The Moral Argument

[ByFaithAlone]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

[Isaiah 6:8]

well I'll do the same, my response to you on the same question.

So you consider the punishment of the good person and the reward to the criminal a moral act? Fair enough, but I am not sure many people will call this moral or just. And if Mr.Lewis is right (we take our sense of morality from God, independently from our beliefs) why do we disagree? Only one of us must have taken this sense of morality from God since you find this right and I find it unacceptable. And if the majority of people would prefer to see the criminal in hell (as I suspect) isn't that more likely that THEY got their morality from God and you didn't?

What you do not see is the heart. You see sometimes the only difference between a mass murderer and a normal person may be that one had the courage to do it. You see we never know the condition of the heart.

being good is all relative. You see, you may be a good person, compared to the likes of Charles Manson, but how good are you if you compare yourself to someone like mother Teresa?

Another thing your not getting is this. God does not send us to hell. He made hell for the Devil and his demons. We choose to go there or not. You see we choose our own punishment. If I told you that you were on a doomed plane and offered you a parachute to jump off and you refused, would your doom be on the hands that offered you the gift, or on yourself for refusing the gift?.

You see since you brought up C.S. Lewis you must have missed part of his book, let me put it in his words.

For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human

greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let

you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and

unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if

there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.

That is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our

efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness

every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.

We cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme

terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally,

and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute

goodness would be fun. They need to think again.

They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great

danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way. Now my third

point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind

of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense

until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing.

"Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis.

You see absolute goodness can not have any evil as any part of it, ever. So no matter how good you may have been on earth, you must have at some point in your life, both by thought and deed done some sort of evil. I know I have. I have hated to the point of wishing someone dead. Now most people would call me a good person, I follow the laws, I do good deeds etc. but that hatred I had in my heart towards a person, (not sin, as its okay to hate evil) then, the Bible, Jesus calls me a murderer. So by that definition, I have committed adultery (lustful thoughts towards , murdered, and done all sorts of crime, that no one would call "Good" in my heart.

Now you see, what you see on the outside means nothing. Its whats in the heart that counts.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Also, Jesus is the most important, Adam and eve is not.

[LuftWaffle]

- A is a very good person. She helped the poor all her life and she has always been devoted to reduce sufferance in this world.

So....you're saying that it's *good* to reduce sufferance in this world, and you're assuming we agree? Should we all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is really good, then?

[LuftWaffle]

My moral compass tells me that it is more valuable to help the needy than believe in a literal account of Genesis. If you have both, OK, but if if you can select only one I will go for the former. But this is my moral compass, which should come directly from God (according to the premise). Do you have another one?

Why should we care what your moral compass tells you?

Will you answer my question, "Should we all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is really good, then?" Surely it was the intention of your dilemma that we do in fact all agree that reducing sufferance in this world is good, which would make it an objective moral standard, not so?

Edited July 23, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[Isaiah 6:8]

well I'll do the same, my response to you on the same question.

So you consider the punishment of the good person and the reward to the criminal a moral act? Fair enough, but I am not sure many people will call this moral or just. And if Mr.Lewis is right (we take our sense of morality from God, independently from our beliefs) why do we disagree? Only one of us must have taken this sense of morality from God since you find this right and I find it unacceptable. And if the majority of people would prefer to see the criminal in hell (as I suspect) isn't that more likely that THEY got their morality from God and you didn't?

What you do not see is the heart. You see sometimes the only difference between a mass murderer and a normal person may be that one had the courage to do it. You see we never know the condition of the heart.

being good is all relative. You see, you may be a good person, compared to the likes of Charles Manson, but how good are you if you compare yourself to someone like mother Teresa?

Another thing your not getting is this. God does not send us to hell. He made hell for the Devil and his demons. We choose to go there or not. You see we choose our own punishment. If I told you that you were on a doomed plane and offered you a parachute to jump off and you refused, would your doom be on the hands that offered you the gift, or on yourself for refusing the gift?.

You see since you brought up C.S. Lewis you must have missed part of his book, let me put it in his words.

For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human

greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let

you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and

unalterably detests that sort of behaviour, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if

there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do.

That is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our

efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness

every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again.

We cannot do without it. and we cannot do with it. God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme

terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible-ally,

and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute

goodness would be fun. They need to think again.

They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great

danger—according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way. Now my third

point. When I chose to get to my real subject in this roundabout way, I was not trying to play any kind

of trick on you. I had a different reason. My reason was that Christianity simply does not make sense

until you have faced the sort of facts I have been describing.

"Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis.

