The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[JimL]

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

So do you mean to say that murder is not objectively immoral, but is either moral or immoral, dependent upon the subjective whim of god?

[seer]

So do you mean to say that murder is not objectively immoral, but is either moral or immoral, dependent upon the subjective whim of god?

What? What murder?

[JimL]

What? What murder?

Are you deliberately playing dumb seer? Your god ordered that homosexuals and witches/magicians be stoned to death/murdered because of their immoral behavior. If that is an objective moral imperitave, and not a subjective and arbitrary command, then the only moral thing to do is to murder all acting homosexuals and magicians. No?

[seer]

Are you deliberately playing dumb seer? Your god ordered that homosexuals and witches/magicians be stoned to death/murdered because of their immoral behavior. If that is an objective moral imperitave, and not a subjective and arbitrary command, then the only moral thing to do is to murder all acting homosexuals and magicians. No?

Nonsense Jim, witchcraft and homosexuality are still sin, and just because Christians are not mandated to exercise judgement towards them presently does not mean that they won't face the death penalty when God judges all men.

[Tassman]

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

In your world of moral absolutism the Hebrews were merely obeying their God in doing what they did.

[Tassman]

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.

Natural selection!

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.

Really! Do you understand what it means to loves homosexuals? Does Donald L Trump understand about fidelity in marriage. Do Muslims understand about "loving God" when in your view it's the wrong god?

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

Far more divisive because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god".

[seer]

Natural selection!

Really, you saw this? You were there?

Really! Do you understand what it means to loves homosexuals? Does Donald L Trump understand about fidelity in marriage. Do Muslims understand about "loving God" when in your view it's the wrong god?

Sure, if you really love gays you encourage them to repent of their sin, and I'm sure that Trump understands fidelity in marriage - he just doesn't practice it.

Far more divisive because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god".

Nonsense.

[Tassman]

Really, you saw this? You were there?

The evidence supporting 'natural selection' is overwhelming.

Sure, if you really love gays you encourage them to repent of their sin, and I'm sure that Trump understands fidelity in marriage - he just doesn't practice it.

So Christianity is not divisive provided everybody follows your rules...including fellow Christians who think differently from you. Gotcha!

Nonsense

Religion is more divisive than politics because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god"...as you demonstrate above.

[Jaxb]

objectively wrong? In other words, why is it true despitecameonly

Torturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times. It is something that all cultures must adhere to. Universal moral values are self-evident. Who would deny that it is wrong for every culture or society to torture babies just for the fun of it?

Impersonal things cannot specify what one ought to do or what one ought not to do. Impersonal things have no authority over anyone. Lifeless clumps of matter cannot specify what you ought to do. Only personal beings with authority can specify what you ought to do. In order for moral values to apply to all people in all places at all times, the personal being must have authority over all people in all places at all times. Moral values are eternal so the personal being from whom they proceed must be eternal. The only eternal personal being who has authority over everyone is God.

How do I escape the Euthyphro dilemma? God does not arbitrarily decide what is morally right or wrong. God calls something good or evil because He has a certain kind of nature. What is a morally right is a reflection of His nature. God does everything according to His nature. God would not call lying a good thing because lying does not reflect God's character.

I would like to add the following:

Why think that God's nature is the ultimate stopping point rather than some other thing?
1. God is the greatest conceivable being by definition. God is the paradigm of goodness.
2. It makes no sense to ask of one's ultimate stopping point, "Is it good because it creates or recognizes the good?" Neither one - it just is the good, the standard, the definition of good and evil.
3. The Euthyphro argument itself proves that God is the ground of the good. God's nature is the standard of goodness.

But isn't the whole process circular - in order to know God is good, one must know what good is, but in order to know what good is, God must exist? This objection confuses the order of knowing (Epistemology) with the order of being (Ontology). In the order of knowing, the concept of goodness chronologically precedes the concept of God, in the order of being, the existence of God logically precedes the existence of goodness. Only if one confuses the two categories can one get circularity.

[Carrikature]

Torturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times.

That's not how it works. You can't just make an assertion and run with it.

Universal moral values are self-evident.

The only thing that's self-evident is cogito ergo sum.

[seer]

The evidence supporting 'natural selection' is overwhelming.

I'm not speaking of natural selection, but how or why our moral sense dawned on us. You can have order in the animal world without understanding moral precepts or categorizing ethical principles or rules.

So Christianity is not divisive provided everybody follows your rules...including fellow Christians who think differently from you. Gotcha!

I just want to see more people saved and heaven bound, so sue me. And BTW - you have no problem forcing other people follow your leftist rules by law. Like our Christian bakers...

Religion is more divisive than politics because it's based upon competing beliefs re the "one true god"...as you demonstrate above.

That is just stupid, in the last century with WW1 and WW2, and all the little wars in between, millions and millions of people were killed behind conflicting political ideologies.

[crepuscule]

Torturing babies just for the fun of it is objectively wrong because this moral value applies to all people in all places at all times. It is something that all cultures must adhere to.

objective

Universal moral values are self-evident.

Who would deny that it is wrong for every culture or society to torture babies just for the fun of it?

Impersonal things cannot specify what one ought to do or what one ought not to do. Impersonal things have no authority over anyone. Lifeless clumps of matter cannot specify what you ought to do. Only personal beings with authority can specify what you ought to do. In order for moral values to apply to all people in all places at all times, the personal being must have authority over all people in all places at all times.

Unsupported assertions.

Moral values are eternal so the personal being from whom they proceed must be eternal.

Why would you say objective moral values must proceed from something? Why can't they exist, say, necessary?

The only eternal personal being who has authority over everyone is God.

God does not arbitrarily decide what is morally right or wrong.

Neither the Eutyphro dilemma nor I say that He does. God's nature being arbitrary does not necessarily mean changeable/changing.

I'm saying that if God exists His nature is the ultimate source of good and bad. If He says torturing babies is bad, it's bad, but if He says it's good, then it's good. Either way we have to abide; if morality is objective our opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.

God calls something good or evil because He has a certain kind of nature. What is a morally right is a reflection of His nature. God does everything according to His nature. God would not call lying a good thing because lying does not reflect God's character.

by definition.

Why think that God's nature is the ultimate stopping point rather than some other thing?
1. God is the greatest conceivable being by definition. God is the paradigm of goodness.
2. It makes no sense to ask of one's ultimate stopping point, "Is it good because it creates or recognizes the good?" Neither one - it just is the good, the standard, the definition of good and evil.
3. The Euthyphro argument itself proves that God is the ground of the good. God's nature is the standard of goodness.

But isn't the whole process circular - in order to know God is good, one must know what good is, but in order to know what good is, God must exist?

[seer]

Neither the Eutyphro dilemma nor I say that He does. God's nature being arbitrary does not necessarily mean changeable/changing.

If God's moral nature, being eternal and unchanging, can be arbitrary then what isn't arbitrary? What ethical system does not suffer the same fault?

[crepuscule]

If God's moral nature, being eternal and unchanging, can be arbitrary then what isn't arbitrary?

Something that exists necessarily?

What ethical system does not suffer the same fault?

Don't know. I'm not even sure if it is a fault.

[seer]

Something that exists necessarily?

You mean like God? The universe? I mean if God's nature is arbitrary then pretty much everything else is too, even more so.

Don't know. I'm not even sure if it is a fault.

So if it isn't a fault then we are back to square one.