God exists because objective morality exists!

[Dhabaal]

Philosophy 101 : The Moral Argument​

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Objective moral values and duties do exist

Therefore , God exists


Atheism fails to provide a foundation for the moral reality everyone of us experience everyday.
In fact the existence of objective morality points us directly to the existence of God.

PS: Do not conflate this with Moral subjectivity. Unless you believe that there is no '''Right'' or 'Wrong''​

 

[Dhabaal]

Bump!!

You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist. If there is no God then kicking a baby down the stairs just for fun is no more "wrong" than rescuing a baby from a fire.

“The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.” (Michael Ruse, Agnostic)

What all this amounts to, then, is a moral argument for the existence of God:

Therefore one can argue that Atheism is irrational and Theism (Belief in God) is rational and practically reasonable.

 

[VixR]

The video is actually nauseating, it's so absurd.

Choosing stuff like "man kills child" for an example of moral objectivism being of god, which of course you had to one up with the example of "kicking a baby down the stairs for fun".

Which god is it, do you suppose, that we glean this universal moral objectivism from?

 

[Dhabaal]

The video is actually nauseating, it's so absurd.

Its a valid deductive argument for the existence of God. Not in the least bit absurd. .

Both theists and non-theists have accepted that the existence of objective moral truths might entail the existence of God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

There is no other rational foundation for moral objectivity other than God.

Choosing stuff like "man kills child" for an example for moral objectivism being of god, which of course you had to one up with the example of "kicking a baby down the stairs for fun".

Thats not how it goes, Moral objectivity means the standard morality for all human beings. Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values

If there is no standard to across the board, then a man killing a child just for fun is no more "wrong" than rescuing a baby from a fire. How do you distinguish which is wrong and what is right without a objective reference point?

Which god is it, do you suppose, that we glean this moral objectivism from?

''Which God?'' is a logically incoherent question . Because God is a universally quantified being.

 

[Lord Flacko]

The most evil people on the planet have been Communists with a cumulative kill, rape and torture count of over 100 million people


Communisms ideology and foundation is Atheism

 

[Dhabaal]

Lets keep it about the topic. You can discuss communism and what not in a different thread.

Atheism is irrational because if God does not exist then there is no Objective Morality.

But since everyone can agree that rape, murder, child abuse etc is wrong then clearly there is a Moral objective and therefore God exists.

Atheists who try to lean on Moral Nihilism aka Subjectivity just end up shooting themselves in the leg,:siilaanyolaugh:

 

[The_Cosmos]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't acknowledge an evolutionary explanation for morality. Morality came into existence through a gradual process of evolution.

Imagine the early human beings in their small communities, as the community has gotten larger they had to come up with some sort of system that will protect the community cohesion. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that allowing people from the same community to kill and ravage each other is not beneficial for the community. It is advantageous for the community to be stable and coherent. This is where morals come from. Killing someone from the community is wrong because it creates instability, rape creates instability, thievery creates instability and so on.

There is a scientific explanation for the origins of morality.

Having some sort of moral structure undoubtedly aids in the propagation of genes to the offspring. No community or society advocates immorality because it would lead to the downfall of that community.

Also, how did God quantify these 'objective' morals? Did he just decide them, which would make it meaningless? Or does he have some sort of moral framework he himself lives by?

 

[The_Cosmos]

The most evil people on the planet have been Communists with a cumulative kill, rape and torture count of over 100 million people


Communisms ideology and foundation is Atheism

That makes no sense. Communism is the product of the 20th century and atheism goes back even further than the ancient Greeks. Try to learn a bit of history. How could atheism be held accountable for the ideology of communism if it existed before it? Also, one must understand the definition of atheism to make such claims. It's literally impossible to build anything around something that literally holds no purpose besides being a definition.

 

[Dhabaal]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't acknowledge an evolutionary explanation for morality. Morality came into existence through a gradual process of evolution.

