The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

You would defend a nation in committing genocide. I don't think that we have anything further to discuss.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well I didn't say that. I wouldn't agree with your hypothetical scenario being moral. How would you determine that it is immoral?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct, you sometimes argue by pointing to the "summum bonum", and sometimes you argue by ignoring this very criterium. That was my point.

I do, and both points are cohesive within the Christian theology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm still waiting for you to address this question:

I'm still considering the question. I do know that if faced with my family and culture being wiped out unless another group who has attacked and killed my people as well as other people including their own babies is eliminated, I don't think I would have a problem with dropping a bomb and killing them. Would I relish the thought, no. Would I feel great remorse, yes. Would I think I did the right thing when my family and culture survive...yes.

 

[anonymous person]

Of course I am, but I'm not confusing "good quality" with "good morality". You said that creating us was an act of grace. Is "grace" not a nice thing to do, therefore a good thing to do? Are you not happy that you were created? Is it not better to you that you were created than you were not created? Craig's basis for his argument is based on our limited capability to work with the number infinity. That doesn't mean that it isn't actually possible to work with such a number.

Let's look at infinity from a different perspective. Imagine that being in Heaven produces 100 units of happiness per day. Creating a person that goes to Heaven creates an infinite amount of happiness because that is how much happiness will result. But creating two people that go to Heaven produces 200 units of happiness a day as opposed to 100. Now my limited brain can come up with a crude way to work with something infinite, wouldn't you think God could do better?


It isn't enough to just say "there is not evil in Him". There is no evil whatsoever in my toaster. Does that make my toaster just as "good" as God? Of course not. Things can be morally neutral. Or they can even be just a tiny bit good. I would say that if someone is capable of choosing to not do something good, then they are not 100% good.

That is based on your idea of what good is which is fine.

We do not determine what is good though. God does.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? Because it would appear absolutely essential to your argument. Without a clear means of determining what god actually commands from what one thinks that god commands...your explanation of morality is entirely useless.

Your question would open a can of worms for him and needs to be evaded.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is based on your idea of what good is which is fine.

We do not determine what is good though. God does.

God doesn't think grace is a good thing?

Following this logic, God could have created a world for humans that is nothing but Hell. No one lives on Earth first, everyone goes straight to Hell. No one has a chance at reprieve, no one is being punished because no one had a chance to do anything wrong (not even "original sin"). And the number of people going to Hell is infinite because one person times infinity is the same thing as infinity times infinity. Because God is already infinite goodness, the universe would still have an infinite amount of goodness in it.

Now you're telling me, that a being of infinite goodness, is capable of that?

 

[anonymous person]

Your question would open a can of worms for him and needs to be evaded.

I am a moral cognitivist when it comes to semantic theories.
I am an ethical subjectivist with regards to the question of what makes an ethical statement true or false.
I am a Divine Command theory adherent when it comes to the question of whose view we appeal to for our moral values and duties.
I affirm the independency of objective moral values and duties from the opinions and preferences of human beings, and that they are rather, grounded in the nature and commands of God who transcends humanity.
I affirm the universality of these values and duties.

I am not here to evade. I am here to give those who are sincerely wanting to know why I have the hope I do, the reasons for having it.

 

[anonymous person]

God doesn't think grace is a good thing?

Following this logic, God could have created a world for humans that is nothing but Hell. No one lives on Earth first, everyone goes straight to Hell. No one has a chance at reprieve, no one is being punished because no one had a chance to do anything wrong (not even "original sin"). And the number of people going to Hell is infinite because one person times infinity is the same thing as infinity times infinity. Because God is already infinite goodness, the universe would still have an infinite amount of goodness in it.

Now you're telling me, that a being of infinite goodness, is capable of that?

I think you got off track somewhere. God cannot create a world for humans that is nothing but hell. Hell is a necessary part of this world he created.

Hell is not some separate possible world.

In addition, God's nature is to be gracious but His graciousness does not trump His holiness or His other attributes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are free to believe what you will. However, if you want to form a valid argument (particularly in support of "objectivity"), affirmations of your beliefs aren´t sufficient.

You are free to believe what you will. And with your view that views are subjective, I need not affirm anything other than assert them the way you assert yours, is that not correct?

 

[Moral Orel]

God cannot create a world for humans that is nothing but hell.

Why not? You said that there is any number of possible worlds, why is that one not a possibility?

