The Moral Argument for God's Existence

[JimL]

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.

Yes, except that we weren't talking about the moral or immoral nature of homosexuality and witchcraft, we were talking about murder being objectively immoral. So my question to you wasn't about homosexuality or witchcraft, it was about whether or not the murder of homosexuals and or witches, or anyone else for that matter, is objectively immoral. Your claim is that it is, but if that is so, then your god, who you claim to be the objective ground of morality, can't be, because he ordered them to be murdered. Explain.

[Tassman]

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.

I just want to see more people saved and heaven bound, so sue me.

So only by following your rules will people get to heaven, right? Other Christians disagree with your interpretation of scripture, e.g. re homosexuality...so they're headed for hell, presumably.

And BTW - you have no problem forcing other people follow your leftist rules by law. Like our Christian bakers...

[seer]

Yes, except that we weren't talking about the moral or immoral nature of homosexuality and witchcraft, we were talking about murder being objectively immoral. So my question to you wasn't about homosexuality or witchcraft, it was about whether or not the murder of homosexuals and or witches, or anyone else for that matter, is objectively immoral. Your claim is that it is, but if that is so, then your god, who you claim to be the objective ground of morality, can't be, because he ordered them to be murdered. Explain.

Jim what are you not getting. If God ordered or caused the death of sinners, be it homosexuals or me, then that is not murder. It is a just act. Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. Not all killing is murder.

[seer]

But that is exactly what you don't know and must assume. You were not there and there is no way to repeat those conditions or that time.

So only by following your rules will people get to heaven, right? Other Christians disagree with your interpretation of scripture, e.g. re homosexuality...so they're headed for hell, presumably.

Well I'll leave the fate of others in God's hands. We all get things wrong, but God is gracious and forgiving.


Why not, you have no problem impinging on the rights of the Christian baker.

[crepuscule]

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

Not everything, no. 2+2 cannot be anything else than 4.

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

Not sure what you mean. Square one of the thread? Then I still see no reason to accept either premise of the moral argument as likely true.

Or square one of the Euthyphro dilemma? That still leaves the moral objectivist with the awkward position of having to accept the objective standard as true, regardless of whether it is in line with his own morality.

Best,

c.

[JimL]

Jim what are you not getting. If God ordered or caused the death of sinners, be it homosexuals or me, then that is not murder. It is a just act. Murder is the unjustified taking of a human life. Not all killing is murder.

Nope. What you are implying is that murder is justified only when god is doing or ordering the murder. If murder is objectively immoral, then why would said murder be a just act for god to commit, but not a just act for you to commit. To argue that in gods case it isn't murder, but that in your case it would be, makes the act of murder itself not objectively immoral. Justification for murder has to do with the nature of the crime committed not with the nature of the executioner.

[seer]

Nope. What you are implying is that murder is justified only when god is doing or ordering the murder. If murder is objectively immoral, then why would said murder be a just act for god to commit, but not a just act for you to commit. To argue that in gods case it isn't murder, but that in your case it would be, makes the act of murder itself not objectively immoral. Justification for murder has to do with the nature of the crime committed not with the nature of the executioner.

Jim do you agree that not all killing is murder? My point is that we are all criminals worthy of death. We are all sinners, and the wages of sin is death. The fact that as a Christian I am not allowed to unilaterally take another life does not make God's prerogative unjust. Nor could it.

[JimL]

Jim do you agree that not all killing is murder?

Yes, you can differentiate between murder and killing. Killing could be an act of self defense as opposed to murder which is not.

My point is that we are all criminals worthy of death. We are all sinners, and the wages of sin is death.

Then to murder is not objectively immoral, but arbitrary and subjective, and I say murder because for god to take a life, or order it to be taken, for the commiting of a particular sin, is an arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with self defense.

The fact that as a Christian I am not allowed to unilaterally take another life does not make God's prerogative unjust. Nor could it.

Again, if taking anothers life is objectively immoral, then that would need apply to the ground of morality as well as it would to you or to me who would be subject to it. Murder can't be both objectively immoral and justified at the same time. The reason you would not be allowed to murder would be because murder is objectively immoral, and that would need apply to god as well, the ground of objective morality, otherwise it isn't objectively immoral but an arbitrary choice, subject to the whim of god, and their being subject to the whim of anyone, makes them non-objective.

[seer]

Yes, you can differentiate between murder and killing. Killing could be an act of self defense as opposed to murder which is not.

