The Problem With The Argument From Morality

[Hawisher]

Would you like to expand on that and discuss it?

Not particularly. There may be those who can make a convincing apologetic from the Argument from Morality, but I am not one of them. Fortunately, the Argument from Morality is not essential to my faith.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

You made some good points there. I always found the moral argument to be viable but 1 of the weakest ones available.

I prefer:

the cosmological argument
1. The universe had a beginning
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else

cosmological natural theology
1. Time, space and matter came into existence at a certain point in the finite past.
2. Since time, space and matter began to exist they had a cause.
3. Therefore, whatever caused them was time-less, space-less and matter-less.

the teleological argument
1. All designs imply a designer
2. There is great design in the universe
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe

the ontological argument
1. God is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such a being can be conceived.
3. If there were no such being in reality, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—must exist.

Dostoevsky’s argument from the consequences of positive Atheism
1. If atheism is true then man is “the chief of the earth”
2. If man is “the chief of the earth” then he can abandon absolute standards
3. If man can abandon the absolute standards then “everything is permissible”
4. Therefore, if atheism is true, everything is permissible

The argument from joy
1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death

 

[Hawisher]

You made some good points there. I always found the moral argument to be viable but 1 of the weakest ones available.

I prefer:

the cosmological argument
1. The universe had a beginning
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else

cosmological natural theology
1. Time, space and matter came into existence at a certain point in the finite past.
2. Since time, space and matter began to exist they had a cause.
3. Therefore, whatever caused them was time-less, space-less and matter-less.

the teleological argument
1. All designs imply a designer
2. There is great design in the universe
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe

the ontological argument
1. God is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such a being can be conceived.
3. If there were no such being in reality, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—must exist.

Dostoevsky’s argument from the consequences of positive Atheism
1. If atheism is true then man is “the chief of the earth”
2. If man is “the chief of the earth” then he can abandon absolute standards
3. If man can abandon the absolute standards then “everything is permissible”
4. Therefore, if atheism is true, everything is permissible

The argument from joy
1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it
2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death

I think the Moral Argument is excellent as C. S. Lewis used it (I am something of a fan of his): it is great for introducing people to Christianity who may not have properly considered it before.

 

[Jade Margery]

the cosmological argument
1. The universe had a beginning
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else

cosmological natural theology
1. Time, space and matter came into existence at a certain point in the finite past.
2. Since time, space and matter began to exist they had a cause.
3. Therefore, whatever caused them was time-less, space-less and matter-less.

Both of these present the paradoxical question, does 'god' have a beginning cause? If so, he/she/it would need to be created as well, by your own argument. If not, then if you are already ready to accept that some things exist eternally, why can we not apply that quality to the universe itself (and time, space, and matter as well, of course)?

Either the 'cause' is itself causeless, which violates the assumption that all things must have a cause, or the causes pile up on top of each other to infinity.

the teleological argument
1. All designs imply a designer
2. There is great design in the universe
3. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe

Implying a designer does not guarantee that a designer must exist. It definitely doesn't guarantee that the designer, even if it did exist, is similar to the character you currently worship.

the ontological argument
1. God is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such a being can be conceived.
3. If there were no such being in reality, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—must exist.

This... makes absolutely no sense at all. I'm not even certain where to begin dissecting it from. Being able to imagine something doesn't require it to exist.

Dostoevsky’s argument from the consequences of positive Atheism
1. If atheism is true then man is “the chief of the earth”
2. If man is “the chief of the earth” then he can abandon absolute standards
3. If man can abandon the absolute standards then “everything is permissible”
4. Therefore, if atheism is true, everything is permissible

Does not actually prove atheism wrong, just makes clear the argument maker's opinion that atheism being right is a bad thing. Whether something is good or bad has no bearing on whether it is true or not.

The argument from joy
1. Every natural innate desire has a real object that can fulfill it

Tell that to the furries.

2. Human beings have a natural, innate desire for immortality
3. Therefore, there must be an immortal life after death

Similar to imagining, wanting something very badly doesn't prove that it exists either.

Hard to believe I'm saying this, but the 'Argument from Morality' is actually probably better than any of these.

 

[KCfromNC]

the ontological argument
1. God is defined as a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such a being can be conceived.
3. If there were no such being in reality, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—must exist.

The ontological argument against the ontological argument for god
1. The argument against the ontological argument is defined as as an argument than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such an argument can be conceived.
3. If there were no such argument in reality, then a greater argument —namely, a argument than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than an argument than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore an argument than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., one disproving the ontological argument for god —must exist.

The ontological argument is self-defeating.

 

[Hawisher]

The ontological argument against the ontological argument for god
1. The argument against the ontological argument is defined as as an argument than which no greater can be conceived.
2. Such an argument can be conceived.
3. If there were no such argument in reality, then a greater argument —namely, a argument than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived.
4. Yet nothing can be greater than an argument than which no greater can be conceived.
5. Therefore an argument than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., one disproving the ontological argument for god —must exist.

The ontological argument is self-defeating.

Cute.