Imagine the early human beings in their small communities, as the community has gotten larger they had to come up with some sort of system that will protect the community cohesion. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that allowing people from the same community to kill and ravage each other is not beneficial for the community. It is advantageous for the community to be stable and coherent. This is where morals come from. Killing someone from the community is wrong because it creates instability, rape creates instability, thievery creates instability and so on.

What you are leaning on is Moral subjectivity. Evolution cannot explain objective moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring.

You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist

There is a scientific explanation for the origins of morality.

Having some sort of moral structure undoubtedly aids in the propagation of genes to the offspring. No community or society advocates immorality because it would lead to the downfall of that community.

Also, how did quantify these 'objective' morals? Did he just decide them, which would make it meaningless? Or does he have some sort of moral framework he himself lives by?

Science can't explain right or wrong. Science can only explain facts , not what we ''ought to be doing''.

For example Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

You quantify them by using an objective reference point like God, which is a universally quantified being.

 

[VixR]

Its a valid deductive argument for the existence of God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

There is no other rational foundation for moral objectivity other than God.



Thats not how it goes, Moral objectivity means the standard morality for all human beings. Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values

If there is no standard to across the board, then a man killing a child just for fun is no more "wrong" than rescuing a baby from a fire. How do you distinguish which is wrong and what is not right without a reference point?



Which God? is a logically incoherent question . Because God is a universally quantified being.

Very few "moral" concepts in religious books, or "moral" characterizations of a God being the entire world over can be attributed to a universally accepted "objective" moral lense to our world.

The very same holy books and would-be (in your mind) univerally morally objective religious writings have a mutiny of questionable and contradictory "moral" standings that would not be considered moral by an average person today, or truly even a significant portion or considerable majority of a given religion's current followers.

A man killing a child for fun is perceived as wrong for very obvious reasons that do not require a leap to the existence of a divine god being.

Indiscriminately killing children would be a threat to our inherent instinct to survival. We are also inherently social beings with an ability to form strong emotional ties, especially with respect to children, immediate blood.

Ironically, historically speaking, in many cultures, this "man kills child" dilemma you view as "universally morally objective" really wasn't/isn't so. Children were routinely killed in varying methods, most notably for religious purposes and rituals, in other words, for a god!

 

[Dhabaal]

Very few "moral" concepts in religious books, or characterizations of a God being the entire world over can be attributed to a universally accepted "objective" moral lense in our world.

The same holy books and would-be (in your mind) univerally morally objective religious writings have a mutiny of questionable and contradictory "moral" standings that would not be considered moral by an average person today, and truly even a significant portion or considerable majority of the religion's current followers.

No one said anything about a Holy book or Religion. That can be debated somewhere else. What is being argued is that God can be used as a moral objective refrence and god being a universally quantified being has no say on moral argument for religious belief.

This fact might seem to favor religious arguments for morality rather than moral arguments for religious belief, but if someone believes that morality is in some way “objective” or “real,” and that this moral reality requires explanation, moral arguments for God's reality naturally suggest themselves.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.

A man killing a child for fun is perceived as wrong for very obvious reasons that do not require a leap to the existence of a divine being.

Where do you a standard reference point from? How does it make it more wrong or evil to kill a child for fun than it would be to save a child from a fire? which is wrong and what is right?

Indiscriminately killing children would be a threat to our inherent instinct to survival. We are also inherently social beings with an ability to form strong emotional ties, especially with respect to children, immediate blood.

Like explain to @The_Cosmos Evolution cannot explain objective moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring.

You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist

For example Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

Ironically, historically speaking, in many cultures, this of "man kills child" dilemma you view as "universally morally objective" really isn't. Children were routinely killed in varying methods, mosr notably for religious rituals, in other words, for a god!

Then you are leaning on Moral subjectivity by saying that. You are indirectly implying there is no distinction between right or wrong. Its just people acting of herd mentality and there is no moral or immoral. This become Morally nihilistic.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to kill a child?

