God and Morality: Separate Issues

[DeistPaladin]

Captain Scarlet has already dealt with the first part of Ryft's post so I'll proceed to the next.

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.

I'm happy to concede that Theologica37 is a vidiot as well as being an amateur apologist that I busted for lying. A "capable apologist" would be a lot more slick and mask his lies with more skill.

Incidentally, you're harping on a point already conceded and corrected. This is a sign of insecurity in your own position, a tactic used by someone looking for a diversion and trying to go on the offensive rather than defend his own position. This tactic is noted and called out.

(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.)

God has made no such commands. Understand, when I as a deist say "God", I mean the Creator, not the spoiled, tantrum-throwing, blood-thirsty, genocidal, emotionally-unstable, brutal, scientifically-ignorant, narcissist found in your ancient superstitious badly-written rabbinic scribblings that you call a god.

Can we keep it clear by calling the Judeo-Christian god by his name "YHWH" or "Yahweh"?

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.

The fact that I often hear Christians posing this argument is only because I mostly hear from Christian apologists. Were I in a Muslim country, I would doubtless hear the same argument from Muslims. If I wanted to refer to either god specifically, I would say "YHWH" or "Allah".

Again, if you wish to speak of the Christian god specifically, you can explain how your source of morality can endorse rape, genocide and the keeping of slaves.

Although you did see me write those things, you do not seem to realize that they are not arguments.

Let's go to the tape again:

DeistPaladin Wrote:
... I'm curious as to what argument you would use. ... How do you relate the two topics of morality and God's existence? Do tell.

Ryft Responded:
One that is either the same or very similar to the one that Stempy alluded to, that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

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.

No I stated my position and then stated why I saw it that way. If I'm wrong, I've repeatedly invited you to provide counter-arguments.

And you still haven't explained how I was begging the question.

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

Your view simply does not matter, sir. Period.

This is a discussion of points of views. If my views are wrong, I'm inviting you to correct them with reasoned, well-supported counter-arguments. Pompous, dismissive hand-waving is not a substitute.

[KichigaiNeko]

Your view simply does not matter, sir. Period.

And so says this 'god' or so says a small proportion of humanity??

[Ryft]

You're harping on a point already conceded and corrected.

It is almost embarrassing that I have to explain something so blatantly obvious, but this utter falsehood DeistPaladin is trying to hide behind requires it, for he did not concede or correct anything. (Those of you who already agree may skip past this part. Also, I have provided links to the posts in question so that anyone can easily verify the cited material.)

I had asked him (Msg. 11) to cite his sources and show evidentially that any Christian apologists have argued "God is morality." He said (Msg.12) that he got it from a YouTube vidiot named Theologica37 with whom he had debates, but then he added, "I'll see if I can dig up some more academic sources." To this I replied (Msg. 24), "Please do, because I have no idea who Theologica37 is and seriously doubt he constitutes what you and I would consider an apologist," and added that with my library I will likely be familiar with whatever academic sources he digs up. DeistPaladin followed that up (Msg. 30) with gratuitous invective describing his dim view of Christian apologists in general (e.g., Habermas, Craig, and McDowell) since, he says, they use logical fallacies, mental sleight of hand, and philosophical terms to spew ancient canned arguments. Please notice that he neither conceded nor corrected anything here.

So I explained (Msg. 32), notwithstanding his own unsolicited attempt at poisoning the well, that I prefer to let the readers draw their own conclusions about "the skill, knowledge, and fallacies exhibited in our conversation" rather than spoon-feeding them such vituperative prejudice like he did. DeistPaladin responded to this (Msg. 33) by trying to justify that it was "hardly unsolicited" because we were "discussing the qualifications of different apologists, amateur and professional"—apparently unaware of what unsolicited means (i.e., he volunteered something nobody requested of him) and that my poisoning-the-well point was left unaffected. (But then we were not discussing qualifications in the first place, either. He mentioned digging up "some more academic sources" so I simply assumed there existed some criteria for what constitutes a Christian apologist as distinguished from a YouTube vidiot. That was an erroneous assumption on my part, apparently, and leaves me wondering how he can dig up "more academic sources" if he cannot tell the difference.) And notice that he still neither conceded nor corrected anything here.

