence without God. The only way to rationally claim otherwise is to demonstrate that God's existence is a fact, which is pretty much impossible.

If you can demonstrate that things can exist without the act of existing then you might have a case in saying existence without God is possible.

 

[razeontherock]

You're still not understanding what I mean. Basically, your claim that "existence without God" is nonsensical is equivalent to saying that "a mammal that isn't a panda" is nonsensical. There are lots of different mammals, and likewise there are lots of different potential causes of existence. Therefore, it is possible that there is existence without God. The only way to rationally claim otherwise is to demonstrate that God's existence is a fact, which is pretty much impossible.

What you're failing to consider is the unknown nature of God's character. He is not panda, for example; so that analogy doesn't work. He is not anything else you can pin down either, so that analogy won't work either!

All you're left with is using the word "God" in a way other than intended.

Regardless what you might find about causes of (physical) existence, that is God. You're familiar with an algebraic variable?

 

[chris4243]

Kittens are by definition that without which there can be no cuteness. Do you know any other attributes a kitten has?

 

[ivebeenshown]

What you're failing to consider is the unknown nature of God's character. He is not panda, for example; so that analogy doesn't work. He is not anything else you can pin down either, so that analogy won't work either!

All you're left with is using the word "God" in a way other than intended.

God's nature is to exist, because God is the act of existing. We may grow in our understanding of existence but existence is evident to all. It is not some secret knowledge -- all sentient beings perceive and thus have some knowledge of existence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

God's nature is to exist, because God is the act of existing. We may grow in our understanding of existence but existence is evident to all. It is not some secret knowledge -- all sentient beings perceive and thus have some knowledge of existence.

The problem here is that the concept of God becomes entirely superfluous. We can simply use the concept "existing" or "existence" instead. This is perfectly compatible with atheism and a naturalistic outlook. There is no reason except personal taste to associate the "act of existing" with "God".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

Whether or not god is necessary for morality is entirely dependent on your own personal definition of 'morality' and no silly internet discussion will alter that.

 

[quatona]

Correct.

Maybe. If God is defined as the act of existing, then the fact that morality exists is very strong evidence that God exists.

It isn´t any stronger an evidence for existence ("the act of existing") than the fact that a rock exists.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It isn´t any stronger an evidence for existence ("the act of existing") than the fact that a rock exists.

So?

The problem here is that the concept of God becomes entirely superfluous. We can simply use the concept "existing" or "existence" instead. This is perfectly compatible with atheism and a naturalistic outlook. There is no reason except personal taste to associate the "act of existing" with "God".

"God" typically refers to some supernatural being which is independent of and source of all other beings. By saying that existence is "God", I am affirming that existence possesses those three properties, one of which is clearly incompatible with a naturalistic outlook.

In fact, I have yet to see anyone effectively demonstrate that existence is natural.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If you can demonstrate that things can exist without the act of existing then you might have a case in saying existence without God is possible.

If you're saying that God is (and only is, otherwise other positions become possible) the act of existence then why call it God? Why give it a name? We have a perfectly decent noun already: existence.

 

[SithDoughnut]

What you're failing to consider is the unknown nature of God's character. He is not panda, for example; so that analogy doesn't work. He is not anything else you can pin down either, so that analogy won't work either!

All you're left with is using the word "God" in a way other than intended.

Regardless what you might find about causes of (physical) existence, that is God. You're familiar with an algebraic variable?

That's my point exactly. God is unknown, so you cannot logically say that he is the only possible (note that I say possible, not actual) source of existence. Other potential origins of existence also exist, so saying "existence without God" is not nonsensical. Saying that God is existence is, considering what the Bible says and that fact that existence cannot logically be conscious, because if consciousness exists, then it can't be the process of existence (because the process of existence allows it to exists). God cannot logically be the process of existing. You can say God caused everything else to exist, but you cannot call God "existence".