The Moral Argument

[Guest shiloh357]

I think what this all boils down to is, Christians credit their God with the moral codes that they agree with.

Not really. God's moral code was recorded in the Bible before the Christian religion even existed. In fact, the first "Christians" were not even called such. They were Jews who believed that Jesus came to fulfill their Jewish religion, not to start a new religion. God's moral code was already around for at least 4,000 years prior to Christianity coming on the scene. We did not attribute anything to God. God attributes His moral code to Himself and we choose to obey Him.

[LuftWaffle]

You mention the word "random" a few times in your post. I don't know of too many moral codes that are "random".

But Stargaze, I used the word "random" in a specific context. Aren't you jumping to conclusions?

I said, "If our morality is the product of random evolutionary processes, then there really is no imperative to adhere to those moral notions."

I did not say anything that prompted this response, "I haven't been even hinting to the idea that our morality is "random". When did I say we roll dice or draw from a hat on whether something is good or bad?"

It seems to me that instead of reading my post, just merely scanned over it, picked up some words that stood out to you and responded accordingly. My post wasn't even directed at you personally, but was a general clarification, yet it seems that you're taking it rather personally.

Where did God's nature come from?

God's nature is an aspect of God's being and thus, it's eternal and immutable. Asking where God's nature comes from is like asking where fire's hotness comes from. The nature of fire is that it's hot.

I'm just saying the person ASSERTS his god of war was the one true god and is therefore the one who defines moral standards. Another words it's a claim, how do you show him that he's wrong and you're right?

But this is the whole point: his belief would be in conflict with basic human morality. Your question assumes subjective morality and you're asking me how I would respond if morals were subjective, but that's not my view, it is your view. Even cultures that do believe in a god of war generally don't have that being as a supreme god and secondly no matter how beliggerent they are, they'll justify their aggression by saying that they fight against evil people. This leads right back to cultural morality, which as I pointed out isn't a disagreement about morality, but a disagreement about the facts: whether or not the people that they fighting against is evil.

Take your radical Jihadist who flies aeroplanes into buildings. They still believe that it's wrong to murder. The question therefore isn't whether it's wrong to murder, but the question is about the facts surrounding those people whom they kill. To them the Westerner is an enemy so they're believe that they're doing good by killing them. To the Westerner we are not the enemy so it's wrong to kill us.

Both groups agree that murder is wrong, but the disagreement is about fact of whether we're an enemy or not.

I'm afraid I don't have much time to respond. While as far as I can see, none of these issues relate to my clarifying post, I hope atleast that you have read it?

Blessings.

I read it and it was interesting. I think what this all boils down to is, Christians credit their God with the moral codes that they agree with. I don't credit a god I believe we can determine ourselves how to establish a society that can foster a healthy, happy, free environment. You can come up with all kinds of puzzles and scenarios where someone challenges me saying "How do you know you're good?"

This same challenge can be given to a theist, how do you know your God is good? Did you evaluate this or did God program you to believe this is so? We'll get nowhere in this silly exercise.

There's a big difference.

If God's nature is good and God imbued us with that innate morality, then morals are objective. Objective morals seems to be the best reflection of reality. Whether God programmed us to see "murder for the fun of it" or "female circumcision" as wrong, that's beside the point. The point is that these moral views we have seem objective, hence the two premises of the moral argument.

The fact that every atheist on this board is arguing that morals are subjective affirmes the first premise, "objective moral values and duties cannot exist without God".

The fact that atheists seem to believe that certain action really are wrong and not just personal opinions affirms the second premise. Objective values do exist.

If the moral argument is a sound argument (which it is) then by deduction God exists. Where God's nature comes from or how we know this morality that we seem to have is really good is totally irrelevant.

If we determine for ourselves what is good, then that morality is subjective. This does not seem to square with reality at all. On the contrary some actions seem to be really good and some actions seem to be really wrong, despite an observer's feelings, preference or genetic predisposition.

Digging your heals in and saying, "you can come up with all kinds of puzzles...I believe we can determine ourselves how to establish a society..." is simply restating your own faith, without dealing with the real problems of your view.

If you see this exercise as silly then I'm sorry to hear that, but I am not obliged to agree with you simply based on your adamance.

[LuftWaffle]

Hi Luft,

Hey hey

yes. you clarified a lot and thanks for the precise post.

I'm glad that you found it useful.

I think we need to leave out ethical issues like homosexuality, stem cell research, sex outside marriage, death penaly, euthanasia, etc. These issues do depend on the observer and their objectivity cannot be asserted without a-priori considerations.

