God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Both of you are unfamiliar with life

Really? Sorry, can't resist replying to such a stupid and ignorant ad hominem. (note I say "stupid and ignorant ad hominem "I have not insulted GC personally)

I can only judge by her posts: From my observation, Summer Queen is one of the more intelligent, perceptive,articulate and yes,mature members we have. GC on the other hand, presents as insular and dogmatic in thought with little perception of the real world.

Some of my own life experiences:

I'm 63 years old .

Recovering Catholic for over 40 years.

Recovering alcoholic (over 8 years sober)

Been married and divorced

Worked in Welfare for over 25 years dealing with; unemployed,single parents, refugees , homeless (almost invariably victims of some form of gross abuse) and criminals on the day of release.

Conscripted and served in an infantry battalion as a medic. Served overseas for 14 months ,the majority of that time in Muslim country. (Malaysia no war)

After the army,spent 14 years studying part time completing high school, a business diploma and a BA (straight As)


I've done some traveling,having visited exactly 20 countries and 51 cities.(including; US,Canada, UK, France ,Greece,Italy. and Mainland China)

SO sonny, I suggest you resist making fatuous comments about people you don't know,it just makes you look more of a fool than your posts do generally.

[FadingW]

Some people say that belief in God necessary for morality, but it appears to me that christianity actually advocates the notion of morality existing apart from belief in God.

"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." Romans 2:14

Besides, it is claimed that God is just. How could a just God pass judgment on someone using a measure that is impossible to meet?

[thesummerqueen]

I've done some traveling,having visited exactly 20 countries and 51 cities.(including; US,Canada, UK, France ,Greece,Italy. and Mainland China)

First... [covers cheeks with hands]

Second, what stories and pictures you must have!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Second, what stories and pictures you must have!

Oy! Don't ask. When it comes talking about my travels I'm a really boring old mamzer .

Stories, of course.Photos? Not s many as once,which is probably just as well. My ex-wife Crune Punt (may her tits fall off) took most of them when she left.

[thesummerqueen]

My ex-wife Crune Punt (may her tits fall off)

[Ryft]

Explain how these two statements are different. It seems to me that the "boneheaded" one is just a simple summation of your version that I've highlighted in bold.

There were three statements, not two. I will assume it was the epistemic one you ditched, so that the comparison is between statement X ("God is morality") and statement Y ("Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God"). And somehow you think both state the same thing? The difference between them is so obvious; that is, X states something about the nature of God, whereas Y states something about the nature of morality. They are two very different contexts and difficult to miss. It is because statement X identifies God as morality that I said that no capable Christian apologist would ever make such a claim, as it directly contradicts Christian theology. Statement Y does not identify God as morality; in fact, it says nothing about God at all. (Refering to the nature of God does not say anything about the nature of God.)

It's one thing to invent a definition like ... "moral order is grounded in the very nature of God" and then proceed to offer this as 'proof' to support your opinion that God is therefore required for moral order to exist.

That is using a conclusion implicitly in a premise, which I did not do; in fact, I have not presented any argument whatsoever. You are terribly confused. I have no idea who or what you are addressing here but it is neither me nor my statements.

You still have not explained how I have done this. [beg the question]

You said (Msg. 1), "The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong." That is true on your presuppositions, but not on the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. That is to beg the question against your opponent's view.

[DeistPaladin]

... the comparison is between statement X ("God is morality") and statement Y ("Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God"). And somehow you think both state the same thing? The difference between them is so obvious; that is, X states something about the nature of God, whereas Y states something about the nature of morality. They are two very different contexts and difficult to miss. ...Statement Y does not identify God as morality; in fact, it says nothing about God at all. (Refering to the nature of God does not say anything about the nature of God.)

Actually, statement Y seems to me to say a great deal about God. To say that morality or goodness is "grounded in the very nature of God" is to say that God is good. This is the whole point of the theistic argument that God is necessary for morality to exist.

So fine, let's replace option #3 with your statement "morality is grounded in the very nature of God".

what I base it on is Scripture; and how I defend it is through logic (modus tollens).

Ah, this is an important point to clarify. I was speaking of the concept of God in the abstract, not necessarily any particular version of anyone's religion. Specifically discussing the morality of the Biblical god involves you defending the rape, genocide, slavery and other crimes by YHWH's instruction. That's a topic for another thread, and you're welcome to start one (I'm keen to hear your "logic" on this matter). I'd like to keep this discussion on whether or not a god is required for morality to exist.