If not then you agree there a moral objectivity exist and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Well what you are leaning on is Moral subjectivity. Evolution cannot explain objective moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring.


You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist




Science can't explain right or wrong. Science can only explain facts , not what we ''ought to be doing''.

For example Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

You quantify them being using an objective reference point like God, which is a universally quantified being.

But this is where I differ to you. I do believe that there is a scientific grounding for right and wrong. Evolution presents us with what is advantageous and what isn't and right and wrong is an off shoot from that. For example, murder is wrong because it would lead to the downfall of society if everyone was allowed to kill one and another.

Also, I think your question is flawed in the sense that it argues from ignorance. You don't know why certain morals seem objective therefore God. That's logically flawed.

Another thing, I don't believe absolute morals exist and we can see this from the fact that certain isolated communities have a massively different and primitive understanding of moral behaviour. The only reason why the world shares a similar world view is because civilisations have influenced each other immensely. Nonetheless there are differences. A Muslim understands rape and the age of marriage differently to a secularist. What constitutes murder is understood differently from society to society as well.

From a scientific perspective, objective morals don't exist. This doesn't mean society will collapse and destroy itself, which you seem to allude, it means that society will conduct in a manner that shall see it benefit. Throwing a child off the stairs provides no benefit.

Also, every deity that has been presented by religion has always presented a different outlook on morality. There is no universal outlook on god. They're all drastically different and it's best to treat them a as such.

Also, you haven't answered my last point. How does God decide to draw up these specific morals? Did he just decide? Or didn't he provide some sort of reasoning? (This begs the question as to why we can't do the same thing).

 

[simulacrum]

ITT: If human beings do not exist, Lions do not exist. Since Lions do exist, therefore human beings exist. That's basically in a nutshell your syllogistic argument.

 

[Dhabaal]

But this is where I differ to you. I do believe that there is a scientific grounding for right and wrong. Evolution presents us with what is advantageous and what isn't and right and wrong is an off shoot from that. For example, murder is wrong because it would lead to the downfall of society if everyone was allowed to kill one and another.

Its not a simple case of differing or disagreement. Science only explains facts it cannot explain moral truthts. It doesn't tell you ''oughtness''

''For example Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.''

Science can tell you the facts, but not how things should be.

Also, I think your question is flawed in the sense that it argues from ignorance. You don't know why certain morals seem objective therefore God. That's logically flawed.

It's not a claim , it's deductive argument which means if the arguments premises in the opening post is true than its reasonable to suggest that God exists.

Another thing, I don't believe absolute morals exist and we can see this from the fact that certain isolated communities have a massively different and primitive understanding of moral behaviour. The only reason why the world shares a similar world view is because civilisations have influenced each other immensely. Nonetheless there are differences. A Muslim understands rape and the age of marriage differently to a secularist. What constitutes murder is understood differently from society to society as well.From a scientific perspective, objective morals don't exist. This doesn't mean society will collapse and destroy itself, which you seem to allude, it means that society will conduct in a manner that shall see it benefit. Throwing a child off the stairs provides no benefit.

If you don't believe in absolute moral or objectivity exists then you are saying that you believe in moral subjectivity. Which is Nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong or right , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to kill a child?

If not then you agree there a moral objectivity exist and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.

Also, every deity that has been presented by religion has always presented a different outlook on morality. There is no universal outlook on god. They're all drastically different and it's best to treat them a as such.

Also, you haven't answered my last point. How does God decide to draw up these specific morals? Did he just decide? Or didn't he provide some sort of reasoning? (This begs the question as to why we can't do the same thing).

God is universally quantified , Meaning God is logically constant. "given any" or "for all". It expresses that a propositional function can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse. In other words, it is the prediction of a property or relation to every member of the domain.

Because the nature of God provides a refrence point. “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.

So you use ''Gods Nature'' as a reference for what is right or wrong.

