The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

I am not aware of anything that is "objectively" wrong. How would you establish such a thing?

I would appeal to what God has said about what is right and wrong.

 

[anonymous person]

I do. I think one should aspire to intellectual honesty in all venues, unless both sides agree that what is being discussed is fiction. Even then, it can still be applied, where appropriate.

You say that one should aspire to thus and so...

What it they aspire to be the most intellectually dishonest that they can be? Are they failing to fulfill an objective moral duty to be honest?

 

[anonymous person]

I am not disputing that you beleive all that, but what I asked was, how is what your god says objective if it is only one of many?

The word objective as it is used in the moral argument does not mean one of a kind or unique.

It simply means independent of human opinion and preference.

So your mentioning of something being only one of many does not have anything to do with objectivity.

The apostle Peter wrote that no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

These statements are either true or false. If true, then all other religions are false wherever they contradict this truth.

 

[quatona]

Moral in the sense of morally perfect, no.

Ok, so that was a distinction without a difference.

 

[quatona]

The word objective as it is used in the moral argument does not mean one of a kind or unique.

Stripped off all the obsfucation, wordsmithery and decorations it just means "God given" in the moral argument, rendering the argument entirely circular.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Stripped off all the obsfucation, wordsmithery and decorations it just means "God given" in the moral argument, rendering the argument entirely circular.

It means factual regardless of opinion. Like if I said the earth is flat. I would be objectively wrong. If everyone in the world thought the earth was flat, everyone on the earth is objectively wrong. If the earth did not exist or had no form, all the statements are subjective meaning not based on fact but rather on opinion.

 

[quatona]

It means factual regardless of opinion. Like if I said the earth is flat. I would be objectively wrong. If everyone in the world thought the earth was flat, everyone on the earth is objectively wrong. If the earth did not exist or had no form, all the statements are subjective meaning not based on fact but rather on opinion.

Then demonstrate that such "objective morals" exist, and you would be one step closer to making the moral argument a valid argument (by at least substantiating one of the premises). Not quite there, but at least one step closer.

 

[anonymous person]

Stripped off all the obsfucation, wordsmithery and decorations it just means "God given" in the moral argument, rendering the argument entirely circular.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/objective

Objective

1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: historians try to be objective and impartial Contrasted with subjective.

 

[anonymous person]

Then demonstrate that such "objective morals" exist, and you would be one step closer to making the moral argument a valid argument (by at least substantiating one of the premises). Not quite there, but at least one step closer.

We have not presented the argument to you. Nor do we feel it necessary to do what you ask.

Now if Jason wants to oblige you then fine.

I don't think the moral argument is a good argument to present to someone like yourself, so I wouldn't.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then demonstrate that such "objective morals" exist, and you would be one step closer to making the moral argument a valid argument (by at least substantiating one of the premises). Not quite there, but at least one step closer.

I would argue that love is the closest thing that is objectively moral. What do you think?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Stripped off all the obsfucation, wordsmithery and decorations it just means "God given" in the moral argument, rendering the argument entirely circular.

Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective

 

[anonymous person]

Faith is not an intellectual issue, it is a moral issue. It is an issue of the heart.

A man who loves sin cannot believe. He cannot walk by faith.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then demonstrate that such "objective morals" exist, and you would be one step closer to making the moral argument a valid argument (by at least substantiating one of the premises). Not quite there, but at least one step closer.

Please start at the beginning of this thread and catch up. We have been through this.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then demonstrate that such "objective morals" exist, and you would be one step closer to making the moral argument a valid argument (by at least substantiating one of the premises). Not quite there, but at least one step closer.

The "moral argument" is not about proving or disproving God. It's about proving or disproving the existence of objective morality without God.

 

[quatona]

We have not presented the argument to you. Nor do we feel it necessary to do what you ask.

And we hadn´t written our post in response to you.

 

[quatona]

Please start at the beginning of this thread and catch up.

We have been through this.The "moral argument" is not about proving or disproving God. It's about proving or disproving the existence of objective morality without God.

Yes, it is.
From the OP:

Hello all, this is probably my favourite argument in apologetics and I'd like it to be discussed here.

It goes like this:

1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

2. Objective moral values exist.

3. Therefore God exists.

(emphasis added)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would appeal to what God has said about what is right and wrong.

Is lying for Jesus right or wrong? Did Jesus tell you to plagiarise?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The word objective as it is used in the moral argument does not mean one of a kind or unique.

It simply means independent of human opinion and preference.

Errr... a moment ago you conceded that it was also "independent of the opinions of angels and demons." Yet for some reason it isn't also independent of the opinions of deities?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't think the moral argument is a good argument to present to someone like yourself, so I wouldn't.

"Yes, doctor. Do I take the homeopathic remedy three times a day or five?"

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You say that one should aspire to thus and so...

What it they aspire to be the most intellectually dishonest that they can be? Are they failing to fulfill an objective moral duty to be honest?

As I recall, the last time you tried this dance, it ended with you conceding that you would kill men, women, and children if you were under the impression that your God had commanded it.