Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Moral Argument for God's Existence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Moral Argument for God's Existence

    Universal, objective moral values exist. Let me explain what I mean by universal and objective. Universal means applying to all people in all places at all times. Objective means independent of what human beings think. It is obvious that universal, objective moral values exist. Here is an example of a universal, objective moral value: Torturing babies for the fun of it is morally wrong.

    Universal, objective moral values come to us in the form of commands. They specify what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things. Impersonal things cannot specify what people ought to do. They cannot tell give people any duties or moral obligations. Universal, objective moral values come from a personal being who has legitimate authority. A person with no authority cannot obligate you to do something.

    Universal, objective moral values must come from a personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times. No mere human being has authority over all people in all places at all times. No nation, culture, or society has authority over all people in all places at all times. The personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times is called "God."

    What do you think of the above argument? How can it be strengthened? What objections can be made against it?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
    Universal, objective moral values exist. Let me explain what I mean by universal and objective. Universal means applying to all people in all places at all times. Objective means independent of what human beings think. It is obvious that universal, objective moral values exist. Here is an example of a universal, objective moral value: Torturing babies for the fun of it is morally wrong.

    Universal, objective moral values come to us in the form of commands. They specify what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things. Impersonal things cannot specify what people ought to do. They cannot tell give people any duties or moral obligations. Universal, objective moral values come from a personal being who has legitimate authority. A person with no authority cannot obligate you to do something.

    Universal, objective moral values must come from a personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times. No mere human being has authority over all people in all places at all times. No nation, culture, or society has authority over all people in all places at all times. The personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times is called "God."

    What do you think of the above argument? How can it be strengthened? What objections can be made against it?
    I agree with the fundamental idea that God exists because the universe is objectively moral--that is to say that the moral quality of the universe argues for a law giver. The most serious argument against it is that you have to first buy into objective moral reality, which is difficult to get people to believe. How would you demonstrate the objective moral reality of the universe?
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
      Universal, objective moral values exist. Let me explain what I mean by universal and objective. Universal means applying to all people in all places at all times. Objective means independent of what human beings think. It is obvious that universal, objective moral values exist. Here is an example of a universal, objective moral value: Torturing babies for the fun of it is morally wrong.

      Universal, objective moral values come to us in the form of commands. They specify what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things. Impersonal things cannot specify what people ought to do. They cannot tell give people any duties or moral obligations. Universal, objective moral values come from a personal being who has legitimate authority. A person with no authority cannot obligate you to do something.

      Universal, objective moral values must come from a personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times. No mere human being has authority over all people in all places at all times. No nation, culture, or society has authority over all people in all places at all times. The personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times is called "God."

      What do you think of the above argument? How can it be strengthened? What objections can be made against it?
      As a Theist I agree with the claim concerning the universal 'Source' that is what we call God, but as an argument against non-believers it fails. I will go into the argument and its problems in more detail.

      Basically, as a Baha'i, I believe in the progressive evolving Spiritual Law and Principles revealed through Revelation. The problem with morality and ethics is that by definition they represent human constructs and contracts in cultures and societies that meet the need for social stability and cooperation for humans to survive, and can adequately described by evolution. They are consistent, but variable from culture to culture over time. A society nor a culture could survive with values of morals that allow torturing and killing babies for pleasure.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by guacamole View Post
        I agree with the fundamental idea that God exists because the universe is objectively moral--that is to say that the moral quality of the universe argues for a law giver. The most serious argument against it is that you have to first buy into objective moral reality, which is difficult to get people to believe. How would you demonstrate the objective moral reality of the universe?
        Denying that there is no universal, objective moral value leads to absurd conclusions. Suppose that there is a certain culture that thinks that racism is a virtue. If there are no universal, objective moral values then someone outside of that culture could legitimately criticize that culture for being morally wrong. To say that certain cultures are morally wrong for believing certain things implies that there is some standard that transcends cultures.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          As a Theist I agree with the claim concerning the universal 'Source' that is what we call God, but as an argument against non-believers it fails. I will go into the argument and its problems in more detail.

