Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Your question in the OP was...
""If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"
The shortened version of my answer was...
"On the grounds of opinion."
You may not like the answer, but it is an answer... and one you've failed to find fault with.
Your question in the OP was...
""If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"
The shortened version of my answer was...
"On the grounds of opinion."
You may not like the answer, but it is an answer... and one you've failed to find fault with.
Ah, well, let us take those individually.
"If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil"
Indeed. The key word there is "if". So far, no one has been able to describe an effective way that morality could 'conform to a relative standard' in such a way that one person could say another is acting immorally, or committing evil.
"If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions ..."
Possibly in another discussion where that was posed as a premise. Here, the issue was responding to the premise of others with a question, which has yet to be answered.
"How come nobody knows this objective standard?"
What makes you think no one knows it?
"Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard? "
You are aware than consensus has nothing to do with truth?
"The fact that you won't be able to tell me ..."
No sir, non sequitur.
I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words.
I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality. Reality does conform to a relative standard. The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality. The fact that no one can prove their morality "true" is further evidence of relative morality. What more would you like?
I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words.
I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality. Reality does conform to a relative standard. The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality. The fact that no one can prove their morality "true" is further evidence of relative morality. What more would you like?
Indeed, I find it irrational, and have yet to find anyone who can justify it logically in a way that fits reality.
How? It's already been explained a couple of times.
No, it has been asserted not explained.
Well, technically "I don't know" is an answer. But I would say in order for the answer to qualify it must actually work: you must be able to show how your answer actually addresses the original question. Yours merely begs the question.
I wouldn't consider that love, no. Perhaps you can define "love" so I can see where you are coming from?
Yes, it has. And Anatheist did well explaining it with a simple analogy. You know the one about the two people who couldn't agree on the "right" thing to do?
If you're referring to the assertion that two people disagreeing about a standard is evidence that the standard does not exist, I already pointed out that is both logically and factually in error.
Consensus has nothing to do with whether a statement is true.
Demonstration? If you and I disagree about the speed limit on the road in front of my house, does that mean there is NO speed limit? You see, it simply fails as an argument.
It´s not an argument against the existence of God. It´s an argument against the concept that God is omiscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.Ah, but does that not take us back to the original question? If in fact all moral views are merely individual opinions, then on what basis does one assert that the existence of 'evil' is argument against the existence of God?
Go ahead. Talk is cheap.You see, if your position is true (and incidentally, we can demonstrate it is not),
So what?then that argument fails completely. There is no objective evil
The alternative is that God is accountable merely to his own standards for which there is no reason, IOW which he arbitrarily put up.for which God would be (potentially) accountable, if there is no objective morality.
One can point to a sign, to establish an "objective" speed limit and or city and county records of the same. Please point us to these "objective" moral standards that you claim exist.
"If God Exists, Why Does He Allow Evil?"
I see this question asked frequently by unbelievers who want to argue that the existence of Evil is somehow a refutation of the existence of a Moral God.
It seems to me that the appropriate first response to this question should be to ask, "If there is no Moral God who has established an absolute moral standard, then on what grounds do you call certain things 'evil' at all?"
It seems we spend a great deal of our time defending Free Will to unbelievers, when we should actually be pointing out the flaw in their premise.
Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?
Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.
Missed the point. The point is that agreement fails as evidence of a standard.
Want another example? if you and I disagree about the actual terms of Boyle's Law, does that mean the law doesn't exist?
Consensus is no measure (pro or con) of the truth of a claim.
What I struggle most with in regards to some Christians is this; when something good happens to them, they are quick to point out that this happened because of God. When something bad happens to them or others, they tend to all of a sudden lose this ability to determine when God makes things happen and they state; God works in mysterious ways, who could possible know God's will? Well, they seem to have a good handle on God's will when something good happens, but not when something bad happens.
I'll stand by the claim you won't be able to tell me what the "objective standard" is...you've dodged every attempt to discuss it. Your silence on the topic says more than your words."
Actually, I believe I did address that issue directly, and offer to follow that discussion in another conversation. Were you not here for that?
"I only used the word "if" because you seem to have trouble understanding relative morality."
Indeed, I find it irrational, and have yet to find anyone who can justify it logically in a way that fits reality.
"The fact that you and I, and everyone else, disagree on moral issues/actions is evidence of relative morality."
Uh, no. That 'fact' has nothing to do with whether an absolute standard exists: consensus has nothing to do with truth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?