Agreed

If we restrict ourselves to what we universally consider wrong (e.g. torturing and killing a child) then I agree, there is a certain level of objectivity in that. We just do not agree on a central point: I cannot separate the object (the act of torturing a child) from the observer. For me it is objective in the following sense: all (mentally health) humans will sense this as wrong and since this is not observer dependent then it is objective. I cannot possibly extent the perception of wrongness outside the human context because I have no evidence that this is the case for non-human observers. I know that we have no evidence of intelligent life outside our planet, but this does not give me intellectual support to exclude it and to be sure that these beings would agree on the wrongness of this. I am not even sure it makes sense to speak of this without our human nature and perceptions.

Okay, but notice that you're actually redefining objective here to really mean subjective. The way you're using objective tells us about the observer, not the act itself.

Suppose I see something very disgusting lying on the floor (e.g. a decomposing body). My first instinct will be of rejection and probably I will start to throw up in an uncontrolled fashion. Two hours later after a shower, I might start pondering about this and clearly see that my reaction was a defensive mental process and the disgust and the thowing up were mechanisms programmed in order to exclude contact with unhealthy substances. This is my rational explanation, but the emotional one has always priority (for obvious survival reasons). If I go back to the place with that object, my rationalization will not help, I will still throw up in an uncontrollable way.

Is the disgust objective? Yes, all human being will react similarly. Has this disgust a metaphisical objectivity valid outside our human context? I do not see how. There might be insects that find that yummy. Am I intellectually entitled to extend my human objective perception to the whole universe? No. Without human context it does not make sense.

Notice the category mistake in your example though. The disgustingness here is a brute fact, not an imperative. There's nothing saying that one ought to feel a certain way about that. The thing with something like torturing and murdering someone for the fun of it is that the observer may feel physiological effects to what they're witnessing. They may throw up and react physically. But there's an additional level in the case of morals, it's the intuitive knowledge that this event OUGHT not occur. There's a wrongness about it that transcends the mere physical reaction.

People who grow up with violence all around them can become desensitised to violence, in the way that they stop exhibiting any physiological response, but unjustified violence is still wrong. The act itself is wrong.

A classic example question is as follows: What if Hitler won the war and killed or brainwashed anybody who disagreed with their actions. Now the only people left on the planet are people who agree with what Hitler did. Does that make his actions any less wrong?

I think this illustrates that morality seems to be objective.

Does the fact that I find rational explanations of my disgust remove my (philosophical) right to distinguish between disgusting and not disgusting stuff?

The problem is that there is no OUGHT involved in your finding disgusting things disgusting. If a person(perhaps a coroner who is used to that sort of thing) doesn't find putrid things disgusting while you could say that it's unusual, you can't really say that he OUGHT to feel a different way.

There is no real way for you to hold to objective moral values and duties while at the same time holding a materialist viewpoint, because you simply cannot get from an "IS" to an "OUGHT". If you want to be a materialist then your only real option intellectually is to believe moral values and duties are subjective, which it seems you do. In which case you need to deal with the "who says?" problem of subjective moral values.

[Guest shiloh357]

There's a huge assumption, IF God's nature is "good". How can I know Jesus is "good"

Because Jesus IS God.

Is it because he rose from the dead? That doesn't tell us anything, being able to defeat death does not mean you're "good".

Actually, the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of all of the teachings of Scripture. The resurrection of Jesus is what makes or breaks Chrisdtianity. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, the rest of the Bible is meaningless.

When you can empirically prove to me that God is "good" then you'll be on higher ground than me, but until then you're simply assuming too many things.

Well, to be truthful, God does not operate on a standard of "good" or "evil." God is more than good. God's standard is rightesouness. God is the plumline. He is the standard. God standard of righteousness is that one must as sinless as God is from birth. The only person to meet that standard is Jesus.

[Guest shiloh357]

The resurrection doesn't tell us anything except for the fact that Jesus was able to defy death. What rule of reality states that if you can defy death then you must be honest and everything you say must be true [or how does this prove you're God for that matter].

Jesus was/is able to exercise personal power over death, which something only God can do. Jesus' resurrection proves demonstrates that His authority as God. It also demonstrates his power over life. Only He who created life as the power to the dead back to life. And as Creator, He has the ultimate authority over all He has created. That includes the right to tell us how we should live and how we should not live. Creation was designed to operate in harmony with Him. Good and evil are not arbitrary, subjective concepts.

Being born again is about new life from death. We are spiritually dead without Christ but he has made us alive again and that is the justification for living upright lives.

"Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness" (Romans 6:12-13).

[Guest]

.... The resurrection doesn't tell us anything except for the fact that Jesus was able to defy death. What rule of reality states that if you can defy death then you must be honest and everything you say must be true [or how does this prove you're God for that matter]....

You Can Lead A Fellow To Water

And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?

