-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence for God: The Moral Argument
- Thread starter SLPCCC
- Start date
I learned a long time ago that trying to type out a response to an argument given in a video is a waste of time. Can you give a summary of the argument (or even just a link to a transcript)?
Yerda
Veteran Member
@9-10ths_Penguin @ChristineM
The gist:
If moral facts exist where do they come from? Modern philosophy struggles to give a natural account of moral facts.
p1. Morality is a rational enterprise,
i.e. we deduce moral facts and duties through reason not empirical investigation.
p2. Moral realism,
i.e. moral facts exist.
p3. Moral problems and disagreement mean moral facts aren't grounded in human rationality.
p4. By p1,2,3 moral facts are grounded in a necessary rational source.
p5. This source is what we call God.
Therefore God exists.
Not the worst argument I've ever seen but the premises are all potentially objectionable imo. Premise 4 especially so which is what the whole thing seems to hang on.
@dybmh beat me to it
The gist:
If moral facts exist where do they come from? Modern philosophy struggles to give a natural account of moral facts.
p1. Morality is a rational enterprise,
i.e. we deduce moral facts and duties through reason not empirical investigation.
p2. Moral realism,
i.e. moral facts exist.
p3. Moral problems and disagreement mean moral facts aren't grounded in human rationality.
p4. By p1,2,3 moral facts are grounded in a necessary rational source.
p5. This source is what we call God.
Therefore God exists.
Not the worst argument I've ever seen but the premises are all potentially objectionable imo. Premise 4 especially so which is what the whole thing seems to hang on.
@dybmh beat me to it
Wow... what a crappy argument.
@SLPCCC - do you agree that this is a fair summary of the argument in your video?
I don't think it's unreasonable to call that argument spectacularly bad.
Arguments that use the phrase "... this is what we call God" (or words to that effect) especially raise a red flag for me. I haven't found one yet - including this one - where the best a person could do defensibly is "... this is something that would be consistent with God but we can't exclude all other possibilities."
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
But surely this whole thing is an example of question-begging.
p 5 is a mere unsupported assertion, claiming the result that the argument is supposed to demonstrate.
It's like saying: "Cats are black, ergo cats are black."
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It breaks down for me at premise 3. If Moral realism is true, then there is another possible source other than God. The potential human source is in the form of Empathy+Community. The argument in the video makes sense to me when considering a single individual imperfect human failing at coming to universally accepted moral principles. But once the individuals form a collective group; it becomes plausible that seperate communities would come to the same conclusions regarding morality. Over time, eventually, there would appear to be a general consensus among communties about moral decisions.
For example: An individual on their own might rationally decide that their own interests overule any others. Therefore they might feel justified to murder and steal. However once the individual joins a community it makes sense that the group would determine that murder and theft in the community are bad. After that it's only a matter of time until murder and theft are deemed wrong outside the community as well.
Hope this answers your question,
Last edited:
Yerda
Veteran Member
In the video he describes the source as having to be a conscious rational necessary being and that does seem fairly consistent with how most theist use the word God.
I dunno. The premises are iffy but if you accept them the conclusion does follow. At least that's how it seems to me. I don't buy it so I'm not too fussed either way.But surely this whole thing is an example of question-begging.
p 5 is a mere unsupported assertion, claiming the result that the argument is supposed to demonstrate.
It's like saying: "Cats are black, ergo cats are black."
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well yes if you accept p5 you accept there is a God. So, er, there is a God!
Yerda
Veteran Member
I think we're starting to get into why I think trying to type out a response to a video is a waste of time, since this is touching on the sort of nuance where it's important to confirm the exact wording of the argument... and when the argument is in a video, getting that exact wording generally involves having to repeat the same clip over and over to transcribe what's said.
(Which is why I don't do it any more)
That being said, I don't think what you say is true.
I mean, I'm sure there are theists who consider their god to be conscious, rational, and necessary... but I'm not so sure that they'd accept absolutely any conscious, rational, and necessary being we could think up as their god.
