The Moral Argument

[PGA]

If no objective standard existed then it would make no sense to speak of right, let alone objectivity.

Hi Peter,

I have no proof that objective moral standards do not exist, this is what I am trying to ascertain, since the moral argument makes mention of them. As long as we do not have a method to measure objectivity, the whole moral argument is moot; we can substitute the word "objective" with "chjvksdvjxczxf" and come to the same conclusions. -Viole

I'm not familiar with the word "chjvksdvjxczxf". Can you explain what it means? That is the precise problem of the atheist/anti-theist/agnostic believer. Goodness becomes whatever flavour of the month you choose it to be. You decide and then you force your preference on others. You force it because you have nothing else but force that makes it binding and 'the' standard. I don't think it is unreasonable to object to someone who calls something good but cannot justify why it actually is.

What do you mean by objective? How would you determine objective without an ideal, absolute standard? Why do you feel that your subjective preference meets the ideal of 'good?' If it doesn't or you are not sure that it does then I have made my case. Let me put that another way Viole, why is the standard that you believe as good something that I ought to believe in and live by, something that is morally binding for all people, not just a chance/changeable wired brain imprint? Imprints can vary so why should your imprint and those of the majority be what is considered good? The Chinese are wired/imprinted with different values than we in some situations. Should they not determine what is the standard because there are more of them than any other culture? They may just feel that it is their 'right' to control the world in the way that they see fit, just as Hitler tried to do and others have done before him.

Apart from other issues, we came to the conclusion that we do not agree at all on one specific moral code: the application of the death penalty. For simplicity, we can focus on this (there are many others, but we do not to want expand our posts unnecessarily, do we?). -Viole

Why do you feel that equal justice has been served when one person takes a life cold bloodily (murder) and then still gets to live his own life? How is he getting equal justice for his crime? Does not justice just get the wink in such situations were there is no equal return? That is the problem of man, isn't it? He gambles that if there is a God then the merit of his life, his 'goodness' will acquit him before God, but he does not take into account that God is pure and holy and will punish wrongful acts rightly. The soul that sins will surely die. Spiritual death is separation from the goodness of God for eternity for we were created in His image and likeness to live forever in one of two places. He made us for eternity. If you live like you want to be separated from Him for eternity then when you do you are just getting what you saw as good in your relative understanding of it. The world has been seeing good in their relativistic eyes since the Fall of Adam, hence man's injustice to man.

What criteria are available to say which is the objective moral code? Is it mine? Is it yours? Is it none? Both cannot be, unless we can have different and opposing object codes concerning a certain topic, which is absurd. -Viole

What makes you think that you can even make sense of objectivity from a relativistic position? A relativists position by very definition is one that is subjective and subject to change. Why does a standard that keeps changing or fluctuating between two opposing positions qualify as good?

So, how do you decide? If I state that both are subjective, what kind of criteria can you provide that shows that I am wrong? -Viole

The one that is necessary to make sense of goodness. I contend that God's standard is not subjective. By very definition Someone that knows everything and can fathom everything knows what is objectively good and He has revealed such if the Bible is true. We contend that the Bible is exactly as it describes itself to be, the Word of God, truth - His revelation to us that we may understand with certainty who we are, how we got here, where we are going. The problem is that you are not taking God at His word. You feel that you are better able to determine what goodness is. The problem is that you have not been able to show why your relative standard is better. You don't fathom all things. What you perceive as good may in fact be hurting not only yourself but others.

The atheist is under the misapprehension that they are wiser and more knowledgeable than God. It seems that I can't appeal to any higher authority than a Richard Dawkins.

Edited November 24, 2011 by PGA

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

One other thing you said that I could not pass up making comment on.

I have no proof that objective moral standards do not exist -Viole

I agree, you don't.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

One other thing you said that I could not pass up making comment on.

I have no proof that objective moral standards do not exist -Viole

I agree, you don't.

I have no proof that they exist either

From your feedbacks, I think that you hint at the possibility that objective = coming from God. In other words, if I take the death penalty example, then applying the life-for-a-life rule is objective because that is what God orders from what we can read from the Bible, is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, on the grounds that He is the necessary standard and that I cannot appeal to any higher authority in order to make sense of virtually anything once you boil it down to its nitty-gritty basics. What He decrees is morally binding. As I mentioned before, the death penalty was instituted long before He made Himself known to the whole world by, in choosing a specific people in which to do this by and in send the Messiah through. As Jesus said to Phillip, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" or even more to the point, "If you really knew Me you would know the Father as well." (John 14:9, 7) You will never know God apart from Jesus Christ, Viole, and if you did know Jesus relation-ally instead of just intellectually you would understand more fully and in a meaningful way what we as Christians know with certainty.

