Are God's Laws actually valid?

[Spacefoetus]

Wow, provocative thread title.

Anyway, of course I believe they are, I'm a Christian, but recently on some internet exchange I've been having I have met an atheist who naturally argues that they arn't. This argument was specifically aimed at homosexuality, but I guess it could be used to undermine other Christian Laws.

I'm really not sure if it should be posted here: perhaps aplogetics or philosophy would be more appropriat.

Anyway, here goes:

1). Laws should be there for a purpose.

2). The purpose of law is to enact justice.

3). A just law is one which benefits everyone or society at large.
3)a. Benefit to society at large is a definition of correct ethics.

4). One must base one's judgements on the world on evidence as that the only thing with which one can form knowledge.
4)a. Therefore, laws must be based on evidence confirming their benefit to society at large.
4)b. Also, opinions must be validated by evidence before being accepted as truth.

5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.

6). Might does not equal right.
6)a. Therefore god's power does not make his opinions correct or good.

7).Therefore god's law is not a valid basis on which to make laws and does not reflect a correct ethics.

Like I said, maybe this shouldn't be in biblical ethics?

Seriously though, I need help breaking this argument down. Thanks!!!

[Andevian]

I pray you'll forgive the intrusion, as I'm certainly no great thinker. It does seem to me that the atheist in question has simplified almost all of these subjects to the point of caricature. The biggest problem I see is in #4. With nothing but evidence to form knowledge with, we are left with only a large collection of anecdotes. For instance, I know that I have touched the stove and I know that my hand is now burnt. Only through inductive reasoning can I form the knowledge that the stove is hot. Therefore, evidence alone is insufficient to form knowledge.

That takes a lot of the wind out of #5 because we have the ability to use our knowledge of the period to reason out why most, if not all, of those laws make sense. The lack of any reasoning that any empirical data on the subject must come from Scripture to be valid doesn't help his case much either. Since a great many laws also have at least the appearance of a basis in philosophy, it seems to be out of place to insist that all of them be grounded on empirical data anyway.

I hope this helps at least a little bit. I'm sure someone with better reasoning skills than I will be along soon to help you out more.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Wow, provocative thread title.

Anyway, of course I believe they are, I'm a Christian, but recently on some internet exchange I've been having I have met an atheist who naturally argues that they arn't. This argument was specifically aimed at homosexuality, but I guess it could be used to undermine other Christian Laws.

I'm really not sure if it should be posted here: perhaps aplogetics or philosophy would be more appropriat.

Anyway, here goes:

1). Laws should be there for a purpose.

2). The purpose of law is to enact justice.

3). A just law is one which benefits everyone or society at large.
3)a. Benefit to society at large is a definition of correct ethics.

4). One must base one's judgements on the world on evidence as that the only thing with which one can form knowledge.
4)a. Therefore, laws must be based on evidence confirming their benefit to society at large.
4)b. Also, opinions must be validated by evidence before being accepted as truth.

5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.

6). Might does not equal right.
6)a. Therefore god's power does not make his opinions correct or good.

7).Therefore god's law is not a valid basis on which to make laws and does not reflect a correct ethics.

Like I said, maybe this shouldn't be in biblical ethics?

Seriously though, I need help breaking this argument down. Thanks!!!


Hi Space,

I'm not claiming to be correct here, but i've been giving this topic some thought for awhile now, so these are just a couple of thoughts, and then it's time for bed.

#1... i think i agree with this, but i don't think it is necessarily so. God could have said, "thou shalt not eat potato pancakes", simply because He didn't want us to eat potato pancakes.
So then, the actual ethic involved would not necessarily be the not eating of the pancakes, but the obedience to the Law-Giver.

#2... a law's purpose is not to enact justice, but to serve and protect. I think this would extend to absolutes... such as, God does not lie. If God could lie, there would be no way to know or believe anything.. i think.
Justice is a result of obeying or not obeying a law (with the assumption that the law is a moral law)


#3.... you said this was originally directed at homosexuality? How does homosexuality benefit everyone or society at large?


#4 appears to be a re-statement of W.K. Clifford's self-defeating claim (It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.)

#5... where is the atheist's proof that it is God's opinion?

and again, God does not lie..... that God will not violate the law of non-contradiction, and that nearly all of the 10 Commandments boil down to honesty, i'd think that is a big clue where at least one absolute is.


#6 seems to be a misunderstanding (or slight of hand) of who God is..... He is the Sovereign. He is not JUST a more powerful being, like us versus an ant. He is the Creator of all.

#7, based on the mistaken premises, the conclusion does not follow.



Good night, and God Bless,
johnny

[Soyeong]

#1... i think i agree with this, but i don't think it is necessarily so. God could have said, "thou shalt not eat potato pancakes", simply because He didn't want us to eat potato pancakes.
So then, the actual ethic involved would not necessarily be the not eating of the pancakes, but the obedience to the Law-Giver.

