Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I don't see how rights simply emerge from matter and energy.

Who said anything about matter and energy?

I think you've just conceded my point by admitting that you are relying on an absolute norm when you make moral judgments. Your norm might be different from norms mentioned in Scripture, but it functions as an absolute norm nonetheless.

No, really. I meant it the first time - I don't care what you call it. And don't care that you seem intent on making an equivocation fallacy to score a point. Knock yourself out.

From this, the rest of my argument applies. When you are making this judgment and supposing this norm, you are implicitly supposing that God exists, as God is the only person who could impose an absolute norm.

Nope. Harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable, with zero invocation of Yahweh necessary.

Even if he exists, and can instantly judge the harm and wellbeing of each moral consideration as it arises, there is no means of gleaning that judgment. So he is, as in all things, completely superfluous.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Also...

Does Yahweh simply have access to the knowledge of what constitutes harm and wellbeing, and impart that to us?

Or does what Yahweh impart constitute harm and wellbeing, simply because he said it?

Which horn of Euthyphro would you care to impale yourself on this fine Saturday?

 

[Tree of Life]

Also...

Does Yahweh simply have access to the knowledge of what constitutes harm and wellbeing, and impart that to us?

Or does what Yahweh impart constitute harm and wellbeing, simply because he said it?

Which horn of Euthyphro would you care to impale yourself on this fine Saturday?

I reject human harm and wellbeing as an absolute standard.

But God created human life and is Lord over his creation. He knows what makes for harm and wellbeing and also created the conditions that would lead to harm or wellbeing.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I reject human harm and wellbeing as an absolute standard.

Me too. I don't believe there are such thing as 'absolute' standards.

But God created human life and is Lord over his creation. He knows what makes for harm and wellbeing and also created the conditions that would lead to harm or wellbeing.

Suppose I grant that he exists, and does indeed know what makes for harm and wellbeing. There is still no means of reliably and consistently gleaning what that is.

We are left to are own devices regardless of Yahweh's very existence. He is irrelevant.

 

[Tree of Life]

Suppose I grant that he exists, and does indeed know what makes for harm and wellbeing. There is still no means of reliably and consistently gleaning what that is.

We are left to are own devices regardless of Yahweh's very existence. He is irrelevant.

If you grant that Yahweh exists then you should also grant that he has spoken to us in several clear ways - most notably through Scripture, which is ubiquitous. It would not be difficult to discern what God's will for our lives is.

 

[Tree of Life]

Me too. I don't believe there are such thing as 'absolute' standards.

If you reject all absolute standards then you would be unable to make any real moral judgments. You'd be able to say what you prefer and also what our species prefers. But there would be no moral force behind these preferences.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you grant that Yahweh exists then you should also grant that he has spoken to us in several clear ways

That is a complete non-sequitor.

If you reject all absolute standards then you would be unable to make any real moral judgments.

Annnnnnd we're back to square 1. This is a rewording of your first premise. Literally exactly where we started from in my first post in this thread.

 

[Tree of Life]

That is a complete non-sequitor.

Not at all. Yahweh is a speaking God.

Annnnnnd we're back to square 1. This is a rewording of your first premise. Literally exactly where we started from in my first post in this thread.

Yes. You've been unable to get past square 1. I've demonstrated how moral judgments presuppose absolute standards. At that point I just seem to get hand waving from you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And we've demonstrated how you're wrong.

 

[Tree of Life]

And we've demonstrated how you're wrong.

I beg to differ.

 

[Tree of Life]

Strong? What has 'strong' to do with it? I object. Many people object. We discuss, confer, and compromise. Then we move on.

The argument that God is a moral monster is supposed to be an argument against Christian theism. But if your argument is simply that God behaves differently than you'd prefer, the argument is not very strong.

You could argue that God is right. But on what basis do you have for that. That God says so? Since I don't believe in gods, all you've said to me is that you declare yourself right and that therefore you are right.

If your 'God' is telling you something, you've got to show why your suggestions for human behavior provide what humans want. Again, if you tell me that it doesn't matter what I and others want but only what God wants, all I hear is that you want what you want and we should just accept your wants as the standard.

I don't think it would be fair to conflate my own judgments with what I believe that God says. For me, Scripture is the ultimate standard. This means that I must conform my own thoughts to Scripture and there are plenty of times when I am shown that my own thoughts don't align with what the Bible says. Then I must change my mind. So to say that God is the standard is very different from saying that I am the standard.

Again. I don't care. If I find your god a moral monster, you must convince that his precepts are actually good. You can only do that by appealing to goals that we find mutually beneficial. If I do not find your arguments persuasive, arguing that that is what your god wants isn't going to help. 'Objective' is irrelevant.

I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just showing how you have no basis to argue that God is a moral monster because you reject the idea of objective standards.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I beg to differ.

You have not, in any way, demonstrated moral judgments require absolute standards. Instead we've shown that we make judgments all the time with no reference to absolutes. One simply says "I judge that as bad based on my subjective standards." Done. It doesn't even matter if my judgment is valid, I've made it without referring to absolutes.

 

[Tree of Life]

One simply says "I judge that as bad based on my subjective standards." Done. It doesn't even matter if my judgment is valid, I've made it without referring to absolutes.

That's fine. But in that case the person has not made a moral judgment at all. They've made a judgment concerning a matter of personal taste.

 

[Tinker Grey]

That's fine. But in that case the person has not made a moral judgment at all. They've made a judgment concerning a matter of personal taste.

