Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(December 4, 2015 at 2:51 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Even if you were divinely inspired to write a book about a theistic god right now, in a few hundred or thousand years people will likely be progressive enough to think your god immoral and outdated as well. even if you wrote him/her with the best intentions. So it doesn't matter what kind of theistic god we're talking about.
to bolded: nuh uh, 'cause he's gonna come back for the rapture.
...
any minute now...
....
...
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
To do incredibly violent things, despite christians claiming he was not a violent person when he was alive.
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
(December 3, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Good old Euthyphro's dilemma.
"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"
If the first horn of the dilemma is true, then the god is not the author of morality, but just the communicator of morality. And therefore, we could discover it on our own.
If the second horn is true, then morality is not objective, but subjective to the god's will. There is nothing stopping such a god from changing his mind tomorrow on what is moral and immoral.
Some theists will state at this point, "but that would be against the god's nature". Which does not help their argument, it only moves the problem back a step.
Well, to continue that train of thought, the theist would argue against the conclusion of the second horn by saying that God wills that which is good because he IS, as you say, by nature "good". How does this move the problem back a step?
It moves the problem back a step, because it now begs the question, where did the god get his nature from?
If he is the author of his own nature, then his "good" nature was a subjective choice he made. Could he have provided himself with another nature besides "good"?
If he is not the author of his own nature, then where did he get his nature from? If he did not provide his own nature, then he is just communicating this "good" nature from the source where he got it from.
Quote:If God exists, then He cannot contradict his own good nature today by willing something not good nor can he do so by changing his mind tomorrow. As I wrote in a prior post, the theist claims that God IS the standard for measuring right and wrong just as the original artist is the standard against which all the cover recordings are compared.
Then this god you are describing is not omnipotent.
Quote:As for the conclusion of the first horn, if we could simply "discover" objective morality on our own, one has to wonder why this has not happened universally. Far too many people still seem to believe that raping children is acceptable for this discovery to be considered a universal truth. The fact that it still occurs seems to suggest that the process of discovering moral truths is hit and miss, at best. And some societies or cultures seem to have discovered that killing Jews or mutilating women is perfectly fine. Can we agree that the holocaust would still be considered objectively wrong even if the Nazis had won the war?
I believe we have already discovered a form of objective morality. The objective nature is measured against physical reality.
Google "The superiority of secular morality" for an excellent lecture.
Those things you mentioned, are immoral, not because any god says they are. They are immoral because they harm the well being of other sentient beings. Just because the societies that perform them believe they are moral, does not make them so.
[/quote]
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
(December 4, 2015 at 5:36 pm)wallym Wrote: I forgot what the scientific proof that established the well-being of sentient beings as being objectively valuable was. Could you remind me?
All you have to do is ask the sentient beings on the negative side of an immoral action how they feel about it.
Murder is wrong, because it harms the well being of sentient beings. Would you rather be murdered, or continue living? If you answer like the vast majority of people would, then you have your answer.
All you have to do to determine that slavery is wrong, is ask he slaves how they feel about it. Would you rather be enslaved, or continue to be free?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
December 4, 2015 at 6:56 pm (This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 6:56 pm by henryp.)
(December 4, 2015 at 5:56 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
(December 4, 2015 at 5:36 pm)wallym Wrote: I forgot what the scientific proof that established the well-being of sentient beings as being objectively valuable was. Could you remind me?
All you have to do is ask the sentient beings on the negative side of an immoral action how they feel about it.
Murder is wrong, because it harms the well being of sentient beings. Would you rather be murdered, or continue living? If you answer like the vast majority of people would, then you have your answer.
All you have to do to determine that slavery is wrong, is ask he slaves how they feel about it. Would you rather be enslaved, or continue to be free?
The basis of your reasoning, if I'm not mistaken, is that because I'm sentient, that makes me objectively obligated (via science, not just something you made up) to care about the preferences of every other sentient being on the planet? That doesn't strike you as incredibly flimsy and super duper scientifically not a thing?
Interesting you went with sentience instead of species. Got to get the moo cows under the umbrella, I guess?
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...
I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:
1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.
So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?
Thanks.
I agree with the comment about denying the antecedent. Even then, I think that this argument is more properly applied against materialism, than for God. While God may be the best explanation we have for objective morality. I don't think it is necessary. I think a better syllogism is 1) If materialism is true, then objective moral values do not exist. 2) Objective moral values exist C) Therefore materialism is not true.
8. Relativists Can't Love Their Families.
9. Relativists Can't Play The Trombone.
10. Relativists Can't Compare and Contrast in English Literature Classes.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
Relativism is different from subjectivism. Most members here, it seems, are of the subjectivist position when it comes to morality, not relativism.
How I see it is moral subjectivism is about feelings and preferences determining what's individually or universally right and wrong. Relativism is about accepting that the moral standards of other individuals or cultures should be respected no matter what.
December 5, 2015 at 12:00 pm (This post was last modified: December 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm by athrock.)
(December 3, 2015 at 7:14 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: I'm a moral (subjectively) person who does not receive guidance from a fantasy delusion.
Not many people do. But where does your moral guidance come from?
Quote:The others have debunked the argument. I don't argue with fantasy delusions.
Debunked? I haven't seen that so far. Maybe I missed it. Could you explain more fully how the argument has been debunked prior to this point in the thread?
(December 3, 2015 at 7:35 pm)wallym Wrote:
(December 3, 2015 at 6:18 pm)athrock Wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...
I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:
1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.
So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?
Thanks.
If horns do not exist, then unicorns do not exist.
Horns exist.
Therefore unicorns exist.
Ignoring that, morality is not objective.
Are there any objective moral values and duties?
(December 4, 2015 at 8:14 am)thool Wrote: OP, please explain how the first item is true. I don't see how morality hinges upon a supreme being.
Well, I was hoping to learn why the argument fails as opposed to defending it. But okay...I'll play God's advocate again.
Without a supreme being who is all-good, what is the basis for measuring or determining what is right and what is wrong. Here's an analogy: if you were to travel from earth toward the sun, would direction would you be going? North? South? Up? Down? In space, the ideas of direction are meaningless apart from a fixed reference point.
Similarly, apart from an absolute Good, how do we know the degree of goodness of an action or idea, etc? Otherwise, all we have is your opinion versus my opinion. Or one religion's doctrine v. another.
Theists argue that because the ideas of goodness are universal, a gold standard must exist; the absolute gold standard of goodness is the being they call God.
Without a universal gold standard, our ideas of what is good would be meaningless.
But our ideas of good do exist.
Therefore, a gold standard must exist.