          Basically, as a Baha'i, I believe in the progressive evolving Spiritual Law and Principles revealed through Revelation. The problem with morality and ethics is that by definition they represent human constructs and contracts in cultures and societies that meet the need for social stability and cooperation for humans to survive, and can adequately described by evolution. They are consistent, but variable from culture to culture over time. A society nor a culture could survive with values of morals that allow torturing and killing babies for pleasure.
          Evolution explains what would promote survival value. However, promoting survival value is not the same as being morally right. If lying were to promote survival value, would that mean that lying is morally right.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
            Evolution explains what would promote survival value. However, promoting survival value is not the same as being morally right. If lying were to promote survival value, would that mean that lying is morally right.
            Well, ah . . . deny it if you wish, but archeology, anthropology, and the specific discipline of Evolutionary ethics, has demonstrated that the need for social cooperation and stability, and has indeed demonstrated that survival value is the basis of what is considered moral and ethical in humanity promoting survival in terms of the family and community. Evolutionary ethics does not answer at present all the questions. Like any science it is a work in progress, but you cannot 'hand wave' away the possibility the evolution of morals and ethics as not an option with an assertion of Divine Objective morality which in and of itself has no basis in objective evidence.

            Your being very naive and claiming black and white morality in terms of lying. Yes lying is in some context is immoral in most cultures, but has it Yes, lying is a part of virtually all cultures in varying degrees, but limited by guilt in the west and saving face and shame in cultures in the East. Lying actually has benefits in reducing conflict in cultures. Your assertion is knee deep in arguing from ignorance, and begging the question, assuming before hand morality must have a Divine Objective basis.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
              Universal, objective moral values exist. Let me explain what I mean by universal and objective. Universal means applying to all people in all places at all times. Objective means independent of what human beings think. It is obvious that universal, objective moral values exist. Here is an example of a universal, objective moral value: Torturing babies for the fun of it is morally wrong.

              Universal, objective moral values come to us in the form of commands. They specify what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things. Impersonal things cannot specify what people ought to do. They cannot tell give people any duties or moral obligations. Universal, objective moral values come from a personal being who has legitimate authority. A person with no authority cannot obligate you to do something.

              Universal, objective moral values must come from a personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times. No mere human being has authority over all people in all places at all times. No nation, culture, or society has authority over all people in all places at all times. The personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times is called "God."

              What do you think of the above argument? How can it be strengthened? What objections can be made against it?
              Then why did yahweh order the murders of men, women and children? If morals are subjective in so far as god is concerned, then they are subjective period.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                Universal, objective moral values exist.
                No they don't.
                What objections can be made against it?
                See above. If you disagree, perhaps you could identify some of those universal objective moral values, and explain how you did so. Preferably starting with the universal objective moral values relevant to slavery, hijabs and polygamy.
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Roy View Post
                  No they don't.
                  How do you know that?

                  See above. If you disagree, perhaps you could identify some of those universal objective moral values, and explain how you did so. Preferably starting with the universal objective moral values relevant to slavery, hijabs and polygamy.
                  Even if one could not identify such values does not mean that they don't exist. Ontology differs from epistemology.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    How do you know that?



                    Even if one could not identify such values does not mean that they don't exist.
                    Unfounded argument from ignorance.

                    Ontology differs from epistemology.
                    So what?!?!? Explain?
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                      Universal, objective moral values exist. Let me explain what I mean by universal and objective. Universal means applying to all people in all places at all times. Objective means independent of what human beings think. It is obvious that universal, objective moral values exist. Here is an example of a universal, objective moral value: Torturing babies for the fun of it is morally wrong.

                      Universal, objective moral values come to us in the form of commands. They specify what we ought to do or what we ought not to do. Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things. Impersonal things cannot specify what people ought to do. They cannot tell give people any duties or moral obligations. Universal, objective moral values come from a personal being who has legitimate authority. A person with no authority cannot obligate you to do something.

                      Universal, objective moral values must come from a personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times. No mere human being has authority over all people in all places at all times. No nation, culture, or society has authority over all people in all places at all times. The personal being who has authority over all people in all places at all times is called "God."

