The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[seer]

No you don't, it is all based on assumption! Your statement here is assumption. You can not demonstrate this.

The teachings of Christ and the New Testament. The love of your fellow man, forgiveness, sexual chastity, love for God, fidelity in marriage, simple kindness, helping the poor, etc...

If we have no way of knowing for sure what they are then they're worse than useless, they're divisive.

No more divisive than any other set of moral principles.

[shunyadragon]

No more divisive than any other set of moral principles.

Actually true, and the problem of claiming an 'objective morality' from any one religious or cultural perspective.

[JimL]

No Jim, murder is the unjustified taking of life. You would have to make the case that God is not justified in taking back the lives He gave. Then there is the idea that the wicked who are killed in this life are not actually dead, they remain alive but are separated - we call that hell.

So in your view then we would be justified if we killed all muslims, men, women and children.

[seer]

So in your view then we would be justified if we killed all muslims, men, women and children.

Nope, unless God ordered it. Then that would be justified.

[Carrikature]

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?

You have a ton of holes in here, and all sorts of basic assumptions that need supporting. I've bolded them for your reference.

[JimL]

Nope, unless God ordered it. Then that would be justified.

But your god did order the killing of unbelievers, the worshipers of other gods, so it must be just to do so, right?

[Tassman]

No you don't, it is all based on assumption! Your statement here is assumption. You can not demonstrate this.

The teachings of Christ and the New Testament. The love of your fellow man, forgiveness, sexual chastity, love for God, fidelity in marriage, simple kindness, helping the poor, etc...

All suitably vague, leaving the implementation wide open to different interpretations. Plus you have the problem of claiming an 'objective morality' based upon just one religion in a diverse, multi-cultural society...a religion which in itself is open to interpretation.

No more divisive than any other set of moral principles.

[Tassman]

But your god did order the killing of unbelievers, the worshipers of other gods, so it must be just to do so, right?

[seer]

But your god did order the killing of unbelievers, the worshipers of other gods, so it must be just to do so, right?

Of course. But that is not why He ordered it. The Amalekites were a particularly wicked people that sacrificed their children to their god are were constantly attacking the Hebrews. I mean for a number of generations.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...e-bible/Amalek

[seer]

Tass, it is not a question of how we act, but how we came to behave this way. And on that note you can only assume, you can not demonstrate it scientifically without taking great leaps.

All suitably vague, leaving the implementation wide open to different interpretations. Plus you have the problem of claiming an 'objective morality' based upon just one religion in a diverse, multi-cultural society...a religion which in itself is open to interpretation.

Nonsense, most morally rational people understand what it means to love ones neighbor, and what forgiveness, sexual chastity, love for God, fidelity in marriage, simple kindness mean. These are not in the least vague. And the fact that there are competing religions does not logically mean that they are all false.


No, it is no more divisive than competing political views - just look how divisive the leftists have been after our last election.

[seer]

Well in your world the Hebrews were just determined to do what they did - no foul, merely nature doing what nature does.

[JimL]

Of course. But that is not why He ordered it. The Amalekites were a particularly wicked people that sacrificed their children to their god are were constantly attacking the Hebrews. I mean for a number of generations.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...e-bible/Amalek

Well we should at least be stoning to death all the homosexuals and witches/magicians amongst us, no?

[shunyadragon]

Well we should at least be stoning to death all the homosexuals and witches/magicians amongst us, no?

[seer]

Well we should at least be stoning to death all the homosexuals and witches/magicians amongst us, no?

No Jim, I am not a Jew living under the Mosaic civil code. And you know better.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, I am not a Jew living under the Mosaic civil code. And you know better.

. . . but you persist in justifying their actions as commanded by God, and moral under God's law, and the Hebrew's objective(?) moral actions.