The Moral Argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

Then it should be trivially easy for you to produce a single objective moral value, knowing them so well from your (our) own experience.  I don't know of any.....I have a "lived moral experience"...but I can't demonstrate a single objective moral value.  I'm confident and comfortable in what -I- feel to be wrong....there's no reason for me to appeal to fairies or even consider them, as faeries don't have the ability to modify -my- moral values.  

There's no reason for me to bullshit someone else about them being objective, either.  They aren't..they're mine, I can own that.  I think that they're better than some folks "objective" moral values..but I would think that, wouldn't I?

[athrock]

Using your own analogy, the basis can be a guy sitting in the room, surrounded by artists painting his portrait.  The portrait of a good man, as it were.  He doesn't need to be a god, and the moral values produced do not need to be objective.

Right, but the reality is that there is an objective standard which is outside the individual, personal interpretation of the artists themselves. Their works are measured against that standard.

If the things that we do are good or bad, right or wrong, how do we know this? Is there a standard which we "all" (and I have that word in quotes for a reason) know that we use to evaluate what we "ought" or "ought not" do?

None of us, absolutely none of us...base our moral values on a god.  

Are you speaking of this forum or all of humankind? And how could you possibly know that there is not one single exception in either sample?

Ironically, even the hardest core believers base their moral values on a work of art.....produced by human beings.  So, obviously, it doesn't take anything other than the painters in the room, or a guy sitting on a chair being painted, to produce moral values..regardless of whether they are subjective or objective....and regardless of whether or not a god exists.  You're presenting a complete non-issue, and it's still just a matter of agreed upon standards of beauty, as in your analogy.  

Are you saying that these believers are basing their moral values on a book (the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita)? Then where did the authors of these works get THEIR ideas of morality from? Were they handed down orally from their forefathers before them? Then where did THEY get them from?

Since you mentioned the man was sitting in a chair, let me explore this for a moment. What I'm about to attempt may fail completely, but let's see where it goes.

Close your eyes and picture a chair.

Go ahead.

Got it?

Okay, open your eyes. (You were cheating...how could you read my instruction to open your eyes?   )

Now, what did your chair look like? This:



Or this:



They don't look very similar...are they both chairs? Sure. So, there's something...call it "chairness" that we can agree upon. And "chairness" is not dependent upon the individual chairs or our opinions of what a chair is. It is not subjective, it is objective, and we know "chairness" when we see it - maybe not every single person...maybe not every single time...but generally, we get it.

Similarly, there is something that has the quality of "goodness" that does not depend on my opinion or yours. But we know it when we see it. Again, maybe not every single person every single time, but generally, we get it.

What do you think of this analogy?

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, but the reality is that there is an objective standard which is outside the individual, personal interpretation of the artists themselves. Their works are measured against that standard.

No they aren't..as you yourself so brilliantly demonstrated by excluding picasso........

If the things that we do are good or bad, right or wrong, how do we know this? Is there a standard which we "all" (and I have that word in quotes for a reason) know that we use to evaluate what we "ought" or "ought not" do?

There's this thing between your ears called a brain....I suspect that it plays a part in what we consider to be right or wrong.  I don't know your metrics, you haven't told me what they are.  Why would I even speculate at such a silly question when you could just -tell- me how you've decided right from wrong...or do you not know?  Are you unclear as to how -you- determine right from wrong?  

Are you speaking of this forum or all of humankind? And how could you possibly know that there is not one single exception in either sample?

All of humanity, and I'm completely unyielding on this one.  I'm not a "maybe" kind of atheist.  If you want me to consider the possibility that somebody somewhere actually has some experience of a god..rather than works of human art about a character named god.....then you're going to have to present that person, their god, and maybe one of their objective moral values...you know..those things you claimed but have since become allergic to.................

Are you saying that these believers are basing their moral values on a book (the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita)? Then where did the authors of these works get THEIR ideas of morality from? Were they handed down orally from their forefathers before them? Then where did THEY get them from?

Simple questions deserve simple answers.  The same place that storytellers get all of their ideas from..I hinted at it a couple lines back, it resides between your ears.

Since you mentioned the man was sitting in a chair, let me explore this for a moment. What I'm about to attempt may fail completely, but let's see where it goes.

Close your eyes and picture a chair.

Jesus......fucking..christ........

They don't look very similar...are they both chairs? Sure. So, there's something...call it "chairness" that we can agree upon. And "chairness" is not dependent upon the individual chairs or our opinions of what a chair is. It is not subjective, it is objective, and we know "chairness" when we see it - maybe not every single person...maybe not every single time...but generally, we get it.

Similarly, there is something that has the quality of "goodness" that does not depend on my opinion or yours. But we know it when we see it. Again, maybe not every single person every single time, but generally, we get it.

What do you think of this analogy?

Remember that you asked.....lol.  I think it's incompetent.  How many times will you be appealing to agreement instead of presenting a single example of what you claimed? I could parade images of pots and pans and nuclear reactors and stumps and rocks and discarded foam packaging and say "well, I sit on them..so they're chairs..they have chairness" -all day long-..but it would be as pointless as your exercize above. I'd suggest, instead, that you cease making fallacious appeals and silly analogies and do the one thing, the only thing, you need to do..to make the "argument" you presented even moderately palatable. You will need to present an objective moral value. There is -no- other way to make your argument stick, because that's the claim -you- chose to take as informative. It has to happen. You aren't going to make your moral argument by appealing to cultural mores..and you certainly aren't going to make it by posting pictures of chairs.