[PGA]

Hi Viole,

One other thing you said that I could not pass up making comment on.

I have no proof that objective moral standards do not exist -Viole

I agree, you don't.

I have no proof that they exist either

From your feedbacks, I think that you hint at the possibility that objective = coming from God. In other words, if I take the death penalty example, then applying the life-for-a-life rule is objective because that is what God orders from what we can read from the Bible, is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, on the grounds that He is the necessary standard and that I cannot appeal to any higher authority in order to make sense of virtually anything once you boil it down to its nitty-gritty basics. What He decrees is morally binding. As I mentioned before, the death penalty was instituted long before He made Himself known to the whole world by, in choosing a specific people in which to do this by and in send the Messiah through. As Jesus said to Phillip, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" or even more to the point, "If you really knew Me you would know the Father as well." (John 14:9, 7) You will never know God apart from Jesus Christ, Viole, and if you did know Jesus relation-ally instead of just intellectually you would understand more fully and in a meaningful way what we as Christians know with certainty.

OK, fair enough.

But then we have to expand the moral argument (as per OP) to decide what is objective or not (otherwise we would be back on square one, by not being able to ascertain what is objective or not):

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

Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist: objectivity is supplied by God

Logical Conclusion: God exists

You will probably notice that Premise 1 and 2 are now circular. Scott was right after all.

I could replace "objective" with "dfjhljvnkzcjvk" (dummy word without meaning) and come to a syllogism which is isomorphic:

Premise 1: dfjhljvnkzcjvkmoral values and duties cannot exist without God

Premise 2: dfjhljvnkzcjvk moral values and duties exist: dfjhljvnkzcjvk-ity is supplied by God

Logical Conclusion: God exists

To put is in simple words: if objectivity can only be measured by what God and only God says, than it is useless to write premise 1 and we are begging the question.

Ciao

- viole

Hi again,

A premise can be logical but more to the point is whether it is true. The nature of a syllogism is just that - two premises and a conclusion. I would contend that circularity cannot be avoided if the argument is pushed far enough, no matter what it be. As for begging the question, that would be true only if we are assuming this premise alone. God has provided us with many proofs, the greatest of which is His Son and our relationship with Him. All syllogisms depend on their conclusions, but not all syllogisms are logical or true.

I'm off to bed, thanks for the chat!

Peter

PS. What is necessary for objectivity and certainty?

Edited November 24, 2011 by PGA

[Guest]

.... Yes, the syllogism is not self-contained; you need to go out of the system somehow....

Revelation

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

[Guest shiloh357]

It seems to me the recurring argument from theists is that we can't know what is right or wrong without God. How do you support this? How do I or you or anyone else know that what God says is "good' is really good if we're not equipped to evaluate this ourselves?

God has equipped us to know and evaluate what is good and evil, what is right and what it is wrong. That's the point. Morality comes from God in that He has hardwired you to be a moral person. God designed us to know good from evil, right from wrong. It comes out in everything we do wether we are believers or not. That nonbelievers can be good people, doesn't mean that morality doesn't come from God. It means that we have living breathing evidence that we are truly made in God's image and that to some degree even the atheist demonstrates characteristics of his/her Creator. You are made in God's image and that means that you will possess and display qualities and attributes that we all have in common with God. You can't help it, it will come out in everything you do.

[Guest shiloh357]

It seems to me the recurring argument from theists is that we can't know what is right or wrong without God. How do you support this? How do I or you or anyone else know that what God says is "good' is really good if we're not equipped to evaluate this ourselves?

God has equipped us to know and evaluate what is good and evil, what is right and what it is wrong. That's the point. Morality comes from God in that He has hardwired you to be a moral person. God designed us to know good from evil, right from wrong. It comes out in everything we do wether we are believers or not. That nonbelievers can be good people, doesn't mean that morality doesn't come from God. It means that we have living breathing evidence that we are truly made in God's image and that to some degree even the atheist demonstrates characteristics of his/her Creator. You are made in God's image and that means that you will possess and display qualities and attributes that we all have in common with God. You can't help it, it will come out in everything you do.

Some Muslims will tell you that God says it's ok to kill non believers, Christians will say it's not ok. Who is right?

That's not a very well thought-out question, not to mention the fact that it doesn't even address the issue I raised above. The question isn't a very good one because it presents two polar opposite views as if they are morally equivalent in nature. the question supposes that calling for someone's death is on par with the teachings of Jesus that advoacted loving your enemies and there is no objective way to tell the difference. To even put those two worldviews up for comparison is like comparing the arsonist with the fire fighter.

It also highlights the problem that has been demonstrated before. You have nothing solid and unmovable to ground your morality to. Many peopple who feign to have good morals will find ways to justify loosening those morals when they feel it is to their advantage. When all moral choices are made out to be equivalent, when no one can REALLY say what is right and wrong, on what basis do you seek justice when you feel you have been treated unfarily?

