Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Elioenai26]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

 

[Davian]

In the absence of #2, it would appear to be a weak argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

In the absence of #2, it would appear to be a weak argument.

Are you saying premise 2 is false?

 

[Paradoxum]

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

It is false because God isn't required for morality to have a sense of objectivity to it. The objectivity is derived from our own mind's ability to step back, and imagine what it is like to see things from the perspective of others, or as if one were God.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is false because God isn't required for morality to have a sense of objectivity to it. The objectivity is derived from our own mind's ability to step back, and imagine what it is like to see things from the perspective of others, or as if one were God.

So you are saying that objective moral values and duties exist, but that they are kind of "hard wired" into our brains by evolution? Is this your position?

 

[Paradoxum]

So you are saying that objective moral values and duties exist, but that they are kind of "hard wired" into our brains by evolution? Is this your position?

I'm not sure I'm saying the values and duties are "hard wired". It is the more fundamental mental capacities that are hard wired. We are able to take an objective perspective on a issue. This in combination with empathy, facts, evidence, reason, instincts, and desires, leads us to a moral understanding.

Morality is an objective point of view, in combination with basic instincts (against pain, hunger and thirst, in favour of happiness) and empathy.

 

[Davian]

Are you saying premise 2 is false?

No. I am saying that you have yet to establish #2 as true.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver
2. There is an objective moral law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

OR

1. There are objective moral laws
2. Moral laws come from a moral lawgiver
3. Therefore, a moral lawgiver exists

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver
2. There is an objective moral law
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

You mean:

3. Therefore probably, there is a Moral Law Giver.

Also, you have yet to establish that premises 1 and 2 are valid. And how do you know the Moral Law Giver is a sentient being rather than a force (or forces) of nature?

1. There are objective moral laws
2. Moral laws come from a moral lawgiver
3. Therefore, a moral lawgiver exists

See above.

One line of evidence for the existence of God is presented in what is commonly called "The Moral Argument". The moral argument can be syllogistically represented as the following:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists

In discussing this, please stay on topic, and refrain from using any logical fallacies. Thank you

As above, premises 1 and 2 are controversial. Also, it's ironic that you say "refrain from using any logical fallacies", because your argument is a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

 

[Davian]

...
As above, premises 1 and 2 are controversial. Also, it's ironic that you say "refrain from using any logical fallacies", because your argument is a form of the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I took Elioenai26's "refrain from using any logical fallacies" as only applying to others, not himself.

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm not sure I'm saying the values and duties are "hard wired". It is the more fundamental mental capacities that are hard wired. We are able to take an objective perspective on a issue. This in combination with empathy, facts, evidence, reason, instincts, and desires, leads us to a moral understanding.

And the capacity to take an objective perspective on an issue, combined with empathy, facts, evidence etc. etc...where does this come from?

Morality is an objective point of view, in combination with basic instincts (against pain, hunger and thirst, in favour of happiness) and empathy.

You keep talking about "basic instincts". What is the source of these basic instincts? If you maintain that it was not God, you must maintain that it was according to the theory of evolution via natural selection, right? I.e. as a socio-biological adaptation.

 

[Elioenai26]

No. I am saying that you have yet to establish #2 as true.

Ethicist David Brink states: "There might be no objective moral standards...but this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as the result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable." (David O. Brink, "The Autonomy of Ethics," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pg. 149)

Naturalistic Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse states: "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5." (Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, pg.275)

Dr. Louise Anthony states: “Any argument for moral scepticism will based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” (Taken from speech during the Debate on the Foundations of Morality with Dr. William Lane Craig)

Atheist Richard Dawkins repeatedly cries out at what he perceives to be objectively wrong acts such as "religious indoctrination" of children, and homosexual discrimination, among others.

We all apprehend a realm of objective moral values and duties. We all (or rather all that are in their right mind) admit that it is wrong to torture, rape, and kill little children, among other reprehensible acts. We maintain that these acts are wrong, independent of people's beliefs, and independent of a society's general consensus of whether it is permissible.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Ethicist David Brink states: "There might be no objective moral standards...but this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as the result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable." (David O. Brink, "The Autonomy of Ethics," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pg. 149)

Naturalistic Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse states: "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5." (Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, pg.275)

Dr. Louise Anthony states: “Any argument for moral scepticism will based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” (Taken from speech during the Debate on the Foundations of Morality with Dr. William Lane Craig)

Atheist Sam Harris confesses that objective moral values and duties exist, but maintains that they are ontologically grounded solely in the brain.

Atheist Richard Dawkins repeatedly cries out at what he perceives to be objectively wrong acts such as "religious indoctrination" of children, and homosexual discrimination, among others.

