Does morality exist without God?

[Texan40]

if your god cant be nay other way if it has to make the rest of the unvrse a certin way and that inlcude all pele being the same then that sounds true

otherwise a gods views are as subjectve as any one elses and it stoped being unversel when the 1st minde of difrent vlaues came into being

Clearly if something is subjective then it cannot be absolute, hence my previous statement. Absolute does not include an "otherwise."

 

[blarg the 2nd]

That any two people might agree or disagree on whether or not something is moral or immoral does not have any bearing on whether that something is objectively moral or not.

hmm something is right or worng for me becase i detemrin it to be so for myslef

vs

something is right or wrong becase it is so ther

the 1st choice means my idea of right and worng may not matter to any one but myslef but the 2nd one seems a bit circluler and empty

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Whether or not something is 'just', 'unjust', 'right', 'wrong', 'good', or 'evil' stands true regardless of what any one person may think about it. People may define morality any way they like, but that in itself does not make morality to be what they believe it to be.

i dont know how that could posibly be true

 

[blarg the 2nd]

In my beliefs, that would be a being which possesses the authority to declare any given thing right or wrong. If there were no such being, then I would believe that nothing is truly 'right' or 'wrong' and that people only assign such terms to whatever it is that they happen to like or dislike.

just sounds like divine tyrany putting one subjectve view above others

might makes right

 

[Texan40]

just sounds like divine tyrany putting one subjectve view above others

might makes right

Some things simply "are." They are not subjective. There are even (*gasp*) scientific examples of such rigid laws and principles. It does not have to be about "might" whatsoever. That strawman is a fire hazard.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Clearly if something is subjective then it cannot be absolute, hence my previous statement. Absolute does not include an "otherwise."

a god would not need to be one way it would just need to be able to create things thers room for vareation as the difrent religions show

but if god was a certain way becase its own nature left it no choice and it had to create beings that all had an identical nanture then the nature of existince itslef would not alow for difrent values to exist and whats cosderd right and worng would actuly be unversal

may still be meaningless though

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Some things simply "are." They are not subjective. There are even (*gasp*) scientific examples of such rigid laws and principles. It does not have to be about "might" whatsoever. That strawman is a fire hazard.

i know some things are but i know saying something is dose not make it so

as we are disagreeing about the nature of things now one side must be wrong.

so why are you right? perhaps morality as a subjective thing is simply how things are instead.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Whether or not something is 'just', 'unjust', 'right', 'wrong', 'good', or 'evil' stands true regardless of what any one person may think about it. People may define morality any way they like, but that in itself does not make morality to be what they believe it to be.

Since morality is entirely a human matter the distinction you are making is nonsensical. "Right", "Wrong","good" or "evil" are terms made by human beings and used where they will. Societies fall into axiomatic lines with countless variations with almost limitless levels of ethics testing situations possible.

 

[Redac]

If people find morality relativism particularly disturbing, I wonder how they'd react to a moral nihilist.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

well nothing relay matters but nether dose that so i ignore it

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes, I know that, and I said as much in my post.

So who is "justified" (that is, morally right) to kill homosexuals? Moses? All Jews? All Jews, even today?

I see that you didn't answer these questions in my last post. I wonder why that is?

According to God, only the Jews of the Old Testament. God was in the process of creating a holy people for himself.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

because nothing says holy like killing people you don't like

 

[TomZzyzx]

Sir, I will have you know that the Catholic Church has held its canon throughout the ages, which was confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397AD. This canon differs from the canon the majority of Protestant churches which were founded within or after the 16th century -- their canon contains less books than that which was historically considered to be canonical by the Church.

I am not trying to disprove or prove objective right or wrong with my current statements. I am telling you what I find lacking in your statements.

I'm sorry I should have made the distinction between the cannon of the Catholic Church and the Protestant church.

 

[TomZzyzx]

How would such a being acquire this authority? And who would have the authority to declare those criteria "objective"?
Are we talking "might makes right"?

This being possess this authority because He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to do what ever he wants to do to his creation. If He chooses to give life He can give it. If He chooses to take life He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of his own property.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This being possess this authority because He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to do what ever he wants to do to his creation.

Why? Seriously. Why does someone have the right to do whatever they want with what they create?

It's not immoral for God to take the life of his own property.

So, human beings are just property, like tables and chairs? At this point, the topic of the thread should read: "Does morality exist with God?"


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

This being possess this authority because He is the creator of the universe. He has the right to do what ever he wants to do to his creation. If He chooses to give life He can give it. If He chooses to take life He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of his own property.

And if "he" choses to justify others taking life, he can do so. And if these others use him to justify themselves to take life, they can also do so.

Sorry, I just find it amusing when people claim to have "absolute morals", and cannot stop making excuses why these morals do not apply in every single case then don't want it to apply.

 

[quatona]

This being possess this authority because He is the creator of the universe.

How exactly does that follow?

He has the right to do what ever he wants to do to his creation.

Who invented this rule?

If He chooses to give life He can give it. If He chooses to take life He can take it. It's not immoral for God to take the life of his own property.

So there are different morals for your god and for humans? Moral relativist!

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why? Seriously. Why does someone have the right to do whatever they want with what they create?

So, human beings are just property, like tables and chairs? At this point, the topic of the thread should read: "Does morality exist with God?"

eudaimonia,

Mark

If you create something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, including destroying it. Human beings have always been God's property, He created us.

 

[TomZzyzx]

And if "he" choses to justify others taking life, he can do so. And if these others use him to justify themselves to take life, they can also do so.

Sorry, I just find it amusing when people claim to have "absolute morals", and cannot stop making excuses why these morals do not apply in every single case then don't want it to apply.

Yes on your first question, no on the second.

Objective morality applies to everyone at all times, even if they don't believe it.

 

[quatona]

If you create something you have the right to do whatever you want with it, including destroying it.

Nice ex-cathedra claim!