The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Kirran]

There's an awful lot of people around here like that. There are many who have included some god character in their own self-identity. They refuse to imagine a world without this god, therefore they insist that it has to be true or their entire self-concept comes crashing down. That goes for more people than would like to admit it.

And is fine until it's pushed on others.

 

[Cephus]

And is fine until it's pushed on others.

I don't know that it's fine. It's an absurd belief and one that I think ought to be corrected. Further, those are typically the people out preaching the "good news" and trying desperately to use force of law and social pressure to push their beliefs onto others.

 

[Kirran]

I don't know that it's fine. It's an absurd belief and one that I think ought to be corrected.

Why? How does it impact you? You just think it shouldn't be believed because you think it's absurd?

Further, those are typically the people out preaching the "good news" and trying desperately to use force of law and social pressure to push their beliefs onto others.

That's different.

 

[Cephus]

Why? How does it impact you? You just think it shouldn't be believed because you think it's absurd?

No, because it isn't rational. And yes, it affects me. A person's beliefs inform their actions. It affects how they think, it affects how they act, it affects how they treat others, it affects how they vote, etc. All of those things do, directly or indirectly, impact other people and society as a whole.

That's different.

And how is it different? You said it was fine until it is pushed on others, yet when I gave an example of it being pushed on others, you suddenly think it's different?

 

[Kirran]

No, because it isn't rational. And yes, it affects me. A person's beliefs inform their actions. It affects how they think, it affects how they act, it affects how they treat others, it affects how they vote, etc. All of those things do, directly or indirectly, impact other people and society as a whole.

Yes, people could all do to be more like you. That's what society needs really, to come to the true viewpoint, and forsake these heathenistic ideas.

And how is it different? You said it was fine until it is pushed on others, yet when I gave an example of it being pushed on others, you suddenly think it's different?

Yeah, when it's being pushed on others, as in this example, I'm against it.

 

[Cephus]

Yes, people could all do to be more like you. That's what society needs really, to come to the true viewpoint, and forsake these heathenistic ideas.

They could do to be more rational, absolutely. But as soon as I suggested that, you got really defensive. Interesting reaction, that.

Yeah, when it's being pushed on others, as in this example, I'm against it.

You don't think that people using social pressure and force of law isn't pushing their religion on others? Seriously?

 

[Kirran]

They could do to be more rational, absolutely. But as soon as I suggested that, you got really defensive. Interesting reaction, that.

I tend to think I'm quite rational, but I may be wrong. As might you. Many people with completely conflicting belief systems think of their own as rational, so who can tell?

You don't think that people using social pressure and force of law isn't pushing their religion on others? Seriously?

I do think it is. That's what I said.

 

[jtartar]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

But this argument is awful for several reasons. For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship. But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society. So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

serp777,
To my mind, and I have studied God's word for over 50 years, your reasoning is pure dereism.
In the first place no one should try to find a religion that suits their morals, or ideals. A person should study The Holy Scriptures to determine exactly what God's laws are, and then obey them. After all God is Omniscient, and He has our best interests in mind, Job 36:4, 37:16, Deut 10:13, Isa 48:17,18, 55:8,9.
Since The Almighty God created heaven and earth, and gave life to all things, He has the right to decide what men should do. Jehovah God does Not make laws just because He can and has the right, God is not arbitrary, He only makes laws for men because man does not know the right way to go, Jere 10:23. Things that seem right to a man today may lead him to death later on, Prov 14:12, 16:25. Where people get into trouble is, instead of finding out what God's will is, they try to establish their own righteousness or way of doing things, Rom 10:1-3.
Man uses about 3 per cent of the brain power that God gave Adam and Eve. Think of what that means!!! When man was first created he used 100percent of his brain. We have degenerated down to 3 percent, and men believe they are evolving to a higher plain.
God's word, The Bible, is sententious, filled with knowledge and wisdom, and since God is merciful, Good, and just, He has provided His Bible so that we can find answers to all of our questions, Matt 6:8, Gen 40:8, Dan 2:20-22.
Because God wants the best for His creation, is is wisdom on our part to pay attention to the One who knows what is best for us now, and also, forever. To try to Dope Out, reason within our own mind what is the best Way to go, is a very foolish idea. Man, no matter how smart he thinks he is, is extremely limited in knowledge when compared with the Omnscient God.

