The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you like cookies? We got pepridge farm on the Christian side of the house.

I've been on that side of the house, and those aren't cookies.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes. To to make myself clear, the reference in Job is not about "might is right" but more so I am the creator and you are my creation.

I think I finally get it. Let me see if I am following the logic right.

So in order to have objective morality, it has to be based on an objective fact of what we ought to do.

If we had an objective purpose, then that is objectively what we ought to do.

We can't have an objective purpose without a creator.

Do I finally understand now? I really think that's it, and it kind of makes sense.

 

[Davian]

Nope. I can use the word "we" without speaking for everyone. If only there is one other person here who agrees with me saying we don't want you to change your mind if that is not something you wish to do, then the word "we" is appropriate. I think I can speak for a great deal of Christians here in that respect.

Perhaps you should use the word "I" when you are really only speaking for yourself.

I don't have to know what motivates a person in order to say that person shares a particular view of mine.

But you should know what motivates a person if you are going to say what motivates a person.

Great. Neither can I.

Isn't your theology built on the [false] premise that one can consciously choose what one believes? We can come back to that elephant in the room any time you like.

Oh goodness no. I thinks it's a great argument.

I see that you have come to terms with your theology being morally bankrupt. Still, it's not a great selling point to those that do not share your theology.

 

[Davian]

Yes I do. I have told you how God came into my life at a time when I was completely without hope and helpless to do anything with the guilt I had for the things I had done in my life and the people I had hurt. I have told you how He is changing me, my mind, my heart, and how I now can love when before I could only hate. I have told about how He enables me to see life in a new light and how He walks with me and talks with me along life's narrow way. I have told you how Jesus lives in my heart. But I have not told you the most important thing and I will now. I love Jesus with all that I am. I love Him unashamedly and truly and though I admit I have not honored Him with some of the things I have done here, all I want is for Him to be proud of me.

But this only requires a belief in God. God doesn't need to be real for all of that to happen.

 

[Davian]

Nothing. We already beat that horse into hamburger. We are just having fun now. Please catch up. Lol. [emoji1]

You can beat a horse into hamburger, but it's only a.p. out there trying to ride it around like nothing's wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Accountability to God is not the topic of the thread either. The topic of the thread is the moral argument for the existence of God.

How can moral accountability in context of God not be part of the moral argument for God?

Since you seem to care about being on topic, you will have to ask your question elsewhere.

...as if you will be answering it elsewhere.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I thought you were concerned about being on topic?

It is very much on topic.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You act like we are telling you people can live any old way and the on their deathbed say a sinners prayer and be saved. That is not what we are saying at all nor does the bible say that.

But, withing your theological worldview, it most certainly is possible to "get saved" in exactly that way, right?

God knows people hearts.

When the bible says that "if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved", it is stating a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition of salvation.

Do you understand?

A person can't be sincere on his deathbed?

 

[DogmaHunter]

His intellectual integrity won't allow him to do that.

I'm still unclear as to what they mean when they use that phrase.

Is the concept of intellectual integrity that foreign to you?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think I finally get it. Let me see if I am following the logic right.

So in order to have objective morality, it has to be based on an objective fact of what we ought to do.

If we had an objective purpose, then that is objectively what we ought to do.

We can't have an objective purpose without a creator.

Do I finally understand now? I really think that's it, and it kind of makes sense.

Yes.

 

[anonymous person]

How can moral accountability in context of God not be part of the moral argument for God?

Because the argument consists of two premises. Neither of them have anything to do with accountability.

 

[anonymous person]

Is the concept of intellectual integrity that foreign to you?

No.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because the argument consists of two premises. Neither of them have anything to do with accountability.

Neither of them had anything to do with what you told me earlier either, but that didn't stop you.

 

[Moral Orel]

So in order to have objective morality, it has to be based on an objective fact of what we ought to do.

If we had an objective purpose, then that is objectively what we ought to do.

We can't have an objective purpose without a creator.

Yes.

Okay, so let's see where this line of thinking goes. Back to the pain bot, you said that there was "no equal" to disagree, but an "equal" wouldn't matter. Only something greater would. If I built a robot full of emotions, and dreams, and aspirations, and physical feelings, and hopes, and desires, because I wanted to torture it, then its objective purpose is to be tortured. The robot would be morally bad to resist its own torture. Another human can't tell me that I shouldn't do that, because the objective fact is that I created that robot to torture it so I am objectively morally good to torture it.

Now if God is real, he could come along and say, "Hey, your purpose is not to make robots that you want to torture" then it becomes morally wrong because it isn't my purpose anymore. But if I built it tomorrow, I don't know of any holy books that forbid the mistreatment of robots, or any other vague notion of artificial or man-made life.

Let's take a look at another hypothetical robot. Let's say you built a robot for the purpose of raping, killing, and pillaging other humans. It would be morally wrong of you to build such a robot, because you would be the impetus of the raping, killing, and pillaging, sure. But it would be morally good of the robot to rape, kill, and pillage because that is its purpose. Even God can't come along and say, "That isn't what you were built for" because He would be incorrect. That is exactly what the robot was built for and its purpose for existing.