That is using a conclusion implicitly in a premise, which I did not do; in fact, I have not presented any argument whatsoever. You are terribly confused. I have no idea who or what you are addressing here but it is neither me nor my statements.[/quote Wrote:Hm, you have not presented any argument on this thread discussing whether or not the existence of morality and the existence of God are two separate issues? I must be confused then. I could have sworn you wrote

moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

and then clarified that this means

What it means is that God is a necessary precondition of morality

but apparently I'm terribly confused.

Now if your basis is scripture and not the circular reasoning of "we know God is good because God is good", then perhaps a new thread is in order where we can discuss the specifics of YHWH's actions and commandments.

You still have not explained how I have done this. [beg the question]

You said (Msg. 1), "The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong." That is true on your presuppositions, but not on the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. That is to beg the question against your opponent's view.

See that's called "taking a position", not begging the question. I have then backed up my position with reasoning as to why my position is correct. If I'm wrong or missing something, feel free to present your own counter arguments but don't bandy about frivolous accusations of logical fallacies. That's not helpful to the discussion.

[Captain Scarlet]

There were three statements, not two. I will assume it was the epistemic one you ditched, so that the comparison is between statement X ("God is morality") and statement Y ("Moral order is grounded in the very nature of God"). And somehow you think both state the same thing? The difference between them is so obvious; that is, X states something about the nature of God, whereas Y states something about the nature of morality. They are two very different contexts and difficult to miss. It is because statement X identifies God as morality that I said that no capable Christian apologist would ever make such a claim, as it directly contradicts Christian theology. Statement Y does not identify God as morality; in fact, it says nothing about God at all. (Refering to the nature of God does not say anything about the nature of God.)

Quite so but what does either statement really mean? Christian aplogosists also point to the existence of objective moral values, without ever having proven their existence. This would seem a necessary pre-condition to the argument.

What it means is that God is a necessary pre-condition of morality;

Nope, it specifically says something about the nature of god. Nature is not defined above, but assuming you mean qualities, there is a powerful inductive argument to state that all such qualities of beings are emergent and contingent not necessary, unless you can demonstrate otherwise it becomes circular ie god by his very nature is good, goodness comes from gods very nature, becuase god is necessarily good, becuase god by his very nature is good....

what I base it on is Scripture; and how I defend it is through logic (modus tollens).

Oh dear how did you get to the Abrhamic god? That is just mere speculation.

[Ryft]

Actually, to me statement Y seems to say a great deal about God. To say that morality or goodness is "grounded in the very nature of God" is to say that God is good.

So then, to you, what statement Y says about God is that he is good? I think the easiest way to expose your error here is to have you demonstrate, if you will, how it is that "God is good" follows from statement Y at all.

And as a clarifying aside, your comment ("To say that morality or goodness...") flirts with an equivocation, since morality does not address simply what is moral (good or right) but also what is immoral; for example, "Rape is wrong" is a moral statement but identifies what is bad or wrong. You do not err when you equate 'moral' and 'good' (or 'immoral' and 'bad') but you do when you equate 'morality' and 'goodness', for such implies that badness is not an issue for morality to address, which is quite false. I find it helpful to think of it this way: "what is moral" comes under ethics, but "what morality is" comes under meta-ethics. And it is meta-ethics that we are discussing, not ethics.

So fine, let's replace option #3 with your statement: "Morality is grounded in the very nature [and will] of God."

Good choice, for that is what you WILL find from capable Christian apologists, such as John Frame, Scott Rae, Keith Ward, Greg Koukl and so forth. Incidentally, I am still waiting for those academic sources you were to dig up showing that any Christian apologists have argued "God is morality"—although you are free to admit that you actually had no academic sources, that you were basing your critique on arguments made by vidiots on YouTube. (And the will of God is included in the definition, despite your persistent attempts to dismiss the second half of my statement, which was, "and revealed prescriptively in his commands," that is, the will of God.)

Ah, this is an important point to clarify. I was speaking of the concept of God in the abstract, not necessarily any particular version of anyone's religion. ... I'd like to keep this discussion on whether or not a god is required for morality to exist.