 

[Dhabaal]

ITT: If human beings do not exist, Lions do not exist. Since Lions do exist, therefore human beings exist. That's basically in a nutshell your syllogistic argument.

There is a difference between logically valid syllogism and logically invalid syllogism. The example you used is a logically invalid syllogism.

The deductive argument follows.

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values.

This view, known in philosophy as “moral realism,” contrasts with “moral relativism” which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgements.

 

[VixR]

You'll be hardpressed to find a set of universally "morally" objective actions that withstand the test of time, place, and culture. Even your "man kills child" example of moral objectivism you perhaps thought impenetrable simply doesn't hold up.

In recent history, through globalization and greater civilization and appreciation for stability, we are forced to cross-culturally consider and reconsider our various perceptions on what morality entails, thereby influencing each other on a global scale like never before. Morality isn't fixed.

 

[Dhabaal]

Morality isn't fixed. You'll be hardpressed to find a set of universally "morally" objective actions that withstood the test of time, place, and culture. Even your "man kills child" example you perhaps thought impenetrable simply doesn't hold up.

In recent history, through globalization and greater civilization and appreciation for stability, we are forced to cross-culturally consider and reconsider our various perceptions on what morality entails, thereby influencing each other on a global scale like never before.

If there is no reasonable fixed Morality or universal morality. Then there is no distinction between what is right or wrong. You cannot say what is right or wrong by default, because if there is no standard to follow. Who is to say?.

If you believe rape,murder and child abuse is wrong then you believe in Moral objectivity, which naturally suggest God as an objective reference point to make distinctions about right or wrong.

 

[Dhabaal]

I love this argument , the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, he must reject the existence of objective morality.

Thats equivalent to saying i am a moral nihilist. It is also self-contradictory since humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

 

[VixR]

If there is no reasonable fixed Morality or universal morality. Then there is no distinction between what is right or wrong. You cannot say what is right or wrong by default, because if there is no standard to follow. Who is to say?.

If you believe rape,murder and child abuse is wrong then you believe in Moral objectivity, which naturally suggest God as an objective reference from point to make distinctions about right or wrong.

The society itself makes these distinctions, hence the reason they differ so drastically between time and place, depending on what serves it, the society, at the time. Primitively, and still today, it would use the god(s) it conjures up (often along with an intricate religion system of practices and rituals to serve said god(s) ) as the medium by which to attain desired order, and at the same time appease what they believed to be the powerful, beyond-control "forces that be" of the universe in the hopes it be favorable to them.

Our societal moral codes are more complex than ever before in that they do not have a god, or an animist spirit or whatever, that guides these moral codes at it's head. Although the concept of atheism is as old as religion itself, the idea of secularism, as in the separation of a "divine" or "divinely ordained" ruler from rule as an affectational 'requirement' to keep law and order is a fairly new-fangled idea in terms of overall human history, especially in application.

 

[Dhabaal]

The society makes these distinctions, hence the reason they differ so drastically between time and place, depending on what serves it, the society, at the time. Primitively, and still today, it would use the god(s) it conjures up (often along with a religion system of intricate practices and rituals served to said god(s) )as the medium by which to attain desired order.

Our societal moral codes are more complex than ever before in that they do not have a god, or animist spirit or whatever, that guides these moral codes at it's head. Although the concept of atheism is as old as religion itself, the idea of secularism, as in the separation of a "divinely ordained" ruler from rule as an affectational 'requirement' to keep law and order is a fairly new-fangled idea in terms of overall human history.

You don't get my point. Stating random evolutionary, sociological factors says nothing about something being inherently good or bad, only the fact that people act outside or inside of the herd or in-group.

I am not saying that you don't have to believe in subjectivity and Nor am i saying Morality without God doesn't exist.

I am saying if there is no such thing as ''objective'' morality. No standard means it is morally nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd or in-group and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to rape a child?

If not then you agree there is a moral objectivity and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.