A Moral Argument Against God's Existence

[JimL]

But again Jim, who defines right or wrong?

Well, because what is right and wrong for human beings has to do with the welfare of human beings, human beings decide what is right and what is wrong. Because not being murdered is in the best interest of human beings then we all can agree that murder is wrong, because not being robbed is in the best interests of human beings, we can all agree that theft is wrong.

The history of man is one of conflict over ethical and political views. And of course I would want live in a world that is not dangerous to my life - but that basic animal instinct does not tell me anything about right or wrong. Even the least intelligent creatures want to survive.

Its really simple seer, Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Thats morality in a nutshell! Thats the kind of world you say you would want to live in, and the reason for that is because it is a world in which everyone is treated equally and justly and are protected one from the other. Now that may not tell you anything about what is absolute and objectively right or wrong, but it is the kind of world you want to live in, so right and wrong being objectively absolute morals is beside the point.

Of course it is subjective Jim, the idea of "the best interest of all" is subjective.

The idea of morality may be subjective, but what is actually "in the best interest" of all within a society is not subjective. That it is in your best interests, and everyone elses best interest not to be robbed and murdered by your neighbor is not subjective.

I'm glad you agree that ethics are relative.

What I agree to is that morality is not objective fact.

[seer]

Well, because what is right and wrong for human beings has to do with the welfare of human beings, human beings decide what is right and what is wrong. Because not being murdered is in the best interest of human beings then we all can agree that murder is wrong, because not being robbed is in the best interests of human beings, we can all agree that theft is wrong.

No Jim, we do not all agree - the Communists did not agree that murder and theft were wrong as they murdered dissidents and confiscated private property for the state.

Its really simple seer, Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Thats morality in a nutshell! Thats the kind of world you say you would want to live in, and the reason for that is because it is a world in which everyone is treated equally and justly and are protected one from the other. Now that may not tell you anything about what is absolute and objectively right or wrong, but it is the kind of world you want to live in, so right and wrong being objectively absolute morals is beside the point.

Jim, I did not say that I wouldn't want to live in a world where the golden rule was practiced. But we do live in a world where it often isn't. Why is my preference more correct or valid than let's say ISIS'?

The idea of morality may be subjective, but what is actually "in the best interest" of all within a society is not subjective. That it is in your best interests, and everyone elses best interest not to be robbed and murdered by your neighbor is not subjective.

No Jim, the ethical goal "in the best interest" is completely subjective. Why not in the best interest of the majority, or in the best interest of the ruling minority? And then who defines "best interest?" The Communists, the Jihadists? They may have a completely different idea of what constitutes the "best interest."

[JimL]

No Jim, we do not all agree - the Communists did not agree that murder and theft were wrong as they murdered dissidents and confiscated private property for the state.

It doesn't matter whether they agree or not, it is an obvious fact that a tyrannical system is not in the best interests of society or of individuals living under that system, and the tyrannis governments themselves figure that out one way or the other eventually. Christianity break from Judaism and the so called New Covenant is an example of that. The reason they murder dissidents is because they dissent and threaten the tyrants that hold sway over them.

Jim, I did not say that I wouldn't want to live in a world where the golden rule was practiced. But we do live in a world where it often isn't. Why is my preference more correct or valid than let's say ISIS'

Your preference, the golden rule, is more correct because unlike oppression the justice defined in the golden rule applies to, and is in the best interests of all the people, and so of society as whole.

No Jim, the ethical goal "in the best interest" is completely subjective. Why not in the best interest of the majority, or in the best interest of the ruling minority? And then who defines "best interest?" The Communists, the Jihadists? They may have a completely different idea of what constitutes the "best interest."

Because being in the best interests of the majority or of the minority does not apply to everyone. If moral codes don't apply to everyone, then it is not just, and if it is not just, then there will always be social dissent, unrest, and violence.

[seer]

It doesn't matter whether they agree or not, it is an obvious fact that a tyrannical system is not in the best interests of society or of individuals living under that system, and the tyrannis governments themselves figure that out one way or the other eventually. Christianity break from Judaism and the so called New Covenant is an example of that. The reason they murder dissidents is because they dissent and threaten the tyrants that hold sway over them.

So what is your point? My point is that in your world there is only opinion, and no moral opinion is more valid that its opposite. Most of mankind for most of history lived under tyrannical system and generally flourished.

Your preference, the golden rule, is more correct because unlike oppression the justice defined in the golden rule applies to, and is in the best interests of all the people, and so of society as whole.

Again Jim, in your world my opinion is still no more correct - since the goal (interest of all people) is subjective

Because being in the best interests of the majority or of the minority does not apply to everyone. If moral codes don't apply to everyone, then it is not just, and if it is not just, then there will always be social dissent, unrest, and violence.

Yet we have seen totalitarian governments prosper - the Roman empire, Ottoman Empire that lasted hundreds of years. North Korea, China, Iran, etc... of today are not about to crumble. There is often little downside. So that argument doesn't work.

[JimL]

So what is your point? My point is that in your world there is only opinion, and no moral opinion is more valid that its opposite. Most of mankind for most of history lived under tyrannical system and generally flourished.

