The Moral Argument

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think you've missed the whole point of this argument, actually. You're supposed to prove your premises... both of them. You aren't supposed to prove the whole thing wrong by proving premise 2 is wrong. But if you want to concede that this argument is a failure, then that's up to you.

So what are you trying to prove based on the premises? The options are: God does not exist therefore objective morality does not exist or that God does exist therefore objective morality does exist? Not, God is not required for objective morality. Reread the OP.

 

[Sapiens]

How is it justice to be held responsible for the actions of others?

Like I already said, we are not. We are responsible for our own wrongs. It doesn't matter that we aren't sinners by our own faults--we still are.

 

[Sapiens]

Technically yes. I can slaughter all my neighbors and still be capable of going to heaven through redemption and grace.

How is that justice? I am not the judge. All I have to say is I am glad you are not God.

Though, it is because God doesn't care, right? You deserve to be seriously punished for that. God can forgive if you if you sincerely regret and want to change, however, since that punishment has already been infliceted on Jesus.

 

[Davian]

Not anything. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Why not? Thin skin?

And you're wrong. Christ paid the debt all men owe on the cross.

God sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of two people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people. Is this accurate?

There, justice was served for your sins and mine. It just wasn't served to us, but to Christ. It is called substitionary atonement.

A good thing, for those serial killers, and the like.

Mercy and wrath meet at the cross which was made possible by love which graced us with Jesus.

Unless you are simply not convinced that this wild story comports with observations of reality. Then you will burn for eternity. Such a loving god you have there.

 

[Sapiens]

As the word is used in the common vernacular, that is not justice.

Yet here you are, declaring what is objectively bad without any criteria.

And I am glad that gods are only characters in books. But for the purposes of discussion, I grant you them for the purposes of this hypothetical.

How about the disbeliever? Seeing as belief is not a conscious choice (unlike the serial killers' actions), do they have any chance of achieving "justice" in this theology of yours?

Whoa. What do you mean, "belief is not a counscious choice"?

Once you've taken awareness of your beliefs and know others, you can change them.

 

[Davian]

So what are you trying to prove based on the premises? The options are: God does not exist therefore objective morality does not exist or that God does exist therefore objective morality does exist? Not, God is not required for objective morality. Reread the OP.

What objective morality?

 

[Moral Orel]

I took the liberty of highlighting the key points that you missed and added the verse that you left out.

The verse I left out only matters if God is real and that can make things a justification for actions that are abhorrent without Him treating humans as clay pots. The other verses you bolded are just about geographic proximity. How exactly does geographic proximity factor in to beginning a relationship with a lie, and then making slaves after that lie? How are these not objectively wrong without invoking the sovereignty of God?

 

[Sapiens]

No, people can just be incorrect about their morals. It doesn't take an outside source to look at a moral and deem it wrong. The more we know, and the more we can measure on our own, the better we can judge what is moral and what is not. We've done a bad job for a long time because we knew less. But now that we know more, we can judge better.

Part of defining morality comes from arguing and reasoning based on evidence. I can't imagine society going back on this rule that they've established (no slavery). So we have learned something that everyone should follow. We'll learn more.



I still disagree because recover =/= survive. But it would be too far off topic for us to argue about it here, so let's agree on what we can. It is okay to beat a slave so bad that he is incapacitated for days.


Lots of ways to convince employees to work. The authors of the Bible didn't know about them yet though.

i just thought about something, it's interesting to say that as we learn more, we know better. That seems to presuppose the existence of morality in the sense that we need to discover it, like all truths.

 

[anonymous person]

Why not? Thin skin?

God sacrifices Himself to Himself to change a rule He made Himself, in order to convince Himself to forgive a small portion of humanity for the crimes of two people who some Christians don't even believe existed as real people. Is this accurate?

A good thing, for those serial killers, and the like.

Unless you are simply not convinced that this wild story comports with observations of reality. Then you will burn for eternity. Such a loving god you have there.

The blessed thing about all this is God knows your heart. We cannot pass judgment on you and we love you. God will be the judge of you.

 

[Davian]

Like I already said, we are not.

You said, "It's not a choice for us because it has already been made and now we are sinners."

Which is it?

We are responsible for our own wrongs.

Sure, but from what I gather, even serial killers can get a pass.

It doesn't matter that we aren't sinners by our own faults--we still are.

Now you are back to one being held responsible for things beyond one's control.

I think this "morality" system of yours needs some work.

 

[Moral Orel]

Double post.

 

[Davian]

Whoa. What do you mean, "belief is not a counscious choice"?

Once you've taken awareness of your beliefs and know others, you can change them.

You can consciously change your beliefs?

Try it right now. Choose to believe that gods are only characters in books.

Have you done it yet?

 

[Moral Orel]

i just thought about something, it's interesting to say that as we learn more, we know better. That seems to presuppose the existence of morality in the sense that we need to discover it, like all truths.