And I ignored that nonsense entirely, of course, and our conversation carried on. But then I did finally wish to remind him (Msg. 49) that he had said he was going to "dig up some more academic sources" that showed Christian apologists making the argument that "God is morality," that I had not forgotten and was still waiting for them; it had been a few days and I thought surely by now he should have something. Again, in the very same post he referenced the YouTube vidiot he said, "I'll see if I can dig up some more academic sources." Nowhere and at no time had DeistPaladin ever conceded or corrected anything. At no point did he concede that he has never read an academic source from Christian apologists making that argument, nor did he correct it with what he has read from those academic sources. What he conceded to was the points I had been making and what he corrected it with was the Christian meta-ethic that I had described. Ergo, not a single thing was said or done about those academic sources he said he would cite from, as I had requested. So I simply reminded him about the matter because I want to know what those sources said; that is, I want people to be absolutely clear about where he got the argument "God is morality" from—or more importantly, where he did NOT get it from.

DeistPaladin can accuse me of lies and logical fallacies all he likes (as I am one of those amateur Christian apologists) but neither logic nor evidence will come to his support. And the fact that he can accuse me of being insecure in my own position is absolutely laughable to the people here who know me.

God has made no such commands.

I said that morality is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands. When DeistPaladin indicated he would change Option #3 to reflect this Christian meta-ethic I have been describing, I reminded him to include that prescriptive will of God because that is a vital component of it. Thus it should read succinctly, "Morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God." And how does DeistPaladin respond to this? "God has made no such commands," he asserts—and that's it. Just an assertion, as if my point should crumple under the weight of mere ipse dixit. That may work in discourse where brains are supposed to be checked at the door, like the cess pool of YouTube vidiocy, but it utterly fails in the arena of reason and skepticism. So what he asserts without reason I summarily dismiss without reason, leaving my point untouched.

And it simply does not matter what he means when he says "God" as a Deist, because he has been offering a critique of the arguments made by Christian apologists regarding meta-ethics. In other words, it matters what THEY mean when they say God. Remember, he not only referenced Christians in his opening post but he has also spilled a lot of ink (so to speak) about Christian apologists throughout this discussion with me (and Stempy). If he wants to critique arguments that Christian apologists do not make or if he wants to describe his own Deist views, so be it—but that leaves the Christian position untouched, which does not bother me at all. When he is finally finished quixotically tilting at windmills, perhaps he can try lancing holes in what Christianity argues. And there is no need to use the term "Yahweh" when discussing things with me; most people here know that the God of the Bible is the ONLY thing I ever mean when I say "God." DeistPaladin needs to give the members here a little more credit; I doubt any of them get confused when I say God. (For the record, I do not care if he wants to use the term Yahweh, but I will continue to use the word God because I know the members reading this are not stupid.)

If you wish to speak of the Christian God specifically, you can explain how your source of morality can endorse rape, genocide and the keeping of slaves.

For some reason that I cannot quite put my finger on, DeistPaladin simply does not understand how that is a categorical error and thus a fallacy. No matter how often I might stress the point that this discussion involves the category of meta-ethics (what morality is), he persistently attempts to engage the issue on the level of ethics (what is moral). I can only hope that the reader understands that one cannot discuss the latter without allowing the former to establish the context; in other words, it is impossible to discuss what is moral and immoral without assuming arguendo a specific meta-ethic to define what those are. Is rape wrong? Is genocide and human trafficking wrong? Let us answer with a "yes" so we can proceed to what naturally follows: "According to... ?" If the answer to that question is anything OTHER than God, then a non-Christian meta-ethic is being employed and begging the very question (which is meta-ethics). And that is fine, of course, but begging the question leaves the Christian meta-ethic untouched. If after all is said and done DeistPaladin has left the Christian position untouched, what has he really accomplished? I do not mind if he knocks down every proposed theory of meta-ethics out there if, in the end, the one I actually stand upon was left alone. I shall make popcorn and watch him.

Let's go to the tape again ...

Could anyone else out there successfully explain to DeistPaladin that identifying an argument is not the same as making the argument?

And you still haven't explained how I was begging the question.

Although I have explained in various ways how he begged the question, each time a little more specifically until I was being incredibly precise, he still wishes to stand there and pretend that I have not. There is nothing more I can do. You can lead a man to reason but you cannot make him think. It simply does not matter what his position is, nor why he accepts it, because that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether the Christian position stands or falls. To think it does is to commit that fallacy. If all he is doing is sharing with myself and others what his position happens to be, then that is fine—and irrelevant beyond getting to know him better. It has no bearing on the Christian view I have identified.

If my views are wrong, I'm inviting you to correct them with reasoned, well-supported counter-arguments. Pompous, dismissive hand-waving is not a substitute.