 

[leibowde84]

serp777,
To my mind, and I have studied God's word for over 50 years, your reasoning is pure dereism.
In the first place no one should try to find a religion that suits their morals, or ideals. A person should study The Holy Scriptures to determine exactly what God's laws are, and then obey them. After all God is Omniscient, and He has our best interests in mind, Job 36:4, 37:16, Deut 10:13, Isa 48:17,18, 55:8,9.
Since The Almighty God created heaven and earth, and gave life to all things, He has the right to decide what men should do. Jehovah God does Not make laws just because He can and has the right, God is not arbitrary, He only makes laws for men because man does not know the right way to go, Jere 10:23. Things that seem right to a man today may lead him to death later on, Prov 14:12, 16:25. Where people get into trouble is, instead of finding out what God's will is, they try to establish their own righteousness or way of doing things, Rom 10:1-3.
Man uses about 3 per cent of the brain power that God gave Adam and Eve. Think of what that means!!! When man was first created he used 100percent of his brain. We have degenerated down to 3 percent, and men believe they are evolving to a higher plain.
God's word, The Bible, is sententious, filled with knowledge and wisdom, and since God is merciful, Good, and just, He has provided His Bible so that we can find answers to all of our questions, Matt 6:8, Gen 40:8, Dan 2:20-22.
Because God wants the best for His creation, is is wisdom on our part to pay attention to the One who knows what is best for us now, and also, forever. To try to Dope Out, reason within our own mind what is the best Way to go, is a very foolish idea. Man, no matter how smart he thinks he is, is extremely limited in knowledge when compared with the Omnscient God.

What if believing the Bible is the word of God is just not in the cards for you. Obviously, there is no value in lying to oneself, faking belief. It must be genuine, but to many the evidence for the reliability of the scriptures just isn't sufficient. That being the case, how can you explain this to people of this nature? Why doesn't God reveal himself to them. I mean, the Bible seems to say that if you open your heart, Jesus will reveal himself to you. But, that just isn't true in the case of many who sincerely try to do this. Thus, that seems to point to the Bible being inaccurate on this point.

 

[Nakosis]

My morals are based on my personal feelings of what is right and wrong. That's it, nothing else matters.

Can't even necessarily tell you exactly what went into the building of my morals. They are just part of who I am. Just because they are right for me doesn't necessarily mean they are right for anyone else. So what. Not my job to decide your morals for you.

One can base their morals on whatever they feel is right, Bible, some concept of natural law, power, money, personal happiness.

Sometimes we will have morals in common, sometimes not. That's reality, don't know why people want to insist otherwise.

 

[leibowde84]

My morals are based on my personal feelings of what is right and wrong. That's it, nothing else matters.

Can't even necessarily tell you exactly what went into the building of my morals. They are just part of who I am. Just because they are right for me doesn't necessarily mean they are right for anyone else. So what. Not my job to decide your morals for you.

One can base their morals on whatever they feel is right, Bible, some concept of natural law, power, money, personal happiness.

Sometimes we will have morals in common, sometimes not. That's reality, don't know why people want to insist otherwise.

I think it is the enjoyment of looking down on people. Not the most "moral" attitude, ironically enough.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

Not sure exactly what you mean after the semi-colon, however I would say that if morality is relative, that's really a hard thing for someone to truly believe. It's relative in that we see that many systems can be organized under the heading of morality, but that's as far as the general person would see it. Now saying that you 'believe that is this the right way to do x, y, or z' is a claim one can make. Oddly, it being a faith based claim, it cannot necessarily be defended, nor does it really need defense. For if you believe something to be true, and it can only be disputed by another belief, how is that ultimately a match either side could win? So in that sort of sense, there might be a relativity.

 

[ether-ore]

My morals are based on my personal feelings of what is right and wrong. That's it, nothing else matters.

Can't even necessarily tell you exactly what went into the building of my morals. They are just part of who I am. Just because they are right for me doesn't necessarily mean they are right for anyone else. So what. Not my job to decide your morals for you.

One can base their morals on whatever they feel is right, Bible, some concept of natural law, power, money, personal happiness.

Sometimes we will have morals in common, sometimes not. That's reality, don't know why people want to insist otherwise.

This r

My morals are based on my personal feelings of what is right and wrong. That's it, nothing else matters.

Can't even necessarily tell you exactly what went into the building of my morals. They are just part of who I am. Just because they are right for me doesn't necessarily mean they are right for anyone else. So what. Not my job to decide your morals for you.

One can base their morals on whatever they feel is right, Bible, some concept of natural law, power, money, personal happiness.

Sometimes we will have morals in common, sometimes not. That's reality, don't know why people want to insist otherwise.

