A quick refutation of the argument that seems to be debated on YouTube right now with the return of VFX. Christians are once again recycling the moral imperative of believing in God in order to have a sound basis for moral judgment. Putting aside that this is an appeal to consequences, this argument is a non-sequitur since the two issues are unrelated.

Option 1: God is able to determine what is moral
If theists are saying that God is wise enough to weigh out all the facts and see the given issue from all sides and make the correct determination as to what is right or wrong, than morality exists outside of God. Things that are wrong would still be wrong even if God ceased to exist.

Option 2: God decides what is moral
If theists are saying that God is the celestial law-giver essential for morality to exist, that things are right or wrong because God says so, than this is not universal objective morality. At best, this is deferring one's subjective moral judgment to the subjective moral judgment of a higher being. At worst, this is a celestial dictatorship based on the principle that might-makes-right. Either way, there's nothing "objective" about this morality since it comes from the decree of the arbitrary judgments of one being.

Option 3: God is morality
This touchy-feeley explanation is often used by apologists when they're presented with the first two options. This argument can be dismissed as a tautology. The apologist is presenting a definition of morality and then using that definition to prove that the definition is true. This is classic circular reasoning. "We know that God is good because God is good".

All three fail. The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong.

(January 1, 2011 at 1:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Option 3: God is morality
This touchy-feeley explanation is often used by apologists when they're presented with the first two options. This argument can be dismissed as a tautology. The apologist is presenting a definition of morality and then using that definition to prove that the definition is true. This is classic circular reasoning. "We know that God is good because God is good".

"God is morality"...I've never heard anyone make that statement before. What I have heard presented is this:
Option 4: Moral terms are grounded in the nature of God. They are grounded in the sense that goodness is one of God's properties, in exactly the same way that charge and mass are properties of fundamental particles. If fundamental particles do not exist, there is no such thing as charge and mass. In the same way (on this view), if God does not exist, there is no such thing as goodness.

(January 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm)Stempy Wrote: "God is morality"...I've never heard anyone make that statement before. What I have heard presented is this:
Option 4: Moral terms are grounded in the nature of God. They are grounded in the sense that goodness is one of God's properties, in exactly the same way that charge and mass are properties of fundamental particles. If fundamental particles do not exist, there is no such thing as charge and mass. In the same way (on this view), if God does not exist, there is no such thing as goodness.

Options "4" and 3: Distinction without a difference.

Yeah....god is a fucking prince!

Quote:1 Samuel 15:2-3 (New International Version, ©2010)

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Certainly a source of "morality," huh?

Humanity is the designer of morality. Humanity is the designer of God. If you use the argument that God=morality than are humans not divine , since we designed divinity?

Oh yeah that's right... you think that God designed humans and God designed morality. How unfortunate.

(January 1, 2011 at 2:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(January 1, 2011 at 2:09 pm)Stempy Wrote: "God is morality"...I've never heard anyone make that statement before. What I have heard presented is this:
Option 4: Moral terms are grounded in the nature of God. They are grounded in the sense that goodness is one of God's properties, in exactly the same way that charge and mass are properties of fundamental particles. If fundamental particles do not exist, there is no such thing as charge and mass. In the same way (on this view), if God does not exist, there is no such thing as goodness.

Options "4" and 3: Distinction without a difference.

If that is what you meant by "God is morality" then fine. But there is no necessity for an advocate of Option 3 to say that "We know God is good because God is good". In fact, that statement has nothing to do with the ontology of morality (which is the what the traditional Moral Arguments are about) but epistemology.

(January 1, 2011 at 4:53 pm)Stempy Wrote: If that is what you meant by "God is morality" then fine. But there is no necessity for an advocate of Option 3 to say that "We know God is good because God is good". In fact, that statement has nothing to do with the ontology of morality (which is the what the traditional Moral Arguments are about) but epistemology.

So you're distinguishing the nature of being side of this argument with the nature of our knowledge side? I'm just trying to follow your thinking here.

So why do you feel it's not necessary for an advocate of a position to explain what is meant by that position?

I believe I have shown, epistemologically speaking, that the argument is a tautology. You've created a definition and then used the definition to prove your definition is true. I have reason to suspect that such circular reasoning is a mental slight of hand employed to dodge the dilemma of the first two options.

(January 3, 2011 at 9:33 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: So you're distinguishing the nature of being side of this argument with the nature of our knowledge side? I'm just trying to follow your thinking here.

So why do you feel it's not necessary for an advocate of a position to explain what is meant by that position?

I believe I have shown, epistemologically speaking, that the argument is a tautology. You've created a definition and then used the definition to prove your definition is true. I have reason to suspect that such circular reasoning is a mental slight of hand employed to dodge the dilemma of the first two options.

All I've done is describe a theistic meta-ethic: the view that goodness is grounded in God's nature; I've not claimed to prove that. This is probably what you meant by "God is morality". I agree with you that the argument which says "If you don't believe in God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an epistemological statement) is false. But what is normally argued is that "If there is no God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an ontological statement) - although a "sound basis for making moral judgements" could refer to a number of things (such as a grounding for moral terms, or the existence of objective obligations, etc.).

(January 3, 2011 at 10:10 am)Stempy Wrote: All I've done is describe a theistic meta-ethic: the view that goodness is grounded in God's nature; I've not claimed to prove that. This is probably what you meant by "God is morality". I agree with you that the argument which says "If you don't believe in God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an epistemological statement) is false. But what is normally argued is that "If there is no God then there is no sound basis for making moral judgements" (an ontological statement) - although a "sound basis for making moral judgements" could refer to a number of things (such as a grounding for moral terms, or the existence of objective obligations, etc.).

Can you answer my earlier question as to why an advocate for a position doesn't need to explain what they mean by a position?

(January 3, 2011 at 11:19 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Can you answer my earlier question as to why an advocate for a position doesn't need to explain what they mean by a position?

I don't think I claimed the contrary did I?