The Moral Argument

[Sapiens]

Oh great. Holocaust denial. How quaint.

Get a crayon and draw me some history, why don't you.



Yeah, no. That does nothing whatsoever to avoid the dilemma. All it does is reorder it by switching a few words around.

Is Yahweh's nature good because it's his, or is it his because it's good?

Which horn would you care to impale yourself on today?

I don't get it. God's nature is good, period. He is goodness. What do you mean "is it his because it's good"?

Concerning the Euthyphro dilemma, God is both, in my understanding.

Good is good because God says it is. (Because He knows best)

He says it is good because it is.

 

[Sapiens]

Argument from popularity. More people are not Christian than are, so maybe it's not true?

I know, sarcasm is harder to get when read than heard...

 

[Sapiens]

What is unique about Hitler's holocaust that makes it objectively bad? Jews were enslaved in concentration camps, but the Jews of the Old Testament enslaved people that they bought and conquered as well. Jews were exterminated in massive quantities to attempt to wipe their race of the face of the Earth, but the Jews of the Old Testament did this to the Amalekites as well.

The Holocaust was a terrible thing that happened, but the objective morals that were broken (i.e. no slavery, no genocide) are condoned and commanded by God in the Old Testament, so these things cannot be objective morals because they are okay for some people some of the time, according to The Bible. I disagree with The Bible, and I consider them wrong all of the time for everyone, but as a Jew or Christian, you cannot claim that God ordered people to do something evil, so these things must be, in the opinion of those that believe The Bible to be our main source of morality, morally neutral at best.

Here is what I read on this subject. Firstly, the motives aren't the same. Hitler was crazy and wanted to kill people on crazy basis (he, and other germans, hated jews for various reasons). God was carrying on a judgment on these people and was doing it through his chosen people, the israelites. He's God, he gets to punish people who do wrong the way he prefers, but it doens't make it unjust because of that.

Concerning slavery, Israel was one the friendliest culture about slavery. We should also keep in mind that cetain stories were not written for us 21dst century north american wondering about morality. A lot of stories in the Bible are just that, factual, historical stories of good bad actions of human beings. It doesn't mean that we ought to do that.

Sources:

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Any society that values murder, theft, greed etc. is dead, because those things are antithetical to society. That's why you don't see them. No appeal to magic necessary.

Name one example of a society that valued murder, theft, greed ect.

How, for example, does Yahweh impart meaning into human life?

"Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made," (Isaiah 43:7).

According to the Bible, our purpose, the reason we are here, is for God's glory. In other words, our purpose is to praise God, worship Him, to proclaim His greatness, and to accomplish His will. This is what glorifies Him. Therefore, in this we find that God has given us a reason for our existence--a meaning for our existence. We were created by Him, according to His desire, and our lives are to be lived for Him so that we might accomplish what He has for us to do. When we trust the one who has made us, who works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11), then we are able to live a life of purpose. How the particulars of that purpose are expressed is up to the individual.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Name one example of a society that valued murder, theft, greed ect.

Exactly. You understand my point. There are none. They never would have survived to the point of becoming societies in the first place precisely because murder, theft, greed, etc. are antithetical to the very concept of society. That is why they don't exist, and it necessitates no appeal to magic, a la Yahweh or any other 'supernatural' agency.

Moving on...

"Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made," (Isaiah 43:7).

According to the Bible, our purpose, the reason we are here, is for God's glory. In other words, our purpose is to praise God, worship Him, to proclaim His greatness, and to accomplish His will. This is what glorifies Him. Therefore, in this we find that God has given us a reason for our existence--a meaning for our existence. We were created by Him, according to His desire, and our lives are to be lived for Him so that we might accomplish what He has for us to do. When we trust the one who has made us, who works all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11), then we are able to live a life of purpose. How the particulars of that purpose are expressed is up to the individual.

I derive no meaning whatsoever from any of this.

Now what?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ok, ok, ok. I didn't know about the consequence fallacy.

Go here and read up on logical fallacies,

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It will help you in the future.

It's not that my point was not good but I presented it somewhat badly, both in order and content, I admit. What I wanted to show is that in light of uncertainty, we have to choose between, yes, the most plausible possibility but also in light of the most advantageous to believe, if it ultimately comes down to a choice.

None of which is illuminated in the slightest by appeals to supernatural agency.