Magical Wand
Active Member
I reject the justification of premise 2 (i.e., that Objective Morality obtains) for the simple reason that it is not self-evident to me that moral judgments such as "wrongness" and "rightness" exist outside of and independently of my mind. It seems evident to me that wrongness is a feeling similar to happiness and sadness. But if it is just a feeling, then it is subjective. ㅤ:）
Now, the first premise says that (at least some) moral decisions are reached by rationality. However, that doesn't conflict with my self-evident experience that "wrongness" is just a feeling. And that's simply because I don't claim we are born with all fully formed concepts such as "abortion is wrong." Rather, we're born with moral feelings associated with very simple concepts, e.g., wrongness associated with the concept of harming another. From that feeling, we may reason that other related actions are also wrong (such as abortion).ㅤ:）
Last edited:
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I sense there is moral truth and nobody at the helm of it.
In a perfect world of no Injustice, and atrocity that would be a great argument. This world could have been a nightmare world if not for the desperate turning point of World War 2.
There's no God running this ship. And many atheists feel genuine love. Even just one non believer with genuine love and the whole argument fails.
It's also argument for the sake of argument. It uses human intuitions to make its case. The argument does not rely on any evidence.
It seems that many religious people think logic without evidence is a special God given tool of reason.
I think most God arguments appeal to intuition.
In a perfect world of no Injustice, and atrocity that would be a great argument. This world could have been a nightmare world if not for the desperate turning point of World War 2.
There's no God running this ship. And many atheists feel genuine love. Even just one non believer with genuine love and the whole argument fails.
It's also argument for the sake of argument. It uses human intuitions to make its case. The argument does not rely on any evidence.
It seems that many religious people think logic without evidence is a special God given tool of reason.
I think most God arguments appeal to intuition.
I agree it's convincing for me.
Premise 2 is simply wrong. There are NO "objective" moral facts and duties. Morality is, among humans, 100% subjective. What is right and wrong, what duties are required, are entirely dependent upon the circumstance in which each actor finds himself, in relation to the other actors around him.
Without consideration of other people (who I am calling "actors" here), nothing is either moral or immoral, required or not required. When there is no effect upon on actors, nothing that I do is either right or wrong, required or not required, unless I deem it to be so. Without the need to consider anyone or anything outside myself, I can masturbate to my heart's content or cut my penis off, entirely for my own reasons and at my own pleasure (though that "pleasure" seems odd to me, there are those who think otherwise).
This is the huge problem with all of these arguments -- the presumption that there is some "objective moral fact or duty." If you think that there is such a thing -- and by "objective" I mean can never, ever be otherwise no matter what the circumstance -- then you need to present an argument for why it is so.
For example: "it is always wrong to kill." Okay, is it? Always? Can you think of a mitigating circumstance? Or, it is always wrong to make love to somebody else's spouse? Once again, prove that this is always true, that there is no possible circumstance that could make it the right thing to do in the moment for the people involved.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
But surely this whole thing is an example of question-begging.
p 5 is a mere unsupported assertion, claiming the result that the argument is supposed to demonstrate.
It's like saying: "Cats are black, ergo cats are black."
it is no doubt true
and I can verify it
because I had two black cats
SLPCCC
Active Member
I reject the justification of premise 2 (i.e., that Objective Morality obtains) for the simple reason that it is not self-evident to me that moral judgments such as "wrongness" and "rightness" exist outside of and independently of my mind. It seems evident to me that wrongness is a feeling similar to happiness and sadness. But if it is just a feeling, then it is subjective. Ergo, morality is not objective.
Now, the first premise says that moral decisions are decided by rationality. However, that doesn't conflict with my self-evident experience that "wrongness" is just a feeling. And that's simply because I don't claim we are born with all fully formed concepts such as "abortion is wrong." Rather, we're born with very simple feelings associated with simple concepts like "Killing is wrong." From that simple feeling, we may reason that other things related to that are also wrong (such as abortion).
I have to agree with premise 2 because right or wrong will always be right or wrong whether a person likes it or not. For example, raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
But surely this whole thing is an example of question-begging.
p 5 is a mere unsupported assertion, claiming the result that the argument is supposed to demonstrate.
It's like saying: "Cats are black, ergo cats are black."
.