Disagree. Of course it is a moral judgment. That you find such a judgment uncompelling is a different matter.

 

[Tree of Life]

Disagree. Of course it is a moral judgment. That you find such a judgment uncompelling is a different matter.

Do you believe there is a difference between a moral judgment and a judgment of personal taste?

 

[Tree of Life]

Who said anything about matter and energy?

The universe, including people, is made of matter and energy. I assume you're operating from a materialist/naturalist conception of the universe. Accordingly, matter and energy are the only things that are real. I don't see how something like "rights" or "responsibilities" can emerge from this. Could you explain?

No, really. I meant it the first time - I don't care what you call it. And don't care that you seem intent on making an equivocation fallacy to score a point. Knock yourself out.

Ok thanks. If we may agree that you are supposing an absolute norm like: "Maximize good and minimize harm," then we may proceed to the next propositions. Where does this norm come from? Who says that we should maximize good and minimize harm?

Nope. Harm and wellbeing are objectively quantifiable, with zero invocation of Yahweh necessary.

They very well may be objectively quantifiable. But nowhere in your quantification of harm and wellbeing will you be able to derive an "ought" from and "is". Who says that we ought to maximize good and minimize harm?

 

[Tree of Life]

It may help to revisit the concept of an absolute moral norm.

A norm is any standard of measurement. For example, if we ask "what is the normal height for an adult human male?" we will get roughly 5'9". Our standard of measurement we're appealing to here is the average height of human men. Or if we ask: "How fast am I allowed to go on this road?" we will look to the legal speed limit as our norm.

An absolute norm is a standard that cannot be measured by any higher standard. It is the highest standard and, as such, is absolute.

So an absolute moral norm does not explicitly have anything to do with God. An absolute moral norm is simply a moral standard which measures everything else, but cannot be measured by anything else.

@Eight Foot Manchild has proposed the classic utilitarian absolute norm: "Maximize wellbeing, minimize harm." In the utilitarian ethic, this norm is the standard by which every other moral consideration and action is measured. According to utilitarians, when we ask: "Is X good?" what we're really asking is "How well does X minimize harm and maximize wellbeing?" In the utilitarian framework, to ask if minimizing harm and maximizing wellbeing is itself good would just be a silly question. That's because minimizing harm and maximizing wellbeing is the absolute norm. Nothing else can measure it and it measures every other ethical consideration.

Premise 1 of my argument says that whenever we make moral judgments, we suppose some absolute norm.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It may help to revisit the concept of an absolute moral norm.

A norm is any standard of measurement. For example, if we ask "what is the normal height for an adult human male?" we will get roughly 5'9". Our standard of measurement we're appealing to here is the average height of human men. Or if we ask: "How fast am I allowed to go on this road?" we will look to the legal speed limit as our norm.

An absolute norm is a standard that cannot be measured by any higher standard. It is the highest standard and, as such, is absolute.

So an absolute moral norm does not explicitly have anything to do with God. An absolute moral norm is simply a moral standard which measures everything else, but cannot be measured by anything else.

@Eight Foot Manchild has proposed the classic utilitarian absolute norm: "Maximize wellbeing, minimize harm." In the utilitarian ethic, this norm is the standard by which every other moral consideration and action is measured. According to utilitarians, when we ask: "Is X good?" what we're really asking is "How well does X minimize harm and maximize wellbeing?" In the utilitarian framework, to ask if minimizing harm and maximizing wellbeing is itself good would just be a silly question. That's because minimizing harm and maximizing wellbeing is the absolute norm. Nothing else can measure it and it measures every other ethical consideration.

Premise 1 of my argument says that whenever we make moral judgments, we suppose some absolute norm.

Absolute statements can be made within subjective systems.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Not at all. Yahweh is a speaking God.

He's a god who has people who purport to speak on his behalf.

Yes. You've been unable to get past square 1.

You're confused. It's your argument. You are the one trying to get past square 1.

The universe, including people, is made of matter and energy.

Correct. And I still I don't have to appeal to any magical ether realm to account for phenomena which exist in the universe, but are themselves not 'made of' anything - forces, for example, like motion. Or concepts, like rights.

It's interesting you've chosen to get into an argument of ontology here. Yahweh is really not going to be of any help on that path.

Ok thanks. If we may agree that you are supposing an absolute norm like: "Maximize good and minimize harm," then we may proceed to the next propositions. Where does this norm come from? Who says that we should maximize good and minimize harm?

They very well may be objectively quantifiable. But nowhere in your quantification of harm and wellbeing will you be able to derive an "ought" from and "is". Who says that we ought to maximize good and minimize harm?

I do. Because I value those things. Values are necessarily subjective, a fact that is not 'solved' by appealing to Yahweh.

Which doesn't bother me because he is, as in all things, irrelevant to my moral philosophy.

In a universe in which Yahweh did not exist, I would value maximizing wellbeing and minimizing harm.

In a universe in which Yahweh did exist, and was in favor of maximizing wellbeing and minimizing harm, I would value maximizing wellbeing and minimizing harm.

In a universe in which Yahweh did exist, and was in favor of maximizing harm and minimizing wellbeing, I would value maximizing wellbeing and minimizing harm.

He also does nothing at all to illuminate the is/ought problem. You cannot point to any 'is' statement of moral behavior, purportedly made by Yahweh, and derive and 'ought' from it. You are welcome to try, and fail, if you want to.