No, if we had a law on the books that applied the death penalty to rapists, that would not be murder, nor done in self defense. But still just.

Then to murder is not objectively immoral, but arbitrary and subjective, and I say murder because for god to take a life, or order it to be taken, for the commiting of a particular sin, is an arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with self defense.

Jim, show me one dictionary definition that says killing has to be in self defense for it not to be murder? You are just making up your own definition.

Again, if taking anothers life is objectively immoral, then that would need apply to the ground of morality as well as it would to you or to me who would be subject to it. Murder can't be both objectively immoral and justified at the same time. The reason you would not be allowed to murder would be because murder is objectively immoral, and that would need apply to god as well, the ground of objective morality, otherwise it isn't objectively immoral but an arbitrary choice, subject to the whim of god, and their being subject to the whim of anyone, makes them non-objective.

That makes no sense Jim. Say again that the state applied the penalty to rapists, that would perfectly just, but it wouldn't be just for me to kill the rapist unilaterally of my own accord. I do not have the authority that the state does. My act would not be justified, the state's would.

[Tassman]

But that is exactly what you don't know and must assume. You were not there and there is no way to repeat those conditions or that time.

There is archaeological evidence of group living and the concomitant rules of behavior dating back millions of years to the dawn of man...long before the gods and their rules were invented.

Well I'll leave the fate of others in God's hands. We all get things wrong, but God is gracious and forgiving.

Tell that to the Midianites and the Amalekites et al.

Why not, you have no problem impinging on the rights of the Christian baker.

The Christian baker has the right to believe any crap he wants to. He does not have the right to discriminate against others based on that belief.

[JimL]

No, if we had a law on the books that applied the death penalty to rapists, that would not be murder, nor done in self defense. But still just.

But you're confusing mans law, which is subjective, with gods law which you contend to be objective. The death penalty is only just from mans subjective perspective.

Jim, show me one dictionary definition that says killing has to be in self defense for it not to be murder? You are just making up your own definition.

Murder is killing with malice aforethought, that leaves killing for the purpose of self defense outside the definition of murder.

That makes no sense Jim. Say again that the state applied the penalty to rapists, that would perfectly just, but it wouldn't be just for me to kill the rapist unilaterally of my own accord. I do not have the authority that the state does. My act would not be justified, the state's would.

Again, this has nothing to do with authority, if murder is objectively immoral, then its objectively immoral regardless of authority. If there is an authority that can unilaterally decide whether murder is justified on a case by case basis, then murder isn't objectively immoral.

[seer]

But you're confusing mans law, which is subjective, with gods law which you contend to be objective. The death penalty is only just from mans subjective perspective.

Jim, generally you don't see me using the term objective, since God's law would be subjective to him. But it would not be arbitrary. But the principle is the same with man's law. If a man violates said law he is exposed to the death penalty, and that is not murder by definition. We violated God's law are are exposed to the death penalty, whether it is executed in this life or the next. And that too is not murder.

Again, this has nothing to do with authority, if murder is objectively immoral, then its objectively immoral regardless of authority. If there is an authority that can unilaterally decide whether murder is justified on a case by case basis, then murder isn't objectively immoral.

But killing a law breaker, like a rapist, is not murder, not by definition.

Oxford, Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

You have to make the case that God judging sinners (law breakers) is unlawful. Good luck.

[seer]

There is archaeological evidence of group living and the concomitant rules of behavior dating back millions of years to the dawn of man...long before the gods and their rules were invented.

So what, monkeys live together in community, without abstract moral concepts or understanding of moral principles. You again are assuming.

Tell that to the Midianites and the Amalekites et al.

I will - leave them in the the hands of God that is.

The Christian baker has the right to believe any crap he wants to. He does not have the right to discriminate against others based on that belief.

See there you go - forcing your moral view on others.

[Roy]

And now you are trying to lie your way out. I told you how I knew that. Post #16, which you mostly ignored.

...
Still waiting for the exact logical fallacy that you are speaking of.

Another lie. I told you that in post #21, which you also mostly ignored: "So far, shifting the burden of proof, non sequitur and arguing from false premises."

[seer]

Another lie. I told you that in post #21, which you also mostly ignored: "So far, shifting the burden of proof, non sequitur and arguing from false premises."

Sorry Roy, what exactly is the non sequitur or the false premises?