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?

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.

Hi Other one, long time no see...

Let me play angel's advocate, then I think ByFaithAlone started an interesting thread and I do not believe he started on the wrong foot. With all respect, your atheist friends are intellectually lazy. The fact they are moral (which I do not doubt) and the fact that they do not believe in God do not necessarily mean that God does not exist and is not the giver of their moral feelings. That would be much too simple...and it is not.

Thank you viole. That's exactly what I would have said. Additionally, I would like to add that in this situation, being Christian or any religion or lack thereof does not give you moral supremacy over any other religion. That has nothing to do with either of the premises...

[ByFaithAlone]

You look smart. I will have to be careful with you

Why thank you! I appreciate the compliment. I'll try to be dangerous lol. BTW, did you major in physics? It certainly sounds like it by the way you discuss your views on fine tuning and the cosmological argument in the other threads. Just wondering because that's what I plan to major in after I finish up my senior year in high school this year.

[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.

Hi Other one, long time no see...

Let me play angel's advocate, then I think ByFaithAlone started an interesting thread and I do not believe he started on the wrong foot. With all respect, your atheist friends are intellectually lazy. The fact they are moral (which I do not doubt) and the fact that they do not believe in God do not necessarily mean that God does not exist and is not the giver of their moral feelings. That would be much too simple...and it is not.

I didn't say he started the thread on the wrong foot, I said actual atheists stated his first premise in his idea that they would not agree to, and the rest of his logic depends on that first statement being true and from their standpoint it is not.

I'm assuming that this thread is discussing how to approach non believers with a truth that they could understand and from the non believers I've talked to, it doesn't hold water so to speak.

You can use this approach if you like, good luck with that....

[ByFaithAlone]

You look smart. I will have to be careful with you

Why thank you! I appreciate the compliment. I'll try to be dangerous lol. BTW, did you major in physics? It certainly sounds like it by the way you discuss your views on fine tuning and the cosmological argument in the other threads. Just wondering because that's what I plan to major in after I finish up my senior year in high school this year.

Bring it on

LOL

You almost got it right. I don' know what majoring means but I graduated in mathematics applied to physics and I post graduated in topology and differential geometry. Mainly manifolds, tensors, differential forms and non commutative algebras. This is cool stuff. It is not particularly difficult, it just requires a lot of mathematical knowledge in advance, but you can acquire it stepwise during your studies. More importantly, you have no way to understand advanced physics, e.g. relativity, without mastering it. You have no idea how easy it is to see what space-time curvature means once you have the tools.

Cool. A major is just the field that you plan to study at the university level and where you will get your degree. I'm planning to study chemistry or applied physics specializing in astrophysics. I haven't entirely decided yet...

[Nakosis]

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?

I simply disagree with premise 2. Objective moral values do not exist. Actually I know some Atheists who seek a universal morality based on scientific principle. They want to know as much as any that they are correct in what they accept as right.

Personally I accept I have no guarantees that my sense of right and wrong is correct according to any type of universal standard. My morality is based on my past experiences. I do as I feel is right and try to avoid what I feel is wrong. I'm under no delusion my morality is any better then the next fellow's. But it is who I am and I am comfortable with that.

[Guest]

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?

I simply disagree with premise 2. Objective moral values do not exist. Actually I know some Atheists who seek a universal morality based on scientific principle. They want to know as much as any that they are correct in what they accept as right.

Personally I accept I have no guarantees that my sense of right and wrong is correct according to any type of universal standard. My morality is based on my past experiences. I do as I feel is right and try to avoid what I feel is wrong. I'm under no delusion my morality is any better then the next fellow's. But it is who I am and I am comfortable with that.

The Past Is Indicative Of The Future

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

Without Jesus

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Galatians 5:22-24

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[ByFaithAlone]

As a further example: what do we mean when we say that God hates murder? Is the moral imperative "do not murder" an objective thing that could theoretically exist also without God's sanction, and that God must necessarily accept to avoid the consequence of being immoral, or is it something that it is subjected to His approval and that He could have theoretically decided not to accept (subjected to His discretion)?

I hope you see where I am going. If a moral imperative is objective than it must be objective for God, too, and He must necessarily follow it and command it. But in this case, the imperative does not have an ontology that requires God's approval, necessarily. If, on the other hand, the moral imperative coincides with something that God's own mind and will declares as valid, then it is subjective and contingent, at least to Him.

