Where does morality come from?

[Strathos]

Don't avoid the question.

Let me make it simple.

Can God create a square circle? Yes or no?

It's not avoiding the question, because it's an inherently meaningless question.

 

[Kylie]

It's not avoiding the question, because it's an inherently meaningless question.

Well, since it's not a "yes," I'll take it as a no. God can't do it because the concept is meaningless. Logically, the concept makes no sense. Thus, God can't perform acts that are logically impossible, because they inherently make no sense.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thus, God can't perform acts that are logically impossible, because they inherently make no sense.

I would say rather: Since even if a god could perform logically impossible acts we could not tell (how would we know that such a god actually succeeded in making a square circle), such propositions are useless.

When I was a Christian, I would have simply said that "No, God can't do the logically impossible." And, that omnipotence doesn't entail doing the logically impossible. Near the end of my tenure as a Christian I would have conceded that this means that in some sense God is dependent/obedient to rules outside itself.

 

[quatona]

Well, since it's not a "yes," I'll take it as a no. God can't do it because the concept is meaningless.

[More on a sidenote:Funnily enough, Biblegod is claimed to be able to do the logically impossible, e.g. being his own son.]

I think it´s stupid to expect God or whatever to be able to perform acts that are meaningless due to the definitions of human language. I don´t accept arguments for the existence of God that rest on squarely "by definition", neither do I accept arguments against the existence of God that rest squarely on "by definition". Both are fallacious.

 

[quatona]

When I was a Christian, I would have simply said that "No, God can't do the logically impossible." And, that omnipotence doesn't entail doing the logically impossible. Near the end of my tenure as a Christian I would have conceded that this means that in some sense God is dependent/obedient to rules outside itself.

Even as a non-believer I wouldn´t concede that. The way we construct our language and other formal systems (and what´s possible or impossible/permitted or not permitted/meaningful or not meaningful to say in them) aren´t rules that God (or reality) is dependent on.

 

[Freodin]

Even as a non-believer I wouldn´t concede that. The way we construct our language and other formal systems (and what´s possible or impossible/permitted or not permitted/meaningful or not meaningful to say in them) aren´t rules that God (or reality) is dependent on.

I would agree.
But that would mean that such arguments - on both sides - are fundamentally invalid. Right?

 

[quatona]

I would agree.
But that would mean that such arguments - on both sides - are fundamentally invalid. Right?

That was my very point.

 

[Ken-1122]

So then God is limited by what logic allows? In other words, God can't do things that are logically impossible?

Correct

 

[zippy2006]

I think it´s stupid to expect God or whatever to be able to perform acts that are meaningless due to the definitions of human language.

Right. When something isn't even linguistically meaningful or intelligible we're a long ways away from it being ontologically meaningful.

 

[Kylie]

@Strathos, I'd love to get a reply to my last comment to you.

 

[stevil]

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone...

I'm an atheist, and I don't understand how a believer can submit/admit to something like the above.

Sorry if you consider my analogy to be condescending, it isn't meant to be but I can understand that someone might read that into it.
Here goes.
I consider the position that "morality comes from god" to be akin to Adults vs Children.
A child might consider that something is "wrong" because either Mum or Dad or the Teacher or other TELLS them that it is "wrong". The child is put into a position of submission, of being deemed not capable of understanding why something might be "wrong" or even not being capable of judging something as "wrong" unless they are told by this authority. And to some degree, under law we give children much leniency and don't convict them of crimes as we would an adult.

But as an Adult, we expect people to have sound judgement and to behave responsibly because we deem that they ought to have the faculties to determine if some action is "wrong" or not and to hence make informed and calculated decisions.

Now, I don't for one second believe that a Christian thinks it is wrong to commit murder simply because they believe their god tells them that this is wrong. I expect that Christians are quite capable of coming to a conclusion that "murder" is "wrong" and its not something that they would question with their god if they had an opportunity to have an open, honest and full inquiry with god.

But me trying to square these two things "1. a Christian believes that morality comes from god", "2. a Christian adult doesn't need god to tell them that murder is wrong, in order to accept that murder is wrong". I can't square them, item 1 tells me the Christian doesn't think, but instead submits to the total authority of their god. But item 2 tells me that Christians do think for themselves. In reality, I think Christians think for themselves.

that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist?

