The Moral Argument

[Guest]

Truth

Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. John 20:27-28

And

Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Psalms 51:4

Response

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. Luke 18:13

____________

_________

______

___

And do you consider that all these Christian denominations have agreement on "the standards of Jesus"?

Oh Absolutely

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. Romans 10:9-11

Absolutely Dear One

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 12:3

Or They're Not His

And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. Mark 13:21-23

Praying~!

Joe,

How very tautological of you.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

In Other Words

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Only Jesus

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

Saves

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

[PGA]

Sorry I came into this discussion late. As a Christian this topic truly fascinates me. I think Plato got closer to the problem than many people care to venture. Since we are discussing qualitative moral values the question of what is the necessary ideal in which to compare 'good' to is in order so that we can arrive at a better or worse? There has to be an objective standard of 'best' in order to rationally discuss the issue IMO. Without it what can you compare good to as a subjective human being that can make it anything but ones preference or feelings, or that of a group or societies preference enforced on others? I also think it is one of the major reasons we have the problem of moral evil, wars and disputes - disagreement on what is right and what is wrong and wanting to force your opinion, your groups, your societies preference on another person, group, society. We face the same problem that faced Adam and Eve in the Garden, 'Did God really say?' A God that has revealed Himself to humanity is necessary for an objective and absolute answer or to make sense of morality as anything other than the stronger forcing their feelings and opinions on the weaker.

The issue, in order to be resolved, boils down to either you believe in the one true and living God (which leads some into an entirely different topic on who this God is) and His word/revelation as necessary and the ultimate authority or you are left to subjective human opinion and authority - but which one(s)? The dilemma for the latter is justifying why was Hitler's German wrong or even if it was.

Peter

Edited October 18, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

Sorry I came into this discussion late. As a Christian this topic truly fascinates me. I think Plato got closer to the problem than many people care to venture. Since we are discussing qualitative moral values the question of what is the necessary ideal in which to compare 'good' to is in order so that we can arrive at a better or worse? There has to be an objective standard of 'best' in order to rationally discuss the issue IMO. Without it what can you compare good to as a subjective human being that can make it anything but ones preference or feelings, or that of a group or societies preference enforced on others? I also think it is one of the major reasons we have the problem of moral evil, wars and disputes - disagreement on what is right and what is wrong and wanting to force your opinion, your groups, your societies preference on another person, group, society. We face the same problem that faced Adam and Eve in the Garden, 'Did God really say?' A God that has revealed Himself to humanity is necessary for an objective and absolute answer or to make sense of morality as anything other than the stronger forcing their feelings and opinions on the weaker.

The issue, in order to be resolved, boils down to either you believe in the one true and living God (which leads some into an entirely different topic on who this God is) and His word/revelation as necessary and the ultimate authority or you are left to subjective human opinion and authority - but which one(s)? The dilemma for the latter is justifying why was Hitler's German wrong or even if it was. -Me

Thanks for engaging in the discussion!

I think this is a false dichotomy. -Viole

If you think it is false then can you explain how we get 'good' out of subjective preference that is always shifting from culture to culture and from age to age? Which subjective opinion makes something good? It seems to depend on who is in power as to what norms the culture adopts. With a democracy it may depend on the majority opinion or on the representatives of the majority vote. In a dictatorship it may depend on one man/woman or a select hand full of men/women. What makes what they prefer good? Is it because they say so? Do you see the problem?

What is the ideal best that you compare good to? Can you answer that?

As a Christian I can look to a standard outside myself that has been revealed to be objective if it is true. My faith in Jesus Christ is not a blind leap. It is a trust in the only One who can make sense of any of this and save me from the moral evil I have committed and am responsible for and in doing so set me free to the truth. I know this is a bold claim that is very arrogant if not true.

I've not seen an atheist who can make sense of the moral dilemma. If you are atheist you and I look at life from two different world-views that both require faith. We both have biases and we both believe that what we believe is true or else we would no longer believe it. So what I am asking is for you to show me how your opinion conforms to objectivity. I don't think you succeeded in explaining it below, but it just might be me who cannot fathom your response.