Now after looking at this, how do we say that God is good? I'm not saying He is bad, just that He can't be measured by those terms. You would have to ask, "What is God's purpose?". He just exists, and wasn't created with a purpose. He can do whatever He pleases, can't He? Because He wasn't created with a purpose? What would be the objective fact to base our judgement of whether God is good or not? I know the Christian view would definitely be that we don't get to judge God, but what I am saying is that it is impossible to place Him in either the category of good or bad because He wasn't created with a purpose, at least with this definition of morality.

Let's take it even further to the edge of reason. Have you ever heard the saying, "Everything happens for a reason"? For instance, when we wonder why God doesn't step in and help a girl being molested, it is because that act can have a purpose. Perhaps it is just to test the girl's resolve and faith in God. Perhaps it is to be used as motivation to go on and speak out against people keeping quiet on these subjects and educating children that they should speak up. There is a reason for her suffering, otherwise God wouldn't allow it right? Wouldn't that mean that the molester had a purpose for existing? Wouldn't that mean that the molester had a purpose to molest so that he could test or inspire the girl? And if that is his purpose, then isn't he acting in an objectively morally good way because he is acting according to his purpose?

And if we look at any sin or wrongdoing in the world, is there no reason for God to allow it? Is there no reason that God wants it to happen to some degree? Sometimes He steps in and stops things, and sometimes He doesn't. So it can't just be that He is letting things play out their course so that He can judge everyone individually. Every sin that He allows has a purpose in His plan. So is anything wrong? Is anyone not acting as a part of their purpose in the universe? What objective purpose could any human have that every human has if some people are allowed to do evil for a purpose?

None of any of this is to attack the Bible or any other faith directly, just the notion that we should equate purpose with morality.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Okay, so let's see where this line of thinking goes. Back to the pain bot, you said that there was "no equal" to disagree, but an "equal" wouldn't matter. Only something greater would. If I built a robot full of emotions, and dreams, and aspirations, and physical feelings, and hopes, and desires, because I wanted to torture it, then its objective purpose is to be tortured. The robot would be morally bad to resist its own torture. Another human can't tell me that I shouldn't do that, because the objective fact is that I created that robot to torture it so I am objectively morally good to torture it.

In this senario, lets say there was a person who was equal to the "painbot" inventor that opposed the inventor. That would only make the "motives" for the purpose subjective. But the purpose remains objectively true. You may say the inventor is wrong for creating a robot for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering upon it, but all that will do is make the intention behind the purpose subjective.

What if the inventor was a psychopath with anger issues? What if the motive for such an invention was to prevent psychopaths from inflicting pain and suffering on another human being by taking it all out on a machine? What if hundreds of human lives are saved because of "painbots". Some may say the motivation is good and some may disagree but it still does not change the fact that a good "painbot" is one who suffers greatly and a bad "painbot" does not suffer.

Now let's say there was a being with a higher authority. That still does not change the created purpose of a "painbot". All it could do is make the motives behind the creation of the "painbot" objectively bad. What if there was a law that forbid the creation of "painbots". The legislators who created the law is of a higher authority than the inventor. Thus making the motives for the creation of the "painbots" objectively bad but that still does not change the fact that a good "painbot" is one that suffers and a bad "painbot" is one who doesn't. Anything other than that is to say a can opener is bad because it cannot drive nails.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Now after looking at this, how do we say that God is good? I'm not saying He is bad, just that He can't be measured by those terms. You would have to ask, "What is God's purpose?". He just exists, and wasn't created with a purpose. He can do whatever He pleases, can't He? Because He wasn't created with a purpose? What would be the objective fact to base our judgement of whether God is good or not?

Remember my analogy of the rock? Even if a being had no "created" purpose, if that being had somelevel of intelligence, that being can give itself a purpose. Given the fact that there is nobody equal or greater to God. His purpose is objective by default.


Edit: I just want to ask you this. What is the purpose that God bestowed upon himself that he was not created with?

 

[anonymous person]

Though Divine Command theory falls within the ethical subjectivism category, God's decrees and commands are objective in the sense that they are not subject to the dictates of humans. IOW, when God says "you shall have no other gods before Me", that moral obligation comes from a person, God, and is yet objective for us in the sense that it obtains regardless of what we think about it.

This is a point that is often misunderstood.

 

[Davian]

...

We can tell you the reasons for the hope we have, but that's about all. I think we have done that well.

You think you've done that well? Oh boy...

Keep in mind that he must stay on script.

Like WLC in any of his debates, he cannot acknowledge a single loose thread, on the chance that it all unravels in front of him. To paraphrase Sean Carroll, if WLC had a powerful general theorem against heavier-than-air flying machines, he would hold fast to it while airplanes kept buzzing overhead.

Kalamity Craig

• Davian
• Feb 1, 2016
• wlc

 

[Davian]

Though Divine Command theory falls within the ethical subjectivism category, God's decrees and commands are objective in the sense that they are not subject to the dictates of humans. IOW, when God says "you shall have no other gods before Me", that moral obligation comes from a person, God, and is yet objective for us in the sense that it obtains regardless of what we think about it.

This is a point that is often misunderstood.

If I grant you for the moment that "gods" are possible, what of those other gods? What if they say differently?

 

[anonymous person]

If I grant you for the moment that "gods" are possible, what of those other gods? What if they say differently?

Then they are anti-Christian and are to be rejected as such.