A Moral Argument Against God's Existence

[Truthseeker]

No, reason, just like custom and habits, is not a thing in itself, reason is an action that we perform, and morality is rooted in that reasoning, not in the practice of morality itself. It doesn't even make sense to say that morals are rooted in the practice of morality, aka custom, habit etc etc. Its like saying that moral behavior is rooted in moral behavior. In order to practice morality, morals have first to exist.


That is simple if you would stop to think about it. The obligation to act morally is rooted in reason as well. If by your own reason you believe that to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is a good pinciple by which to live peacefully with your fellow man, then by your own reason you have obligated yourself to act accordingly, that is morally towards others.

I'm confused. You seem to have the notion that we can know what is right and what wrong. How? Conscience, if there is such a thing. Whence conscience? In any case, the notion implies that such knowledge is objective, that is, there is something not in our minds that we know is right or wrong. Actually, our acts are right or wrong, nothing else. So, I have to modify that statement accordingly. Acts are objectively right or wrong, or else acts are neither right or wrong (it's possible for someone to disagree with another person and we have no reason to pick any person's position against another's).

[JimL]

Jim, that is a goal "the interests of humanity."

No, goals are about a future good, and how to get there, morality is about the best interests of human beings in the here and now.

These are subjective. Why not the best interest of the majority at the expense of the minority? Why not the best interest of the ruling minority at the expense of the majority?

Because a society concerned only with the best interests of the majority would allow immoral treatment of the minority by the majority, and vice versa. The resulting violence and disharmony in such a situation is exactly why morals, to which all in society subject themselves to, are established in the first place.

[JimL]

I'm confused. You seem to have the notion that we can know what is right and what wrong. How? Conscience, if there is such a thing. Whence conscience? In any case, the notion implies that such knowledge is objective, that is, there is something not in our minds that we know is right or wrong. Actually, our acts are right or wrong, nothing else. So, I have to modify that statement accordingly. Acts are objectively right or wrong, or else acts are neither right or wrong (it's possible for someone to disagree with another person and we have no reason to pick any person's position against another's).

No, a conscience of guilt is the result of realizing that you have violated your own notion of what is right or good. The knowledge of right and wrong, again, is rooted in right reasoning. Murder is either good or evil, if it is evil with regards to yourself, then murder, with regards to anyone, is evil period. If theft is evil with regards to your property, then theft, with regards to anyones property, is evil period. It can't be subjectively both right and wrong since that would contradict the notion of morality itself. The thing is, is that morals are not authoritative laws that objectively exist, they are conceived in the minds of men and established as rules for the good of all who live together under those rules. You want others to treat you with decency, then in order to insure that happens, you are obligated to do the same to others.

[seer]

No, goals are about a future good, and how to get there, morality is about the best interests of human beings in the here and now.

Stop being dense Jim...


[/quote]Because a society concerned only with the best interests of the majority would allow immoral treatment of the minority by the majority, and vice versa. The resulting violence and disharmony in such a situation is exactly why morals, to which all in society subject themselves to, are established in the first place.[/QUOTE]

And the "best interests of the majority" Jim is a subjective ideal.

[JimL]

Stop being dense Jim...

Be nice seer.

Because a society concerned only with the best interests of the majority would allow immoral treatment of the minority by the majority, and vice versa. The resulting violence and disharmony in such a situation is exactly why morals, to which all in society subject themselves to, are established in the first place.

Already answered this seer, morals are subjective in the sense that they are conceived of in the minds of men, and they are objective, but only in the sense of their relative qualities with regards to their intended purposes. Morals exist because human beings, like other species, are social animals and so need rules with which to live together in peace and harmony. Without morals and laws inforcing them there would be chaos.

And the "best interests of the majority" Jim is a subjective ideal.

Of course its subjective. isn't that what I've been arguing for. But what isn't subjective is that all individuals want their best interests to be respected and protected and so we create moral systems that best seem to serve that purpose.