I agree with #1 as well, but I think if God simply didn't want us to eat potato pancakes, then that would be the purpose of the law.


#2... a law's purpose is not to enact justice, but to serve and protect
I think the laws serve and protect by enacting justice.

-------------


.3). A just law is one which benefits everyone or society at large.
3)a. Benefit to society at large is a definition of correct ethics.
Justice is when people get exactly what they deserve. This in turn usually benefits everyone or society at large, but not necessarily so. I don't think benefit to a society at large is necessarily correct ethics either.


4). One must base one's judgements on the world on evidence as that the only thing with which one can form knowledge.
4)a. Therefore, laws must be based on evidence confirming their benefit to society at large.
4)b. Also, opinions must be validated by evidence before being accepted as truth.
I agree with 4, but not with necessarily with 4a because laws are primarily about justice. For example, based on the evidence, it was just for God to send the flood, but that can hardly be said to be beneficial to society at large. Admittedly, maybe beneficial to society at small. As far as 4b goes, I am of the opinion that potato pancakes taste good evidenced by that fact that I eat a lot of them, so everyone should accept my opinion as truth? :huh:


5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.
Judgments on the law are based off of evidence, not the creation of laws. I don't see how finding empirical evidence for a law to be true even makes sense. It can be true or false that laws have certain characteristics, such as being beneficial to society at large, but they are not true or false in it of themselves.

Going into 6, anyone can pass any law they want, but shouldn't expect anyone to follow them if they do not have the might to enforce it. It is agreed that might does not equal right, but no one is claiming that it is God's might alone that makes his opinions correct or good.

Therefore 7 doesn't follow.

[Soyeong]

Hello and welcome to TWeb!


I pray you'll forgive the intrusion, as I'm certainly no great thinker. It does seem to me that the atheist in question has simplified almost all of these subjects to the point of caricature. The biggest problem I see is in #4. With nothing but evidence to form knowledge with, we are left with only a large collection of anecdotes. For instance, I know that I have touched the stove and I know that my hand is now burnt. Only through inductive reasoning can I form the knowledge that the stove is hot. Therefore, evidence alone is insufficient to form knowledge.
The last I checked, inductive reasoning still required evidence. If evidence alone is insufficient to form knowledge, then you shouldn't be forming that knowledge.

[micah4]

1). Laws should be there for a purpose.
2). The purpose of law is to enact justice.
3). A just law is one which benefits everyone or society at large.
3)a. Benefit to society at large is a definition of correct ethics.

4). One must base one's judgements on the world on evidence as that the only thing with which one can form knowledge.
4)a. Therefore, laws must be based on evidence confirming their benefit to society at large.
4)b. Also, opinions must be validated by evidence before being accepted as truth.

5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.

6). Might does not equal right.
6)a. Therefore god's power does not make his opinions correct or good.

7).Therefore god's law is not a valid basis on which to make laws and does not reflect a correct ethics.


I would point out that I can agree with number 4, with a big however: The manner in which Number 4 is actualized can be an enormous problem.

The problem is which evidence you choose to look out and your qualification to rightly judge the evidence. We can't look at a few hundred years of history, apply our imperfect reasoning to that and arrogantly presume that we'll come to the right conclusion about whether a law is a benefit or detriment to society. Our limited knowledge- and personal bias make this an entirely subjective approach, because everybody can define "benefit to society" differently, or assign different weights to the beneficiality of various aspects of the impact of the law.

We have *no idea* how a law (or any act) will benefit or detriment a society hundreds of years from now if our ideas are formed apart from divine revelation. If "God's opinion", as he says, is right, it is a much more solid basis than human inductive reasoning from limited experience.

Now, it can still be said that number 4 is valid, but your friend probably looks for the wrong "evidence" of whether laws benefit society; the evidence he should consider is the evidence of God's truthfulness. He ought, as he states in 4(b), evaluate the evidence which validates God's truthfulness. If the evidence supports God's claims of his truthfulness and trustworthiness, then his opinion is of infinitely higher credibility than the subjective interpetation by men of various historical states of affairs and postulations and theorys as to cause and effect and probable future impact.

[Andevian]

Hello and welcome to TWeb!Thank you!

The last I checked, inductive reasoning still required evidence. If evidence alone is insufficient to form knowledge, then you shouldn't be forming that knowledge.Ah, quite rightly you catch me in an unintentional misstatement. To more properly express my meaning, I should have said: "Only by examining the evidence and applying inductive reasoning can I form the knowledge that the stove is hot." or something similar. So, without evidence there is nothing to apply reasoning to, but without reasoning there is nothing but disjointed data. We haven't even begun to scratch the problem of who accepts what as evidence nor the radically different results of reasoning when evidence is examined by different people. I think the entire premise of #4 is nonsensical.