The above is an interesting point of view. It is also the definition of subjectivity. That perspective cannot work in society because it violates the purpose and function of morality. Morality has no meaning apart from how human beings interact and the influence they exert on one another. As a consequence, morality is tied to a code of conduct; a moral code or law. The basis for this law are the consequences which naturally occur when the law is abided or violated; in other words: it is "natural law". Natural law is by definition: objective and not subjective. Natural law is therefore, by definition, true for all people, societies and cultures at all times. It should be obvious that if this is subverted for reasons of subjectivity (or relativity), societies would (and do) fragment; they become non-cohesive, even incoherent; the various groups cease to be capable of peaceful interaction or a common, coordinated effort toward peace and prosperity.

If natural law depends on convention; if it depends on the mutual agreement of all, then question the becomes, how do we arrive at such an agreement? History is, or should be the teacher, except that there is no agreement on what the lessons of history teach us. Those who prefer subjectivity and relativity will deny that a violation of natural law was the cause of the downfall of a society or a culture. They will even deny the validity of natural law as a basis for morality itself. They do this because their cares and concerns pertain only to their own pleasure which usually has to do with gratifying carnal lusts or the lust for power. Natural law confines carnal activities to the bonds of matrimony for the purposes of procreation toward the furtherance and perpetuity of society. The violation of this inevitably leads to the fragmentation mentioned in the above paragraph.

I submit that there is a guide to what the natural law is and why it is naturally the basis for morality. That guide is the scriptures. It is necessary to get metaphysical at this point and talk about God. I've always found it somewhat amusing that those that mock the existence of God do so by referring to those that believe in God as "flat earthers" or those that believe the earth is the center of the universe. Those that mock, while they acknowledge that the earth is not the center of the universe, seem to imply that the earth exists at the center of time. I see an irony in that. Why should it be assumed that this is the only earth ever populated by man? What I am saying should be obvious. This isn't the first earth ever populated by man; neither will it be the last. I submit that the evidence of reason suggests this. Who is doing the populating? ... God. What follows from this is that natural law (God's law) has been in force from all eternity and has been proven over and over again (on many earths) to be the only true support for the peaceful prosperity of a society; which is why God and His word should be trusted.

 

[Mycroft]

Christians go on about morality all the time. However, if they read the Bible - and believe it's true - they will know that god killed babies.

They worship a god that kills babies.

They have no moral high ground to come from.

 

[ether-ore]

Christians go on about morality all the time. However, if they read the Bible - and believe it's true - they will know that god killed babies.

They worship a god that kills babies.

They have no moral high ground to come from.

Again, that statement comes from a perspective that thinks this mortality is all there is. Yes, God takes people out of mortality as He sees fit, but that is only a temporary separation of the body and the spirit. We are here in mortality to be tested. Once the test becomes un-necessary or is otherwise rendered complete, we all (everyone of us) leave mortality... we all die. Your citation of God taking babies out of mortality is only intended to appeal to emotion and not reason. Reasoning on the principles as outlined in scripture, we understand that there is more to existence than this (more or less) unpleasant sojourn in mortality. Attempting to say that there is nothing beyond this life is the same as saying that moral restraints are unnecessary; and this is said in order to excuse behaviors contrary to natural law.

 

[Nakosis]

This r


The above is an interesting point of view. It is also the definition of subjectivity. That perspective cannot work in society because it violates the purpose and function of morality. Morality has no meaning apart from how human beings interact and the influence they exert on one another. As a consequence, morality is tied to a code of conduct; a moral code or law. The basis for this law are the consequences which naturally occur when the law is abided or violated; in other words: it is "natural law". Natural law is by definition: objective and not subjective. Natural law is therefore, by definition, true for all people, societies and cultures at all times. It should be obvious that if this is subverted for reasons of subjectivity (or relativity), societies would (and do) fragment; they become non-cohesive, even incoherent; the various groups cease to be capable of peaceful interaction or a common, coordinated effort toward peace and prosperity.

If this is true, it should be easy for you to state what these natural laws are.

If natural law depends on convention; if it depends on the mutual agreement of all, then question the becomes, how do we arrive at such an agreement? History is, or should be the teacher, except that there is no agreement on what the lessons of history teach us. Those who prefer subjectivity and relativity will deny that a violation of natural law was the cause of the downfall of a society or a culture. They will even deny the validity of natural law as a basis for morality itself. They do this because their cares and concerns pertain only to their own pleasure which usually has to do with gratifying carnal lusts or the lust for power. Natural law confines carnal activities to the bonds of matrimony for the purposes of procreation toward the furtherance and perpetuity of society. The violation of this inevitably leads to the fragmentation mentioned in the above paragraph.

