Nature is the "law giver" in natural law. God, at best, would be a facilitator.

Lol that's absurd reasoning . Morals don't need a "law giver " and calling the universe an "accident" is equally silly . Nor even if such a thing as a "law giver ' existed would it be moral .

(May 24, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: This one;s going to be evergreen.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-52547.html

Do you believe that there are mind-independent moral values/truths just sitting out there? Moral Platonism?

Not that it would matter if the universe were an accident.  Even an accidental universe has a state x.

---

(May 24, 2018 at 4:49 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 4:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote: This one;s going to be evergreen.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-52547.html

Do you believe that there are mind-independent moral values/truths just sitting out there? Moral Platonism?

You mean things that would be true if there were a mind to apprehend them, even when there isn;t..sure..or do you mean floating supernatural morality bubbles..because then..no. Pretty simple stuff, really, we could head to the thread?

(May 24, 2018 at 3:20 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: god must be exempt from the murder clause. god has killed humans (according to your stories) so it is in gods nature to murder.

Well, while Yahweh has supposedly killed billions of people he isn't technically a murderer because he is supposed to be God, which is a different creature.  He would have to be human in order to be classified as a murderer.  If you kill a chicken or a hog or a bug you aren't considered to be a murderer.  The people who kill on his behalf are murderers.  If you kill a cow in India the Hindi will kill you because you have killed their god, represented by the cow.

---

(May 24, 2018 at 3:27 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you believe the stories in the OT are historically factual and not written allegorically.

Jesus never killed anyone, and specifically taught us not to.

According to the fairy tale Jesus will throw your butt into the lake of fire if you tell him to get lost.  And when he returns he destroys the environment, kills all like, and blows up the world.  He's a true nutcase.

(May 24, 2018 at 4:22 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:55 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I said in my former post that I was pretty sure you didn't think things are morally wrong "just because God said so." We agree that morality is 100% objective. We also agree that morality can be understood through human reason. I reject that morality is subjective which is why I reject divine command theory. Divine command theory assumes that something can be wrong only if God says it is. Why is stealing wrong? Because God said so. Not because you are depriving someone of their hard-earned property--that's irrelevant. With divine command, it's subjective morality, but based on God's opinion. Thus divine command becomes incoherent without a deity. Natural law does not suffer from this limitation.

I think we agree on everything except this single point: an immoral action remains immoral in a godless universe. After all, if morality can be "understood universally through human reason" why is God necessary to distinguish moral values? It seems that all that is necessary is human reason. Thus--to return to your original point--even in a universe that exists by accident, we can discern objective moral values with our capacity of reason alone. No God required.

Divine Command Theory is not subjective. God's commands are a result of his perfectly good nature--of which he is bound by--which provides an objective foundation for all moral commands.  

There is no objective morality without an unchanging standard. The very definition of evolution ensures there is not such thing. You can have principles on which to base morality, but those principles are themselves not objective. You will always have an infinite regression of "why is it good...why...why" with nothing to stop it. Go ahead, try it. 

Why is murder morally wrong? 
-It violates the rights of another
--Why is that wrong?
---

If you think I haven't stretched myself on that rack, you are sorely mistaken. Since you mentioned moral Platonism, I will say that Plato has been a huge influence upon my ethics, second only perhaps to Spinoza.

Your "infinite regression" is nothing new. Plato covers it in Book II of the Republic. A well-ordered soul demands cohesion with the truth. The truth is that there is an objectively discernible good.

The issue  with your moral quandary is that you assume there is no underlying truth... that there is no answer to the question "Why is that wrong?"--there is an answer.

My last sentence was a bit inaccurate. You think there IS an answer.

Why is that wrong?
-because God.

To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.

It's an effect of conditioning.  He's been told (and repeatedly assured himself) that what he;s talking about is moral objectivity and that if what he;s talking about -isn;t- moral objectivity then there is no such thing.  That conditioning conditions these boards.  I;ve been watching it happen for years.  That, in turn,  reinforces his conditioning.

It;s a vicious cycle of misapprehension that clouds a fairly simple issue.  Simple in principle, mind..if not in practice, lol. As often as these discussions crop up...notice how barren a thread directly about it was? It;s not being discussed on it;s own merits, only as a hatchet misappropriated and misclassified as an appeal to consequence when some nutball christer wants to claim that without a god the world would be in utter a-moral depravity and then rejected as a reactionary measure by those who don;t feel inclined to defer to his silly fucking god, lol.

(May 24, 2018 at 6:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 4:22 pm)SteveII Wrote: Divine Command Theory is not subjective. God's commands are a result of his perfectly good nature--of which he is bound by--which provides an objective foundation for all moral commands.  

There is no objective morality without an unchanging standard. The very definition of evolution ensures there is not such thing. You can have principles on which to base morality, but those principles are themselves not objective. You will always have an infinite regression of "why is it good...why...why" with nothing to stop it. Go ahead, try it. 

Why is murder morally wrong? 
-It violates the rights of another
--Why is that wrong?
---

If you think I haven't stretched myself on that rack, you are sorely mistaken. Since you mentioned moral Platonism, I will say that Plato has been a huge influence upon my ethics, second only perhaps to Spinoza.

Your "infinite regression" is nothing new. Plato covers it in Book II of the Republic. A well-ordered soul demands cohesion with the truth. The truth is that there is an objectively discernible good.

The issue  with your moral quandary is that you assume there is no underlying truth... that there is no answer to the question "Why is that wrong?"--there is an answer.

My last sentence was a bit inaccurate. You think there IS an answer.

Why is that wrong?
-because God.

To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.

I'd be curious to hear about this, if you dont mind me asking.

Playing devil's advocate here, why is murder objectively wrong?

(May 24, 2018 at 7:42 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 6:30 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: If you think I haven't stretched myself on that rack, you are sorely mistaken. Since you mentioned moral Platonism, I will say that Plato has been a huge influence upon my ethics, second only perhaps to Spinoza.

Your "infinite regression" is nothing new. Plato covers it in Book II of the Republic. A well-ordered soul demands cohesion with the truth. The truth is that there is an objectively discernible good.

The issue  with your moral quandary is that you assume there is no underlying truth... that there is no answer to the question "Why is that wrong?"--there is an answer.

My last sentence was a bit inaccurate. You think there IS an answer.

Why is that wrong?
-because God.

To me, that answer is incoherent. It dodges the question and confuses the issue and in no way represents moral objectivity.

I'd be curious to hear about this, if you dont mind me asking.

Playing devil's advocate here, why is murder objectively wrong?

Are you saying the Devil is a close associate of yours?

I'm shocked.

Shocked and stunned.

And not a little amazed.

(May 24, 2018 at 5:29 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(May 24, 2018 at 3:20 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: god must be exempt from the murder clause. god has killed humans (according to your stories) so it is in gods nature to murder.

Well, while Yahweh has supposedly killed billions of people he isn't technically a murderer because he is supposed to be God, which is a different creature.  He would have to be human in order to be classified as a murderer.  If you kill a chicken or a hog or a bug you aren't considered to be a murderer.  The people who kill on his behalf are murderers.  If you kill a cow in India the Hindi will kill you because you have killed their god, represented by the cow.

Didn't god direct men to murder men, kinda murder by proxy?