The Moral Argument

[Sapiens]

I'm not sure what this means. Jason stated that God is goodness, to which I asked, "how?". If being compassionate is good, and God exists without humans which are necessary for compassion to exist, then how can compassion be a part of God's goodness without existing in the first place? If that isn't what you meant, I apologize, but your statement was so short, I just have to guess at the meaning.

Well, I'm not sure either. This stuff is getting pretty abstract. I'll have to think about it more.

 

[Sapiens]

Justice, and how the term is used in your theology.

Granting for a moment that the Adam and Eve story has any bearing on reality, if it's not a choice, then being held responsible for it is not justice.

It's not a choice for us because it has already been made and now we are sinners. Unfortunately, we cannot "unbe" sinners, even if it isn't personnally our fault. Where's the justice? We do wrong, WE do, and that's seriously bad in the eyes of God. We all deserve the death penalty because of that but God, in his amaing love and mercy, has provided a solution for us in the person of Jesus, when he took our place and the punishment that came with it. By believing in the name of Jesus, and accepting the gift of salvation that he paid with his life, we are considered holy by God.

 

[Davian]

It's not a choice for us because it has already been made and now we are sinners. Unfortunately, we cannot "unbe" sinners, even if it isn't personnally our fault. Where's the justice? We do wrong, WE do, and that's seriously bad in the eyes of God. We all deserve the death penalty because of that but God, in his amaing love and mercy, has provided a solution for us in the person of Jesus, when he took our place and the punishment that came with it. By believing in the name of Jesus, and accepting the gift of salvation that he paid with his life, we are considered holy by God.

How is it justice to be held responsible for the actions of others?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How did you not see all the points I made to how it is not cooperation, it is not fair, and it causes harm?

I am not saying I did not agree with you. But our view on the issue is subjective not objective.

Right. For instance, you can physically abuse them. You can physically abuse them to the point that they die, as long as it takes a few days to die, it isn't murder, it is just an accident of them being corrected, which is moral.

FALSE. READ VERSE 20 AND REREAD VERSE 21 FROM AN ACTUAL BIBLE AND NOT FROM A CLIP FROM A WEBSITE.
I will provide it for you.

If I cannot say something is "objectively bad" if there is someone that disagrees with me, then premise 2 of the moral argument fails. In order for me to observe something as objectively bad, according to you, it has to be something universally agreed upon. Therefore the argument is stated as such:

If there are no objective morals, then God does not exist.

We cannot observe any objective morals.

Therefore God does not exist.

There is no moral, there is no crime, there is no action that has been done or can be done that someone has not justified.

The way I understand it, the moral argument is not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. The question is:

1. If there is no God, objective morality cannot exist.

2. If objective morality does exist, God must exist.

Given the fact that in order to prove premise 1. All I need to do is find one person who disagrees with you on any moral issue.

In order for you to claim premise 2 is correct would require the existence of a god.

Edit: I'm sure citation is necessary for my Bible quote. Exodus 21:21 "But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."

Exodus 21:20-21 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers (NOT DIES)after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Basically this means that if a slave owner kills his slave they were to be punished. The punishment for murder was death. Slave owners were allowed to beat their slave because how else will you convince a slave to obey? But it says if you do beat them, they should be able to recover within a day or two. If it takes longer for a slave to recover, the slave owner is to be punished.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are contradicting yourself. You just judged your slaughtering of your neighbours to be "objectively bad". Now you are saying that you could still go to Heaven? How is that justice?

Technically yes. I can slaughter all my neighbors and still be capable of going to heaven through redemption and grace.

How is that justice? I am not the judge. All I have to say is I am glad you are not God.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well, I'm not sure either. This stuff is getting pretty abstract. I'll have to think about it more.

I think the words like compassion, anger, ect are an alegory for mercy and wrath. God is never chainging so his emotions cannot change. If you are unable to change it is impossible to show emotion. If you are all knowing, it is impossible to be angry or sad.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Justice, and how the term is used in your theology.

Granting for a moment that the Adam and Eve story has any bearing on reality, if it's not a choice, then being held responsible for it is not justice.

Justice is a term used for what is right or “as it should be.” Justice is one of God’s attributes and flows out of His holiness. Justice and righteousness are often used synonymously in the Bible. Since righteousness is the quality or character of being right or just, it is another attribute of God and incorporates both His justice and holiness.

 

[Davian]

Technically yes. I can slaughter all my neighbors and still be capable of going to heaven through redemption and grace.