Assuming natural exists which you haven't shown so far.

I submit that there is a guide to what the natural law is and why it is naturally the basis for morality. That guide is the scriptures. It is necessary to get metaphysical at this point and talk about God. I've always found it somewhat amusing that those that mock the existence of God do so by referring to those that believe in God as "flat earthers" or those that believe the earth is the center of the universe. Those that mock, while they acknowledge that the earth is not the center of the universe, seem to imply that the earth exists at the center of time. I see an irony in that. Why should it be assumed that this is the only earth ever populated by man? What I am saying should be obvious. This isn't the first earth ever populated by man; neither will it be the last. I submit that the evidence of reason suggests this. Who is doing the populating? ... God. What follows from this is that natural law (God's law) has been in force from all eternity and has been proven over and over again (on many earths) to be the only true support for the peaceful prosperity of a society; which is why God and His word should be trusted.

Interesting that you've managed to conflate natural law with the Bible. If there exist a natural law it is amoral. It doesn't care about right and wrong. People survive and die because of natural laws, not because it is good or evil.

 

[viole]

Not sure exactly what you mean after the semi-colon, however I would say that if morality is relative, that's really a hard thing for someone to truly believe. It's relative in that we see that many systems can be organized under the heading of morality, but that's as far as the general person would see it. Now saying that you 'believe that is this the right way to do x, y, or z' is a claim one can make. Oddly, it being a faith based claim, it cannot necessarily be defended, nor does it really need defense. For if you believe something to be true, and it can only be disputed by another belief, how is that ultimately a match either side could win? So in that sort of sense, there might be a relativity.

Ok, let's make a practical example: stoning people who break the Sabbath. What is it?

1) amoral
2) relatively moral
3) objectively moral
4) immoral
5) don't know

Ciao

- viole

 

[ether-ore]

If this is true, it should be easy for you to state what these natural laws are.



Assuming natural exists which you haven't shown so far.



Interesting that you've managed to conflate natural law with the Bible. If there exist a natural law it is amoral. It doesn't care about right and wrong. People survive and die because of natural laws, not because it is good or evil.

For me to catalog natural laws here would necessitate my re-writing Cicero, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. All of these (and others) have spoken more or less concerning natural law, so the laws are available to all who would take the time to read about them. You say that I have "conflated" natural law with the Bible, suggesting that these have nothing to do with one another. I suggest that they have everything to do with one another. When you say that "People survive and die because of natural laws, not because it is good or evil"; the phrasing of that statement places individual concerns above those of society without any regard to there being a balance between the two. The good and evil aspect of natural law which you choose to ignore has everything to do with the survival of society in that those laws provide guidance for how we should treat one another. The most obvious example would be that we treat one another as we ourselves would be treated.

 

[Nakosis]

For me to catalog natural laws here would necessitate my re-writing Cicero, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. All of these (and others) have spoken more or less concerning natural law, so the laws are available to all who would take the time to read about them. You say that I have "conflated" natural law with the Bible, suggesting that these have nothing to do with one another. I suggest that they have everything to do with one another. When you say that "People survive and die because of natural laws, not because it is good or evil"; the phrasing of that statement places individual concerns above those of society without any regard to there being a balance between the two. The good and evil aspect of natural law which you choose to ignore has everything to do with the survival of society in that those laws provide guidance for how we should treat one another. The most obvious example would be that we treat one another as we ourselves would be treated.

It is not necessary that you rewrite these folks to discuss their ideas. Sure if I've an interest in their views I can go read them except they are not around to discuss them.

You can suggest as you wish but you are not really providing a counter argument.

All I'm saying is that nature is not concerned with man. Man is of course concerned with man. Man has a concern with his own survival. Nature and the laws of nature, why think good and evil exists here?

The laws of nature vs natural law... is there a difference? If there is please explain it. Otherwise I don't see why nature would concern itself with whether man continues to exist of not.

 

[Nakosis]

Ok, let's make a practical example: stoning people who break the Sabbath. What is it?

1) amoral
2) relatively moral
3) objectively moral
4) immoral
5) don't know

Ciao

- viole

Depends on the culture and more importantly on the individual. Some may see this as perfectly fine. Others an abomination of moral justice.

For me, subjectively it is immoral. I really can't answer for anyone/everyone else.