The moral argument, for atheism!

[Jehanne]

Maybe there is a God who exists but who is perfectly evil (hence, not a "moral lawgiver"):

Evil God Challenge - Wikipedia

Can you disprove the existence such a "being"?

No I can not disprove that an evil god does not exist, why would I try. I fail to see what this has to do with your proof, why can't we talk about the god in your premise 1?

I do not believe in such a being.  What is there to talk about?  But, if such a being existed (and, it doesn't), then I would expect that such a being would, like me, have moral obligations, if such a being was moral.

[Magilla]

Major Premise:  If an objective moral lawgiver ("God") exists who is the source of objective morality, then God must be morally good.

Minor Premise:  If a moral, infinite being exists, then such a being has moral obligations, namely, to reveal, unambiguously, objective moral truths to Us, His Creation.

Conclusion:  Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, god does not exist.

Both premises are true.  The problem no matter how clear the clarification, how manifest and good in reasoning God's words, if we are in error, and refuse to acknowledge proofs in that we are in a very bad way of thinking and going about life, then the problem is us.
. . .

If this god is omniscient, then it would know that atheists will either:
• be in error;
or
• refuse to acknowledge.
Further, it would know ahead of time which individuals would fail to be con-
vinced. This is assuming that your statement above is true, MysticKnight.

Refusal to acknowledge implies that some of us actually know that
there is a god, but deny it. Maybe, maybe not, but those of us who
claim to not believe, ought to be given the courtesy of having our
expressed position accepted as genuine.

This god, that would be doing what it  knows to be ineffective, ( at
least with the humans who are atheist). What kind of wisdom is there in
an all seeing - all knowing - all powerful* god , who would try
to influence people by means and methods that it knows will not work?
It certainly doesn't seem 'all wise' to me !

On the other hand, an all seeing - all knowing - all powerful*
god would know what it would take to convince us, whilst at the same
time not breaking our supposed free will, (if indeed we have it).

It would simply be a matter of providing convincing evidence or arguments
to us, whilst on the other hand, not forcing or obliging us.

Some people do get convinced, so the god I describe would know that
convincing is possible, (without force or obligation). The god would have
the knowledge of what it would take to convince the atheist, and again plenty
of atheists have been won over, so the god knows its possible, and must
know what it would take in the case of each and every, (rational) individual.

So the problem is not with us, it is with the god. I must conclude that the god is either:

• not all seeing - all knowing - all powerful*;
or
• that it is but just does not care to do what it takes to be convincing;
or
• it likes to keep some of us 'in the dark' for a while.

But that does not cover those of us who will, (and others who have in the past), died as atheists.
It seems like a pretty good ploy, by theists, if we are supposed to be convinced of a non-existent
god, to blame us finite and unwise humans, and not the god, for its failure to convince us.
__________________________________________________

* = I exclude abilities which fall in the scope of logical impossibility.
__________________________________________________

Magilla.

[Mr.wizard]

No I can not disprove that an evil god does not exist, why would I try. I fail to see what this has to do with your proof, why can't we talk about the god in your premise 1?

I do not believe in such a being.  What is there to talk about?  But, if such a being existed (and, it doesn't), then I would expect that such a being would, like me, have moral obligations, if such a being was moral.

I don't believe in that being either, we are talking about the proof that you set up. If the being was the source of morality, then that being determines what is moral, you also said that being must be good, so whatever moral decision that being makes , must be good. Also if that being is the source of morality then you get your morality from that being.

This is why RoadRunner keeps asking you "based on what?".

[Mystic]

LadyForCamus, I never once argued that Quran is true because Quran says so. I never did. Re-read what I stated as I'm not going to re-explain again and again. Quran being endless knowledge cannot be known simply because it states that. Any one can write a book with that claim.

As I said I can show you some ways reflections unlock doors of it to other levels of the Quran and show you to degrees of how layered it is. Reason and Logic precede the Quran, and it's what connects the verses, and it's what Quran is addressed to.

If I can show you how to replace one level of knowledge with an entire new level and Quran will continuously facilitate this process, then, you will see the Quran as to what it does. The Quran I underestimated in the past, disbelieved in it for five years, I know of the critical approaches to it, and I know of the neutral reading of it and I know of the belief type recitation. I been through all three.

[The Grand Nudger]

All Powerful Allah;s magic book is broken, beaten by a bunch of chimps and their wrongheadedness.  What a fuckup. Strange how Doctor Suess never ran into the problem.

