Where does morality come from?

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,343.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No ... it's based on love ... one can not have true love without free choice ... that is ... one can not force one to love another ... God knows this .... we know this. So one can choose to believe in and love God or not.


Oh? How was that determined? Since a woman is biologically programmed to love her child is that not true love?
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
9,698
5,614
Utah
✟713,403.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh? How was that determined? Since a woman is biologically programmed to love her child is that not true love?

Do all women truly love their children? Nope. Some do very diabolical things to their children therefore evidentially is not biological.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So by "wrong" you mean nothing more than something that is distasteful to you?
By "wrong," I mean immoral.

wrong definition - Google Search



ETA Hey ToL, I'm going to excuse myself from our conversation. If you ever get some time to continue the conversation, look me up. I find the slow responses to be a bit frustrating. Take care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
well ... the "love hormone" is evidentially corruptible as there are many women who kill their babies.
In contrast to "divine rules that are written on your heart", biological system are not and have never claimed to be perfect and infallible.

And in the same way, biological systems have never claimed to "love" someone AND kill them.
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
well ... the "love hormone" is evidentially corruptible as there are many women who kill their babies.
What women decide to do with their progeny in no way cancels the fact humans have evolved a certain hormone that bonds mothers to offspring.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Allandavid
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

Here's the thing.

Let's say God appears to you and says that you are released from all moral obligations. That is, you can do whatever you want - murder, steal, do whatever you want, and you will not suffer any punishment for it. Not from Human justice and not even from God's justice. You are guaranteed to go to Heaven, no matter what, and in the meantime, you can commit whatever crimes you want, no matter how terrible.

Would you do it?

And don't try to get around it by saying God would never give you such an option or anything like that. Assume that it really is God, and the offer is genuine.

The way I see it, the choices people have when I ask them this are either that they would (in which case the only reason they don't already do those things is out of fear of punishment, and they aren't moral people after all), or that you wouldn't (in which case your morality doesn't come from God since he has just removed any moral obligation he had given you).
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Here's the thing.

Let's say God appears to you and says that you are released from all moral obligations. That is, you can do whatever you want - murder, steal, do whatever you want, and you will not suffer any punishment for it. Not from Human justice and not even from God's justice. You are guaranteed to go to Heaven, no matter what, and in the meantime, you can commit whatever crimes you want, no matter how terrible.

Would you do it?

And don't try to get around it by saying God would never give you such an option or anything like that. Assume that it really is God, and the offer is genuine.

The way I see it, the choices people have when I ask them this are either that they would (in which case the only reason they don't already do those things is out of fear of punishment, and they aren't moral people after all), or that you wouldn't (in which case your morality doesn't come from God since he has just removed any moral obligation he had given you).

Moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature on the traditional non-Voluntarist view. Your hypothetical assumes that contradiction. Further, as is so common among modern atheists, yours is essentially a fundamentalist view of the promulgation of the law which sees it as an extrinsic add-on, in this case a merely verbal prescriptive dimension.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature on the traditional non-Voluntarist view. Your hypothetical assumes that contradiction. Further, as is so common among modern atheists, yours is essentially a fundamentalist view of the promulgation of the law which sees it as an extrinsic add-on, in this case a merely verbal prescriptive dimension.
The problem with such a view is that it necessarily pits God against "his nature". The only "Moral obligation" that can exist in such a view is that of God's creation towards God... and God's creation does not have "God's nature". So any moral obligation that comes from God's nature must be extrinsic for God's creation.

It is the problem that we talked about earlier: such an objective moral system is only meaningful for infallible beings, even with the common excuse of "free will".
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The problem with such a view is that it necessarily pits God against "his nature".

How so?

The only "Moral obligation" that can exist in such a view is that of God's creation towards God... and God's creation does not have "God's nature". So any moral obligation that comes from God's nature must be extrinsic for God's creation.

Created realities participate in God insofar as they are created and sustained by him, thus participating in his being, goodness, truth, etc.

It is the problem that we talked about earlier: such an objective moral system is only meaningful for infallible beings, even with the common excuse of "free will".

As noted before, I don't understand your "infallible beings" objection.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature on the traditional non-Voluntarist view. Your hypothetical assumes that contradiction. Further, as is so common among modern atheists, yours is essentially a fundamentalist view of the promulgation of the law which sees it as an extrinsic add-on, in this case a merely verbal prescriptive dimension.

Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

So, you are saying that moral obligation doesn't come from God? I agree with you there. We don't need God to be moral.

By the way, if you need to propound your hypotheses employing Gordian lexemes, your assertion may be less substantial that you aspire it to be delineated.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

So, you are saying that moral obligation doesn't come from God? I agree with you there. We don't need God to be moral.

That's the opposite of what he's saying.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Extrinsic: not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.

So, you are saying that moral obligation doesn't come from God? I agree with you there. We don't need God to be moral.

I said moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature. Your hypothetical thus contradicts the very nature of God. For Christians it is similar to saying, "Imagine God, but evil," or "Imagine a circle, but square."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I said moral obligation isn't extrinsic to God's nature. Your hypothetical thus contradicts the very nature of God. For Christians it is similar to saying, "Imagine God, but evil," or "Imagine a circle, but square."

Like I predicted...

"And don't try to get around it by saying God would never give you such an option or anything like that. Assume that it really is God, and the offer is genuine."

In any case, since you are claiming that this is something God can't do, you've just proved God is not all powerful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0