• 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!

Instinct, Morality, and Law

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
1. Pick whatever term you like. But 'Standards' from a Creator would seem to be more reliable than standards from another human being.. .. especially some agenda driven ideologue..
Except that in any such scenario, you would have no reasonable means of determining what standards said Creator actually has.

2. His standard? :shrug: isn't that obvious?
And what methodology can you apply to determine what those standards are, beyond your subjective interpretation?
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Those questions are very much explained in the very post you are quoting.
Asserting without a rational progression is not an argument.
Except that in any such scenario, you would have no reasonable means of determining what standards said Creator actually has.
And what methodology can you apply to determine what those standards are, beyond your subjective interpretation?
Social and universal evidence of a common moral code, present in humanity, logically assumed for millennia to be placed there by the Creator.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Asserting without a rational progression is not an argument.
It was quite clearly self evident.

Social and universal evidence of a common moral code, present in humanity, logically assumed for millennia to be placed there by the Creator.
So, you have no way whatsoever to determine whether or not a moral code comes from a creator, you just assume it does because it's what people believe?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Asserting without a rational progression is not an argument.
That's a bit rich, coming from you, old friend ─ not least when you consider you can't even define your foundational term, 'God', thus making 'rational progression' impossible; and that you reject the arguments of science as to the origin of much of our morality, notwithstanding they're argued transparently from examinable evidence and repeatable experiment to conclusion ie 'with rational progression'.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
... you can't even define your foundational term, 'God' ...
Regardless of any ulterior motives he might have, he does not use the term “God” in his argument. There is a being in his argument which he does seem to me to be equating with his God. That being is defined implicitly as a sentient being which endows humans with a kind of intuition (sense of morality) which enables us to recognize its moral code as the best one. His argument, as I understand it, is that it’s illogical to deny that there is such a being, and at the same time to think that there is any such thing as objective or absolute morality.

My view of that is that if we are born with a capacity to recognize some moral system as the best one for us to follow, for some purpose that most people would approve of, I don’t see how the existence of a being who intentionally created us that way follows necessarily from that, any more than the existence of a being who created the universe follows necessarily from the unlikeliness of some facts of nature being what they are. It does for some people but not for others. I’m one of those others.
 
Last edited:

night912

Well-Known Member
The existence of morality, as a Real Thing, hinges on the embedding ability of a Creator, or some Force able to endow such traits into the inner psyche or soul of man. In a godless universe, morality is not real. It is either animal instinct, a delusion, or arbitrary law by a compelling force. A person's worldview shapes the way they see law, instinct, and morality.

Any thoughts, differences, additions, examples, or corrections on these concepts?
Your logic is flawed in regards to morality. In a world that god embedded morality into humans would be a world where morality and instinct are indistinguishable from one another. We would be born knowing what is moral or immoral, thus not having different views on what's right and wrong. It wouldn't be able to be switched on and off as one please. But we don't see that in our world. Therefore, morality is not embedded into humans. And since you conclude that morality is different from instinct, that would make morality something that's not embedded into humans, something that must be taught and/or learned. It would be the same as a godless world. Any reasons for it to not be indistinguishable from instinct would be nothing more than just special pleading.

And before using freewill as an excuse, it should be noted that having freewill is irrelevant. The argument is "knowing" what is moral, not "choosing" to be moral.
 
Top