[LadyForCamus]

LadyForCamus, I never once argued that Quran is true because Quran says so. I never did.  Re-read what I stated as I'm not going to re-explain again and again. Quran being endless knowledge cannot be known simply because it states that.  Any one can write a book with that claim.

As I said I can show you some ways reflections unlock doors of it to other levels of the Quran and show you to degrees of how layered it is.   Reason and Logic precede the Quran,  and it's what connects the verses, and it's what Quran is addressed to.

So, what you’re saying is that if you read the Quran a certain way, and reflect properly on its contents for long enough, it will give me knowledge and proofs about what it says about Allah?

[Jehanne]

I do not believe in such a being.  What is there to talk about?  But, if such a being existed (and, it doesn't), then I would expect that such a being would, like me, have moral obligations, if such a being was moral.

I don't believe in that being either, we are talking about the proof that you set up. If the being was the source of morality, then that being determines what is moral, you also said that being must be good, so whatever moral decision that being makes , must be good. Also if that being is the source of morality then you get your morality from that being.

This is why RoadRunner keeps asking you "based on what?".

It's easy to see why some individuals feel the need to fly airplanes into buildings.

Here are my points:

1)  God may exist but be a perfectly Evil being.

2)  If God did exist and yet commanded me to do something that I knew was immoral, I would surely think that God was either "testing" me or simply a bit of a cosmic joker, or, was an "evil god".

3)  If God exists and is the source of all moral truth, then God must have some moral obligations even if He is the source of all moral truth.  How could I claim to be ethical and yet not practice ethics, ever?

4)  To say that God is the source or morality and yet "exempt" from His own moral truths (even though he is the source of those truths), is to say that God can impose upon Us standards that he need not impose upon himself.  In essence, this allows Us to behave "moral morally" than God.

5)  If God exists and is the source of all moral truths, then it follows that must reveal those truths to Us, His Creation in a clear and unambiguous way.  How could He not be obligated to?  It would be like me knowing about an upcoming terrorist attack and choosing not to report it!

[Mr.wizard]

I don't believe in that being either, we are talking about the proof that you set up. If the being was the source of morality, then that being determines what is moral, you also said that being must be good, so whatever moral decision that being makes , must be good. Also if that being is the source of morality then you get your morality from that being.

This is why RoadRunner keeps asking you "based on what?".

It's easy to see why some individuals feel the need to fly airplanes into buildings.

Here are my points:

1)  God may exist but be a perfectly Evil being.

2)  If God did exist and yet commanded me to do something that I knew was immoral, I would surely think that God was either "testing" me or simply a bit of a cosmic joker, or, was an "evil god".

3)  If God exists and is the source of all moral truth, then God must have some moral obligations even if He is the source of all moral truth.  How could I claim to be ethical and yet not practice ethics, ever?

4)  To say that God is the source or morality and yet "exempt" from His own moral truths (even though he is the source of those truths), is to say that God can impose upon Us standards that he need not impose upon himself.  In essence, this allows Us to behave "moral morally" than God.

5)  If God exists and is the source of all moral truths, then it follows that must reveal those truths to Us, His Creation in a clear and unambiguous way.  How could He not be obligated to?  It would be like me knowing about an upcoming terrorist attack and choosing not to report it!

1) Yes who cares, the point is how would you be able to tell if everything you know about morality comes from god and must be good.

2) How could you know something to be immoral, if your morality comes from god and must be good, as you have set it up in your proof. You are saying that god is the source of morality and then saying you are using your own moral standards to judge him.

3) If God is the source of morality then yes he must follow his own morals, which won't be too hard if he is deciding what is moral. The obligation is something you are placing on the god, not something that the god himself has deemed to be moral or immoral.

4) Did not say that, not even close.........The point is that god gets to make up what is moral truth because again he is the source of morality. 


5)  It doesn't follow because if god is the one deciding moral truths then deciding "to not reveal himself" is a moral truth, by your own criteria.

[Jehanne]

5)  It doesn't follow because if god is the one deciding moral truths then deciding "to not reveal himself" is a moral truth, by your own criteria.

I would say that such a god was, in fact, an evil god, and, therefore, not a source of moral truth.

Maybe I should amend my conclusion to say,

Conclusion: Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, such a god does not exist.

[Mr.wizard]

5)  It doesn't follow because if god is the one deciding moral truths then deciding "to not reveal himself" is a moral truth, by your own criteria.

I would say that such a god was, in fact, an evil god, and, therefore, not a source of moral truth.

Maybe I should amend my conclusion to say,

Conclusion:  Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, such a god does not exist.

Why not just use the Problem of Evil?