Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Davian]

I still love you, but you do not have to accept it. That is what love is. Love can be accepted or rejected. If I did not love you and care for you, I would care less whether or not you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior. But since I do care, I speak as I do. You have to understand, I am human too. Speaking the truth to you is one way my love is demonstrated towards you. You can accept it or reject it. If you reject it, that does not mean I love you any less.

But you are not 'speaking' the 'truth', are you? You are trying trying to sell your opinion, which appears to be based on young Earth creationism. And you are the one telling me that *I* hold postions that are untenable, lol.

Perhaps if you did less speaking and more listening, you would be taken more seriously.

 

[Elioenai26]

But you are not 'speaking' the 'truth', are you? You are trying trying to sell your opinion, which appears to be based on young Earth creationism.

Actually, if made to decide, I would lean towards an old earth view, but the point really is moot. Old earth or young earth, Jesus Christ came to testify to the truth, and all of those who are of the truth hear His voice.

And you are the one telling me that *I* hold postions that are untenable, lol.

Perhaps if you did less speaking and more listening, you would be taken more seriously.

 

[Davian]

Actually, if made to decide, I would lean towards an old earth view, but the point really is moot. Old earth or young earth, Jesus Christ came to testify to the truth, and all of those who are of the truth hear His voice.

Still not listening, and now back to preaching.

 

[Elioenai26]

Still not listening, and now back to preaching.

I have listened to what you said, and responded according to what my conviction tells me is right.

You no doubt would do the same, in fact your're doing it now by accusing me of preching. I respect your view, and encourage you to continue sharing your views with me.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

[Davian]

This is quite simple, and easily understood when seen in the proper light. I will explain...

You see, to the best of my recollection, and I need to be corrected if I am wrong,

To little effect, it would seem.

but I do not think any non-theist here will deny premise (1). For most atheists that I have talked with here say that there are not any objective moral values. People like Belk, Jade Margery, Gadarene, JGG, Jro, Yasic, Davian, Lord Emsworth and several others have made it very clear that they do not believe there is any basis for objective moral values.

That is not what I said. There may be, but you have not established any.

In fact, morality is usually defined roughly by non-theists, at least those here, as having its ontological foundation in the general consensus of what the majority of people feel are beneficial to society, and this, as a result of evolutionary theory regarding what is best for the survival and reproduction of a species.

No, what they feel is irrelevant. It is how they act. And, to be more accurate, it would not be 'species', it would be 'population'. Two groups of the same species may be in competition with each other.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? I If you want to pick away at evolutionary theory, you should do more that learn it from what is posted here.

Now, Paradoxum has advanced a sort of Atheistic Moral Platonism, which I will address later on, but on the whole, atheists themselves tend to affirm premise (1) when they claim there are no objective moral values or duties.

You see, implicit in premise (1) is the idea that there is no rationally justifiable basis for objectively grounding moral values and duties in a purely naturalistic view of reality.

Implicit in (1) is that "God" is something other than a character in a book. As you have not established that, the rest of the premise is meaningless.

Look at it this way:

An atheist has to affirm the veracity of premise (1) for either one of several reasons:

1. Atheists lack belief in God and if God cannot be appealed to in their ontological explanation for moral values and duties, then there necessarily must be something other than God that they appeal to as an explanation for moral values and duties.

Or they may simply say 'I don't know'.

2. Since this "something other than God" is what must be appealed to by the atheist, then it follows reasonably that this explanation is not supernatural but rather natural.

Ruling out 'supernatural' implies that one has an understanding of what is meant by the word. Define 'supernatural' without telling me what it isn't.

The current consensus among evolutionary theorists and ethicists is that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the existence of our concept of morality. Of course there are divergences of views within this field of study, but the general consensus among those knowledgeable in the arena of moral ontology is that morality is a result of evolution in some way shape or form.

What other naturalistic explanations are in the running?

Now:

As many atheists will tell you, since they maintain that the theory of evoltion by natural selection is their explanatory endorsement, then moral values and duties must necessarily be subjective, not objective. Once again, I cannot even recall all of the names of the people on these very forums who are atheists who will agree with what I have just said regarding the existence of subjective moral values and duties. So atheists themselves affirm (1).

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but you have yet to provide an argument as to how objective moral values and duties can be rationally and justifiably accounted for under atheism. Combined with the fact that the general consensus among atheists is that outside of some ultramundane standard to appeal to, morality must be subjective, atheists themselves affirm (1).