Well he is right about that—it is not a substitute. It is an alternative. I have no interest in exploring his views so I simply dismiss them. He is supposing to attack the Christian argument for meta-ethics (which the first two options are not, and the third one misrepresented); that is what I am interested in engaging, knocking aside the brainfarted twaddle poorly masquarading as intelligent criticisms of it, showing that it has been left unscathed so far.

It is interesting though, isn't it? He calls for "reasoned, well-supported counter arguments" in favour of "pompous, dismissive hand-waving"—

—but says things like "not the spoiled, tantrum-throwing, blood-thirsty, genocidal, emotionally-unstable, brutal, scientifically-ignorant, narcissist found in your ancient superstitious badly-written rabbinic scribblings that you call a God."

Compare that to the nature of my posts to him and, well, draw your own conclusions, as always.

---

---

Would the sentence "Christmas cheer is grounded in the nature and will of Santa" at least not tell us Santa has a sunny disposition?

Certainly. But that is not analogous. We are not grounding this or that moral good in God so much as morality in and of itself, the very thing by which we understand moral terms in the first place. In order to say that this or that moral good tells us something about God we have to know what a 'moral good' is and means—which is meta-ethical information. Is compassion a moral good? According to what or who? If not God, then we are not dealing with the Christian meta-ethic and cannot reliably ascertain anything about God. In order for something ethical to inform us about God, we have to know what is ethical. In order to know what is ethical we have to have a meta-ethic. So then what happens when meta-ethics is grounded in God?

What happens is that moral statements don't tell us about God, but rather that God tells us about moral statements. That means to understand morality rightly we must first understand God rightly. Ergo, the statement "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God" says something about morality, and nothing about God. This is internal logical consistency at work.

If you want to go for these arguments, then feel free to demonstrate the existence of objective moral values (which must be present if God is the source, locus, etc. of morality) and a rough sketch of the method of transmission into the universe.

You want me to write an entire book, here on Atheist Forums? How about scaling things back just a tad and being more realistic. Look at how people, yourself included, select this and that statement of mine to respond or object to it (which is simply how forums operate). Now multiply that by a book-length factor and imagine what we would end up with. If you want a book-length treatment like that, then I will be happy to recommend some to you. If you want to discuss this issue with me, then take more realistic bite sizes.

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 [of morality]?

What I claim is that God is eternally and immutably consistent in his nature, whose attributes include holiness, justice, mercy, patience, etc. In Christian theology, to say that God is omnibenevolent is to say that he does not possess any malevolence. That is not something we conclude morally about God—that would be viciously circular reasoning—that is something God tells us about himself, who is the ground of moral order. Under Christian meta-ethics, moral terms do not indicate ontological properties but relational properties; something is a moral good insofar as it conforms to the nature and will of God, and something is a moral evil insofar as it fails to do so. (This is why it is impossible for God to be evil; it is a meaningless contradiction to suggest that the nature or will of God could fail to conform to the nature and will of God—that is, A cannot be ~A at the same time and in the same respect.)

Perhaps you should offer your syllogistic reasoning and supporting arguments so we can understand your position better?

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

The argument itself is a valid modus tollens. The soundness of the first premise is defended logically using a TAG form of reasoning; namely, that morality neither obtains nor is intelligible under anything other than biblical presuppositions (as necessary for any conclusion to be reached whatsoever).

How do you get from the morality arguments presented by Christian apologists to [God] 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?

The latter half of your comment answered the first half; God as revealed in Scripture is the axiomatic presupposition upon which everything else is built, and he is argued as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of anything, including morality (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, etc.).

[DeistPaladin]

You're harping on a point already conceded and corrected.

It is almost embarrassing that I have to explain something so blatantly obvious, but this utter falsehood DeistPaladin is trying to hide behind requires it, for he did not concede or correct anything. ....

*Sigh* Let's go to the tape again.

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

Frankly, Ryft, you're not this slow that you couldn't comprehend this concession. I have every reason to believe from your posts that you are an intelligent person. I can only conclude that you're being deceptive here, going from harping to all-out red herring.

The issue here, to return the discussion posed by the OP, is whether belief in God and issues of morality are related. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

Please notice that he neither conceded nor corrected anything here.

It was a short post when I conceded that point. I can't believe you missed it. Shall I and the readers conclude you are a liar, then? And a bad one at that?

"God has made no such commands," he asserts—and that's it. Just an assertion, as if my point should crumple under the weight of mere ipse dixit.

The burden of proof is on you to show that God has made commands. If you wish to use the Bible, I'll gloss over your own act of begging the question and we can discuss the morality of your god.

