The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Roy]

How do you know that?

Because there's no evidence they exist. Because there's no reason for them to exist. Because there's no need for them to exist. Because those who claim they exist use fallacious arguments. Because those that claim they exist disagree on what they are and where they originate.

Even if one could not identify such values does not mean that they don't exist. Ontology differs from epistemology.

Feel free to provide evidence that they exist and explain why we can't identify them.

[Roy]

1. morality is arbitrarily decided by god

That is just false Thinker and you know it.

Of course he knows that. He's an atheist. He's characterising some-one else's argument.

God's law is not arbitrary since it flows from His immutable moral character.

That's just your opinion and it has no factual basis.

[Roy]

Our moral beliefs could have evolved differently.

Moral beliefs have evolved differently. Different societies have different moral standards.

What if humans have evolved in such a way that rape actually enhances survival and reproduction? Would that make rape morally right?

No, because morals and survival are not interchangeable.

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?

Because an accurate perception of reality is more likely to enhance survivability than an inaccurate one.

What's your answer to the same question? If human beings and their minds were designed by some entity, on what basis can we trust our minds to generate reliable beliefs, rather than what that entity wants us to believe?

[seer]

Because there's no evidence they exist. Because there's no reason for them to exist. Because there's no need for them to exist. Because those who claim they exist use fallacious arguments. Because those that claim they exist disagree on what they are and where they originate.

Please explain how grounding ethics in the law of God would be fallacious. What exactly would the logical fallacy be?

Feel free to provide evidence that they exist and explain why we can't identify them.

I didn't say we couldn't identify them, only that that would not exclude their existence. And to find them read your New Testament and look into your own heart for your highest moral ideals.

[shunyadragon]

Please explain how grounding ethics in the law of God would be fallacious. What exactly would the logical fallacy be?

Begging the question and arguing from ignorance.

I didn't say we couldn't identify them, only that that would not exclude their existence. And to find them read your New Testament and look into your own heart for your highest moral ideals.

Of course, I would not exclude God's role in Creation, and the source of everything, but your argument remains anecdotal, an assertion of belief, and not remotely convincing to those who do not believe based on the actual scientific evidence.

[Roy]

Because there's no evidence they [universal objective moral values] exist. Because there's no reason for them to exist. Because there's no need for them to exist. Because those who claim they exist use fallacious arguments. Because those that claim they exist disagree on what they are and where they originate.

Please explain how grounding ethics in the law of God would be fallacious. What exactly would the logical fallacy be?

So far, shifting the burden of proof, non sequitur and arguing from false premises.

I didn't say we couldn't identify them, only that that would not exclude their existence. And to find them read your New Testament and look into your own heart for your highest moral ideals.

So you've got nothing but religious and anatomical vacuity.

[seer]

So far, shifting the burden of proof, non sequitur and arguing from false premises.

Except you can not demonstrate that the existence of God is a false premise.

So you've got nothing but religious and anatomical vacuity.

And what do you have?

[37818]

Morality is of our objective reality [natural revelation do to creation by God]. Morality is not morality by fait even though by fait what that morality is has been so stated [in special revelation of the writings attibuted from God].

[Roy]

Except you can not demonstrate that the existence of God is a false premise.

Just more shifting the burden of proof.

You said there was a law of God, you get to demonstrate its existence.

And what do you have?

Better knowledge of anatomy than you.

Also, I'm not a hypocritical bigot.

[seer]

Just more shifting the burden of proof.

You said there was a law of God, you get to demonstrate its existence.

I wasn't claiming to demonstrate the existence of God, I was answering Thinker's claim that God's law would be arbitrary, which it would not be. Then you stuck your big nose in.

Better knowledge of anatomy than you.

What does that have to to with where we ground ethics?

Also, I'm not a hypocritical bigot.

What on earth is that about?

[Roy]

I wasn't claiming to demonstrate the existence of God, I was answering Thinker's claim that God's law would be arbitrary, which it would not be.