In talking about objectivity I refer to it in the sense of that what is actual, that what is real, that what is universally true, that which is all encompassing in that it applies to all people, whether or not an individual understands it, believes it or not. An objective standard is not subjective. It is not something that automatically becomes objective just because a person believes it to be, or because they say it is objective. Logically God would be the objective measure in comparing anything good to because He would be omniscient/all knowing/all wise, unchanging in His attributes by necessity, omnipotent/all powerful and as such able to understand everything about His creation, and eternal, which means without beginning or end. Since there is no greater Being His nature and attributes would be the ideal.

If I feel a strong pain, like a tooth ache, is my pain entirely subjective? I am not sure. Someone could perform a scan of my brain and notice that the pain centers are active and, therefore, establish the fact that I am feeling pain in an objective way. The same can be said for all other so-called subjective experiences. I think it is a matter of time before we will be able to measure all subjective experiences and bring them back to the objective world. Even if you don't agree, we cannot rule out a priori this third possibility.

But if what I say is true, what speaks against providing objective criteria to improve the human condition and happiness, even without invoking the necessity of God? -Viole

Subjective in that you are the one experiencing it at the given moment, but objective in that all of humanity experiences pain. So, I agree that pain is a universal in the sense that humans in all cultures, all cities, all areas around the globe experience it, but I think you are confusing categories. Do you think that pain is a value or is it more a uncomfortable sensation? Since you are comparing the sensation of pain to the experience of 'good' are you suggesting then that good is just the way in which a particular part of your brain responds to stimuli? Also, are you equivocating happiness to goodness? If a person is happy torturing a baby is this good? Is the way their biological matter reacts to a situation/stimuli how good is determined/measured, in your opinion, because my original challenge was/is how do you get good from subjective feelings?

Ciao for now!

Peter

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

I'm going to digest what you have said and probably break your post up into numerous sections, since there is a lot to discuss here. I'm not going to keep it strictly on the topic of morality, however, I will try and connect the dots so that we land up back there. I'll be taking parts of your statements that don't require a lot of thought for now, in my first reply. I'll start by saying that your posts do seem very intellectually oriented. I think I read something about you being a scientist. I must warn you right off the bat that my knowledge is limited, although I am a keen philosopher and investigator of world-views and have discussed these things with many atheists in the past, including scientists. I also believe that most evolutionary and origins scientism started and still remains philosophical, not empirically verifiable, since we are dealing with, in many cases, one time events that happened way in the past, such as the origin of the universe and life on earth.

Oh Peter, I like to speak about morality, But I have to issue a small warning, since you are new here. I usually try to apply rational analysis when discussing this and other subjects.

Some like it, some don't. For that reason my arguments might look cold and lacking empathy, but I do not see how to argument about morality without keeping emotional noise out of the loop. If I use examples that might hurt your sensitivity, let me know and I will try to adapt. -Viole

Please feel free. I just ask in presenting your views, evidence, opinions, ideas, arguments, that you keep them to a level that the horses and lowly animals can feed from, since they are no good in the loft.

In discussions, especially when the argument hits close to home, the heavy artillery comes out. Since I don't know you as a person, I will be attacking your arguments and world-view as to its truthfulness or lack of to the best of my ability. I expect you will be doing the same with mine. At times I may very easily slip into an Ad Hominem or two without realizing it, possibly out of a poor sense of humour or out of irony to bring an emphasis to one of your points. I can be very direct and cold in my approach at times also. I'm not meaning to attack you personally, so if/when I do/did I just got sloppy in my thinking. Please bring it to my attention and my apologies before hand if this should happen. Now that we have that formalities out the way, on with the battle for truth! I hope you will also understand that as a Christian my highest appeal to authority is God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), through His revelation/written word and His Spirit. As such I will ultimately be arguing from His standpoint in as much as I understand it.

The main purpose of the OP is to prove God by observing that we all share the same morality (more or less), so we should also try to avoid question begging or circular reasoning like:

1)- How do you know that God exists?

-- Because we share the same morality

2)- Why do you, then, consider homosexuality or pre-marital sex wrong and I don't?