You see absolute goodness can not have any evil as any part of it, ever. So no matter how good you may have been on earth, you must have at some point in your life, both by thought and deed done some sort of evil. I know I have. I have hated to the point of wishing someone dead. Now most people would call me a good person, I follow the laws, I do good deeds etc. but that hatred I had in my heart towards a person, (not sin, as its okay to hate evil) then, the Bible, Jesus calls me a murderer. So by that definition, I have committed adultery (lustful thoughts towards , murdered, and done all sorts of crime, that no one would call "Good" in my heart.

Now you see, what you see on the outside means nothing. Its whats in the heart that counts.

Did you post three times with the same content so that you win? (just kidding )

Whoops, I'll delete those!

I win anyway!

[Guest]

Yes, but in a relative way. Things like "really good" and so called absolutes are meaningless to me.... So, what is your answer to my objectivity test?

Relatives Are Good

For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Hebrews 2:11-18

When They Are In Jesus

[ByFaithAlone]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

OK, I will cut and paste a moral question from another forum. If objective moral values existed, we should all agree on the answer to the following question. If we do not all agree, then it is questionable whether objective moral values actually exist, and if they do, who decides?

- A is a very good person. She helped the poor all her life and she has always been devoted to reduce sufferance in this world. She considers herself a good Christian and tries to apply Jesus message in everything she does. But she does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. She dies very young with this (dis)belief by trying to save a drowning child.

- B was a war criminal. She is responsible for the death and misery of millions of people. Just before dying she accepts Jesus and a literal interpretation of Genesis with all her heart. She dies in her nineties in her comfortable bed with this newly acquired faith.

.

According to your allegedly objective morality, who should be saved (eternity of bliss and happiness) and who should be condemned (eternity under infinite torment) ?

Viole: This really has nothing to do with the premises. This argument does not necessarily presuppose a Christian God. However, according to most Christians both would be entitled to salvation as both have confessed faith in Christ...

[other one]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

Well, to play the devi's advocate I asked a couple of non believers that I know, and they disagree with your first premise. Both said that they are as moral as any Christian and there is no God, so you're starting off on the wrong foot to start the whole conversation so nothing past setp one matters. I know them well enough to understand why they would sat such a thing and I had no come back for them for they actually are as moral as any Christian I know.

End of Conversation with them.

[ByFaithAlone]

Hello All:

Just wanted to see what everyone thinks of the moral argument...

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist

Logical Conclusion: God exists

Do any atheists out there disagree with the premises? On what grounds?

OK, I will cut and paste a moral question from another forum. If objective moral values existed, we should all agree on the answer to the following question. If we do not all agree, then it is questionable whether objective moral values actually exist, and if they do, who decides?

- A is a very good person. She helped the poor all her life and she has always been devoted to reduce sufferance in this world. She considers herself a good Christian and tries to apply Jesus message in everything she does. But she does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve. She dies very young with this (dis)belief by trying to save a drowning child.

- B was a war criminal. She is responsible for the death and misery of millions of people. Just before dying she accepts Jesus and a literal interpretation of Genesis with all her heart. She dies in her nineties in her comfortable bed with this newly acquired faith.

.

According to your allegedly objective morality, who should be saved (eternity of bliss and happiness) and who should be condemned (eternity under infinite torment) ?

Viole: This really has nothing to do with the premises. This argument does not necessarily presuppose a Christian God. However, according to most Christians both would be entitled to salvation as both have confessed faith in Christ...

I am not sure I agree with you on this point. If A is Christian and B is not, then how can we say that there is an objective, religiously and culturally neutral morality if A considers, for instance, highly moral to believe in Adam and Eve and B doesn't?

No, that's not what you said. Both A and B are Christians but A does not believe the literal account of the creation... No matter... I do not believe in 6 24 hr creation days but I am still a Christian. The only requirement for being a Christian is that you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, who has made you right with the Father.

The only possibility is that A religious beliefs do not have anything to do with objective morality at all. In other words, his belief in God does not bias or influence his morality in any possible way. He cannot claim that believing in God and following His commands is objectively more moral than not doing it.

Objectively "more moral" makes no sense. It is either moral or immoral if there is an objective set of morals... I am not arguing that Christians are "more moral" than anyone else. I am arguing that the existence of objective morals and duties are cause for a God.

You might retort that all people have a common denominator of objective moral values (do not kill, do not steal, do not rape, etc) which is common in all cultures (not sure about rape)

So do you agree with the second premise?

Fair enough: you might be right or not, but then we are left with a minimal set of imperatives that might have increased our chances of survival as a species and might have been naturally selected and imprinted in our brain wiring. Do not see how they can prove God's existence. What objective way do we have to differentiate these shared naturally selected and physically imprinted moral intuitions from a metaphysical absolute objective morality (whatever that is)? There is no way I am aware of, that is why I also think your first premise is question begging.

Evolution and survival of the fittest would not be considered objective. Simply put, as you say, these morals would be simply evolutionary adaptations. That would not make them objectively moral or immoral. Rather, they would be utilitarian and ammoral...