What you were actually doing was accusing him of lying based on your own vacuous and unevidenced (and unbiblical*) assertions.

Then you stuck your big nose in.

A quick recheck of this conversation shows that actually I was replying to Jaxb and you stuck your big nose in. So if you think it's a problem you can just butt out again.

* I bet you think your god's law regarding eating lobster no longer applies

[Jaxb]

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.


The belief that rape is morally wrong is not consistent among different cultures. In fact in the Old Testament rape is not immoral.



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.

Suppose that it is a fact that X promotes survival. Just because X promotes survival does not necessarily mean that X is morally right. Just because something is the case does not mean that it ought to be the case.

If truth is too much a subjective concept how can you be certain that right or wrong is determined by what promotes or does not promote survival? The claim that right or wrong is determined by what promotes survival value is itself a truth claim.

If there is no consistent absolute standard of moral truth, then how do people know that Mother Theresa is better than Hitler?

[seer]

What you were actually doing was accusing him of lying based on your own vacuous and unevidenced (and unbiblical*) assertions.

No Roy, he brought it up, and it is false. Was he lying or did he just forget our last discussion? The point is he should have known better. And as far as your opinion, or unbelief, on the existence of God, that is totally meaningless.

A quick recheck of this conversation shows that actually I was replying to Jaxb and you stuck your big nose in. So if you think it's a problem you can just butt out again.

Right, you made an unfounded assertion. And I called you on it.

* I bet you think your god's law regarding eating lobster no longer applies

So what is your point?

[crepuscule]

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.

I don’t find it obvious at all that objective moral values exist. We agree that torturing babies is wrong, but why is it objectively wrong? In other words, why is it true despite what we think about said act?

Universal, objective moral values cannot come from impersonal things.

What makes you think universal objective moral values –if they exist- came from something anyway? Why can’t they exist (again, if they do), say, necessarily, in the same way that 2+2=4 is true in every possible world?

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.

I’d say any moral value that comes from a personal being –be it God, human or other- is by definition subjective.

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."

In order for this bit to work you’ll at least have to show that the only being that can have that authority is God.

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.

Possibly, but that standard could still be subjective. You have not shown that a ‘culture transcending’ moral value must be objective.


And btw, what about the Eutyphro Dilemma? If God exists, His nature defines our moral rules. But then if it is in His nature to torture innocent babies should we oblige despite our disgust of said act?

[shunyadragon]

Suppose that it is a fact that X promotes survival. Just because X promotes survival does not necessarily mean that X is morally right. Just because something is the case does not mean that it ought to be the case.

What is morally right is not so easily determined in this comparison, and yes what is necessary for survival is not necessarily morally right. Different cultures over time and in the diversity of cultures do not agree what is morally right. This case actually undermines some of your black and white assertions concerning some nebulous 'objective morality.'

Nonetheless morality and ethics over time and in the diverse cultures are consistent on behavior that promoted cooperation and survival of the family and community. Without these morals and ethics humanity could not survive.That is what evolution and natural selection is all about and how it works.

If truth is too much a subjective concept how can you be certain that right or wrong is determined by what promotes or does not promote survival? The claim that right or wrong is determined by what promotes survival value is itself a truth claim.

Because truth claims are too diverse and inconsistent to be of any remote value in determining what promotes survival. No, The claim that right or wrong is determined by what promotes survival value is NOT a truth claim. Science does NOT male truth claims.

If there is no consistent absolute standard of moral truth, then how do people know that Mother Theresa is better than Hitler?

Absolute moral truth claims are too diverse and inconsistent to be of any judgement value. Mother Teresa is better than Hitler based on simple consistent morals and ethics that promote the survival of humanity.

Example: It is impossible for you to come up with an 'absolute moral truth claim' against rape considering the whole history of humanity. The Old Testament is the best example where 'rape' is not consistent, and OT Law allows rape in many cases.