And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him? Mark 4:39-41

But You Can't Make Him Drink

In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. John 7:37

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

Jesus was/is able to exercise personal power over death, which something only God can do.

Says who?

Name someone else who has that power.

shiloh357, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

Jesus' resurrection proves demonstrates that His authority as God.

It does nothing of the sort, this is merely a claim. If we were able to explore the Universe freely and we came across a creature that could teleport itself around does that mean this creature is bound to truth? Does that mean this creature is good? Your essentially stating that might makes right, I don't agree with that.

That is a red herring. Teleportation is not resurrection. To be able to bring the dead to life is entirely different than resurection. Again, God created life and He has power over life and death. That He can raise the dead to life proves His authority in that regard.

shiloh357, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

Only He who created life as the power to the dead back to life.

I don't agree here, if a being was able to come back form the dead it does not logically conclude that it created life on Earth.

Again, name a being that can do that other than God. And don't postulate some lame hypothetical extraterrestrial nonsense.

shiloh357, on 29 November 2011 - 08:03 AM, said:

That includes the right to tell us how we should live and how we should not live. Creation was designed to operate in harmony with Him. Good and evil are not arbitrary, subjective concepts.

Then good and evil are inherit, God is merely a middle man.

Nope. Good is not inherent. "Good" has to be taught. You don't naturally do what is good. Children have to be taught not life, cheat, steal, be violent, and so forth. Children have to be taught that there is an objective moral standard.

So if we found out for sure that there is no God you'd expect society to completely unravel? Everyone would start killing and raping each other? If you're good only because you're programmed to be good then to me that's inferior to choosing to be good.

I did not say we are programmed to be good. I said we hardwired by our Creator to recognize the existence of a moral standard, to know right from wrong.

If there is no God, if there no objective standard for right and wrong, there is no reason for me to care about you and thus there is no moral accountability or responsibility on my part for anything I do. I can be as selfish as I want. I can commit atrocities without a second thought and neither you nor anyone else would have the moral grounds to say anything I did was wrong.

I don't view the God of the Bible as being very righteous. I believe it's immoral to offer a relationship with someone with the stipulation that if they choose "no" they are tortured for eternity. This would be sick and twisted behavior for a human and I don't see any reason why God should be exempt.

Hell is not a stipulation. It is a consequence. God gave everything He could give so that you could be together with Him. He died so that you would not have to be tortured for all eternity. It is not what He wants for you at all. But if you reject Him, YOU have made the choice for yourself. He is not responsible or immoral because you chose to reject Him, particularly when you rejected Him in full knowledge of what the consequences would be. That is on your head. Your decision to reject God and to suffer the consequences of that does not in any way reflect on His morality. Rather, it reflects your own foolish pride.

[Guest]

.... I don't view the God of the Bible as being very righteous. I believe it's immoral to offer a relationship with someone with the stipulation that if they choose "no" they are tortured for eternity. This would be sick and twisted behavior for a human and I don't see any reason why God should be exempt....

Well Dear One Of Course You Don't See Any Good Reason Why Jesus Saves

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

And Yet You Can Still Choose To Sit Were You Are And Whine

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36(b)

Or You Can Bow Down And Except The Blood

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: John 3:36(a)

Of The Innocent One

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5:20-21

Your Creator

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

Now Just How Unfair Is That?

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 1 Peter 1:18-19

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Because Jesus IS God.

How do I know God is good???? Just because he's powerful?

Actually, the resurrection of Jesus is the vindication of all of the teachings of Scripture. The resurrection of Jesus is what makes or breaks Chrisdtianity. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, the rest of the Bible is meaningless.

The resurrection doesn't tell us anything except for the fact that Jesus was able to defy death. What rule of reality states that if you can defy death then you must be honest and everything you say must be true [or how does this prove you're God for that matter].

Because defying death was one of the signs outlined as the sign of the person sent by God, "Therefore I told you these things long ago; before they happened I announced them to you so that you could not say, 'My idols did them; my wooden image and metal god ordained them" (Isaiah 48:5).

If you can prove that raising someone up from the dead is something that can be done at will, apart from God, then there would be no affirmation of what Shiloh is saying, but if God says that only He is able to do such a thing and that claim is true according to all the evidence we have in that no one else can seem to do it, but God does it according to how He said He would to show He can, then He's established that His claim is reliable and trustworthy in the extreme.

If He's demonstrated that His claims are reliable and trustworthy in the extreme, then we have no reason to doubt them in the less than extreme assurances, such as that He is good.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Jesus was/is able to exercise personal power over death, which something only God can do.

Says who?

Says God.

Just try to prove Him wrong. If you can't, then all evidence suggests He's right.