You missed the analogy. Even if the epistemology is different, I'm suggesting that there are objective moral truths out there just as there are objective physical truths, even though most people at most times are wrong about most of them.
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Atheism And Moral Progress
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell that is where we disagree, I do hold to DCT, lying is wrong because God decrees that it is, and God decrees it because He is by nature truthful. I don't see how lying would be objectively wrong in your theory, especially if lying benefited the liar.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMoral intuition. the moral law is written on the heart. Nearly all people know, except for sociopaths, etc. Even people who do wrong know they're doing wrong when they do it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFirst, I do not believe 'most people' necessarily tell the truth. Personal views of 'truth' are too subjective. Second, the concept of 'moral truth' are an oxymoron.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostA Universal Moral Standard is another 'oxymoron' from the perspective of what is known of history of the nature of natural morality and ethics. Naturally morals and ethics are evolved systems of behavior centering around the survival of the human species. There are common foundations of the natural basis for 'morals and ethics' throughout the known history of humanity since the first human is known to be human and migrated out of Africa more than ~300,000 years ago.
No known observed 'universal standard of morals' is known to exist. The natural universal basis of everything is ultimately the Laws of Nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI'll have to look this up again, but I don't think you're a DC Theorist then. A DC Theorist thinks that God makes things right and wrong by His decrees. If His morality is inscribed into His nature, then He wouldn't be doing that.Last edited by seer; 05-29-2019, 04:48 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostLove and justice are parts of God's nature because they are good. That makes more sense than that they are good because they are part of His nature. The fact that they are good seems logically, even if not temporally, prior. How does love's being part of God's nature bestow moral goodness upon love exactly? I know that the Bible says that "God is love," but surely this is meant as a metaphor, as the "is" of predication rather than the "is" of "identity. It seems to mean something more like "God is loving," or "God's nature is to love," etc. So God does not ontologically OWN love any more than He owns justice or fairness. He instantiates and embodies them, but He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into his nature.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostYou missed the analogy. Even if the epistemology is different, I'm suggesting that there are objective moral truths out there just as there are objective physical truths, even though most people at most times are wrong about most of them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostLove and justice are parts of God's nature because they are good. That makes more sense than that they are good because they are part of His nature. The fact that they are good seems logically, even if not temporally, prior. How does love's being part of God's nature bestow moral goodness upon love exactly?
I don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI know that the Bible says that "God is love," but surely this is meant as a metaphor, as the "is" of predication rather than the "is" of "identity. It seems to mean something more like "God is loving," or "God's nature is to love," etc. So God does not ontologically OWN love any more than He owns justice or fairness. He instantiates and embodies them, but He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into his nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExactly, Jim needs to explain this.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe God is the Creator and source of everything by natural methods, logical and arguments fail by 'Begging the Question, and there is no empirical evidence to support these claims. Already explained many many times adequately from the naturalist perspective. If what Chawnus claim is true it would be proof of the existence of God, and there is logical proof without assuming God exists in presupposition for the argument.
2. 'Begging the question' does not even factor in to the discussion since both I and Jim B. already believes God exists.
3. It is only "proof" of God if someone believes that moral virtues such as justice, fairness and goodness are objectively real.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThere are different forms of DCT... God's commands need not be arbitrary, or based on a whim. There are voluntaristic views of DCT and non- voluntaristic views. I hold the latter, try this:https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...ma-once-again/
Comment
-
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment