The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

I'm not so sure this is correct. Let me play angel's advocate for a moment...

The question is not WHERE the standard of morality comes from but whether such a standard applies to all people at all times.

SUBJECTIVE morality is that which may be true for you but not for me or true at one point in time but not another.

OBJECTIVE morality is that which is true always and everywhere.

So, if a supreme being is the standard by which we measure (and derive?) morality, then that morality is still objective in that it applies equally to everyone everywhere - regardless of the source.

Here's an analogy: the measure of a portrait painted by an artist is how closely the completed work resembles the person portrayed. If it is does capture the appearance well, we say that the portrait is a "good" likeness. Otherwise, we question the skill of the artist (impressionists and Picasso notwithstanding). But the measure of the portrait is the actual person being painted. Now, imagine a room full of art students all painting the same model who is posed in the center of the studio. The students may capture the model's features with varying degrees of accuracy and skill, and we would judge that painting to be the best which most closely resembles the model in real life.

Similarly, it seems to me that when we measure whether an act is good or evil, we do so against an absolute standard of right and wrong that does not depend upon cultural differences or personal preferences. And we make our judgments regarding good and evil, right and wrong, against an absolute standard. 

That which is the highest good is what theists call "God".

If God does not exist, then what is the basis for objective morality? Or does it even exist?

In order to be objective, it would have to apply to this god as well. Which it apparently doesn't. Killing is wrong, unless Yahweh gets angry because you picked up sticks on the wrong day of the week. If there's a maker of laws that doesn't abide by their own laws, then they're being a hypocrite.

Well, this would be an interesting discussion, but it doesn't necessarily apply to THIS discussion. As an atheist, you've just stated your objection to the Judeo-Christian version of a supreme being...but not necessarily to the idea of a god who has not done all those horrible things, agreed?

So, what is your objection to the moral argument as it attempts to prove the existence of a generic, non-Biblical god?

The idea that there is objective morality is debatable. I'd say there is objective information from which we can derive our morality, but morality itsself is subjective.

So, something can be good for you but not for me and vice-versa?

[Chad32]

The problem with some vague abstract deity is just that. It's vague and abstract. I don't see how any individual can go through life without screwing up sometimes, so my argument against yahweh likely pertains to everyone else. Just not in specific actions.

Yes something can be good for one, and not good for another.

[athrock]

I tend to think there is objective but not universal morality, although the larger portion of morality is culturally and personally subjective and a fair amount is arbitrary, I don't think we can construct a scenario where it is morally okay to use human infants as hockey pucks for fun. That said, an ultimate perfect morality is not necessary to make moral judgments. We don't need a perfect standard for being long to tell one thing is longer than another/ and we don't need a perfect standard of right to tell one thing is righter than another.

Isn't "objective" morality "universal" by definition?

[brewer]

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?

Actually many people do get theirs from a fantasy delusion. If not, there wouldn't be this god/moral thread. For me, my mind and society as a start. Where does yours come from?

[athrock]

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.

Well, I'm not sure this isn't meat for another thread, but theists would argue (I think) that God is the uncreated creator, the uncaused cause. He did not choose the nature He has God has always existed. There was no time when God was without this nature before choosing to take it on. Nor is He simply communicating or choosing that which is "good" as if "the Good" was something outside Himself. He IS good, and everything that He commands or communicates to us IS good because He is good.

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.

Oh? So, if God can't make a rock so big even He can't lift it, then He's not omnipotent?

I don't mean to be rude, but that's freshman-level argumentation. God cannot do something that is a logical contradiction. Like make a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor.

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.

Okay. Thanks!

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. 

That's kinda the point of the moral argument, isn't it? Exactly WHO (or what) has the authority to say that they are not moral?

I mean, you are shrinking back from the idea that killing Jews is acceptable because you think it is wrong, but why is your opinion right and that of the millions of Germans who signed off on the holocaust wrong?

---

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 needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few."  ~ Mr. Spock

So, if killing a single person or even a minority of people is beneficial to the well-being of the majority of the species as a whole, asking the minority how it feels doesn't really matter, does it?

---

I did recently see an interesting article concerning this subject.   Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. 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.

So, if the man living next door to you decides that an honor killing is necessary because his teenage daughter walked out to the mailbox without a male escort and without wearing her burqa, are you gonna respect his culture "no matter what"?

[GrandizerII]

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.

So, if the man living next door to you decides that an honor killing is necessary because his teenage daughter walked out to the mailbox without a male escort and without wearing her burqa, are you gonna respect his culture "no matter what"?

You didn't read what I said in the quote, did you?

[Alex K]

That logic is simply wrong.
The way you have written 1., you can only conclude from it that IF God exists, THEN there are objectIve morals. Not the reverse.

Are you certain of this? 

I'm not saying I am 100% certain because I'm not trained in logic (having only one course in college), but all the questions raised in this thread have sent me googling for a refresher. I can't link to the site but if I understood what I read correctly, Hotmath.com explains that the contrapositive of a true statement is also true. 

If P, then Q. TRUE
If not Q, then not P. TRUE

So, in the moral argument:

If God exists (P), then objective moral values and duties exist (Q).
If objective moral values and duties do not exist (not Q), then God does not exist (not P).

That is correct.
But that is not what your OP says. There, it says
■
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.

Do you think the two are somehow equivalent? The one you just quoted doesn't even attempt to prove that God exists. It only gives a possible proof that God does not exist. I am confuse

One other point that sort of tips me in the direction of thinking that the logic of the argument in the OP is valid is that IF IT WEREN'T, theists wouldn't even bother making the argument in the first place, because atheists wouldn't tolerate it. 

Therefore, I'm inclined to believe that the logic is valid. The real questions concern the definitions of the terms and the premises themselves.

---

No, we have ideas of good and bad. Therefore, that's that. It does NOT mean a gold absolute and universal standard external to our minds must exist.

Where do these ideas come from?

And if Nazis think that killing Jews is good, would you agree with them?

Guys, guys, we can pack our stuff and go home. They have discovered the Hitler argument. It's over. Atheism is done for.

[LostLocke]

Objective.... huh?

Like, when it was OK for parents to have disobedient children stoned to death in the OT? If it's objective, then it's just as 'right' now as it was then. If God changed his mind with the times, then it's not objective.

I'll go to bat for team theist on this one. 

If God is an all powerful being, he sets the laws for the universe.  The laws of physics would be his will.  So if he said the laws of morality were also a thing, they'd be a thing.  It'd be God's existence to define.  

Re changing his mind:  It'd be sort of like releasing a patch in a video game.  Now Titans get 6 hammers instead of 5.  Maybe the number of hammers could be viewed as subjective from the point of view of the game designer, but for those playing the game, the objective truth was that you got 6 hammers.  Now it's that you get 5.

Then you're back to a form of relativism. Morality is whatever God says, and God can change what he says on a whim, leading to the same thing theists accuse non-theists of: there's no absolute ground for the "morality" being followed.

[IAOALGIV]

LOL NONE OF YOU understand god it's pitiful

[RoadRunner79]

You forgot a few:

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.

I do t think those have anything to do with moral relativism, whereas the list does. They go over it in the link, but if you would like to discuss something, I would be happy to.