The Moral Argument

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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?

I apologize I had to edit this post because I misread it. Yes, without divine direction, slaughtering all my neighbors by my own will is objectively bad. Because the authority to give life or take life is given to the creator alone. I cannot take a life that is not mine to take. So to murder someone is not good. However there is a difference from killing and murdering.

 

[Davian]

I apologize I had to edit this post because I misread it. Yes, without divine direction, slaughtering all my neighbors by my own will is objectively bad. Because the authority to give life or take life is given to the creator alone. I cannot take a life that is not mine to take. So to murder someone is not good. However there is a difference from killing and murdering.

And how is this "justice" meted out? Now that you have committed this [alledegy] objective "bad" action by slaughtering all of your neighbours, are there any theological implications? Can you still go to "Heaven"?

 

[Sapiens]

I didn't ask you to repeat the premise.

I asked you to demonstrate the premise.

Good heavenly grace, I did just that!

One thing that would really help around here, and I am speaking about everyone, is listening and trying to understand what other people here are saying. Otherwise, this thread is. Absolutely. Useless. That's one thing I've noticed about this sort of online debate, where everyone just sticks to their points, regardless of what others have said.

What more do you want me to say? Can you disprove what I said or propose an alternative?

I've added the main points of my arguments in the OP in light of the debate.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

That's an easy one. No human should ever own another human.

 

[Moral Orel]

God is not only good....He IS goodness.

This one puzzles me. For example, it is good to be compassionate. But without people there is no need or purpose for compassion. So before God created people, how could he be compassionate?

Thus to answer your question, something is good because God says it is good.

By what criteria does he select what He says is Good? He looks at someone murdering someone and says, that is bad. He looks at someone giving to the poor and says, that is good. Why does He select these things as bad and good respectively? What criteria does He use if they are only good or bad after He states their nature?

A thing's goodness is determined by its purpose.

This may sort of answer the other question I posed, but then how does God determine a purpose for the things He creates? Is there criteria that can be judged, or does He select purpose based on His own personal desires?

For example, let me ask about this:

Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be.

Is there any reason that God couldn't have chosen rape to be what sex is made to be? If He so chose, could He intend for sex to always be non-consenual, and then we would say, "rape is good" and "consensual sex is bad"?

 

[Yekcidmij]

NOTE: I edited this OP in light of the discusion and added relevant clarifications. The argument did not change, however.

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.

Forgive me if this point has already been covered, but I've usually seen premise once stated this way:

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

The difference may seem minor, but I think it may be crucial. The way you stated the argument is redundant. If premise one is true, then premise 1 (you read me correctly, premise 1) is true. Premises 2 and Conclusion 3 just restate the exact same thing you said in premise 1.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-moral-argument-for-god

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's an easy one. No human should ever own another human.

What if that person owed me a lot of money that he couldn't pay. So at the person's own choosing, sold himself for a temporary period of time and was treated kindly the entire time he was owned? That doesn't sound too terrible.

 

[anonymous person]

What if that person owed me a lot of money that he couldn't pay. So at the person's own choosing, sold himself for a temporary period of time and was treated kindly the entire time he was owned? That doesn't sound too terrible.

Then the person chooses, which makes all the difference. This is called indentured servitude and was quite common in biblical times and today.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then the person chooses, which makes all the difference. This is called indentured servitude and was quite common in biblical times and today.

I agree...but to play devils advocate, let's say that the person did not agree. Let's say that I sued the man who owed me money and the judge declared that since the man had no money to pay his debt, he is forced to repay it by giving himself for a temporary period of time as long as I can care for his physical needs?

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Agreed, I should've perhaps said that they exist "independently of our judgment" instead. Except, so long as we consider God, He would still know. That was what I meant. That is also why morals could not objectively exist without God.