True, in a way. But that can be as simple as understanding how traveling and mobility works. We used to think the best way to get from one place to another was to walk, then to use horses, then to use cars, then to use airplanes, etc... This doesn't mean that there was a purpose behind travel, or that a divine intelligence invented travel so that we could learn how to fly. It just means that we learned how best to work with our environment, much in the same way with morality, we learned how best to work with our co-inhabitants.

 

[Sapiens]

How did they know that it was good to trust him if knowledge of good and evil was withheld from them and forbidden to them?

Honestly, I don't know. I did not enter the story of humanity until much later. Though, they didn't know anything else and had no reason to not trust him, he was their creator and they were still pure. I don't know the exent of their relationship though.

 

[Davian]

The blessed thing about all this is God knows your heart.

But I think with my head.

We cannot pass judgment on you

No, but we can examine the absurdities of your theologies, and how you think this "judgement" will work, if it has any basis in reality.

and we love you.

Perhaps that was lost in the arrogant and condescending tones.

God will be the judge of you.

Scare tactic fail. Let's just stick with the hypotheticals for the moment, shall we?

 

[Moral Orel]

So what are you trying to prove based on the premises? The options are: God does not exist therefore objective morality does not exist or that God does exist therefore objective morality does exist? Not, God is not required for objective morality. Reread the OP.

I'm trying to prove the argument is faulty. I'm not trying to disprove God.

And yes, the third option, that you say is no option, is actually an option because we don't have to take the first premise as fact just because you say it is. And since I never noticed anyone explain how it takes a divine creator to make something objective, and that He isn't merely a subject with an opinion himself, there's no reason to assume that is a fact.

Quoting Dawkins at me like Craig does won't work. We both don't believe in God, but I do believe that he's a jerk so I'm not taking his word for it either.

I've made a few statements, that are beyond the scope of the argument, to say that if God is real, then objective morality has not been passed to humans. I use the Bible as the reference for that since this is the ChristianForums, but any holy book will do.

It isn't possible to disprove God. I can disprove arguments that say God is real, but that isn't the same thing. I can disprove things that people say about the nature of God, but that isn't the same thing either. I am always open to, at the very least, a deistic god, as I consider that just as plausible a theory as whatever came "before" the Big Bang. I find it strange that anyone would think such a supreme being would be able to, or have any interest in, communicating with such a lesser life form however.

That's why I maintain the "seeker" tag in my profile. And also why I peruse these forums and the philosophy forums and the ethics and morality forums, because there is always more about the subjects that I don't know, and I want to make sure I'm as informed as I can be. If I were to change it to "atheist" then I would start being accused of "believing there is no God" instead of "not believing in God" which are two wholly different concepts (even though that's really all atheist means).

 

[Sapiens]

You can consciously change your beliefs?

Try it right now. Choose to believe that gods are only characters in books.

Have you done it yet?

Yes, I used to believe christianity is a fairy tale for the feeble-minded. I now believe it holds real truth, beauty and power. I meant that you can change when you learn other beliefs exist. I implied better beliefs but people can change for studpider than what they have too.

I don't have any good reasons to change my beliefs for that.

 

[Sapiens]

True, in a way. But that can be as simple as understanding how traveling and mobility works. We used to think the best way to get from one place to another was to walk, then to use horses, then to use cars, then to use airplanes, etc... This doesn't mean that there was a purpose behind travel, or that a divine intelligence invented travel so that we could learn how to fly. It just means that we learned how best to work with our environment, much in the same way with morality, we learned how best to work with our co-inhabitants.

Well, yeah, maybe. That is if God does not exist and did not create us and that this is just a naturalistic world. A sad perspective though. (Just my opinion, it doesn't mean it isn't true because of this of course)

I don't know if it is possible to prove that objective morals exist, and, if so, I'm not sure I know the means. It does seem however that we take for granted that they do exist. After that, it is true, you can find other explanations to believe in other than the theistic one.

Except, can we at least agree on the logic of the argument? Truly objective morality could not exist without God.

This is where I say that in light of uncertainty, we must consider carefully what belief to choose, considering the plausibility and implications of each.

 

[Moral Orel]

Except, can we at least agree on the logic of the argument? Truly objective morality could not exist without God.

Nope, sorry, can't agree with that. I believe that there are things that no one should do, and that everyone should do, based on the basic definition of morality (as much things as people want as possible versus as few things as people don't want as possible). If God is more qualified to determine this than us, it is only because he knows more. We continue to know more, so we constantly become more and more moral, therefore, God is unnecessary for objective morals, unless we insist on having them right away.

 

[Sapiens]

You said, "It's not a choice for us because it has already been made and now we are sinners."

Which is it?

Sure, but from what I gather, even serial killers can get a pass.

Now you are back to one being held responsible for things beyond one's control.

I think this "morality" system of yours needs some work.

No, serial killers don't get freepasses, unless they repent, asks God for forgiveness and trust in the name of Jesus.

What do you want me to say man? That's the reality in which we live, I did not decide it. We do wrong and we're separated from God because of that.