Now, I will please ask you to give me a bit of a chance, you're like ten people on my case and I'm one. I've got to respond to everyone and often I'm just on my cell to do that (takes longer). Besides, I've got studies to do. Please be indulgent with me.

BTW, unlike many people here, I am still beginning the art of argumentation. I'm discovering things as I go along.

That's OK. It takes practice like anything else.

Concerning your first paragraph, is it so because a lot of people, even with good reputations in their field, say it is so?

No. The cornerstone theories of biology and cosmology 'are so' for the reason I said - they are predicated on decades of critically robust data from dozens of lines of convergent fields of study.

All of which, by the way, is available for you to see and study for yourself. It's 2016. You're on the internet. There are countless scientific resources linked to primary literature in all the relevant fields, literally at your fingertips. You are without excuse.

Hey man, there's like two billion people on earth that are Christian. The Bible is the most printed book in the whole world, maybe it's true?

The key difference, of course, is evidence. Facts. Tangible, replicable data. Science has it.

Christianity doesn't. In fact, it doesn't even have an epistemological model to make sense of its own purported 'truth'.

Nobody was there when the earth started

No one had to be. That's the great thing about science - it actually has what religion can only ever pretend to have - means and methodologies for deriving information about the universe.

I think the best proof we might have, is based on our intuition. Despite the fact that we might be imperfectly capable to discern them or that we don't neccessarily agree on what is which, at least we know good and bad, true and false exist

Again, none of which necessitates any appeal to supernatural agency.

I don't get it. God's nature is good, period. He is goodness.

You just said two completely different and contradictory things, so I'll have to answer them separately.

'God's nature is good' - Again, this does nothing to avoid the dilemma. All it does is reorder it. Is Yahweh the author of his own nature? Answer yes and take the arbitrary horn. Is he not? Answer yes and take the independent standard horn.

'He is goodness' - I have already have a word for goodness. It's called 'goodness'. It suffices just fine for its purposes. Yahweh is superfluous to its meaning, so I discard him out of hand.

Concerning the Euthyphro dilemma, God is both, in my understanding.

Good is good because God says it is. (Because He knows best)

He says it is good because it is.

And now you've taken the independent standard horn. If he says it's good because it's good, then goodness necessitates no ontological basis in him.

 

[Moral Orel]

God was carrying on a judgment on these people and was doing it through his chosen people, the israelites. He's God, he gets to punish people who do wrong the way he prefers, but it doens't make it unjust because of that.

So it is moral to commit genocide if you believe your god tells you to? I'm not directing that specifically at you, I'm trying to find the moral of the story. Israelites believed that they should kill all those women, children, and babies because their leader told them that God told him to do it, and that makes it moral for those people to do that?

Concerning slavery, Israel was one the friendliest culture about slavery.

God commanded the Israelites to put their neighbors into forced labor after pretending to offer peace first.

You can beat your slaves to the point that they die, if it takes a few days.

The children of your Jewish indentured servants can become slaves you own for life.

Still sounds pretty bad. If it's better than other forms of slavery, it makes it okay for one human to own another human? The point is that slavery was the best moral code the Israelites had come up with at the time. If they were God's chosen people, and God communicated laws they were supposed to follow directly to them, then outlawing slavery would have been a big one to get rid of. That, or, there is nothing inherently wrong with owning another human being as property.

It doesn't mean that we ought to do that.

That's why I said "condone" when referring to the NT. But it does say "ought" in the OT, so what does it matter? If the Bible doesn't say other wise, how do you decide which things you can choose to stop following?

 

[Sapiens]

Except that you have these things in the wrong order, and that is very important. People didn't hear a noise and call it The Big Bang. People looked at the universe and said, "it looks like it exploded from something. Is there any evidence of a great big explosion?" And then later they found the evidence that supported their theory when they heard the noise of the Big Bang.

And no, presuppositions are not how science works. You start with a hypothesis: "Is this true?". Sometimes you find evidence, sometimes you don't. The Big Bang started as a hypothesis that no one assumed was true, in fact it started out as "fringe" science when it was first conceived. Only after finding a lot of evidence do people believe it to be true because there is evidence that is objective (everyone can look into it for themselves).

This bit is way off track though. Make sure you notice my other post that is a direct response to the OP.