- Because God does not approve them and, for this reason, you are sinning by doing that -Viole

Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm assuming the abbreviation 'OP' means original poster?

1) Ultimately I know God exists through my faith and relationship with Jesus Christ. As His word says, "No one comes to the Father except through the Son." It also says, "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" and as the Word of God said, "The man (or woman) without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him (her), and he (she) cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So you may not like my answer or think it invalid because, for you, it does not give the empirical evidence that you require. But then I do not believe that atheists can give the empirical evidence that they hold Christians to either.The atheist world-view comes from man as the measure of all things and evolutionary science as his/her god in my opinion.

I also know God exists by what has been created. We live in a complex universe (the macrocosm) that has been fine-tuned for life. In the microscopic world/microcosm of the 'simple' cell there is an information system that is so incredibly complicated it outdoes any machinery that man has produced to date. How can such information come together/originate from mindless, random mutations plus energy without mind? The probability is highly unlikely to the point of absurdity. The secular humanist (if you prefer this wording to that of atheist) has no empirical evidence for this happening as he/she believes it to have happened, or how this universe came to be other than by philosophical naturalism. All they can do is describe what does exist and speculate on how it came to be by using what they see in the present as a key to the past. That is a big assumption. He/she was not alive to witness the origin of the universe so by his/her intellect and limited logic he/she presupposes how things came to be. The same is true for evolution and life coming into existence. Because of similarity in living creatures/organisms such as in their DNA or certain physical features they presuppose that everything came from a common ancestor, rather than being created each to its own kind.

They presuppose life originated from non-life, mind from the mindless, personality from the impersonal, conscious from the unconscious, morality from the immoral, intelligence from the unintelligent, intent from the unintentional, guidance from a guide less process, purpose and meaning from the meaningless, uniformity and stability in nature from the blind, random, chaotic, accidental, instability and unpredictability of chance, laws from chaos, being from non-being, logic from the illogical, information and organization from lack of information and disorder. Does this seem logical to you that it can happen this way?

Where do you ever witness anything other than mind coming from being, personality coming from being, intelligence coming from being, logic coming from being, information coming from being, love coming from being, ideas coming from being, morality coming from being, intent from being, consciousness from being, meaning from being, purpose from being, truth from being, and the ultimate being conceivable is God. This makes sense because it is empirically verifiable and repeatably observed in being and beings. This is the way the Christian sees it.

I could put it another way. Show me being coming from non-being. Let me observe consciousness coming from the unconscious. Verify for me something that is inorganic giving birth to something organic. And so on and on it goes.

If this universe has, as you believe, come about by random, accidental, blind processes as a secular humanist would most likely assume, then how do you even begin to explain how a process can come into being without being, and consistently remain stable and uniform, without intent and no input from intelligent Being? Your world-view has sense and logic coming from the senseless, illogical, and amoral unless you have proof of other alternatives. Does that make sense to you? If it doesn't you are not alone and if sense, logic, morality came from senseless, amoral meaninglessness there is no point in looking for a sensible explanation so therefore you can't make sense of it (It goes even deeper than that if that is the case. How ultimately do you make sense of anything?). In my experience God is necessary for a sensible explanation.

BTW, I get a kick out of the term 'Natural Selection.' It is a term that suggests personification without being, as if natural selection is creative. I also get a kick out of Darwin's idea that because a finch can adapt (micro-evolve) to its environment (to a limit of birdness -excuse the word) that this can lead to a leap outside its limit (macro-evolution) through natural selection, mutation and genetic drift. It is something I find strange that scientists actually think that this can be empirically demonstrated rather than just assumed. Two of the more well known studies on mutations in generations into the thousands and tens of thousands of generations are of fruit flies and E, coli bacterium, respectively, neither of which has been able to demonstrate adaption outside its kind. You see, there appears to be a barrier there. The fruit fly is still a fruit fly, even if it is missing a leg or has one growing out of its head because some guy in a lab decided to alter its environment by using his intelligence to produce the process.