 

[Moral Orel]

Hell is not some separate possible world.

Let me clarify "Hell". I just mean a world that is indistinguishable from what Hell is described as. Not a part of or result of some system. God could create a world that is nothing but fire and brimstone, gnashing of teeth, eternal agony for ever and ever. Why would He be incapable of creating a world like that?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Well I didn't say that.

Then I don't know what that "Yes" you wrote refers to from my post. Perhaps you can explain that.

I wouldn't agree with your hypothetical scenario being moral. How would you determine that it is immoral?

How is that going to advance this discussion? I'm not sure what the point of getting into that would be.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

But you didn't answer my question though. What then, according to you, and supposing that God doesn't exist, give humans as a whole and as individuals value? Unless you don't really believe we do? I suppose you believe not, based on what you just said.

That is a good thing on which to base what you believe I have said. AP is not so clear on this approach.

I can hardly understand how you content yourself with this view though.

I don't understand; what alternatives are open to me? Despair? Nihilism? I accept it for what it is.

Yeah, but the question is: would you be able to recognize the truth? I wish so, for you.

What I hope to recognize is an accurate description of reality. By accurate, I mean, coherently and robustly described, supported with testable and falsifiable hypotheses and theories, and subject to change with exposure to new information.

Too often the word "truth" in these forums is wielded simply as ones own personal theology. Is that the "truth" that you allude to?

In any case, to answer your question: well, it's to discuss this kind of stuff of course! It's a good place to challenge ideas and be challenged by others. It is different and not as fun in my opinion as a face to face discussion since we got to wait for others to answer and misunderstandings can happen and etc but it is easier to find people to discuss with with the same interest! I previously thought it would be easier to convince other people online with these awesome-kick-ass arguments in favor of God's existence but I now realize that my own stubborness has been surpassed... (and Im a pretty stubborn person in life). It seems you guys' opinion has already been settled in concrete. In general, I like to reflect and like to make others reflect too. Quite simply, thats why.

What you perceive as stubbornness and 'concrete' may only be the ineffectiveness of the arguments you have brought to bear in these forums.

Keep in mind that just about any of the well-known 'arguments for God' have already been dragged through these forums in recent history, mostly by AP himself, in his many iterations. In contrast to his claim of infallibility, I stick around to see how much wrong he can accumulate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then I don't know what that "Yes" you wrote refers to from my post. Perhaps you can explain that.

You asked: Baby murder? Time assassination? Immoral. Thank you for playing. I answered yes, immoral.

How is that going to advance this discussion? I'm not sure what the point of getting into that would be.

eudaimonia,

Mark[/QUOTE]
Where do you see the problem with this advancing the discussion?[/Quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Davian]

Dogmatically? In what sense? I don't assume that my senses are infallible and that therefore I cannot be fooled or that I am invulnerable to error. You do assume that though, at least with respect to your religious intuitions, which have become dogmatically entrenched.

Dogmatically, in the sense that his worldview/theology has been found to be dogmatic, unethical, and morally bankrupt, so he responds by throwing out the same criticisms at the worldviews of his critics, misrepresenting them if needed. When his accusations fail to stick, he pulls out the mind-reading apparatus and has a go at their motivations.

We'll do this all over again in another thread in short order.

 

[Davian]

Inquiring minds want to change the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

You know how it needs to be; one set of rules for him, another set of rules for everyone else.

The escape hatch, must always be available.

 

[Davian]

It's unfortunate though, because God does exist

That remains to be determined. I will grant you the hypothetical, for the purposes of this thread. Assuming it ever returns to topic, of course.

and one day you'll have to render account of yourself before Him.

On what grounds? Belief is not a conscious choice. Am I to be held accountable for reasons beyond my control?

I can't force you to believe that of course, but I believe it would be in your best interest if you did.

Scare Tactic Fail

• Davian
• Mar 15, 2016

Because when that day comes, it might just be too late... Don't stop searching and asking questions! That's what I do.

Indeed. Perhaps the religionists will come up with some compelling evidence.

 

[Davian]

There are those who benefit from what we write here in addition to ourselves. Just because five or six people here object does nothing to refute that fact.

And think of all those that benefit from the analysis of the arguments you proffer in these forums, and how you deal with criticism. My teenage children, for example.

 

[Davian]

God did not desire to abrogate or nullify their free will.

Sounds like you

• Davian
• Nov 4, 2014