You see the confusion lies in distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology. We are not dealing with epistemology here, but rather ontology. You see, there are atheists that live "morally good" lives. They give to the poor, help the homeless, feed the hungry, donate money to charities, and a host of other charitable things. We are not saying that atheists cannot be good, that is not what the argument is about at all whatsoever. Nor are we saying that one has to believe in God to be good or to do good. This is not the argument. The argument deals with the reality of objective moral values and duties which is an ontological issue, not an epistemological one because epistemology deals with the knowledge of said values and duties.

The argument does not state that belief in God is necessary for there to be objective moral values and duties, nor does it state that God is necessary for our knowledge of said values and duties.

All the first premise states is that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Purely ontological here.

So the argument is powerful in that prominent new atheistic thinkers must necessarily hold (1) to be more plausibly true than its denial, and they cannot deny (2) without looking like a moral reprobate.

(1) is meaningless, and (2) you have yet to establish, other than from an appeal to emotion. Powerful indeed.

 

[Belk]

The evidence would be in the form of your confession that objective moral values and duties exist. For if you say that it is wrong to abuse and torture a little child (for example....a 15 month old) regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes, then you affirm premise (2). As long as you hold premise (2) to be true, you, on pain of irrationality, would have to offer a good argument against premise (1) to avoid the conclusion of the moral argument. But since you admit that without God, there is no basis for any objective moral values and duties, you necessarily believe (1) to be true. Therefore, for you, (3) follows logically, God exists.

Perhaps I phrased my question poorly. Let me try again.

I believe morality to be subjective. You believe it to be objective. I believe that the morality people use in determining right from wrong is subjective. You have seemed to agree that since humans are capable of having different views on moral questions it is subjective.

Is this correct so far? If so...

In asking for your evidence for objective morality you propose a hypothetical action most people would find morally repugnant and ask us, using our subjective morality, to determine if we can see a situation in which it would be right to perform said action. If not then objective morality should be evidenced.

The issue I have is two fold.

1. It is entirely possible for me to agree that the action is never OK and for that to be a product of my subjective morality.

2. It is also possible for me to construct a hypothetical scenario in which the outcome of not performing the action would be worse then performing the action. Thereby overcoming the ingrained aversion to said action.


I need evidence that points clearly to one or the other. Preferably something that follows:

If (OM) we would see X. If (SM) we would see Y.

Offering a clear line of evidence as to which is correct. I am aware no such evidence has been discovered to date (Hence why these debates keep cropping up) but that is what I would need to be convinced.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I never said that moral values could exist outside of God's own determination. I think this is simply a misconstrual of what I wrote. Nor would I call His determination "subjective". If any term is appropriate it would be objective, not subjective for you no doubt agree, that God is the locus, paradigm, or source of morality.

I hope you see how everything you say above is based on belief and is not useful in convincing those that do not hold to that belief. I am attempting to point out that rather than proof to convince the non believer all you have put forth so far is only useful for preaching to the choir. I also find that we are at loggerheads as to the meaning of the words subjective and objective. I believe we have different interpretations of the meaning of those words. In my mind subjective in this context is defined as no. 1 or possibly no.5 below whereas I believe you see it more as no.3. I have also added my preferred, in this context, definition of objective from the same source.

Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com
sub·jec·tive

[suh b-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.


7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).

No. For you are separating the two. Morality cannot be separated from the very being and essence of God, for God is the locus, or source or fountainhead of morality. In other words, the two are not distinct entities as if God is over here, and morality is over there. No no no, this is quite incorrect. God's very essence and nature is omnibenevolence, which means morality issues forth from His very nature and is one of His many attributes.

I believe it is rather you that is doing the separating when you claim an objective morality. Everything you say above is reason to call morality God's subjective morality as it issues forth from His nature rather than existing independently.

Once again, this argument is based on a misconstrual of the relationship of moral values to God. Objective moral values stem from the very essence and being of God and are not divorceable or divisible.

Again, you make a statement of belief that is not verifiable as if it were so but I still find it true for me up until you use the word objective.. Do not expect non believers to find it so though. . I would simply say God's subjective moral values stem from Him and not from a standard that comes outside of Him.

Once again, God does not "create" morality as if it is something outside of Himself. He is the paradigm of morality, not the creator of it.

If morality is not something outside of Himself then it must be something belonging to Himself and therefore subjective as objective is by its very nature outside of oneself. You make an excellent argument here for God's subjective morality.

True...

It is nice to find agreement on a thing.

False for the aforementioned reasons.