How is that justice?

As the word is used in the common vernacular, that is not justice.

I am not the judge.

Yet here you are, declaring what is objectively bad without any criteria.

All I have to say is I am glad you are not God.

And I am glad that gods are only characters in books. But for the purposes of discussion, I grant you them for the purposes of this hypothetical.

How about the disbeliever? Seeing as belief is not a conscious choice (unlike the serial killers' actions), do they have any chance of achieving "justice" in this theology of yours?

 

[Davian]

Justice is a term used for what is right or “as it should be.” Justice is one of God’s attributes and flows out of His holiness. Justice and righteousness are often used synonymously in the Bible. Since righteousness is the quality or character of being right or just, it is another attribute of God and incorporates both His justice and holiness.

So the serial killers, and the like, go to Heaven. What about their victims? The ones that enthusiastically prayed to this same god, but lost their faith as the killer closed in? No heaven for them, I gather?

I am just not seeing the value of this "moral argument" to the religionist.

 

[Moral Orel]

Given the fact that in order to prove premise 1. All I need to do is find one person who disagrees with you on any moral issue.

In order for you to claim premise 2 is correct would require the existence of a god.

No, people can just be incorrect about their morals. It doesn't take an outside source to look at a moral and deem it wrong. The more we know, and the more we can measure on our own, the better we can judge what is moral and what is not. We've done a bad job for a long time because we knew less. But now that we know more, we can judge better.

Part of defining morality comes from arguing and reasoning based on evidence. I can't imagine society going back on this rule that they've established (no slavery). So we have learned something that everyone should follow. We'll learn more.

Basically this means that if a slave owner kills his slave they were to be punished. The punishment for murder was death. Slave owners were allowed to beat their slave because how else will you convince a slave to obey? But it says if you do beat them, they should be able to recover within a day or two. If it takes longer for a slave to recover, the slave owner is to be punished.

I still disagree because recover =/= survive. But it would be too far off topic for us to argue about it here, so let's agree on what we can. It is okay to beat a slave so bad that he is incapacitated for days.

Slave owners were allowed to beat their slave because how else will you convince a slave to obey?

Lots of ways to convince employees to work. The authors of the Bible didn't know about them yet though.

 

[Moral Orel]

About sin, I know you might not officially believe that we are morally corupted by nature; for instance, if you believe that only a naturalistic world exists. But putting that belief/concept aside for a moment, and assuming that right and wrong exist, then can we not say that to do something considered evil you need to be evil, at least a bit? If you are at least a bit evil, that means your nature is at least a bit evil. Whence the sinful nature. In christianity, God is perfectly Holy and morals aren't just a list of do's and don'ts. That's why there's a problem between us and God.

That's a good explanation. Saying it that way can help keep people from arguing about the Bible directly and going off topic.

Evil is still a strong word though. I think that for someone to do something I would consider "evil" would make a much bigger statement about them than a Christian would consider evil. But we can recognize our own follies. We can recognize where we may think in selfish terms how we can benefit others without giving up much of our own "stuff". Our follies don't blind us completely to what wrongdoing we may do, which is what the argument suggests.

Yeah, sure, the more we learn, the better we know.

Yeah, we are a crafty bunch.

See? We don't need God to discover that which should never be done, and that which should always be done, by everyone.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

As the word is used in the common vernacular, that is not justice.

Justice is subjective without a God as an objective Judge who gives objective laws.

Yet here you are, declaring what is objectively bad without any criteria.

A lawyer who knows the laws and their penalties is not a judge.

How about the disbeliever? Seeing as belief is not a conscious choice (unlike the serial killers' actions), do they have any chance of achieving "justice" in this theology of yours?

I don't know. I want to believe so.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

So the serial killers, and the like, go to Heaven. What about their victims? The ones that enthusiastically prayed to this same god, but lost their faith as the killer closed in? No heaven for them, I gather?

I am just not seeing the value of this "moral argument" to the religionist.

Please explain how and why they lost their faith just as the killer was closing in?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, people can just be incorrect about their morals.

And who is the authority to objectively say someone's morals are incorrect? How is the standard set? Is it based on popular opinion?

It doesn't take an outside source to look at a moral and deem it wrong. The more we know, and the more we can measure on our own, the better we can judge what is moral and what is not. We've done a bad job for a long time because we knew less. But now that we know more, we can judge better.

So you are saying objective morality is based on popular opinion? That is impossible. How can something be objective if it is not the same for everyone? Since what is popular is ever changing, the moral standard is always changing.