2) I know homosexuality is wrong only if this necessary Being (spoken of above) has revealed it to be so, either by His written revelation or by humans being made in His image and likeness (thus through consciousness of right and wrong), however marred that image and likeness has become due to the Fall of man/mankind. Homosexuality is not natural also, in the sense that it does not produce offspring, the very thing that God commanded of man in the Garden. Having said that I also realize that every human being should be treated with dignity and respect, but if there is such a thing as right and wrong, then it is morally good to stand for what is right.

The secular human may want to tolerate everything that they deem by their own authority or the authority of another human influence to be harmless to others, but not everything should be tolerated in this sense of the word. When the grounds of human sexuality are pushed and pressed to acceptability in one area then what is to stop those grounds being pushed and molded in another area until anything and everything becomes possible, as long as the social group deems it to be so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Without an ultimate, objective, universal measure and standard can you show me that there is such a thing as right or wrong? Without it all I see is people with preferences pushing their agendas and ideas on others and may the strongest person/group/society win. But don't call it good. Hitler was just doing what the bio-chemical reactions in his brain made him do. How can you fault him on that? If good is just a fuzzy area of my brain and my brain has not developed in the same way that your brain has then how can you judge me on what I do?

Even more to the point, how does something that is not empirical, not tangible, not physical, not material, such as an idea come from the purely physical, empirical realm of the senses - touch, taste, feel, sight, sound? How can I tangibly grab onto goodness or ideas? For the secular humanist can you show me how such thoughts can come from the physical, material world?

I am not aware of blonde blue-eyed girls that can make sense of morality, either...Well, maybe, I know one -Viole

She must be Christian!

Interested in hearing your ideas and refutations,

Peter

Now to break up the rest of your post into sections.

Edited October 20, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

Hello again,

I'll make this my last reply since I need sleep.

If you think it is false then can you explain how we get 'good' out of subjective preference that is always shifting from culture to culture and from age to age? Which subjective opinion makes something good? It seems to depend on who is in power as to what norms the culture adopts. With a democracy it may depend on the majority opinion or on the representatives of the majority vote. In a dictatorship it may depend on one man/woman or a select hand full of men/women. What makes what they prefer good? Is it because they say so? Do you see the problem?

What is the ideal best that you compare good to? Can you answer that? -Me

I did not say that what you say is wrong. I just state that the following alternatives

- Morality is subjective

- Morality is objective only with God

do not exhaust all alternatives, or at least, we cannot prove by rational analysis that they do. -Viole

If you can't prove by rational analysis by supplying another option that they are not the only alternatives then you can't make sense of morality by any other than these options. Do you have another option? Can either of these two options make sense of morality? I say only one can.

I know that you consider God part of the objective reality, but I would like to set my parameters by asking you a question. Consider your BELIEF in God, that means, the set of psychological experiences that make you feel God real here and now; is this BELIEF objective or subjective? -Viole

Not just part of objective reality, the whole of objective reality - reality being that what actually is, not what we just perceive it to be. Unless we think God's thoughts after Him I certainly believe we think amiss. But that is just my contention for now. We can definitely open up this can of worms if you like?

My personal, subjective experience can only be objective if it worships and correctly believes in something, or more to the point, Someone that actually is true, that is genuine, that is the source of objectivity. I point you to the Bible as the objective revelation from that source, that Being, in that He speaks to us through this means. My contention is that I can know beyond my subjective being only if there is an objective Being outside myself that has revealed objectivity to me. Other than that I'm in a sea of subjective opinions swimming round and round, then eventually drowning in the tides of senseless dis-information and darkened ideas with all the rest. The question to me is what makes a subjective opinion valid? And the more important/ultimate questions in life, or IMO any question of life cannot be ultimately made sense of without God. BTW, if this is true I understand that this now becomes a real conundrum for you, because you have said that you used to be a Christian. But judging from the unity of books that claim to be God's word (and I utterly believe them to be so), you may have had an intellectual understanding of Jesus/God, in professing to be Christian, or from the osmosis of inheriting a Christian world-view from others, but if you missed that essential spiritual relationship with Him you were never His anyway. There is a vast difference between head knowledge and heart knowledge, between knowing about and knowing intimately. (Pardon me for being so bold as to say this, but I make my assessment on what the Bible says on these matters, not on you personally)

I would like to go back to this statement you made again: 'I did not say that what you say is wrong.'

