In the last weeks we´ve seen a lot of "Without God there wouldn´t be objective morality" threads and posts.
I keep wondering: What renders God's opinion objective?
I keep wondering: What renders God's opinion objective?
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
terminology: "objective"
- Thread starter quatona
- Start date
To toot my own horn, I wrote a blog post on this a few months ago. I'd be interested in feedback. Tinker's Damn: Objective Morality? Maybe.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
God according to one concise definition is the greatest conceivable being (Anselm). As such, those who adhere to the worldview that He does exist, also acknowledge in this confession, that He is the source of all that exists. While many things can be said about God, specifically the God of the Judeo-Christian worldview, from which perspective I am writing, they are being affirmed of only one being. God is not many beings; He is only one being. This is the case because no one thing said about Him is exhaustive; so many things must be said about Him in order for us to have a more complete knowledge of Him. Thus, God is one in being (essence), but He has many attributes (properties).
In listing the attributes of God, there are two categories that they may fall under:
1. Nonmoral - they are at least the following: pure actuality, simplicity, aseity, necessity, immutability, eternality, impassability, infinity, immateriality, immensity, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, wisdom, majesty, light, beauty, ineffability, life, immortality, unity, and triunity, within which we see in relation to His creatures: sovereignty, transcendance, and immanence.
2. Moral - at least these: holiness, justice, jealousy, perfection, truthfulness, and goodness (love), within which we see in relation to His creatures: mercy and wrath.
It must also be remembered that all proper statements about God must be analogical.
Christians affirm that since God is the source of all that exists and that His very nature demands that He is the paradigm of all virtue and morality, then it logically follows that God is the source of morality.
God's prescription of morality is objective because He, according to the Judeo-Christian worldview, prescribes it to all of those created in His image i.e. humans. In other words, when He gives humans life, a part of this life is the possesion of what is called conscience. This is our inherent awareness of what God's moral prescriptions are. Therefore, when God says: "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal" etc. this is because these things are contrary to His very nature and as such, should be reprehensible to us as well.
Upvote
0
sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
This is where many theists lose me. What does this phrase mean? The "source?" Does he gives us our thoughts on how we react to events? Does he plant those moral thoughts? Did he decide what's good and bad? If he didn't does morality transcend God?
I am lost. To me, saying that God is the "source of morality" makes as much sense as saying that tacos are the "source of tastiness."
So, please elaborate on this phrase.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
- May 30, 2011
- 14,100
- 1,181
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Ignostic
- Marital Status
- Married
Does anyone actually adhere to a "Judeo-Christian" worldview? Are they not two different things?
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.
Does the bible not instruct its adherents to kill for certain reasons (witches, homosexuals, fortunetellers)? Or is that subject to interpretation?
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
It's not.
God issued his opinion.
Biblical authors wrote their subjective view of it.
And Bible readers today read it subjectively.
So, third-order subjectivity, effectively. So much for objective.
Upvote
0
I look forward to it. You are welcome to do that here or there. I moderate comments on my blog. (As it turns out, it isn't a hot bed of dialog.) So now that I know that you may comment there, I'll check.
But things might be more lively here.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Our idea of morality exists because God is a moral being. He is love, He is righteousness, He is just, these things flow from His nature. He is the embodiment of these ideas that we have and that we all agree exist. Our conscience is the inner witness to the moral standard that God prescribes as good. When we violate it, our conscience convicts us, when we uphold it, our conscience testifies that we have done what we "ought" to have done. This is according to the Judeo-Christian worldview of course.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
No. The term Judeo-Christian refers to the body of belief as recorded in the Old Testament scriptures and the New Testament scriptures which comprise what we call the Bible. It refers to the view that God has revealed Himself to the world, namely through His covenant people Israel, and that from this nation, specifically the tribe of Judah from which we get the words "Judaism" and "Jewish", Jesus Christ was born, who is heir of the throne of Kind David. Christ is the promised Messiah who had been prophesied about hundreds of years before and is God manifested in the flesh.
It is not emprirically verifiable that we have a conscience. So no in this manner it is not demonstrable. It is the same for our mind, and any other metaphysical reality which is not subject to empirical verification.
At times God did give instructions to kill certain people yes. And this is to be interpreted not out of context but within its context, just as you would any other written prescription.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
You seem to be speaking an awful lot about empirical verifiability as if it is the only acceptable means of understanding how things exist and work in this universe. This is not the case. Im sure you know this right?
Upvote
0
Gadarene
-______-
- Apr 16, 2012
- 11,461
- 2,507
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Labour
Ooh, I don't know about that. It's certainly pretty close to the only means - little else is as reliable.
That said, I said if not empirical viability, then what is the evidence. It wasn't a rhetorical question.
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
So you are saying that what cannot be empirically verified should not be considered as evidence for an argument?
Upvote
0
E
Elioenai26
Guest
Well, if you approach life from an empiricist or skeptic mindset, then yes I suppose anything that wasn't mathematically verifiable would be considered a "downside" to what was argued. That is kind of vague but I follow what you are saying. I guess disciplines like philosophy and epistemology are equally insufficient in determining the validity of truth claims as well? Is this waht you believe?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