Only false if you do not accept my assumptions just as those that do not accept your assumption will find your conclusions false. I have never found a convincing argument by use of simple logic that would lead one to the conclusion that God exists, or that he doesn't exist either. I do not think God wants to replace faith with logic or doubt with conclusiveness. I believe He has a purpose for faith and doubt though I do not know that as a fact.

 

[yasic]

This is an incorrect summary. I have provided my actual statements below for you to check against your summary:

My apologies

As you can see from the above, due to a shortage of time, I only want to discuss the particular issue with people who are going to be intellectually honest. If someone on this forum would like to maintain that what the Nazis did was good, right, and not evil, then that is their choice. I just do not feel the need to discuss the issue with such a one as that.

You started this thread by giving a 3 point argument, one where virtually everyone agrees that if premise 1 and 2 are correct than 3 will necessarily follow. Seeing that this thread is a supposed proof for God's existence through morality it is reasonable to assume it is designed to convince atheists of your point.

You also admit that you believe most atheist hold that point 1 is correct (regardless of it's actual truth value).

Following this you then make the restriction that you will only discuss this topic with people who believe that what the Nazi's did is objectively wrong which by definition requires the acceptance and belief of point 2.

So in summary, you are essentially saying that you will only discuss this argument with people who already accept the premises of a valid logical argument.

Do you see why this is problematic?

 

[yasic]

As many atheists will tell you, since they maintain that the theory of evoltion by natural selection is their explanatory endorsement, then moral values and duties must necessarily be subjective, not objective. Once again, I cannot even recall all of the names of the people on these very forums who are atheists who will agree with what I have just said regarding the existence of subjective moral values and duties. So atheists themselves affirm (1).

While you are correct that most of your opponents do believe morality did originate from evolutionary mechanics, this does not mean they affirm (1).

For instance take myself, I do hold that I believe that morality first developed in humans by evolutionary mechanics. I do admit the possibility that I am wrong, and if I am wrong I hold the following position "If not from Evolution I do not know where morality came from, be it naturalistic or supernatural origins"

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but you have yet to provide an argument as to how objective moral values and duties can be rationally and justifiably accounted for under atheism. Combined with the fact that the general consensus among atheists is that outside of some ultramundane standard to appeal to, morality must be subjective, atheists themselves affirm (1).

The fact that we cannot provide a method by which morality developed by naturalistic means outside evolution does not in any way shape or form constitute as evidence that it came from supernatural means.

For instance, we could go to a village in Siberia where nobody in the village will be able to provide a method by which lighting is not a supernatural event, this does not constitute as evidence that Zeus exists.

 

[Davian]

I have listened to what you said, and responded according to what my conviction tells me is right.

So, when asked to substantiate your claims, your response is to give your opinion. That is not listening.

You no doubt would do the same, in fact your're doing it now by accusing me of preching.

LMGTFY

Preaching (Verb)

1. Deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church: "he preached to a large congregation".
2. Publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).

I respect your view,

Unlikely, given what you have put into your posts. I dont care about that, but I would like to see some intellectual honesty, like that you ask of others.

and encourage you to continue sharing your views with me.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

And to you.

 

[Paradoxum]

This is quite simple, and easily understood when seen in the proper light. I will explain...

I know this post isn't aimed at me, but you mention me, and I think that saying a few things might help you better understand my position.

You see, to the best of my recollection, and I need to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think any non-theist here will deny premise (1). For most atheists that I have talked with here say that there are not any objective moral values. People like Belk, Jade Margery, Gadarene, JGG, Jro, Yasic, Davian, Lord Emsworth and several others have made it very clear that they do not believe there is any basis for objective moral values. In fact, morality is usually defined roughly by non-theists, at least those here, as having its ontological foundation in the general consensus of what the majority of people feel are beneficial to society, and this, as a result of evolutionary theory regarding what is best for the survival and reproduction of a species.

I think that understanding is a little simplistic, and held because atheistic explanations of objective morality aren't well known. Subjective moral theories are better known.

Now, Paradoxum has advanced a sort of Atheistic Moral Platonism, which I will address later on, but on the whole, atheists themselves tend to affirm premise (1) when they claim there are no objective moral values or duties.

I wouldn't say I am close to Moral Platonism. I don't believe goodness magically exists outside of the universe. My view is closer to a Kantian one. I came to my understanding while reading one of Kant's works (and various essays on ethics and human rights). Not that I agree with Kant.