Logically what I said is either true or false, right or wrong. It can't be both at the same time or in the same relationship.

[PGA]

Good evening Viole,

Continuing on with your post:

As a Christian I can look to a standard outside myself that has been revealed to be objective if it is true. My faith in Jesus Christ is not a blind leap. It is a trust in the only One who can make sense of any of this and save me from the moral evil I have committed and am responsible for and in doing so set me free to the truth. I know this is a bold claim that is very arrogant if not true. -Me

This might be valid for you but cannot be extended to everybody. If your belief in God is functional towards preventing you from performing acts of evil, then it is good that you believe in Him. But I do not think that you need, generally speaking, to believe in God to behave morally (whatever that means). I live in a very secular country where your orthodox view of God and Jesus is shared by a very tiny minority and, yet, I fail to observe here more wickedness when I compare it with less secular countries. -Viole

Either there is a standard outside myself or there is not. There can't both be one and not be one at the same time. The same is true for God. He can't exist and not exist at the same time. Either what I believe is valid/true or it is not. It can't both be true and not true at the same time and regarding the same relationship. Either you or I are wrong in our belief. We can't both be right, neither can both our beliefs be valid since they contradict. At least one is wrong. So I still want you to explain to me why your subjective opinion is valid. I want to test is justification and validity, so I'm curious to see how you get around to it.

I am aware of your nation as being one of the most secular, if not the most secular on earth, but we (you and I) still hold many beliefs about right and wrong in common. I would contend that your nation does this because it borrows from a Christian world-view, one that it used to hold to a greater extent. The problem I see with a secular humanist world-view is that when you take it to its ultimate beginnings it cannot justify goodness or rightness as I have pointed out in my previous two posts. Maybe I'm ignorant of your world-views justification, but to date I have not seen that it can be justified.

Bad things happen here, too, of course. But we like to apply rationality and humanity to try to prevent them, even if we do not believe in God. -Viole

Again, I would ask as to what standard you compare 'bad' to? Is bad just what you or many/most in your country prefer it to be or is there an ultimate standard that you can argue it from? (I refer to your remarks below also)

Take for instance that guy who killed so many innocent people several weeks ago in Norway. He is now going to a prison that looks like a 5 stars hotel: internet access, unlimited access to books, nice food everyday, pleasant guards, etc. Many honest and poor people in other countries might even envy him for living like that. We do not attach revenge or irrational feelings to a person who created so much suffering, and, God forbid, we are appalled by notions like the death penalty. Rational thinking forces us to apply humanity also to the worst criminals, but that does not mean we should not put them out of the streets in order to prevent more pain. Again, we need to find an optimum so that nobody suffers needlessly, with the constant awareness that we cannot undo the past. -Viole

I agree what he did is bad, actually pure evil. Do you think he got equal justice for the crime he committed? He gets to spend life in an institution that caters to many of his needs while people in other nations starve to death. The money that could be used to help them is used to provide him with greater luxury (life) than he granted others.

I'll admit that it is extending a great mercy to him to allow him to live and I can see some comparisons between it and the mercy God gives those who believe in His Son. Both are guilty of wrongful action, but where I draw the line is that God meets the requirements of justice for us in sending His Son, to pay the penalty/wrongful action, whereas I don't see Norway as doing this. That was an act of premeditated murder; murder in the 1st degree. Now the Norwegians are going to flip the bill to provide him with what you consider luxurious as opposed to the standards of poorer nations. I'd be concerned that 1) his justice does not fit the degree of the crime, a life for a life, 2) that the general population is indirectly flipping the huge expense of keeping him, 3) while those more deserving are left to starve to death in these poorer nations, whereas they could have been helped, and even, I'm sure, some in Norway itself that needed help.

I don't think the 'optimum' that nobody suffered needlessly has been met for those who have been killed suffered far greater physically and now there is an empty gap and the emotional suffering in the life of those family and friends left behind.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

I think I can finish stating my arguments/concerns against your post in two more sections.