[Guest shiloh357]

Sounds to me like you're admitting that we can 'figure out' what is right or wrong.

We are hardwired to know right from wrong. God designed us that way. Morality is part of our being in God's image, whether you make room for that or not.

You guys keep mentioning "God", so I'm dealing with what I'm given. Not everyone views God the same way, so I'm asking you if we get our morals from God, how do we know who is right in this regard?

Again, that question assumes that good and evil are equal moral values systems. Who is to say that the security guard or the police officer is stands on a higher moral plain than a theif?

Why does having different beliefs about God make those beliefs morally equivalent? If my views about God are based on my attempt to project my hatred of unbelievers on to God, can it be argued that my views about God are really valid? I can justify anything if I appeal to that line of reasoning.

That is not the same as saying that there is objective moral standard that flows from a wise and loving Creator and that he has hardwired humanity with an innate knowledge of that morality, even if some humans refuse to acknowledge it.

I have nothing outside of humanity to ground our morals on, that doesn't mean nothing.

But how you can ground any moral code to humanity? That is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

[Guest shiloh357]

Sounds to me like you're admitting that we can 'figure out' what is right or wrong.

We are hardwired to know right from wrong. God designed us that way. Morality is part of our being in God's image, whether you make room for that or not.

You guys keep mentioning "God", so I'm dealing with what I'm given. Not everyone views God the same way, so I'm asking you if we get our morals from God, how do we know who is right in this regard?

Again, that question assumes that good and evil are equal moral values systems. Who is to say that the security guard or the police officer is stands on a higher moral plain than a theif?

Why does having different beliefs about God make those beliefs morally equivalent? If my views about God are based on my attempt to project my hatred of unbelievers on to God, can it be argued that my views about God are really valid? I can justify anything if I appeal to that line of reasoning.

That is not the same as saying that there is objective moral standard that flows from a wise and loving Creator and that he has hardwired humanity with an innate knowledge of that morality, even if some humans refuse to acknowledge it.

I have nothing outside of humanity to ground our morals on, that doesn't mean nothing.

But how you can ground any moral code to humanity? That is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

[PGA]

It seems to me the recurring argument from theists is that we can't know what is right or wrong without God. How do you support this? How do I or you or anyone else know that what God says is "good' is really good if we're not equipped to evaluate this ourselves?

Hi,

there is some question begging and circular reasoning, but this is normal I guess.

This is a little digest of previous conversations (A=atheist, C=Christian)

A: So we clearly disagree on one point

C: Yes, and this prove my assertion about objective values

A: What?

C: Yes, my moral value is objective and yours is clearly subjective.

A: How can you say that?

C: My value comes from God, yours doesn't. What comes from God is objective, the rest isn't

A: How can you say that without objectively proving God's existence, that this God is the Christian one and that He is the source of your morality?

C: God's existence is clearly proven by the fact that moral values objectively exist and coincide with the ones I just expressed

A: ok

Ciao

- viole

Or

A: So we clearly disagree on one point

C: Yes, that God is necessary for moral values.

A: What?

C: Yes, without an objective ideal how can you define good if good is based on fluctuating subject opinion? (Long silence)

A: How can you say that?

C: Well who gets to decide good and based on what?

A: How can you say that without objectively proving God's existence, that this God is the Christian one and that He is the source of your morality?

C: The impossibility of the contrary, as one example. We cannot agree if subjective opinion is all there is. Who decides? Yes, I know, you do! War's are fought over such disagreements throughout the course of human history. When two people, groups, cultures disagree over what is good then who is right? God's existence is necessary because by definition God is benevolent, unchanging, objective; He knows all things. And logically there can only be one true and living God, since all these different revelations of God contradict each other. The Christian God is the only one whose word stands the test of what is real, what is true.

A: Well I'm not going to believe no matter how logical or how much evidence you could show me because I don't like the Christian God and I don't what to live by His standards. I want to live my life as I see fit, in my own good way. I am my own best authority. I call the shots. It is me! It is me!

C: Are you sure of that?

A: Absolutely, relatively speaking!

The caricature is satirical to make a point and is not directed at you specifically, Viole, but at atheism as a whole. It is basically what I have witnessed over the course of the last five years in debates with atheists on the web, that is the inability to make sense of the moral argument, when challenged. Most of the time the morally question is side-stepped, but when it is answered, and the answer is probed, I find the atheist has based their presuppositions on the very thing they accuse the Christian of, lack of substantial evidence. I have yet to hear of an argument on morality that can justify itself from a subjective, relative point of view. An objective source outside of humanity is necessary.

Peter