2. Since this "something other than God" is what must be appealed to by the atheist, then it follows reasonably that this explanation is not supernatural but rather natural. The current consensus among evolutionary theorists and ethicists is that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the existence of our concept of morality. Of course there are divergences of views within this field of study, but the general consensus among those knowledgeable in the arena of moral ontology is that morality is a result of evolution in some way shape or form.

The capacity for morality evolved.

As many atheists will tell you, since they maintain that the theory of evoltion by natural selection is their explanatory endorsement, then moral values and duties must necessarily be subjective, not objective. Once again, I cannot even recall all of the names of the people on these very forums who are atheists who will agree with what I have just said regarding the existence of subjective moral values and duties.

I don't see how that follows. The capacity for maths also evolved, but it is objectively true that 1+1=2. It isn't subjective just because the capacity evolved.

So atheists themselves affirm (1).

Well, some do.

Harris inveighs against what he calls "the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist" and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls.1 Citing Donald Symons, he rightly declares, "If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, … the only question would be how severely that person should be punished."2 What is not in question is that such a person has done something horribly, objectively wrong.

 

[Davian]

...

Harris inveighs against what he calls "the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist" and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls.1 Citing Donald Symons, he rightly declares, "If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, … the only question would be how severely that person should be punished."2 What is not in question is that such a person has done something horribly, objectively wrong.

+1

I would note that the 'objectively' in that quote is based on human well-being and not on 'gods' or the 'supernatural'.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is quite simple, and easily understood when seen in the proper light. I will explain...

You see, to the best of my recollection, and I need to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think any non-theist here will deny premise (1). For most atheists that I have talked with here say that there are not any objective moral values. People like Belk, Jade Margery, Gadarene, JGG, Jro, Yasic, Davian, Lord Emsworth and several others have made it very clear that they do not believe there is any basis for objective moral values. In fact, morality is usually defined roughly by non-theists, at least those here, as having its ontological foundation in the general consensus of what the majority of people feel are beneficial to society, and this, as a result of evolutionary theory regarding what is best for the survival and reproduction of a species.

You see, implicit in premise (1) is the idea that there is no rationally justifiable basis for objectively grounding moral values and duties in a purely naturalistic view of reality.

Implicit in (1) is the idea that the only way for objective moral values to exist is for deities to exist. I reject that idea.

Look at it this way:

An atheist has to affirm the veracity of premise (1) for either one of several reasons:

1. Atheists lack belief in God and if God cannot be appealed to in their ontological explanation for moral values and duties, then there necessarily must be something other than God that they appeal to as an explanation for moral values and duties.

2. Since this "something other than God" is what must be appealed to by the atheist, then it follows reasonably that this explanation is not supernatural but rather natural. The current consensus among evolutionary theorists and ethicists is that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the existence of our concept of morality. Of course there are divergences of views within this field of study, but the general consensus among those knowledgeable in the arena of moral ontology is that morality is a result of evolution in some way shape or form.

Now:

As many atheists will tell you, since they maintain that the theory of evoltion by natural selection is their explanatory endorsement, then moral values and duties must necessarily be subjective, not objective.

Must necessarily be subjective? You need to explain this further. Why must it be subjective if it, like many other abilities, evolved?

Once again, I cannot even recall all of the names of the people on these very forums who are atheists who will agree with what I have just said regarding the existence of subjective moral values and duties. So atheists themselves affirm (1).

No, they don't necessarily affirm (1) because (1) assumes that the only way for there to be objectivity in moral value is for deities to exist.

In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but you have yet to provide an argument as to how objective moral values and duties can be rationally and justifiably accounted for under atheism.

You have yet to do the same for theism as well. In fact, I've asked you on several occasions to detail how objective moral values can be rationally and justifiably accounted for under theism.

You see the confusion lies in distinguishing between moral ontology and moral epistemology. We are not dealing with epistemology here, but rather ontology. You see, there are atheists that live "morally good" lives. They give to the poor, help the homeless, feed the hungry, donate money to charities, and a host of other charitable things. We are not saying that atheists cannot be good, that is not what the argument is about at all whatsoever. Nor are we saying that one has to believe in God to be good or to do good. This is not the argument. The argument deals with the reality of objective moral values and duties which is an ontological issue, not an epistemological one because epistemology deals with the knowledge of said values and duties.

The argument does not state that belief in God is necessary for there to be objective moral values and duties, nor does it state that God is necessary for our knowledge of said values and duties.

All the first premise states is that if God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Purely ontological here.

