The Moral Argument

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yahweh is not the point. The point is that a CREATOR with some level of intelligence is mandatory in order for an object to be created for a purpose.

Your vacuous non-argument does not magically gain validity by substituting Yahweh with some nebulous, unnamed 'creator'.

If there is no intellegent creator, it is impossible for that object to be created for a purpose. Thus, your life was created without a purpose.

Life isn't 'created'.

There is no 'creator' to dictate the meaning of life.

Eternal cosmic meaning is not the one and only kind of meaning, nor is it even particularly meaningful.

That is all stuff that YOU believe. Not me.

So, once again, what you mean to say is YOUR OWN life is without a purpose. I am still doing just fine, thank you.

If you cannot accept that fact, you are more delusional than the theists you mock.

Firstly, facts are demonstrable, and predicated on critically robust evidence. What you have here are called naked assertions, which are predicated on nothing.

Secondly, I find it very telling that you consider the application of basic logical scrutiny to be 'mockery'.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Your vacuous non-argument does not magically gain validity by substituting Yahweh with some nebulous, unnamed 'creator'.



Life isn't 'created'.

There is no 'creator' to dictate the meaning of life.

Eternal cosmic meaning is not the one and only kind of meaning, nor is it even particularly meaningful.

That is all stuff that YOU believe. Not me.

So, once again, what you mean to say is YOUR OWN life is without a purpose. I am still doing just fine, thank you.



Firstly, facts are demonstrable, and predicated on critically robust evidence. What you have here are called naked assertions, which are predicated on nothing.

Secondly, I find it very telling that you consider the application of basic logical scrutiny to be 'mockery'.

So, would you say then that on a "cosmic" scale, everything is meaningless and pointless without the existence of God?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So, would you say then that on a "cosmic" scale, everything is meaningless and pointless without the existence of God?

The universe may have some meaning in and of itself, but it is certainly not an anthropocentric meaning, seeing as how 99.9999999...9% will kill us. I am curious to find out what it is, if it's there. It is, as I said, the least relevant type of meaning, so I have no issue if it's never found.

To the point though, Yahweh is utterly irrelevant to that question. Even if he existed, theism is still an epistemological deadzone, with no reliable means of gleaning any information from or about him. We are left to our own devices whether or not he is imaginary.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First of all, why is it so difficult for an atheist to admit that the universe and all life is meaningless and pointless without God?

Because it's not? You're projecting your worldview onto us and then asking why we disagree with one of its foundational tenets.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

So you're saying that your life can be meaningful, and even more, if temporary on this earth?

What is all this off-topic talk of meaning? Meaning =/= morals. "If there is no meaning, wouldn't that be a bummer?" isn't an argument for the case of God. Maybe the universe is a bummer, deal with it. Where are the objective morals that are supposed to prove God's existence?

Do not kill is not objective.
Do not commit genocide is not objective (according to the Bible anyways).
Do not steal is not objective.
Do not own slaves is not objective (according to the Bible anyways).
Do not lie is not objective.

Bravery and cowardice are not morals, they are qualities that a creature can have and are not intrinsically linked to morality. I can bravely murder someone in broad daylight, which would be not good. I can cower in fear as I am mugged, does that make me immoral? You can be loyal to an evil person, which is not good. Greed is just wanting more than you need. Most people don't see a problem with that to some degree, in fact many see it as a positive attribute, ergo it is subjective.

Where is the evidence that anything is objective to further this argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If objective moral values do not exist, then God doesn't exist. This is another way of putting it. Basically, God is the best and the only viable explanation for their existence. He is a person with an unfailing judgment (the only one in fact). Objective moral values cannot exist without an objective judge.

I didn't ask you to repeat the premise.

I asked you to demonstrate the premise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If atheist are correct, your life and the existence of all mankind has no created purpose.

Yep.

Sure, you can create a purpose for your life.

Yep. As we all do.

But that still does not change the fact that life, including your life, was created without a purpose.

Indeed.

It is also a fact that if the universe is ultimately going to fade into blackness, ultimately whatever purpose you created for your life to give it meaning....is meaningless and you and your existence is no different from a rock.