In talking about objectivity I refer to it in the sense of that what is actual, that what is real, that what is universally true, that which is all encompassing in that it applies to all people, whether or not an individual understands it, believes it or not. An objective standard is not subjective. It is not something that automatically becomes objective just because a person believes it to be, or because they say it is objective. Logically God would be the objective measure in comparing anything good to because He would be omniscient/all knowing/all wise, unchanging in His attributes by necessity, omnipotent/all powerful and as such able to understand everything about His creation, and eternal, which means without beginning or end. Since there is no greater Being His nature and attributes would be the ideal. -Me

So, we agree with our definition of objectivity. -Viole

I'm glad we agree, so now how does your world-view establish this, how does it originate?

But if God is the final judge of what is good, how does He know that something is good? Is, by default, good what He thinks and does? Or does He use an external criterium of goodness to test if what we do is actually good? -Viole

He knows something is good because goodness is part of His very nature. If the moral law was derived from something apart from God then God would not be the ultimate arbitrator or authority in matters of good and bad. He would have to appeal to a higher standard than Himself and that would no longer make Him omnipotent. There would be something above Him that He would have to answer to. Therefore, by necessity the moral law and goodness itself is rooted in His very nature, a nature that is perfect in all of its attributes. He has revealed in the Bible that He is perfect and that He is good. How can something that is good be evil? It is a contradiction in terms. By definition goodness is that which is not bad/evil and visa versa. "God is not tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone...." (James 1:13b) God is also unchanging in His nature.

For instance, there are things in the Bible that I do not consider good even thought they are sanctioned by God. Should I consider the global killing of women and children during the flood a good thing? If God did it, then I assume that, since He is arbiter of what is good and evil, I should trust Him and consider the indiscriminate and avoidable killing of children good under certain circumstances. I don't. But if I don't, what is the objective origin of my morality? -Viole

God has commanded, in the best interests and goodness of all men/mankind, to trust Him and consider that His ways are just.

Just because you do not see or consider God good does not change who He is. God's judgment on sin is death. He says that the soul that sins will surely die. He warns Adam and Eve not to take of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or they will surely die. By taking of it man understands what evil is. It is doing what is contrary to what God has said is good.

Question: Can an unclean being give birth to a clean one? Can what is tainted by evil in its nature pass on something other than its nature?

Does God, as the moral lawgiver not have the right to extract the justice He has forewarned as the penalty for sin? If He did not extract it then He would have lied, not something that a morally perfect Being would or could do. Could a just judge allow evil to go unpunished and still be considered just? If you think He would then please explain how.

Is God justified in establishing the rules that His creatures will/must live under in order that they do what is good? He only punishes that which is evil. If you disregard the warnings God gave before sending the Flood then you might be able to argue that these people, in and of themselves were good. But here is what happened according to the account:

"The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." (Genesis 6:5)

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on the earth had corrupted their ways." (Genesis 6:11-12)

In all the time that Noah built the ark the people scoffed him and his God, otherwise they would have repented and God would have saved them. Only Noah walked with God and as such God showed mercy on both him and his family.

In every accusation that you bring upon God's actions and judgment in the OT, or the NT, I can point you to the wickedness and evil of the people in whom He brought that judgment upon.

But if I don't, what is the objective origin of my morality? -Viole

Yes, that is one of life's ultimate questions.

You are also using the ontological argument here, if I am not mistaken. God must exist objectively because an ideal that would not exist objectively would not be ideal. Of course, you are making the unsupported assumption that ideals exist or, even more problematic, that ideals exist outside our human perception and sensitivity; I personally do not see the necessity of ideals of any kind, also because they depend on who you ask. All the truths I believe in are provisional and always subject to change (believe it or not I was a Christian), but still I can consider myself a happy person and I do not feel that this lack of absolute and definitive truth is destabilizing my psychology and my relationship with other humans. -Viole

I am making the connection that God is the necessary ideal/objective reality and that the ideal exists outside of our subjective selves in order for it to be objective/universal. Can you show me otherwise? The minute you say that something is better than something else you are measuring that something against an idea, against a perception of what better isl. You can't have better without an ideal. If your ideas of morality/goodness/best can be truer/better than mine then there must be something to gage truth/better(ness) against outside yourself that would apply to me also. If that standard or gage does not apply to every single person, regardless of how they feel about the truth, rightness or goodness of it, then what makes your standard/gage better? Because you say it is. As I have said many times, these disagreements are things that wars are fought over.