What, the shit?

[brewer]

Child Abuse: Deuteronomy 21: 18-21, Proverbs 30:17, Psalm 137:9
Rape: Numbers 31:15-18
Terrorism: Deuteronomy 2:25
Genocide (murder): Deuteronomy 2:34
Discrimination: Leviticus 21:17-23

There are more. Sounds like they were acceptable and condoned.

Are we discussing what Christers believe? Or are we trying to determine whether a supreme being of any flavor actually exists?

In quoting these verses, are you suggesting that they provide justification for these things in YOUR opinion?

If the Bible is NOT your guide, then please tell me whether any of the actions listed above are right or wrong regardless of who, when or where they occur.

You stated "If one or more of these was or is ever to be accepted or condoned, please provide some explanation of the conditions under which it/they would be or were acceptable." All I'm saying is that they were accepted and condoned, accepted enough to be placed into writing. As direction from a god. You know the conditions.

The verses provided justification for a people as they came from a god, a christer god. This is not my opinion, I did not write the bible.

In post #40 you asked where I got my morals. I responded in post #54 and then asked you where you got your morals. As of yet, no response.

I believe that they are wrong. My believing that they are wrong does not make them objectively wrong. According to the verses at one time they were considered right.

How do you conclude that anything in this thread will determine that a supreme being actually exists? How can a philosophical argument be a determining factor for the existence of a supreme being? You win the argument, therefore god exists? Please. I want evidence, not argument.

As there is no evidence (morals of any kind are not evidence) for a supreme being, the idea of a supreme being existing is fantasy. To then believe that the fantasy has in some form become reality is delusion. As stated before, I do not get my morals from a fantasy delusion.

So, again, where do you get your morals from?

Next, you use the words god, angels, supreme being. Then you talk about "the theists". Almost painfully. Are you a theist?

[Mudhammam]

What is the relationship between objective moral values and God, and why does the existence of one require the other?

That is the million-dollar question, isn't it? I posted this earlier, but the thread has grown, so you may have missed it:


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.

I'm oversimplifying when I say that which is the highest good is what theists call "God". (And Plato "the Good"?)

If God does not exist, then what is the basis or reference point for objective moral values and duties? Or do they even exist?

Well, I would argue that the objective standard is really no different in matters of good and evil than it is in other branches of sentient well-being. For example, the end of medicine is health. And the end of human ethics is a well-ordered, fulfilling, happy life, and insofar as there are means to achieve this state of being we recognize certain behaviors, with happiness an objective in mind, to be intrinsically valuable, good in-themselves. Like Aristotle, I don't see wherein God is necessary or helpful in establishing ethical norms, and anyway then we will still have Euthyphro's dilemma

[IATIA]

Okay...definitions are important in a discussion like this, so can we agree that objective means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. And can we further agree that an "objective" moral value is one that is true in all places for all people at all times?

(my bold)

We have shown that morals are not "objective" per your definition.

Besides, I never asked you whether the BIBLE condones racial discrimination or rape. I asked if YOU condone them.

It does not matter whether or not I condone it, as your question is dealing with "objective morality".  Subjectively, I do not consider rape moral, but there are some that 'subjectively' do consider it moral, as has been shown.

[IATIA]

See, rationalizing already.  If we change the meaning then it is all ok.  That is how it works.

The meaning is not being changed...it's being manipulated by you.

Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

But not all killing is unlawful.

Therefore, not all killing is murder.

I manipulated nothing.  You are the one manipulating and subjectively endorsing your own personal belief of killing vs. murder.  I consider killing at any level wrong, but that is my subjective opinion.

(my bold) The highlighted quote by you demonstrates "subjective" endorsement by the lawmakers of the era and/or society.  Again, not objective.

[Mr.wizard]

I manipulated nothing.  You are the one manipulating and subjectively endorsing your own personal belief of killing vs. murder.  I consider killing at any level wrong, but that is my subjective opinion.

(my bold) The highlighted quote by you demonstrates "subjective" endorsement by the lawmakers of the era and/or society.  Again, not objective.

Do you think killing in self defense is wrong? How about a soldier killing in battle? Or what if a police officer shoots and kills a criminal about to stab someone?

[Angrboda]

Anyway, back to the point. To the Nazis, killing Jews was an act of morality. So for them, in that place, at that time, it became moral. Because humans make what is moral moral themselves. I am not talking about what I feel about the situation. I am not talking about what other countries felt about it. I am referring only to the Nazis. They killed innocent people, and they called it moral, so it was moral.

No, it was wrong. Always and everywhere. They called it moral. They thought they were acting morally. But they were wrong.

Objective moral values are real whether anyone believes them or acts according to them or not. They are not established by majority rule.

If people can believe that things that aren't OMVs such as the killing of Jews are OMVs, how do you distinguish OMVs from morals that simply appear to be OMVs but are not?

[The Grand Nudger]

Im guessing that by happy coincidence he holds to the real OMV's....and that's how he knows which is which.