It's not meaningless to me nore to those around me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yahweh is not the point. The point is that a CREATOR with some level of intelligence is mandatory in order for an object to be created for a purpose. If there is no intellegent creator, it is impossible for that object to be created for a purpose. Thus, your life was created without a purpose. If you cannot accept that fact, you are more delusional than the theists you mock.

Without a "cosmic" purpose, yes.

I don't see this as a problem.

And even if I would have an emotional problem with it... Why would that matter to the reality of it?

Reality doesn't need to conform to your emotional coping mechanics.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What is all this off-topic talk of meaning? Meaning =/= morals. "If there is no meaning, wouldn't that be a bummer?" isn't an argument for the case of God.

I agree. Perhaps things got way off topic so I will digress. My original point that I was trying to make is that at the "cosmic level" morality (subjective or objective) is meaningless.

 

[Sapiens]

Go here and read up on logical fallacies,

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

It will help you in the future.



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



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



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.



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'.



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.



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



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.



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.

Again, I'll address point by point what you've said.

Thanks for the link about logical fallacies, I will check it out and educate myself.

Well yes, that's the point of the argument, it makes much more sense to believe in objective moral values and God than not; both when we look at real life and when we consider the implications. If God exists, this is a wonderful news for us! If God and objective moral values exist, it means that justice and injustice are real, good and evil as well. That means we have a right to be outraged by evil and suffering because there ought to be better in life. This is another thing naturalism cannot claim. God is the only way out of the evil and misery of this world and they were not there in the beginning of time, according to the book of genesis. The Good News is that Jesus has made it possible to be reconciled with God and for us to enter his kingdom.

As for biology and cosmolgy, to whom would I owe excuses? The universe? Will it really matter whether I know or not about it for sure, if It's true?

If it does really matter to me, then I would like to know what benefit I would gain from it, and I will consider it. I hope you will do the same.

Our intuition would be totally unwarranted without God. They would be just a matter of our fallible and subjective opinion, not grounded anywhere.

That was for the supernatural agency.

I understand you trust the assertions of some scientists. I have trouble understanding why you disagree with me so much about the uncertainty of the beginning of the universe though, how can you know for sure how it occured and what caused it? This would serve as good discussion for the cosmological argument. The reason I'm talking about this is because it's a basis for disbelieving in God and accessing the Gospel of Jesus. I think the problem we have here is a problem of what source we trust most about the origins. I trust the bible and you scientific theories for the origins. Don't misunderstand me though, I don't have anything against science but I don't believe this subject is super scientific; I think it is rather one of faith.

To come back to my original post: do you still think objective moral values can exist without God?

I don't think this is a burden of proof since I have showed most of my cards and I'm also just genuinely curious to know what you think.

 

[Sapiens]

You are STILL confusing yourself with me.

It is you, not me, who believes the universe was created by Yahweh.

It is you, not me, who believes Yahweh to be the dictator of purpose and meaning.

It is you, not me, who holds the bizarre nihilistic belief that eternal cosmic meaning is the only type of meaning.

Therefor, it is you, not me, whose life is purposeless and meaningless without Yahweh.

What is your excuse for your continued failure at distinguishing yourself from other people?

But man, Jason is right, what is your objective meaning without God?

 

[Moral Orel]

I hope this video may help explain the Moral Argument.

The video evades the question of Euthypro's dilemma.

"Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?"

Their answer, "Neither. God wills something because He is good."

The question asks the nature of the thing, it doesn't ask about the nature of God. This doesn't answer why something is good or bad. So what is the actual answer to Euthypro's dilemma?

If something is good only because God wills it, then there is no reasoning behind God's decision to make something good. He might as well tell us to eat our children because anything can be good if God says so.

If God tells us to do good things because they have their own "goodly" reasons to do them, and he tells us to do good because He is good and wants to see good done, then these reasons can be found by humans on their own without the need for God to explain that they exist. Personally, I don't see how this would present a problem for the existence of God or His nature as being good, it only presents a problem for this particular argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Objective moral values: a morality that exists independently of us, independently of us being able to discern them or agreeing with them. God is the objective judge of these values and the only viable and consistent explanation for their existence.

How does a moral exist independently of us? If we don't exist, then morals don't exist. Killing can't be wrong if there are no potential murderers or victims.