We are capable of discerning that there is right and wrong. The fact that we are unable to perfectly discern them and that we cannot be the judge of them is for two reasons: we are not omniscient and we are now corrupted in nature. That is what we call sin.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

What if "goodness" finds its nature in God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What if "goodness" finds its nature in God?

Is it good because it finds its nature in God or does it find its nature in God because it is good?

 

[Sapiens]

Forgive me if this point has already been covered, but I've usually seen premise once stated this way:

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

The difference may seem minor, but I think it may be crucial. The way you stated the argument is redundant. If premise one is true, then premise 1 (you read me correctly, premise 1) is true. Premises 2 and Conclusion 3 just restate the exact same thing you said in premise 1.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-moral-argument-for-god

Yeah true enough. I did notice too, but did not see the interest to change it. In what way do you think it may be crucial?

 

[Sapiens]

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"?

Disobeying God mainly, keeping His holy and morally perfect nature in mind. This act has unfortunately already been commited by our first ancestors and now applies to us as well. The act was to access the knowledge of good AND evil; this corrupted our nature. Willing/desiring evil and doing it are preventing us from entering Heaven, in the presence of God; unfortunately for us again, we do that all the time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Disobeying God mainly, keeping His holy and morally perfect nature in mind. This act has unfortunately already been commited by our first ancestors and now applies to us as well. The act was to access the knowledge of good AND evil; this corrupted our nature. Willing/desiring evil and doing it are preventing us from entering Heaven, in the presence of God; unfortunately for us again, we do that all the time.

Yet knowledge of good and evil is precisely what was needed to pass this test in the first place. Adam and Eve were never equipped by their creator with the tools they needed to even stand a chance of passing his test. Yet not only were they punished for their creator's oversight, but so were all their descendants.

 

[Sapiens]

Is it good because it finds its nature in God or does it find its nature in God because it is good?

It's both. I'm not quite sure why this "dilemma" is a problem. Why is it? i'm not sure I get it. I read Plato's dialogue of Socrates and Euthyphro and I remember that the problem with the pious is that the gods don't agree on what it is. They are many and are in a constant state of discord among each other. Here we have one God, who is good and Holy by nature.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What if "goodness" finds its nature in God?

It goes back to the definition of "good" and bad according to theology as it's ability to carry out its designed purpose. Example is a knife. The purpose of a knife is to cut. Thus a "good" knife is strong and sharp so it can cut well. On the other hand, a bad knife is dull and cannot cut well so it is labeled a "bad" knife.

This definition of "good" and "bad" and it's dependence on purpose is critical to theology and in particular to "the moral arguement". So we have to ask, where does purpose come from? Any object that has ever been created with a purpose requires a creator with some level of intelligence to bestow that purpose onto the object it created. If no intelligent being created man, man has no intended purpose.

If theoretically we were created without purpose, that does not mean that we can't give ourselves a purpose. However, that purpose that is given is subjective. Thus, whatever you determine to be good or bad to you and your life depends on your subjective purpose. Thus making your view on "good" and "bad" subjective.

Has anyone's mind exploded yet?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's both. I'm not quite sure why this "dilemma" is a problem. Why is it? i'm not sure I get it. I read Plato's dialogue of Socrates and Euthyphro and I remember that the problem with the pious is that the gods don't agree on what it is. They are many and are in a constant state of discord among each other. Here we have one God, who is good and Holy by nature.

You start off by saying "it's both," but then you conclude with "god, who is good and holy by nature." So it's not both.

 

[Sapiens]

Yet knowledge of good and evil is precisely what was needed to pass this test in the first place. Adam and Eve were never equipped by their creator with the tools they needed to even stand a chance of passing his test. Yet not only were they punished for their creator's oversight, but so were all their descendants.

Actually, they were told "don't eat of the tree of knowledge og good and evil or else you'll die". It was not a surprise...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, they were told "don't eat of the tree of knowledge og good and evil or else you'll die". It was not a surprise...

And what did they lack, which they needed in order to be able to evaluate whether it was good to obey this command?