You are trying to escape your own words. The very first paragraph of your post (Msg. 1) identified the context in which you were using the terms, when you said it was Christians recycling these arguments. At any rate, if God is a necessary precondition for morality, then it follows that "a god is required." Ergo, keeping this discussion on God accomplishes your stated goal.

You have not presented any argument on this thread discussing whether or not the existence of morality and the existence of God are two separate issues? I must be confused then.

Indeed you must be confused. Although you did see me write those things, you do not seem to realize that they are not arguments. All I did was identify the Christian theory of meta-ethics, showing that your list either did not include it or that Option #3 badly misrepresented it (which I initiated by asking you to cite your sources). To state the case is one thing, which is what I did, while making the case is quite another thing. I am not sure how one could fairly disagree with that.

See, that's called "taking a position," not begging the question. ... don't bandy about frivolous accusations of logical fallacies.

It is both, sir. The position you took simply begged the question against your Christian opponent. You assumed the truth of your presuppositions and reasoned to the conclusion they entail, simply begging the question against the presuppositions of those you are arguing against. Pointing out this logical fallacy is not frivolous; it should be helpful to the discussion, for who wants to persist in bad reasoning? If your opponent's view is wrong, you must demonstrate that under its own terms. The fact that it fails to satisfy the terms or criteria of your view is utterly irrelevant.

If I'm wrong or missing something, feel free to present your own counter-arguments ...

Your view simply does not matter, sir. Period. You are attempting to critically analyze the Christian theory of meta-ethics, which means your view is utterly irrelevant here. (Unless of course you simply want to persist in begging the question.) The Christian theory of meta-ethics I identified stands or falls under its own terms. Pointing out that it fails under the terms or criteria of your view is irrelevant, for it is bad reasoning to assume your view is right until proven wrong.

---

---

Nope, it specifically says something about the nature of God.

Feel free to demonstrate how "morality is grounded in the nature and will of God" says something about God. Basic English grammar tells you the sentence says something about morality, and nothing about God. Again, referring to the nature of God says nothing about the nature of God.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it becomes circular; i.e., God by his very nature is good ... [snip rest]

Who concluded a moral valuation about God's nature? "God is good" is a moral valuation; who made that valuation?

Oh dear. How did you get to the Abrahamic God?

By Scripture—which includes the New Testament and, thus, is not strictly "the Abrahamic God" (a term that precludes the New Testament). And it is not "mere speculation" but rather an axiomatic presupposition.

[Captain Scarlet]

Feel free to demonstrate how "morality is grounded in the nature and will of God" says something about God. Basic English grammar tells you the sentence says something about morality, and nothing about God. Again, referring to the nature of God says nothing about the nature of God.

Would the sentence "christmas cheer is grounded in the nature and will of Santa" at least not tell us Santa has a sunny disposition? or "a war like spirit in Romans is grounded in the nature and will of Mars", at least not tell us Mars was a tough guy? I think it would. Gramatically it tells us more about morality/christmas cheer/warmongering, it certainlay however says something (and not nothing) about god/Santa/Mars. Apols for using Santa, but you get the point.

If you want to go for these arguments then feel free to demonstrate the existence of objective moral vaules which must be present if god is the source, locus etc of morality and ta rough sketch on the method of transmission into the universe. Otherwise the argument for god being a/the source/locus etc is a bare assertion followed by an appeal to magic and mysticism.

Who concluded a moral valuation about God's nature? "God is good" is a moral valuation; who made that valuation?

I did. But would you not claim god is good, omnibenevolent or maximally good? Or would you claim something else? If something else how can this entity be a source, a locus or anything else morality wise? Again of course these arguments work perfectly well in reverse and you can logically conclude that god is perfectly evil, but allows us free will to choose to do good. Perhaps you should offer your syllogistic reasoning and supporting arguments so we can understand your position better?

By Scripture—which includes the New Testament and, thus, is not strictly "the Abrahamic God" (a term that precludes the New Testament). And it is not "mere speculation" but rather an axiomatic presupposition.

I don't mind if you are trying to prove Jesus, Allah, Yhwh, Lord Vishnu, Baal, Osiris, Zeus etc etc. The same point is true. How do you get from the morality arguments presented by christian apologsists to Jesus or whomever without speculation? An axiomatic presupposition in a field like science would be something like existence, exists. In theology it would seem that it is the book you happen to read?