The Laws of Logic Imply God's Existence

[shunyadragon]

So what do you do with the people who are not reasonably good and moral? And why should we as a species survive?

There are prisons and other methods in all societies and cultures that punish people who are not reasonably good and moral.

[seer]

I think that those of you who believe in OM hold to it for the very same reasons that those who hold to SM do. First, we hold to our moral principles because we believe them to be true in principle, and one doesn't need a God in order to be principled, and second, should we be tempted to stray from our principled morality, we fear the consequences of our actions should we be caught. Whats the difference?

That is the question Jim, what would your moral principles be if you were brought up in Nazi Germany or Mao's China. Would you have agreed with the persecution of Jews or the executions of dissenters - that these were morally good actions?

[shunyadragon]

That is the question Jim, what would your moral principles be if you were brought up in Nazi Germany or Mao's China. Would you have agreed with the persecution of Jews or the executions of dissenters - that these were morally good actions?

If you were brought up in Mao's China your moral principles would be Confucian, you may or may not believe in Mao's philosophy. If you grew up in Europe under the teachings of Martin Luther you would enthusiastically embrace the persecution and executions of the Jews, and perfectly at home in the Inquisition.

[seer]

If you were brought up in Mao's China your moral principles would be Confucian, you may or may not believe in Mao's philosophy. If you grew up in Europe under the teachings of Martin Luther you would enthusiastically embrace the persecution and executions of the Jews, and perfectly at home in the Inquisition.

So you agree that all morality is subjective. Killing dissenters and Jews is ok, in their respective cultures - correct?

[shunyadragon]

So you agree that all morality is subjective. Killing dissenters and Jews is ok, in their respective cultures - correct?

No, I agree your argument is phony baloney, and selectively biased.

Immorality and unethical behavior is universal in human and has nothing to do with whether morals and ethics are objective nor subjective, and regardless of religious beliefs.

[seer]

Immorality and unethical behavior is universal in human and has nothing to do with whether morals and ethics are objective nor subjective, and regardless of religious beliefs.

This is silly. What the Nazis did to the Jews and what the Maoists did to dissenters was not unethical to them - so what the hell are you talking about?

[JimL]

Perhaps. Certainly both parties think their view is true.

Its not so much that we think our view of morality as being either objective or subjective is true, whichever the case may be, we agree with the moral principles., and so we subjective moralists hold to those priciples because we believe in them, not because we believe them to be objective.

Agreed, non-Christians can be 'good people'. One reason for holding to our moral principles might be because we fear the consequences of getting caught, but I don't think that it's a particularly good reason. A better reason is because we think our moral values to be true.

Agreed, but we on the morally subjective side of the issue do not need morals to be objective in order to believe them to be right.

Well, a lot depends on what the true view is - if there is a God then it follows that we should take His moral instruction seriously. Personally I think that God will (to some degree, at least) judge each of us on the basis of whatever moral code we happen to actually hold. AFAIK there is just about no-one who lives up to their own moral code, 100%, so even on that basis (let alone judging our performance by God's moral code) we all stand guilty of moral failure.

Agreed, so why would God punish the non believers for their sins and forgive the believers they'res? Is he that petty do you think? Really?

Another issue with SM is that it seems to me it gives no real basis for holding to an unpopular moral position in the face of pressure to change. For example, people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer actively opposed the Nazis, despite huge personal risk, because he believed that they were simply (and objectively) evil - morally bad - and that he had a moral obligation to speak out against their acts. Ultimately this opposition cost him his life. Others like William Wilberforce (slavery) and Kate Sheppard (women's suffrage) to unpopular stands because they believed that what they were standing for was actually and objectively true. I think most people would agree that such 'moral reformers' are morally admirable people. Yet on SM I can't see how we could say that of them. On SM there is no 'better' moral code, they're just different; or closer to (or father from) our personal moral preferences.

I don't think that one needs God or a belief objective morals in order to hold to what he believes and feels to be right. I don't know what Bonhoeffer beliefs were but I am sure there were many christians in Germany who didn't have the courage of they're convictions either, and the same could be said of atheists.

And, on SM, what can we mean when we morally condemn the actions of, say, Muslim terrorists? Of course we can say that they are morally wrong, evil, and so on, but what force does that have under SM? It can't mean "I think they are breaking objective moral rules", so we must be saying something like "I find their moral code to be at odds with mine" or 'I don't prefer their moral code, I prefer mine.', or something similar.

We can say the same in either case, we believe that they're actions are wrong and immoral. If we believe them to be wrong and immoral then we believe them to be wrong and immoral, what more of a grounding than your beliefs do you need?

Lastly, when there's a conflict of moral values between two groups (say the liberal West and the extreme Muslim groups), under SM how do we decide between them? Again, we can't say 'Group A is morally better than Group B', or 'Group A is acting in a way that is closer to the true moral values one should have, whereas Group B is acting against those moral values.' SM has removed any neutral standard to measure moral actions against, and we are left with appealing to emotion, tradition, might, survival, convenience and so on. 'We should resist Group B because their values conflict with the values of this society (that allows me to lead the morally relaxed and free lifestyle I want)' - that's not exactly an appeal to the purest of motives, is it?