But you did live your life for special reasons! Isn't giving to the poor something special? Isn't helping the sick special? Isn't being a comfort for other people special? These things are only special because God tells you to do them? Then that means you only do them because God tells you to. And then your motivations for doing them make your sense of morality about them suspect.

On the other hand, if you do them because they are good, and the Bible showed you what is good, but later you find that God is not real, then you can still feel good that your life had purpose, just that purpose wasn't designed by a god. It was you creating a purpose for yourself and ascribing it to a god.

Ok, I see you don't like the word speculative. Is it better if I say uncertain? Interpreting evidence does not make evidence, that's what I meant.

Seeing the sun is up and stating it is different than seeing a shadow and saying "the sun is up". Other factors might have caused this, that's what I'm saying. The predictions could also be true for others reasons, hypothetically speaking. In any case, I am not knowledgeable enough in that field to talk more in depth about it.

Indeed, God says to do them because they're good. And what's more, he wants and prefers me to do it willingly, with pleasure. My God is so holy that he even cares about secret intentions. My God isn't just about a moral code of do's and don't's. He is about perfection and holiness in nature.

About and special and purpose, yes, I guess these moments, in our reality, are no less special or real or precious. Except no. You see, ever since this thought has found its way in my mind, I have been unable to appreciate these things or grant them meaning. If God didn't exist, then it would not matter. That's why I don't see how there can be oughts and values without him. Ultimately, it would be inconsequential. Your suffering, your happiness, what's the difference? Who, except you, trully cares? The universe doesn't care. Nature doesn't care. You're no one special. And, in fact, will you even care about yourself in 200 years from now?

On the other hand, if God does exist, then you're special (you are!). God cares about you and what you feel. That's why he took the incredible care of solving a problem you didn't know you had. Evil is in us, in our nature and that will bring us to our demise. It is now possible to access eternal life, true life, with God, by believing in Jesus. You know, the real point I want to bring, ultimately, is this one. That's the point of apologetics.

Evil is real and there's a way out of it.

That's why we need to investigate our beliefs, because they can be a stumbling block to the truth and the best good. That's why I wanted to discuss the implications of my and other's beliefs. We do need to make a choice at some point, when we know enough. I hope that to be the best.

 

[Moral Orel]

Indeed, God says to do them because they're good.

So the answer to Euthypro's dilemma is that God says to do things because the things are good. Therefore, they would be good whether God existed or not.

If the answer were the reverse, that things are good because God says they are, then something being good or evil is arbitrary. God can select any thing on a whim and make it good. God would have no reason to select anything to be good except by random selection. If it is only good because He says it is, then he can't choose something to be good based on it's good v evil properties because it has none, so what does he base the decision on?

Your suffering, your happiness, what's the difference? Who, except you, trully cares?

You don't care if I suffer or if I am happy? I care if you suffer. If you only care because God orders you to, and not because it is good to care, then you don't really care about my suffering, you only care about obeying. If you care about my suffering because it is good to care, then you don't need God to make it good.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I derive no meaning whatsoever from any of this.

Now what?

You asked how God gave people a purpose. I quoted a scripture that answered your question. If you cannot understand this simple scripture I can understand why you are an atheist.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You asked how God gave people a purpose. I quoted a scripture that answered your question.

It didn't, actually. Your assertion was that without Yahweh there would be no reason for life. What you actually meant was without Yahweh there would be no reason for life for Christians.

I do not derive any meaning from your religion. Never have.

If you cannot understand this simple scripture I can understand why you are an atheist.

I understand vacuous naked assertions just fine. You're welcome to them.

 

[Moral Orel]

virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal

I would say that a gang member who sets out to kill a member of a different gang exhibits bravery. I would also say that there were many people loyal to Pol Pot (see, we don't always have to use Hitler). So these "virtues" are not necessarily virtues. I would say a person who betrays Pol Pot is a good person (disloyal) and a person who chicken's out of killing enemy gang members is at least a better person than the one who goes through with it. Greed... well greed can be argued to be good from the standpoint of capitalism and the economy, but I'm not one to favor that argument, so I won't make it myself. Just saying it isn't universal as there are many dissenting opinions.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It didn't, actually. Your assertion was that without Yahweh there would be no reason for life. What you actually meant was without Yahweh there would be no reason for life for Christians.

I do not derive any meaning from your religion. Never have.