Purely tautological. The argument defines 'objective moral values' as 'God's moral values'. As yasic already pointed out, that makes (1) tautologically correct: divine morals cannot exist with a divine being.

So the argument is powerful in that prominent new atheistic thinkers must necessarily hold (1) to be more plausibly true than its denial, and they cannot deny (2) without looking like a moral reprobate. Why? Well I shall let the outspoken atheist Sam Harris conclude here.

Yes, they can accept (1) as a tautology - God-based morals don't exist without a god. But they can also deny that 'objective moral values' depend on there being a deity.

Harris inveighs against what he calls "the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist" and relativists who refuse to condemn as objectively wrong terrible atrocities like the genital mutilation of little girls.1 Citing Donald Symons, he rightly declares, "If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, … the only question would be how severely that person should be punished."2 What is not in question is that such a person has done something horribly, objectively wrong.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/navi... the objectivity/subjectivity of moral value.

 

[Elioenai26]

I hope you see how everything you say above is based on belief and is not useful in convincing those that do not hold to that belief. I am attempting to point out that rather than proof to convince the non believer all you have put forth so far is only useful for preaching to the choir. I also find that we are at loggerheads as to the meaning of the words subjective and objective. I believe we have different interpretations of the meaning of those words. In my mind subjective in this context is defined as no. 1 or possibly no.5 below whereas I believe you see it more as no.3. I have also added my preferred, in this context, definition of objective from the same source.

Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com
sub·jec·tive

[suh b-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective ).

2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

4. Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.


7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective ).




I believe it is rather you that is doing the separating when you claim an objective morality. Everything you say above is reason to call morality God's subjective morality as it issues forth from His nature rather than existing independently.



Again, you make a statement of belief that is not verifiable as if it were so but I still find it true for me up until you use the word objective.. Do not expect non believers to find it so though. . I would simply say God's subjective moral values stem from Him and not from a standard that comes outside of Him.



If morality is not something outside of Himself then it must be something belonging to Himself and therefore subjective as objective is by its very nature outside of oneself. You make an excellent argument here for God's subjective morality.



It is nice to find agreement on a thing.





Only false if you do not accept my assumptions just as those that do not accept your assumption will find your conclusions false. I have never found a convincing argument by use of simple logic that would lead one to the conclusion that God exists, or that he doesn't exist either. I do not think God wants to replace faith with logic or doubt with conclusiveness. I believe He has a purpose for faith and doubt though I do not know that as a fact.

When I use the word "objective" I am using it in reference to humans, not God. I am saying that moral values and duties which stem from God as their locus, are objective for us, meaning binding on us and mind independent. That's all is meant by the use of the term.

I am not espousing moral platonism which sees objective moral values and duties as existing as an abstract reality separate from God or separate from the natural realm possessing some mysterious unexplainable, stand-alone ontology.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

 

[Gottservant]

If morality is a function of objectivity, then objectivity must serve subjectivity, as far as morality is concerned, not the other way around.

 

[quatona]

When I use the word "objective" I am using it in reference to humans, not God. I am saying that moral values and duties which stem from God as their locus, are objective for us, meaning binding on us and mind independent. That's all is meant by the use of the term.

The application of this definition renders the argument in the OP circular (or, if you will, it is defining God into existence).
As I said many posts ago the actual content is: Without God there can´t be any God given morality.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Just skimming through this thread and there appears my name:

People like Belk, Jade Margery, Gadarene, JGG, Jro, Yasic, Davian, Lord Emsworth and several others have made it very clear that they do not believe there is any basis for objective moral values.

Can't seem to remember having done anything along those lines.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is a red herring, for it in no way addresses either of the two premises of the moral argument.

Then good thing I posted it in response to your question below rather than as a response to the OP of the thread.

Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?

 

[KCfromNC]

1. Atheists lack belief in God and if God cannot be appealed to in their ontological explanation for moral values and duties, then there necessarily must be something other than God that they appeal to as an explanation for moral values and duties.

Where do you get the idea that atheists must be omniscient? Why are atheists (or anyone else) obliged to produce a complete description of the origins and function of human psychology and society? There's no requirement to provide the detailed naturalistic origins of these phenomena to see that a baseless assertion that goddditit has no merit as an explanation.

 

[Elioenai26]

+1

I would note that the 'objectively' in that quote is based on human well-being and not on 'gods' or the 'supernatural'.

Objectively in the sentence is used to mean independent of subjective opinions or beliefs. Nothing more, nothing less.