We all apprehend a realm of objective moral values and duties. We all (or rather all that are in their right mind) admit that it is wrong to torture, rape, and kill little children, among other reprehensible acts. We maintain that these acts are wrong, independent of people's beliefs, and independent of a society's general consensus of whether it is permissible.

The fact that not everybody believes as these people do could probably speak for itself.

 

[Elioenai26]

The fact that not everybody believes as these people do could probably speak for itself.

Is it ever permissible to rape a child?

I will save you the trouble. The answer is no. The answer is no regardless what anyone or any group of people say or believe.

This is an objective moral value judgment. It is an objective moral obligation to protect young children.

So your assertion above simply is not pertinent to my point... No one in their right mind would say that it is ever permissible to rape a young child.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The argument assumes that moral value depends on there being a deity. I see no reason to accept this assumption.

 

[Elioenai26]

The argument assumes that moral value depends on there being a deity. I see no reason to accept this assumption.

Objective moral values cannot be logically, or justifiably accounted for via evolution by natural selection.

Therefore your only other option is that they exist as a result of God creating us with the capacity to apprehend and comprehend such a conceptual realm as morality and all that it entails.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Objective moral values cannot be logically accounted for via evolution by natural selection as some sort of socio-biological adaptation.

Therefore your only other option is that they exist as a result of God creating us with the capacity to apprehend and comprehend such a conceptual realm as morality and all that it entails.

The debate over whether morality is objective or subjective (or in some sense, both) has been going on for a long time, and that debate doesn't center on whether deities exist.

Objective moral values cannot be logically accounted for via evolution by natural selection as some sort of socio-biological adaptation.

Perhaps you haven't kept up with the research in this area, but morality has been studied by the natural sciences. We don't need to appeal to deities to investigate the human capacity to morally value certain states of affairs.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Is it ever permissible to rape a child?

I will save you the trouble. The answer is no. The answer is no regardless what anyone or any group of people say or believe.

This is an objective moral value judgment. It is an objective moral obligation to protect young children.

So your assertion above simply is not pertinent to my point... No one in their right mind would say that it is ever permissible to rape a young child.

This is both a straw man and a no true Scotsman fallacy. Implying that such an emotionally charged topic as rape can be reasonably applied to all moral issues is the straw man, and then using special pleading to imply that anyone who thinks rape is okay must be mentally unwell is the no true Scotsman.

So with that in mind, let's try with a larger sample of topics, shall we?

Abortion
Suicide
Cannibalism
Informed consent
Slavery
Genocide

etc.

Also, for your information, in several periods during human history it was considered acceptable to perform actions that we would nowadays consider rape. Further, in several more ancient cultures rape was viewed as morally wrong not because of the damage it incurred to the victim, but because of the damage it incurred to the victim's most powerful male relative - her "owner", as it were. In these circumstances, the seriousness of the "crime" was very much dependent on the sexual character of the victim - rape of virgins was the most serious, whereas some women (e.g. prostitutes) were actually barred from bringing forth rape charges at all, because for these women having had sex one more time was not seen to be at all important.

 

[Davian]

Ethicist David Brink states: "There might be no objective moral standards...but this would be a revisionary conclusion, to be accepted only as the result of extended and compelling argument that the commitments of ethical objectivity are unsustainable." (David O. Brink, "The Autonomy of Ethics," in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pg. 149)

Naturalistic Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse states: "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5." (Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended, pg.275)

Dr. Louise Anthony states: “Any argument for moral scepticism will based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” (Taken from speech during the Debate on the Foundations of Morality with Dr. William Lane Craig)

Atheist Richard Dawkins repeatedly cries out at what he perceives to be objectively wrong acts such as "religious indoctrination" of children, and homosexual discrimination, among others.

We all apprehend a realm of objective moral values and duties. We all (or rather all that are in their right mind) admit that it is wrong to torture, rape, and kill little children, among other reprehensible acts. We maintain that these acts are wrong, independent of people's beliefs, and independent of a society's general consensus of whether it is permissible.

Consensus of opinion does not establish #2 as true.

I will also ask, where did you establish that objective moral values require a deity?

And, for #3: Therefore God? why your god in particular? Where did your god get these objective moral values?

Please provide a citation for the Dawkins reference.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Consensus of opinion does not establish #2 as true.

I will also ask, where did you establish that objective moral values require a deity?

That's an interesting question. Consider for example the debate between McDowell and Williams on internal and external reasons for action. That debate doesn't center on whether deities exist to make morality "objective".

And, for #3: Therefore God? why your god in particular? Where did your god get these objective moral values?

This relates to my previous question on how we are able to obtain knowledge about the supernatural. Elio refuses to even address the question, but he expects us to accept supernatural claims; and not just any supernatural claims, the supernatural claims of his religion.