If God does not exist, everything is meaningless. If God does exist, everything else is meaningless. What is your meaning in life without God?

 

[Sapiens]

Any society that values murder, theft, greed etc. is dead, because those things are antithetical to society. That's why you don't see them. No appeal to magic necessary.



Atheism isn't a philosophy, so that's hardly surprising. Do you also fault your toaster for not mowing the lawn?



Atheism isn't a belief system.

But I agree with your sentiment, which is why I've never once in my life been a religious person.



See my reply to the OP above. It's one thing to merely assert these things. It's quite another thing to actually validate them in any meaningful fashion. I could replace the word 'God' with 'mayonnaise' in everything you've said here and it would be exactly as substantial.

How, for example, does Yahweh impart meaning into human life?

Firstly, the way the argument goes, it says that if God doesn't exist, then objective moral values don't exist either so you can't really say these societies were unethical from that standpoint, if you don't believe it. What's your objective reference if it isn't God? The universe and nature pose no moral judgment upon us. If it's just your subjective opinion, then we can all dismiss it. We can dismiss it because if someone who claims that there aren't any objective moral values, then in fact they claim that they cannot claim any moral judgment as certain or absolute. Truth is, if moral relativism were true then my view that moral objectivism is true could therefore not be disagreed by relativists. Where's the magic? There need be an objective agent for morality and that happens to be God. There's no other way.

Of course atheism is a philosophy. And how can you say it isn't a belief system? Are you telling me that an atheist doesn't have an opinion whatsoever on anything? If so, then there are no atheists here for sure. It's a philosophy because those beliefs guide you decisions and actions, and the way you view life. Even if you think it's the absolute truth.

God is the meaning. He created us and we need him. Only he can satisfy us and bring us true happiness.

"Do you also fault your toaster for not mowing the lawn?"

Interesting metaphor. I chose to buy my toaster and knew the implications that came with it. I don't blame atheism for not providing meaning to people's lives, because it can't. I blame those who claim it's better than a lawn mower, however. I'm a lawn mower seller here.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If God does not exist, everything is meaningless.

For Christians.

If God does exist, everything else is meaningless.

For Christians.

What is your meaning in life without God?

To live to be eighty-two, so I can finish the sixty year long video project I started on my 22nd birthday.

To leave behind a legacy of art and music.

To enrich my own life through education, travel, cultural experiences and the service of humanity.

To perfect a homemade recipe for tom kha.

And many, many other things, absolutely none of which require the divine endorsement of Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

To live to be eighty-two, so I can finish the sixty year long video project I started on my 22nd birthday.

To leave behind a legacy of art and music.

To enrich my own life through education, travel, cultural experiences and the service of humanity.

To perfect a homemade recipe for tom kha.

And many, many other things, absolutely none of which require the divine endorsement of Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity.

Why? Btw...yes, I do intend to ask the same question with every one of your responses because in the end I guarantee the your inevitable response is going to be, "There is no meaning. It is meaningless if there is no God."

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Firstly, the way the argument goes, it says that if God doesn't exist, then objective moral values don't exist either so you can't really say these societies were unethical from that standpoint, if you don't believe it. What's your objective reference if it isn't God?

That's a loaded question, of course, implying that Yahweh is an 'objective reference'. You haven't established that in any meaningful fashion whatsoever.

But I'll answer it anyway - the objective standards are harm and wellbeing, both of which are objectively quantifiable, and require no appeal to Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity.

As to whether those things are valued, that is necessarily a subjective matter, which again appeals to Yahweh do nothing to illuminate.

The universe and nature pose no moral judgment upon us. If it's just your subjective opinion, then we can all dismiss it. We can dismiss it because if someone who claims that there aren't any objective moral values, then in fact they claim that they cannot claim any moral judgment as certain or absolute. Truth is, if moral relativism were true then my view that moral objectivism is true could therefore not be disagreed by relativists. Where's the magic? There need be an objective agent for morality and that happens to be God. There's no other way.

Naked assertions piled on naked assertions.

First of all, 'objective value' is an oxymoron. Value is necessarily subjective. Appealing to Yahweh doesn't magically change that. There are, however, objective standards, which I named above.

Secondly, you don't get to just assert, a propos of nothing whatsoever, that Yahweh is the 'objective agent' and that 'there's no other way'. Show your work. How did you apprehend this information? What makes you think Yahweh is even a meaningful concept, let alone a foundation for moral philosophy?

