(March 25, 2016 at 8:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 25, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I have never had a theist explain to me how they recognize if something is objectively moral or immoral.

Except CL has: it is "objective" it feels very very immoral to her.

Yes, that's just it, they never end up making an argument for objective morality. Theists either describe subjective morality and call it "objective", or they argue for divine command. In order for you to label actions as objectively right or wrong, you would need an objective right and wrong to measure them with.

(March 26, 2016 at 12:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 12:35 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: If the standards exist objectively and god must hold and enforce those standards, then they are greater than he is, and he is not their source.

I'm sorry but what you said doesn't make sense.  If they exist separately from God, then yes, I concede. Do they exist separately from God? No God is the Ultimate unity by which all these standards descend from, he being the ultimate standard.  Everything is created through how it relates to God and his vision of himself with respect to that creation. He gives everything it's creation, then guides it to it's goal. He is the light of all light, by which his creation are guided by and towards.  Morality, goodness, love, compassion, these are all names we make use of, describing somethings. None of these things, not on instance of creation, is separate from God.

Ok, so you believe that God is the source of the rules, meaning that divine command determines right and wrong and there is no need for morality. That would be the first scenario I described, and it still isn't objective morality.


If you are arguing for Divine Command Theory, you are not arguing for objective morality.

(March 26, 2016 at 8:26 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 12:52 am)MysticKnight Wrote: I'm sorry but what you said doesn't make sense.  If they exist separately from God, then yes, I concede. Do they exist separately from God? No God is the Ultimate unity by which all these standards descend from, he being the ultimate standard.  Everything is created through how it relates to God and his vision of himself with respect to that creation. He gives everything it's creation, then guides it to it's goal. He is the light of all light, by which his creation are guided by and towards.  Morality, goodness, love, compassion, these are all names we make use of, describing somethings. None of these things, not on instance of creation, is separate from God.

Ok, so you believe that God is the source of the rules, meaning that divine command determines right and wrong and there is no need for morality. That would be the first scenario I described, and it still isn't objective morality.


If you are arguing for Divine Command Theory, you are not arguing for objective morality.

It's not the case that he simply commands, rather he creates through the truth of his standards (divine names) which are based on his essence. He doesn't decide morality or create it from nothing. Neither does it exist separately from him or independent of him, but rather he is the standard.

(March 26, 2016 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not the case that he simply commands, rather he creates through the truth of his standards (divine names) which are based on his essence. He doesn't decide morality or create it from nothing. Neither does it exist separately from him or independent of him, but rather he is the standard.

And how do you explain "human" morality standards with animals? I'm not holding my breath of any theist looking at the scientific evidence or to comment on it. It would burst their bubble of being special.

(March 26, 2016 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: It's not the case that he simply commands, rather he creates through the truth of his standards (divine names) which are based on his essence. He doesn't decide morality or create it from nothing. Neither does it exist separately from him or independent of him, but rather he is the standard.

Regardless of what linguistic hoops you jump through to get to "God determines what all the rules are," that system is still based on divine command because God dictates the rules; that isn't morality. You're still not arguing for objective morality.


Unless you're saying that there is another set of standards that he's getting those rules from, in which case that would be the objective source of the standard, not god. If God is also the source of those standards, you've just pushed the problem back a step: now he's arbitrarily deciding to use his own holiness as the standard and dictating that to us as rules. If he has to use himself as the standard, then whatever makes him do that would have to be higher/more powerful than him, and then that thing would be the reason for objective morality.


There is literally no way to get to objective morality from the god model unless there's a set of standards to which even god must adhere, which means that even in such a model, god still wouldn't be the source of the standards.

(March 26, 2016 at 9:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 26, 2016 at 8:26 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Ok, so you believe that God is the source of the rules, meaning that divine command determines right and wrong and there is no need for morality. That would be the first scenario I described, and it still isn't objective morality.


If you are arguing for Divine Command Theory, you are not arguing for objective morality.

It's not the case that he simply commands, rather he creates through the truth of his standards (divine names) which are based on his essence. He doesn't decide morality or create it from nothing. Neither does it exist separately from him or independent of him, but rather he is the standard.

Euthyphro dilemma. Yup, I read bitches! [emoji12]

That dilemma does not apply to a monotheistic god whose essense is identical to his existence. Your trump card is the wrong suit.

(March 26, 2016 at 10:47 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That dilemma does not apply to a monotheistic god whose essense is identical to his existence. Your trump card is the wrong suit.

"Word salad word salad word salad, word salad word salad, word salad. Word salad."


Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Chad.


The Euthypro dilemma was originally conceived under polytheism, but the philosophical question it asks still applies to monotheism, and monotheism still falls short of an answer to it, especially an answer that makes god the source of objective morality.

I would love anyone to give a real example of how morality "being objective" makes a practical difference, rather than it just being a value judgement made by individuals. An actual real life situation.

If there are no such examples, then it's merely screwing around with words and it doesn't really matter at all.

I've yet to hear of any. All I've had is someone describing how they would deal with moral dilemmas in a very scary way. A way that would make me afraid to be around them.

(March 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm)robvalue Wrote: I would love anyone to give a real example of how morality "being objective" makes a practical difference, rather than it just being a value judgement made by individuals. An actual real life situation.

If there are no such examples, then it's merely screwing around with words and it doesn't really matter at all.

I've yet to hear of any. All I've had is someone describing how they would deal with moral dilemmas in a very scary way. A way that would make me afraid to be around them.

I'll give one example. Personally the issue of whether we should swallow our anger when we get angry, would be somewhat of an ambiguous issue. I would think evolution makes us react to our anger for various reasons and that there is nothing wrong with it necessarily. It just could have wrong applications.

But from Islamic literature, I've reflected over this issue, and I see that's always better to swallow your anger and then if you are going to say something or act, then to do so.  There is Quranic verse describing those who possess understanding as almost always swallowing their anger. That's their norm. Whenever they get angry, they swallow their anger.

Of course, after practice and observance of this command, I found beauty in it as well as wisdom. Of course, that is not to say an Atheist cannot come to realize the wisdom and beauty of such a command. He can observe the honor in it as well.

But he can also be confused about it. I know while a Deist even though I believe in objective morality I was confused about this issue. That is why the clarification of this moral while realizing it's true, helps one understand a fundamental way.  Of course belief in objective morality will make a logical argument for a clarification of key morals that human needs.

This trait has helped me gain respect among people and from saying things I might regret. I hope when I get married, I apply this command to my wife and never let Satan and his forces enter and ruin respect between us due to anger.