                      What do you think of the above argument? How can it be strengthened? What objections can be made against it?
                      The argument can never succeed, because you will always be stuck in an inescapable trilemma:

                      1. morality is arbitrarily decided by god
                      2. make a circular argument
                      3. morality exists independently of god

                      Morality doesn't come from authority. If there was a god who was committed to evil (causing maximal harm) that would not make it's commands right.
                      Blog: Atheism and the City

                      If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                        1. morality is arbitrarily decided by god
                        That is just false Thinker and you know it. God's law is not arbitrary since it flows from His immutable moral character.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Well, ah . . . deny it if you wish, but archeology, anthropology, and the specific discipline of Evolutionary ethics, has demonstrated that the need for social cooperation and stability, and has indeed demonstrated that survival value is the basis of what is considered moral and ethical in humanity promoting survival in terms of the family and community. Evolutionary ethics does not answer at present all the questions. Like any science it is a work in progress, but you cannot 'hand wave' away the possibility the evolution of morals and ethics as not an option with an assertion of Divine Objective morality which in and of itself has no basis in objective evidence.

                          Your being very naive and claiming black and white morality in terms of lying. Yes lying is in some context is immoral in most cultures, but has it Yes, lying is a part of virtually all cultures in varying degrees, but limited by guilt in the west and saving face and shame in cultures in the East. Lying actually has benefits in reducing conflict in cultures. Your assertion is knee deep in arguing from ignorance, and begging the question, assuming before hand morality must have a Divine Objective basis.
                          If moral values evolved as humans evolved, then evolutionary ethics is arbitrary and could have developed in opposite directions. Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson in their book The Evolution of Ethics say that instead of evolving from “savannah-dwelling primates,” we, like termites, could have evolved needing “to dwell in darkness, eat each other’s [waste], and cannibalize the dead.” If the latter were the case, we would “extol such acts as beautiful and moral” and “find it morally disgusting to live in the open air, dispose of body waste and bury the dead.”

                          Our moral beliefs could have evolved differently. What if humans have evolved in such a way that rape actually enhances survival and reproduction? Would that make rape morally right?

                          If human beings and their minds are products of biological processes, then on what basis can we trust our minds to generate reliable beliefs about what is right and wrong? Biological processes are non-rational. They are not directed towards the truth. They are directed towards survival, not necessarily truth.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                            The argument can never succeed, because you will always be stuck in an inescapable trilemma:

                            1. morality is arbitrarily decided by god
                            2. make a circular argument
                            3. morality exists independently of god

                            Morality doesn't come from authority. If there was a god who was committed to evil (causing maximal harm) that would not make it's commands right.
                            Morality is not arbitrarily decided by God. God's law is a reflection of His nature. God would not call dishonesty a good thing because dishonesty does not reflect God's character. It is contrary to His character.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jaxb View Post
                              If moral values evolved as humans evolved, then evolutionary ethics is arbitrary and could have developed in opposite directions. Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson in their book The Evolution of Ethics say that instead of evolving from “savannah-dwelling primates,” we, like termites, could have evolved needing “to dwell in darkness, eat each other’s [waste], and cannibalize the dead.” If the latter were the case, we would “extol such acts as beautiful and moral” and “find it morally disgusting to live in the open air, dispose of body waste and bury the dead.”
                              Hypothetical paths of evolution does not effect the facts of how humans evolved as “savannah-dwelling primates,” the fact that we did evolve from primates excludes these ridiculous alternatives. Me evolved as a social intelligent opportunistic omnivore, and morals and ethics are necessary for human families and communities to survive.
                              Our moral beliefs could have evolved differently. What if humans have evolved in such a way that rape actually enhances survival and reproduction? Would that make rape morally right?
                              The belief that rape is morally wrong is not consistent among different cultures. In fact in the Old Testament rape is not immoral.

                              If human beings and their minds are products of biological processes, then on what basis can we trust our minds to generate reliable beliefs about what is right and wrong? Biological processes are non-rational. They are not directed towards the truth. They are directed towards survival, not necessarily truth.
                              True, there is no evidence that Biological processes are rational, and there is no evidence that reliable beliefs are generated regardless. What is right or wrong would be determined by the morals and ethics that are necessary for survival. Truth at present is too much a subjective concept to be no more than an anecdotal claim which different religions and beliefs radically disagree. Fallible human beings are not obviously capable of believing in nor agreeing on a consistent standard of absolute truth.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-29-2016, 06:01 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              507 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X