It depends what you are trying to debate.
1. Are you debating that morality is objective but also comes from God?
Most atheists would probably argue that if morality comes from god then it is subjective to god. Unless of course, god is a predictable rules engine rather than an unpredictable consciousness.

2. Are you debating that morality is objective?
Most atheists would probably argue that there are many grey areas of morality that people disagree on, many situations where people need to make difficult choices etc.

3. Are you debating that morality is objectively discoverable?
As an atheist I would be keen to learn how it is discoverable

4. Are you arguing that a person can't have a moral standard or belief without a belief in god?
Isn't it conceivable that mature adults can come up with rules that help a society of people to live together in relative harmony?

since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality.

If both truth and morality are objective then they can't come from god.

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?

Clearly define what you are debating, be respectful, listen and ask for clarification rather than assume the other person is wrong.

 

[Belk]

Correct

I would have to disagree. Given that God is supposed to have created the laws of this universe upon which we base our logic we have no idea what God would or would not be capable of. We have no idea of the rules that would limit such a being.

 

[Ken-1122]

I would have to disagree. Given that God is supposed to have created the laws of this universe upon which we base our logic we have no idea what God would or would not be capable of. We have no idea of the rules that would limit such a being.

Laws of logic apply to everybody. Creating laws does not give anybody the authority nor ability to break them; if it did they wouldn't be laws of logic.

 

[Belk]

Laws of logic apply to everybody. Creating laws does not give anybody the authority nor ability to break them; if it did they wouldn't be laws of logic.

The laws of logic apply inside the universe as we know it and not in all cases. For example, in the quantum realm it is possible for something to be in two places at once. Logic is predicated on the "rules" (for lack of a better term) that are consistent within this universe. They do not apply prior to plank time after the big bang.

 

[ananda]

... 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?

You'd have to prove "God", IMO.

 

[quatona]

I would have to disagree. Given that God is supposed to have created the laws of this universe upon which we base our logic we have no idea what God would or would not be capable of. We have no idea of the rules that would limit such a being.

I don´t think you can conflate the laws of the universe and the laws of a human formal system which basically just regulate the semantics of said system. They are completely different things, in my understanding.

 

[Belk]

I don´t think you can conflate the laws of the universe and the laws of a human formal system which basically just regulate the semantics of said system. They are completely different things, in my understanding.

I don't think I am fully understanding your meaning. Can you paraphrase?

 

[quatona]

I don't think I am fully understanding your meaning. Can you paraphrase?

I´ll try. Logic, in my understanding is a formal system (i.e. it determines what can be said meaningfully in the given system). A formal system doesn´t (necessarily) emulate reality.
Take chess rules, for example. Do they emulate reality? Can anyone or God, for that matter, determine that the allowed moves are different than the ones the inventors of chess determined to be the rules?
Mathematics: Can someone (or God) simply exchange the meanings of 3 and 5 (that are humanly determined, and accepted by everyone who is willing to do mathematics according to these semantics)?
Can someone (or God) decide that the meanings of the words used in a nonsensical sentence can be changed so that the sentence is meaningful?

 

[Belk]

I´ll try. Logic, in my understanding is a formal system (i.e. it determines what can be said meaningfully in the given system). A formal system doesn´t (necessarily) emulate reality.
Take chess rules, for example. Do they emulate reality? Can anyone or God, for that matter, determine that the allowed moves are different than the ones the inventors of chess determined to be the rules?
Mathematics: Can someone (or God) simply exchange the meanings of 3 and 5 (that are humanly determined, and accepted by everyone who is willing to do mathematics according to these semantics)?
Can someone (or God) decide that the meanings of the words used in a nonsensical sentence can be changed so that the sentence is meaningful?

I think I see what you are saying. It is possible to say things using logic that do not conform to reality and it is therefore not necessarily a good method for measuring what a god could do.
Is that correct?

 

[quatona]

I think I see what you are saying. It is possible to say things using logic that do not conform to reality and it is therefore not necessarily a good method for measuring what a god could do.
Is that correct?

I´m not sure that this is what I meant to say. (I guess my point is more that logic determines what a a god (or anyone else) can be said (or not be said) to be able to do within the (assumed to be agreed upon) semantics of logic.
But maybe we can use an example for clarification?