Gives you a headache, doesn't it?

Ah... I think I see where you are going. You are describing what is commonly known as the Euthyphro Dilemma

Basically the argument says, "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" This creates several problems for the theistic side, as you have noted.

This dilemma has existed since ancient times but the Christian/Theist has an easy way out. That is, reject both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for value. Therefore, Premise 1 still stands.

[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?

I simply disagree with premise 2. Objective moral values do not exist. Actually I know some Atheists who seek a universal morality based on scientific principle. They want to know as much as any that they are correct in what they accept as right.

Personally I accept I have no guarantees that my sense of right and wrong is correct according to any type of universal standard. My morality is based on my past experiences. I do as I feel is right and try to avoid what I feel is wrong. I'm under no delusion my morality is any better then the next fellow's. But it is who I am and I am comfortable with that.

I respect your point of view, although, as viole stated earlier, there are some things deemed morally wrong across continents and cultures which seems to protect premise 2 from refutation.

Just as a matter of interest, doesn't this lead to moral nihilism. For instance, you say that you do not believe that objective morals exist. Doesn't this mean that you could not condemn...

(a) The Holocaust

(b) The Armenian Genocide

© Rape

(d) Torture

(e) <Choose from list of morally reprehensible actions>

....as morally wrong?

Therefore, hypothetically speaking why does it matter if you go out and kill someone or commit pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that no objective morals exist by which we condemn these actions?

[Nakosis]

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

Without Jesus

I can see you put a lot of work into your post. I hope I don't butcher the formatting too badly.

I possess a sense of fellowship with my fellow man. I've no desire to take advantage of my fellowman or be a nuisance without cause. That I think should cover most of the above. However it's not to inherent a kingdom. It's just who I am. I kind of like people. Whether a promise of a kingdom or not, it is not a cause for me to change how I deal with others. You know what I mean? I'm not looking for a reward. I simply find no need to cause harm.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Galatians 5:22-24

Believe

Then the law is for those inclined to cause harm and really a guidance to deal with them don't you think?

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 11:25-26

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

I trust what I see and experience. I try to be honest with myself and see where it leads. However I find the words of Jesus comforting. It's the words that draw me not a promise. I'm not looking for eternal life. I'm looking for better understanding of who I am and how better to deal with the here and now.

[Nakosis]

I respect your point of view, although, as viole stated earlier, there are some things deemed morally wrong across continents and cultures which seems to protect premise 2 from refutation.

We are all human, we share the experience of being human. It's not surprising that many share a lot of the same values. Of course Christianity has been invasive in our culture for a couple of thousand of years. Its a part of the culture you were raised in. It is part of your thinking, it is you. It would seem natural to you to think that everyone has similar values.

Just as a matter of interest, doesn't this lead to moral nihilism. For instance, you say that you do not believe that objective morals exist. Doesn't this mean that you could not condemn...

(a) The Holocaust

(b) The Armenian Genocide

© Rape

(d) Torture

(e) <Choose from list of morally reprehensible actions>

....as morally wrong?

Therefore, hypothetically speaking why does it matter if you go out and kill someone or commit pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that no objective morals exist by which we condemn these actions?

Yes generally nihilism is the idea that morals are not inherently objective. That there is no objective meaning to life. That's ok with me as then we are free to give life meaning. Life is what you make of it and life means what you choose it to mean.

As to the things you listed, I judge them morally wrong according to my values as you do according to yours. I don't need my values to be objective, which I don't even think is possible, to judge something good or bad. They are my values. They are part of who I am. That is enough for me. I don't need them to be your values, though we do happen to share some it seems.

Also isn't obvious that there are those that don't share the same values? Otherwise none of that bad stuff would happen. However I suspect that you like many others want some certainty that their values are good/proper and correct?

I don't know that may values are correct with any certainty but then I don't know that I could change my values even if I wanted to. I mean you could judge me according to your values. However it wouldn't change how I feel about things.

I know some pretend to live up to certain moral values. maybe because others impose those values on them but deep down, their values remain the same. They just hide it from others.

I like what I like. I don't like what I don't like. Hopefully we can get along. I'd rather be open and honest with who I am then pretend something that is not really me in order to live up to someone else's expectation because that would just be a lie.