Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
With everything objective, there is universal agreement on it’s base. All you have to do is prove there is universal agreement that morality is based on God, then go to the Bible and show where it indicates morality derives from God and God alone.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?
With everything objective, there is universal agreement on it’s base. All you have to do is prove there is universal agreement that morality is based on God, then go to the Bible and show where it indicates morality derives from God and God alone.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?
As a believer in a transcendent God, I agree with that statement.Morality does not come from a transcendent God. It comes from the circumstances of being human.
If you go to the Bible you will find that it tells us that God gave us the ability to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to classify those consequences as desirable or undesirable. In other words, He gave us the ability to construct a workable subjective morality.With everything objective, there is universal agreement on it’s base. All you have to do is prove there is universal agreement that morality is based on God, then go to the Bible and show where it indicates morality derives from God and God alone.
Whether the one makes the conduct of social interaction generally more agreeable than the other. How do "objective" moralists do it?
Through experience. Trial and error, most of it conducted a long time ago and since codified and inculcated through nurture.
Would you care to wager how many of those who subscribe to the idea of objective morality think that it's their morality that most closely aligns with it?Some people seem genuinely dumbfounded that anybody could get along without a phony list of moral certitudes, without becoming a psychopathic axe murder.
Would you care to wager how many of those who subscribe to the idea of objective morality think that it's their morality that most closely aligns with it?
The intensity of our feelings is the only difference, and you think that justifies jumping from "I like this" to "This is right"? That's all it takes for you to start using a new word that means something completely different from "like", you just have to really really really super-duper love it? lolSo you agree with me?
New words aren't necessary, correct usage of our current words is all we need to make whatever points we find necessaryThe intensity of our feelings is the only difference, and you think that justifies jumping from "I like this" to "This is right"? That's all it takes for you to start using a new word that means something completely different from "like", you just have to really really really super-duper love it? lol
Now if we can get somebody else to understand this.....If you go to the Bible you will find that it tells us that God gave us the ability to contemplate the consequences of our actions and to classify those consequences as desirable or undesirable. In other words, He gave us the ability to construct a workable subjective morality.
Yeah, you're jumping from "like" to "right" and "dislike" to "wrong". Once you discover that morality is subjective, and no opinions are right or wrong, why would you keep calling them right or wrong?New words aren't necessary, correct usage of our current words is all we need to make whatever points we find necessary
You're confusing moral subjectivism with moral Nihilism. Subjective morality does not mean no opinions are right or wrong.Yeah, you're jumping from "like" to "right" and "dislike" to "wrong". Once you discover that morality is subjective, and no opinions are right or wrong, why would you keep calling them right or wrong?
But we agreed they're just feelings. So you're saying some feelings are right and wrong?You're confusing moral subjectivism with moral Nihilism. Subjective morality does not mean no opinions are right or wrong.
No; I said they were ethical judgments.But we agreed they're just feelings. So you're saying some feelings are right and wrong?
Mmmm... I said:No; I said they were ethical judgments.
You said:I feel more strongly about hating murder than I do about loving chocolate, but the intensity of my feelings is the only difference.
So all you're doing is stating how you personally feel about something, and you want to call that "judging right and wrong". "Judgement" is just more objective language. When you judge whether someone is guilty or not guilty, for instance, you're making a guess about an objective fact. That isn't at all what you're doing when you "judge" something to be "right or wrong", you're just stating your personal feelings. You want to maintain a facade of objectivity by using objective language; I say just own your subjectivity and call it exactly what it is.So you agree with me?
Of course objective morality does not exist. I never claimed it did.To claim that the agreed moral values that were decided as crimes against humanity proves objective moral values don't exist is also a logical fallacy.
You are getting you philosophical advice from William Lane Craig. I don't take his seriously at all. He is completely wrong on far too many topics.He was talking about a logical argument no a scientific test. Logical arguments can be used to support whether God exists or not and that is all he was using. This is an idea from Sam Harris. Apart from the determination of wellbeing being based on science and science cannot determine things metaphysically for which morality is. Wellbeing in the first place is also a matter of subjective views. Who decides what is regarded as human wellbeing and why should it be the basis for moral values anyway if there is no independent morals from human opinions. Hitler thought that human wellbeing was best served by exterminating the weak and creating a strong, healthy, and superior race.
If there are no objective moral values and morals are left to human subjective views about what wellbeing is we could have all sorts of determinations about what is best. How do we know that if circumstances change and we don't have enough resources and food to sustain billions of people that allowing many to die or even exterminating the elderly may become morally good for human wellbeing? The Euthyphro Dilemma is a fallacy of a false dilemma. People or (Christians are not doing either in thinking is something moral because God says so or does God says so because it is moral. Objective moral values are moral because that is the way, God is. God is necessarily, by his essence or nature good.
So God's moral laws his commands which make up our moral duties and obligations are based on God's moral nature, they reflect God's nature, things like justice, kindness, love, generosity, etc. So our moral duties are grounded in God’s commandments, but these commandments are not arbitrary, but they flow necessarily out of the very nature of God himself. They are necessary expressions of the way God is.
Moral Argument (part 4) | Reasonable Faith
Laws are objective, and if you are guilty under the law, that is based on an objective factSo all you're doing is stating how you personally feel about something, and you want to call that "judging right and wrong". "Judgement" is just more objective language. When you judge whether someone is guilty or not guilty, for instance, you're making a guess about an objective fact.
Guilty under the law is different than morally wrong. Laws are objective thus guilty is objective language; morality is subjective thus right/wrong is subjective languageThat isn't at all what you're doing when you "judge" something to be "right or wrong", you're just stating your personal feelings. You want to maintain a facade of objectivity by using objective language; I say just own your subjectivity and call it exactly what it is.
No it isn’t. Nobody judges ice cream to be right, because the taste of ice cream is not a moral issueI judge chocolate ice cream to be right. That's an okay statement to make.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?