So I continue to invite you to establish and present proof of this ultimate objective standard.

[PGA]

Finishing up on your post Viole,

Subjective in that you are the one experiencing it at the given moment, but objective in that all of humanity experiences pain. So, I agree that pain is a universal in the sense that humans in all cultures, all cities, all areas around the globe experience it, but I think you are confusing categories. Do you think that pain is a value or is it more a uncomfortable sensation? Since you are comparing the sensation of pain to the experience of 'good' are you suggesting then that good is just the way in which a particular part of your brain responds to stimuli? Also, are you equivocating happiness to goodness? If a person is happy torturing a baby is this good? Is the way their biological matter reacts to a situation/stimuli how good is determined/measured, in your opinion, because my original challenge was/is how do you get good from subjective feelings? -Me

When I speak of the possibility (not necessarily extant) of devising objective moral imperatives without God, I never said that these criteria are local and should focus on one individual or set of individuals. -Viole

OK, but take a look around the world and tell me when two opposing cultures disagree on a moral aspect which one is right. Why 'should' it be the one that you favour as right if you can't show why your views are in fact the objective universal views. Show me where the view of homosexuality or abortion as the woman's 'right' to choose is universally agreed upon by every culture, and if you can't then why the view held by you or your culture is in fact the universal/objective one. Again, I ask you if the majority makes something right does that necessarily make it universal/objective?

I cannot possibly sanction the torturing of children if that make some person happy; that would be a local optimization of happiness which is more than offset by the unhappiness of the victims or their parents. What I imagine is similar to optimizing a certain figure of merit with many variables involved, and it is entirely possible that there are several solutions to the problem all involving a trade-off. All these global solutions might require the unhappiness of psychopaths, hopefully -Viole

But does your sanction of something determine what it 'should' be or that it is objective? If so then why? If not you, then can you point me to the person or persons that 'should' determine what is the objective/universal standard? If you are just a biological bag of atoms colliding together then why does what your bag of atoms do determine for the rest of us what should be? Does not my biological bag have the same right to determine what is right, and if mine also then why not everyone, then we can have total anarchy? But even more basic than this is how biological bags of matter can decide anything or even how they could have originated. Until you have the answers it would perhaps be foolish to discount God, would it not?

So at least we have established from your statement above that happiness does not necessarily determine goodness.

You have probably perceived a pattern developing by now in my argumentation. Every time you state a qualitative value I try to bring you to the point of explaining how that value originated or even how ultimately you can make sense of it. I still contend that you can't without first presupposing God, and not just any god, but the God of the Bible. Your world-view, IMO, disintegrates with the moral argument and many others. It can't determine how it originated without Being.

Macro-evolution puts the cart before the horse. In fact it has no horse; nothing to supply the information or explain where the information came from outside of mind. You, a being, use your mind and being to explain how non-being and non-mind are responsible for everything you perceive in your being. It doesn't make sense.

[Nakosis]

In order to avoid a combinatorial explosion of subjects to debate, we should focus on a subject at a time, if you agree.

I would like to carry out a little gedanken experiment: suppose you have a man in his forties (mister X). He always carried a honest and loving life. One day he buys a gun and shoots down a young girl he never met before. When asked by the police why he did it, he answers that he did it because he was bored and he did not really cared to have generated a lot of suffering. Do you think that this guy should be unconditionally condemned for what he did? If yes, why?

Ciao

- viole

Can I play?

I would say no. However, since I said no that means I don't have to explain why right?

[Guest shiloh357]

The main difference between me and you is that I am a materialist and you aren't.

Could you define "matieralist" as you are using it? In the United States, when we say someone is a "materialist" we mean that their life is all about cars, money, riches, real estate and yachts. The way you use "materialist" seems more like our concept of "naturalist."