Lots of ways to convince slaves to obey against their will . The authors of the Bible didn't know about them yet though.

I took the liberty to correct your post. Please give me an example of a better idea than corporal punishment?

 

[Moral Orel]

So you are saying objective morality is based on popular opinion?

This is why people compared this argument to the concept of a flat Earth. Some people believe the Earth is flat. Does that mean that the Earth being round is a subjective opinion, or does it mean that people are wrong?

What you are asking is how do we determine what is moral, and I say it is through reasoning. Some people reason wrong, some people reason right. People reasoning incorrectly doesn't make it an opinion, it means people are dumb.

You say that we need to look to God to find objective morals, but the only objective source of information from God is the Bible. Should we look to the Bible to tell us what is moral and bring back slavery? Not just indentured servitude, but real slavery as well.... just as long as it isn't based on race. Reading the Bible seems to show that almost everything is morally subjective. Just look at all the things that were done in the OT, and all of them must be morally subjective because it was good to do them. And then I'm supposed to believe that thinking about having sex with a woman who is not my wife is objectively bad?

I took the liberty to correct your post. Please give me an example of a better idea than corporal punishment?

Pay them. And yes, they would still be slaves because they were purchased as property, and they are not allowed freedom. But rewards work better than punishment, just read up on the studies we've done in psychology.

 

[anonymous person]

Well I certainly wouldn't call it "common today". Sure we didn't eradicate it, and it still exists illegally, but "common"?

It exists legally in many places in the world. It is common in many places in the world.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You say that we need to look to God to find objective morals, but the only objective source of information from God is the Bible. Should we look to the Bible to tell us what is moral and bring back slavery? Not just indentured servitude, but real slavery as well.... just as long as it isn't based on race. Reading the Bible seems to show that almost everything is morally subjective. Just look at all the things that were done in the OT, and all of them must be morally subjective because it was good to do them. And then I'm supposed to believe that thinking about having sex with a woman who is not my wife is objectively bad?

Who says that it even has to be the God of Abraham to prove or disprove the morality argument. For objective morality to exist requires a god, any god or gods to have created mankind with a purpose in order to determine what is objectively good or bad. Period.

Pay them. And yes, they would still be slaves because they were purchased as property, and they are not allowed freedom. But rewards work better than punishment, just read up on the studies we've done in psychology.

They already paid them. That is how they are in debt in the first place. You don't pay someone in order to pay off their debt to you. Really? Would you like to try again?

 

[Moral Orel]

They already paid them. That is how they are in debt in the first place. You don't pay someone in order to pay off their debt to you. Really? Would you like to try again?

Now I see what you're doing. You're intentionally confusing the issue of slaves and indentured servants to make it harder to argue. You quoted me and changed my quote to: "Lots of ways to convince slaves to obey against their will" cut and pasted. Now are we talking about indentured servants or slaves? Pick one and stick with it.

Who says that it even has to be the God of Abraham to prove or disprove the morality argument. For objective morality to exist requires a god, any god or gods to have created mankind with a purpose in order to determine what is objectively good or bad. Period.

I'll concede this. I went too far in the direction of a specific religion, and that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

So here is where I am at. If by objective morality you simply mean that which is something everyone ought to do, or that everyone ought not to do, then that exists. If you mean something that everyone agrees on, then no, objective morality does not exist. And yes, when I say "everyone" I mean even God. What a god wants our purpose to be does not mean that he didn't give us free will to choose our own. So if you are equating morality with purpose, then we disagree on the definition of morality itself and we'll need to take a few steps back and start with that definition first.

 

[Davian]

Justice is subjective without a God

I do not see that as a problem.

as an objective Judge who gives objective laws.

Objective, as at the whim of you god? How is that objective?

A lawyer who knows the laws and their penalties is not a judge.

List all of these objective laws that exist, and demonstrate them as such.

I don't know. I want to believe so.

What do you mean you don't know? Are you not the one going on about this all being objective? Is disbelief in your theology acceptable or not?

 

[Davian]

Please explain how and why they lost their faith just as the killer was closing in?

Irrelevant to the hypothetical. I am just trying to see where this "justice" is in your theology.

Now, you have the serial killer going to Heaven, as long as he is a believer. From what I gather from other Christians, the victim - an unbeliever, in this case - is going to Hell for not believing in the same god, or she is simply not convinced.

Is this still "justice" in your eyes? Or should the victim get to go to Heaven to be with her killer?