It is only opinion because of the fact that morals are not objective in the ultimate sense that you desire them to be. But one opinion regarding a moral social system is always better than another opinion regardless of whether those opinions are subjective of not. Thats the point that you can't seem to accept. You need for morals to be objectively valid, distinct from any human opinion, otherwise you seem incapable of seeing or accepting the fact that any one persons opinoin could be better than any others. But yet you would rather live within a moral system where murder, rape, theft etc etc are considered morally wrong. Why are you of that opinion, if you believe that ones opinion is no better than anothers?

Again Jim, in your world my opinion is still no more correct - since the goal (interest of all people) is subjective

Just because an opinion is itself subjective, does not mean that it is not correct, or more valid than anothers opinion. If Democracy is a better system of government for the people living within it than Tyranny is, then it doesn't matter if you are of the opinion that Tyranny is better. But the fact that Democracy is better, that it works in the best interests of all the people equally doesn't mean that a democratic system is an objective fact come from God.

Yet we have seen totalitarian governments prosper - the Roman empire, Ottoman Empire that lasted hundreds of years. North Korea, China, Iran, etc... of today are not about to crumble. There is often little downside. So that argument doesn't work.

What do you mean by totalitarian? All are not the same. You can't compare the Roman empire to North Korea for instance, China and Iran are evolving, becoming more and more democratic. But the point is that though moral opinions themselves may be relative or subjective, that doesn't mean that one opinion is no better than another. Morals needn't be objective in an ultimate sense, in order that they be better.

[seer]

But the point is that though moral opinions themselves may be relative or subjective, that doesn't mean that one opinion is no better than another. Morals needn't be objective in an ultimate sense, in order that they be better.

Yes it does, because the ethical goal is what is in question. And that is subjective. If you want a totalitarian society there may be objectively better ways of getting there. If you want a liberal republic there may be objectively better ways of realizing that goal. But the goals themselves are completely subjective. And in a godless universe there is no objective standard to judge between these various goals or ideals.

[Mountain Man]

So here's what I'm getting from the OP:

Moral obligation can exist apart from God because moral obligation can exist apart from God. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Based on what I've seen in this thread, he really doesn't understand the concept of obligation. Dr. William Lane Craig writes:

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Yes it does, because the ethical goal is what is in question. And that is subjective. If you want a totalitarian society there may be objectively better ways of getting there. If you want a liberal republic there may be objectively better ways of realizing that goal. But the goals themselves are completely subjective. And in a godless universe there is no objective standard to judge between these various goals or ideals.

Ethics is not about goals, its about what is right and wrong in the interests of humanity in the here and now. Ethics is not about the ends justifying the means, if the means are wrong, then they are unethical. You can not call the murder of human beings both moral and immoral since it is not in the best interests of human beings, any human beings, to be murdered. And again, the notion of shangri-la may be subjective, but that doesn't mean that there is not one subjective notion of shangri-la, that is better than all other subjective notions of shangri-la, even though it remains subjective.

[JimL]

So here's what I'm getting from the OP:

Moral obligation can exist apart from God because moral obligation can exist apart from God. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Based on what I've seen in this thread, he really doesn't understand the concept of obligation. Dr. William Lane Craig writes:

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, “The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

So, Kurtz is wrong, human moral principles are not rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion, they are rooted in "reason." The moral imperative to "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is a moral principle based on reason, not the result of habit and custom.

[Mountain Man]

So, Kurtz is wrong, human moral principles are not rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion, they are rooted in "reason." The moral imperative to "do unto others as you would have them do to you" is a moral principle based on reason, not the result of habit and custom.

What does that even mean? "Rooted in reason"? Reason does not exist in and of itself, so what is the basis for this "reasoning" on which your moral thinking is grounded? If it's not "habit and custom, feeling and fashion" then what is it? And secondly, how do you get from "I have reason to act morally" to "I have an obligation to act morally"?

[seer]

Ethics is not about goals, its about what is right and wrong in the interests of humanity in the here and now.

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

Ethics is not about the ends justifying the means, if the means are wrong, then they are unethical. You can not call the murder of human beings both moral and immoral since it is not in the best interests of human beings, any human beings, to be murdered.

Jim, that is a goal "the best interests of human beings."

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?

[Mountain Man]

On a related note, this is in line with one of the philosophical objections to the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, every possible permutation of this universe either does exist or inevitably will exist, meaning that there is some possible universe in which, say, child rape is considered moral; therefore, if the multiverse hypothesis is true then any notion of morality that we hold to in this particular permutation becomes utterly meaningless in the bigger picture.

[seer]

On a related note, this is in line with one of the philosophical objections to the multiverse hypothesis. According to the multiverse hypothesis, every possible permutation of this universe either does exist or inevitably will exist, meaning that there is some possible universe in which, say, child rape is considered moral; therefore, if the multiverse hypothesis is true then any notion of morality that we hold to in this particular permutation becomes utterly meaningless in the bigger picture.

That is correct.

[JimL]

What does that even mean? "Rooted in reason"? Reason does not exist in and of itself, so what is the basis for this "reasoning" on which your moral thinking is grounded? If it's not "habit and custom, feeling and fashion" then what is it?

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.

And secondly, how do you get from, "I have reason to act morally" to "I have an obligation to act morally"?

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.

[JimL]

That is correct.

No it isn't correct. It doesn't even make sense! Morals are established in order to safegaurd society and the individuals living together within them. If they don't then they are immoral not moral, no matter what universe you are in.