Of course atheism is a philosophy.

No it isn't. It's a lack of belief in one thing. That's not a philosophy.

And how can you say it isn't a belief system?

Because a lack of belief in one thing is not a system of beliefs.

Are you telling me that an atheist doesn't have an opinion whatsoever on anything?

None of us believe there are any gods. That is the one and only thing the can say is 100% true of all of us.

It's a philosophy because those beliefs guide you decisions and actions, and the way you view life.

What 'beliefs'? Atheism is the lack of one belief.

You are thinking backwards. My atheism is an outgrowth of my philosophy. Not the other way around.

God is the meaning. He created us and we need him. Only he can satisfy us and bring us true happiness.

Yeah. I'm sure you believe all that.

Interesting metaphor. I chose to buy my toaster and knew the implications that came with it. I don't blame atheism for not providing meaning to people's lives, because it can't. I blame those who claim it's better than a lawn mower, however. I'm a lawn mower seller here.

Except you have no lawnmower to sell. Also to the extent you can even coherently describe the imaginary lawnmower, it sounds like a crappy lawnmower that I wouldn't want anyway. Also I don't have a lawn.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Why?

Why do I not require permission from imaginary non-entities to glean my own meaning from life?

Because imaginary non-entities can't do anything. They're imaginary. Glad to clear that up.

Btw...yes, I do intend to ask the same question with every one of your responses because in the end I guarantee the your inevitable response is going to be, "There is no meaning. It is meaningless if there is no God."

Are you often in the habit of guaranteeing things you have no business whatsoever guaranteeing?

I hate to break it to you, but this is real life. You're not in a Chick tract right now, and I'm not just going to follow whatever pop-apologetic fantasy script you're imagining.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why do I not require permission from imaginary non-entities like Yahweh to glean my own meaning from life?

Because imaginary non-entities can't do anything. They're imaginary. Glad to clear that up.



Are you often in the habit of guaranteeing things you have no business whatsoever guaranteeing?

I hate to break it to you, but this is real life. You're not in a Chick tract right now, and I'm not just going to follow whatever pop-apologetic fantasy script you're imagining.

If atheist are correct and there is no God. In the grand scheme of things, the universe is meaningless because it was created without a purpose. There has to be a creator in order for a creation to have purpose. So if the universe is meaningless and without purpose, life is meaningless and pointless. If life is meaningless and pointless, your life is meaningless and pointless. Atheist may create their own purpose and meaning to their lives but when you apply it the entire course of the history of the universe, it is meaningless. After the universe ultimately fades to blackness, your life and all our accomplishments will account for nothing. You and your existence is meaningless. Period. The best you have to hope for is to make your existence as pleasing as possible before you die and fade off into non-existance.

That is the argument that atheism cannot defend. Without God.....life and all that goes with it....including morality, is meaningless and pointless.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If atheist are correct and there is no God. In the grand scheme of things, the universe is meaningless because it was created without a purpose. There has to be a creator in order for a creation to have purpose. So if the universe is meaningless and without purpose, life is meaningless and pointless. If life is meaningless and pointless, your life is meaningless and pointless.

You keep confusing me with yourself. It is your religious narrative that has Yahweh as the author of the universe and the dictator of its meaning, therefor it is your life that is rendered meaningless without Yahweh.

Atheist may create their own purpose and meaning to their lives but when you apply it the entire course of the history of the universe, it is meaningless. After the universe ultimately fades to blackness, your life and all our accomplishments will account for nothing. You and your existence is meaningless. Period.

I happen to think there are other types of meaning besides cosmic meaning. Actually, I think cosmic meaning is the least meaningful, as it is largely impertinent to humans.

What a thing to believe - literally nothing matters unless it lasts forever? You're welcome to wallow in your bizarre brand of nihilism, but don't project it on me.

Also, I will point out a basic economic concept - scarcity.

If you find a diamond in a desert, you have something of value. That's life in the temporary view.

If you find a diamond in a desert made of diamonds, on a continent made of diamonds, on a planet made of diamonds, you have something worthless. That's life in the eternal view.

Furthermore, I would ask, if the only thing that gives life meaning is an afterlife, what gives the afterlife meaning? The after-afterlife? Then the after-after-afterlife etc? Please explain how that math works.