Not to mention that:
#1 is arbitrary
#2 is arbitrary (I personally think laws are to create and foster a system of order)
#3 is arbitrary
#4a is nonsensical because 4 is nonsensical
#4b is nonsensical because 4 is nonsensical
#5 is arbitrary and lacks empirical data to justify its own requirement for empirical data
#6 is arbitrary (no matter how generally agreed upon)
#7 is arbitrary and nonsensical because it is based solely on arbitrary and nonsensical statements

[Spacefoetus]

Good responses, but I'd rather this was moved to apologetics, so I can have atheists take on this argument.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Are G-d’s Laws actually valid?

Anyway, of course I believe they are, I'm a Christian, but recently on some internet exchange I've been having I have met an atheist who naturally argues that they arn't.

1). Laws should be there for a purpose.

In the case of G-d, sometimes we aren’t capable of understanding the purpose. We can speculate. But as a child not understanding parental dictates which are in their own best interests, so do we sometimes not understand G-d’s laws which are in our best interests.

Also, he seems unaware of the thousands of laws on the books written by people, which no longer serve a purpose. G-d wrote His Laws for Eternity, so they are always useful and relevant to us.


2). The purpose of law is to enact justice.

There are multiple purposes of laws. Several that come to immediately mind are raising revenue, encouraging certain behaviors, or affecting privacy rights.


3). A just law is one which benefits everyone or society at large.
3)a. Benefit to society at large is a definition of correct ethics.

His definition is flawed. If society benefits from cheaper roads, is it ethical to seize an individual’s land for the project?


4). One must base one's judgements on the world on evidence as that the only thing with which one can form knowledge.
4)a. Therefore, laws must be based on evidence confirming their benefit to society at large.
4)b. Also, opinions must be validated by evidence before being accepted as truth.

As is typical, he is implying that the only acceptable evidence is physical and measurable by science.

Point 4b makes no sense at all. All sorts of opinions are accepted as truthful, not just those that rely on physical evidence. Many opinions are based on the judgment of the individual involved.

And physical evidence is not a be all and end all. Many opinions based on physical proofs were once accepted as truth, only later were they realized to be false. The interpretation of the physical evidence changes with different people. G-d's Laws are forever.


5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.

Again, he will only accept physical evidence. G-d didn’t come with a test tube and a Bunsen burner. He came to the entire nation of Israel and gave us His laws for living. Some make sense to us and others don’t. However, we don’t get to pick and choose. G-d has our best interests at heart.


6). Might does not equal right.
6)a. Therefore god's power does not make his opinions correct or good.

G-d is Eternal and we are limited. He knows, better than we do, what is in our best interests.


7).Therefore god's law is not a valid basis on which to make laws and does not reflect a correct ethics.

Humans have done much worse. We have many laws on the books which are neither fair nor ethical.

[xtreem5150ahm]

I think the laws serve and protect by enacting justice.

-------------


Justice is when people get exactly what they deserve. This in turn usually benefits everyone or society at large, but not necessarily so. I don't think benefit to a society at large is necessarily correct ethics either.

But if the law says the speed limit is 60 and i break the law, no justice was enacted.
AFAICT, justice can only be enacted when caught and convicted.

[ionerice]

When speaking of God’s Law’s are we referring to Just the Ten Commandments or all 613 Laws of Moses found in the Torah? Many of those laws are obsolete for those of us living in the 21st century and as a matter of fact very few modern day Jews, except for a few Orthodoxy, attempt to follow them.

Many of the Laws that have been attributed to God and the Israeli people were borrowed and hijacked from other cultures by the Hebrew Scribes. The evidence that many of these Laws came from previous cultures can be found in museums all over the world, especially the British Museum in London, England.

The Babylonian Hammurabi Code and the Egyptian Book of the Dead is a primary source.
This is a Christian only area

[Waruigi]

5). God's laws are not based on evidence but god's opinions. No empirical justification is given in scripture.

In the Bible, that is the sole justification. The Bible written from the perspective of accepting God as all-powerful and sufficiently knowledgeable to enact such laws without needing to justify.

It is true that within scripture we don't have logical justifications other than the omniscient being said so, but that doesn't mean there is a deficiency of evidence regarding their rationality. I certainly don't know of a rational explanation for every law, I would guess that there are still some for which no one has an answer, but there are many that are quite justifiable and some even obvious.

Take for example the regulations regarding mold. Those the routine is quite rigorous, probably too much so as far as what it necessary to eliminate the mold is concerned, but it does setup a standard practice for dealing cleanliness and removing materials that could be hazardous to the health of a family without hastily tossing out still usable furniture. Then there is ceremonial cleanliness, which, while often given a divine element to it, it's all that different from ordinary, worldly cleanliness. Imagine how easy it would be to catch a cold from the door to the Temple otherwise!

[phase]

Why joust with an atheist?
"Never ague with an idiot, they will take you down to their level and win with experience" (sort of applies)
Everyone of the 10 commandments protects the people; emotionally, physically, or psychologically.
(resisting the urge to breakdown the commands and show degree of protection)
Besides, we don't live under the law anymore but under grace.