If an objective moral is one that we are unable to discern or agree with, then how do you intend to prove that we recognize they exist at all? If we are incapable of being the judge of these morals, then how do you reach premise 2 that they exist?

What criteria does God judge the goodness of these morals on? Why are we incapable of discerning this criteria for ourselves? Is there criteria to judge? If there is no criteria other than whatever is God's will or God's plan, then there is only one moral: "Obey God". And if this is the case, then there are no objective morals to view in order to acknowledge the existence of objective morals and therefore to acknowledge the existence of God.

 

[Sapiens]

Why?

The purpose of life is to create more life. It is an ongoing process, that continues as conditions allow.

"I don’t think anything gives your life joy and meaning. I think your life simply has joy and meaning. The love for my children, the love for my parents and the love for my friends is the end in itself. The meaning is life.” ― Penn Jillette

Are you presenting this as a [fallacious] argument from consequences?

Works for me. I have never believed otherwise.

It requires no defence. I am simply not convinced of the existence of gods, and have not been presented with evidence that we have anything more than this biological stint here on Earth.

The only point to morality, as it was defined on the first page of this thread, is to describe how we get along in and as a society. The point of morality is that we get along sufficiently well enough that we can raise another generation successfully. That we can rise above that, and treat each other even better than that, is just gravy.

It isn't a fallacious argument, this is true according to your own definition of the purpose of life: to sustain itself. If it ultimately cannot, it has failed.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The video evades the question of Euthypro's dilemma.

"Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?"

Their answer, "Neither. God wills something because He is good."

The question asks the nature of the thing, it doesn't ask about the nature of God. This doesn't answer why something is good or bad. So what is the actual answer to Euthypro's dilemma?

If something is good only because God wills it, then there is no reasoning behind God's decision to make something good. He might as well tell us to eat our children because anything can be good if God says so.

If God tells us to do good things because they have their own "goodly" reasons to do them, and he tells us to do good because He is good and wants to see good done, then these reasons can be found by humans on their own without the need for God to explain that they exist. Personally, I don't see how this would present a problem for the existence of God or His nature as being good, it only presents a problem for this particular argument.

From my understanding, God is simple meaning that he has no parts. God is not only wise...He IS wisdom. God is not only loving....He IS love. God is not only just....He IS justice. God is not only good....He IS goodness. Thus everything that is objectively "Good" is of God and is part of His being. Some theologians go as far to say that every created thing is like God because everything he created is good. However this concept is irreversible because nothing ever created is like God. According to christian theology, God is the "Supreme Good". Thus to answer your question, something is good because God says it is good. That philosophy is what creates a reference to objective morality (for Christians at least)...thus without God....there is no objective morality. All morality is subjective to the individual.


God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God's nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God's nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The video evades the question of Euthypro's dilemma.

"Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?"

Their answer, "Neither. God wills something because He is good."

The question asks the nature of the thing, it doesn't ask about the nature of God.

If God tells us to do good things because they have their own "goodly" reasons to do them, and he tells us to do good because He is good and wants to see good done, then these reasons can be found by humans on their own without the need for God to explain that they exist.

Just for the sake of discussion, Please give me one example of one thing you would consider "objectively moral" without God.

 

[Davian]

It isn't a fallacious argument, this is true according to your own definition of the purpose of life: to sustain itself. If it ultimately cannot, it has failed.

Not at all, if the standard is for life to sustain itself while conditions warrant. I do not expect anything more from life.

You are just moving the goalposts to "ultimately/eternal"- goalposts that your own god claims have yet to reach.

 

[Davian]

From my understanding, God is simple meaning that he has no parts. God is not only wise...He IS wisdom. God is not only loving....He IS love. God is not only just....He IS justice. <snip>

I am always puzzled by this claim of "justice". For example, in your theology, is there any action that might preclude one from entering "Heaven"?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I am always puzzled by this claim of "justice". For example, in your theology, is there any action that might preclude one from entering "Heaven"?

I am listening. Please explain.[emoji52]

 

[Davian]

I am listening. Please explain.[emoji52]

I hear claims of "objective morality" and "justice", but no examples or criteria.

For example, is it - by your theology - objectively bad to slaughter all of my neighbours?