Its an appeal to the principles that you believe in, thats all, and I don't believe that you need anything more than that.

[shunyadragon]

This is silly. What the Nazis did to the Jews and what the Maoists did to dissenters was not unethical to them - so what the hell are you talking about?

What the Christians did to Jews and dissenters 'was not unethical nor immoral to them 0 so what are you talking about??????????????????????

[seer]

What the Christians did to Jews and dissenters 'was not unethical nor immoral to them 0 so what are you talking about??????????????????????

You are the one who said these behaviors were unethical - unethical to whom? If it is all subjective Shuny, well then it is all subjective. A matter of personal or cultural "opinion."

[shunyadragon]

You are the one who said these behaviors were unethical - unethical to whom? If it is all subjective Shuny, well then it is all subjective. A matter of personal or cultural "opinion."

No, they are immoral and unethical for all human cultures, necessary for the survival of humanity. No, morals and ethics are not subject to opinions, obeying or disobeying of morals and ethics may be subject to opinions with the existence of free will. This obviously true regardless of religious belief. What you have persistently failed to do is present any evidence nor viable definition for your illusive, vague, nebulous 'Objective Morality. Again . . .

Please coherently define 'Objective Morality' and demonstrate that it exists.

[seer]

No, they are immoral and unethical for all human cultures, necessary for the survival of humanity. No, morals and ethics are not subject to opinions, obeying or disobeying of morals and ethics may be subject to opinions with the existence of free will. This obviously true regardless of religious belief. What you have persistently failed to do is present any evidence nor viable definition for your illusive, vague, nebulous 'Objective Morality. Again . . .

This is more nonsense Shuny, men have been killing and enslaving each other since time began - and we survived just fine. And they are NOT immoral or unethical for all human cultures - many cultures have actually embraced and practiced these things. So again, what the hell are you taking about?

Please coherently define 'Objective Morality' and demonstrate that it exists.

I already did - and you agreed - "The Law of God." Does God exist independently of mankind Shuny? Then the law that proceeds from Him is objective to mankind - it does not depend on man. It is not sourced in man.

[shunyadragon]

This is more nonsense Shuny, men have been killing and enslaving each other since time began - and we survived just fine. And they are NOT immoral or unethical for all human cultures - many cultures have actually embraced and practiced these things. So again, what the hell are you taking about?

This is nonsense seer, It is murder, unjustified killing, not killing that is immoral and unethical. Slavery is immoral today, but not according to the Bible, which represents a glaring inconsistency in your concept of objective morality. We survived because of a comprehensive social system of morality and ethics related to the cultures of humanity, which you are not addressing. Again, nonsense seer, please address my posts appropriated and do not dodge the subject..

I already did - and you agreed - "The Law of God." Does God exist independently of mankind Shuny? Then the law that proceeds from Him is objective to mankind - it does not depend on man. It is not sourced in man.

No I did not agree with you. The Law of God has absolutely no relationship Biblically nor from any other religious perspectve concerning your claim of 'Objective Morality.'

The Law of God does not represent in any form whatsoever your claim of 'Objective Morality.' Please stop throwing airballs.

[seer]

This is nonsense seer, It is murder, unjustified killing, not killing that is immoral and unethical. Slavery is immoral today, but not according to the Bible, which represents a glaring inconsistency in your concept of objective morality. We survived because of a comprehensive social system of morality and ethics related to the cultures of humanity, which you are not addressing. Again, nonsense seer, please address my posts appropriated and do not dodge the subject..

Shuny, do you deny that men war, murder, commit genocide, enslave others? So these are unjustified according to whom? They very cultures that you speak of are the cultures that war with other peoples, commit genocide and enslave others. They don't think what they are doing is unjustified or unethical. So why is your moral opinion more valid than theirs?

No I did not agree with you. The Law of God has absolutely no relationship Biblically nor from any other religious perspectve concerning your claim of 'Objective Morality.'

The Law of God does not represent in any form whatsoever your claim of 'Objective Morality.' Please stop throwing airballs.

Tell me Shuny - what is the law of God - can you give an example?

[shunyadragon]

Tell me Shuny - what is the law of God - can you give an example?

Laws of God are not morality and ethics.

[JimL]

Shuny, do you deny that men war, murder, commit genocide, enslave others? So these are unjustified according to whom? They very cultures that you speak of are the cultures that war with other peoples, commit genocide and enslave others. They don't think what they are doing is unjustified or unethical. So why is your moral opinion more valid than theirs?

If there were no God seer, would genocide, murder and slavery be okay by you? Or then again, what if there is a God, but he has given us no moral laws, he has left it up to ourselves to decide without any fear of retribution from God, would the above actions be okay by you? Why or why not?