[Pytharchimedes]

Already answered this seer, morals are subjective in the sense that they are conceived of in the minds of men, and they are objective, but only in the sense of their relative qualities with regards to their intended purposes. Morals exist because human beings, like other species, are social animals and so need rules with which to live together in peace and harmony. Without morals and laws inforcing them there would be chaos.

JimL, also, mathematics and physics are conceived of in the minds of men, are they only objective due to the fact that they have relative qualities with regards to there intended purposes? Physics and mathematics exist due to human beings, yet , I contend, that they would still exist in the mind of God. The conception of humanity does not add to the truth of physics or mathematics, but it merely describes it in a way we can understand.

Without physics and mathematics and the corresponding laws we have made enforcing them, we would see only chaos.

[Pytharchimedes]

Deez nuts

JimL, also, mathematics and physics are conceived of in the minds of men, are they only objective due to the fact that they have relative qualities with regards to there intended purposes? Physics and mathematics exist due to human beings, yet , I contend, that they would still exist in the mind of God. The conception of humanity does not add to the truth of physics or mathematics, but it merely describes it in a way we can understand.

Without physics and mathematics and the corresponding laws we have made enforcing them, we would see only chaos.

Young nephew decides to write crap on my post, ignore this(any Deez Nuts references u saw).

[Pytharchimedes]

.... damn the unobedient children of our age!

just like all the others...

I seriously apologize. What I said above was with the most sincerity...if only it wasn't for my pesky nephew! (making me look the fool)

[JimL]

JimL, also, mathematics and physics are conceived of in the minds of men, are they only objective due to the fact that they have relative qualities with regards to there intended purposes? Physics and mathematics exist due to human beings, yet , I contend, that they would still exist in the mind of God. The conception of humanity does not add to the truth of physics or mathematics, but it merely describes it in a way we can understand.

No, mathematics are perceived not conceived. It is not a matter of ones opinion that 1+1=2, it is a universal law and so a perceived objective fact that 1+1=2. Physics and math belong to the universe whether a mind exists to discover them or not. Morals on the other hand are not percieved facts. Is it a percieved fact that murder or cannibalism is immoral? Of course not, no more so than murdering and eating other animals is a perceived immoral fact.

Without physics and mathematics and the corresponding laws we have made enforcing them, we would see only chaos.

Not sure what you mean by this.

[Pytharchimedes]

Without physics and mathematics and the corresponding laws we have made enforcing them, we would see only chaos.

Not sure what you mean by this?

What do you mean by this;

Without morals and laws inforcing them there would be chaos.

[deeznuts]

hey guys

[Pytharchimedes]

hey guys

Goooottttt Eeeemmmmmmm! :P

[JimL]

Without physics and mathematics and the corresponding laws we have made enforcing them, we would see only chaos.



What do you mean by this;

Apples and oranges. We make moral laws, we don't make mathematical laws.

[Pytharchimedes]

We make moral laws, we don't make mathematical laws.

Pay no attention to my disobedient nephew, he is a bit of a rude one. I apologize for the rude posts.

Who(or what) makes the mathematical laws then? How do we make moral laws? and how do you differentiate between the two? Show me the line of demarcation that exists between human concept(made laws) and unmade laws(like those of mathematical nature), that does not exist between tangible laws(mathematical/physical) and human concept(made laws).

For example, look at these mathematical "laws";



Are these made up?(similar to moral laws). Or are they not?(similar to mathematical laws).

[JimL]

Pay no attention to my disobedient nephew, he is a bit of a rude one. I apologize for the rude posts.

Who(or what) makes the mathematical laws then? How do we make moral laws? and how do you differentiate between the two? Show me the line of demarcation that exists between human concept(made laws) and unmade laws(like those of mathematical nature), that does not exist between tangible laws(mathematical/physical) and human concept(made laws).

For example, look at these mathematical "laws";



Are these made up?(similar to moral laws). Or are they not?(similar to mathematical laws).

No those are not made up they are descerned facts describing the objective mathematical nature of existence. There is no such objective moral nature of existence. If man did not exist, then the objective mathematical nature of existence would still hold even though no one was here to understand it, but if man did not exist, which was the case for nearly the entire existence of the universe, then morals wouldn't exist either.