Is rape wrong? Is genocide and human trafficking wrong? Let us answer with a "yes" so we can proceed to what naturally follows: "According to... ?" If the answer to that question is anything OTHER than God, then a non-Christian meta-ethic is being employed and begging the very question (which is meta-ethics).

Ah, at long last, Ryft is finally engaging the issue. Thank you!

If you offer that "rape is wrong according to... God", I have to ask what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that you believe that God has declared rape to be wrong? If so, beyond your own begging of the question (you need to prove that God has, in fact, said so) this is not an objective standard of morality by definition. This is a being's law that he came up with. By definition, this is a subjective decision, however wise or powerful that being may be.

If by "rape is wrong according to... God", you mean that rape is objectively wrong and God has made this determination, then this objective standard of morality exists outside of God. Rape would continue to be wrong if God ceased to exist. Rape would continue to be wrong if it turned out that God never existed in the first place.

If by "rape is wrong according to... God", you mean that such moral judgments are grounded in the very nature of God, you have begged the question. You've assumed that God (1) exists and (2) is the source of moral judgment. Meanwhile, you've offered nothing that contributed to our understanding of what morality is. "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unfulfilling an answer to philosophical questions as "GodDidIt" is to our scientific curiosity.

Could anyone else out there successfully explain to DeistPaladin that identifying an argument is not the same as making the argument?

...and we go to the tape again, this time with the proper sections in bold for those who are pretending to be slow.

DeistPaladin Wrote:
... I'm curious as to what argument you would use. ... How do you relate the two topics of morality and God's existence? Do tell.

Ryft Responded:
One that is either the same or very similar to the one that Stempy alluded to, that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

I asked a question. You answered it.

Again, I can't believe you're really this stupid, Ryft. I have to conclude that you're being deceptive.

Although I have explained in various ways how he begged the question, each time a little more specifically until I was being incredibly precise, he still wishes to stand there and pretend that I have not. There is nothing more I can do.

Normally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy, you point out where and how they did so. See above for an example of how you suggest someone has begged the question. You point out where the invalid assumption is that formed the basis of their argument.

It is interesting though, isn't it? He calls for "reasoned, well-supported counter arguments" in favour of "pompous, dismissive hand-waving"—

—but says things like "not the spoiled, tantrum-throwing, blood-thirsty, genocidal, emotionally-unstable, brutal, scientifically-ignorant, narcissist found in your ancient superstitious badly-written rabbinic scribblings that you call a God."

Well, if you're going to say that your god is the basis for moral judgment, the morality of your god becomes an issue.

---

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Point 1 is another great example of begging the question. Why can't morality exist without God?

[Captain Scarlet]

Certainly. But that is not analogous. We are not grounding this or that moral good in God so much as morality in and of itself, the very thing by which we understand moral terms in the first place. In order to say that this or that moral good tells us something about God we have to know what a 'moral good' is and means—which is meta-ethical information. Is compassion a moral good? According to what or who? If not God, then we are not dealing with the Christian meta-ethic and cannot reliably ascertain anything about God. In order for something ethical to inform us about God, we have to know what is ethical. In order to know what is ethical we have to have a meta-ethic. So then what happens when meta-ethics is grounded in God?

What happens is that moral statements don't tell us about God, but rather that God tells us about moral statements. That means to understand morality rightly we must first understand God rightly. Ergo, the statement "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God" says something about morality, and nothing about God. This is internal logical consistency at work.

As for Christmas cheer or Roman war like spirit, I could fire back the same argument you gave above. We need a meta ethic to understand it in the first place etc etc. It may be internally consistent but they are all totally meaningless.

You want me to write an entire book, here on Atheist Forums? How about scaling things back just a tad and being more realistic. Look at how people, yourself included, select this and that statement of mine to respond or object to it (which is simply how forums operate). Now multiply that by a book-length factor and imagine what we would end up with. If you want a book-length treatment like that, then I will be happy to recommend some to you. If you want to discuss this issue with me, then take more realistic bite sizes.

If folks can summarise quantum physics succinctly, I am sure the human mind can do the same for objective morality and the mode that a god would use to transmit goodness into the universe. I would have thought it would be an easy request and whoilly realistic. I did just asked for a rough sketch, not a book. So can you do it?

What I claim is that God is eternally and immutably consistent in his nature, whose attributes include holiness, justice, mercy, patience, etc. In Christian theology, to say that God is omnibenevolent is to say that he does not possess any malevolence. That is not something we conclude morally about God—that would be viciously circular reasoning—that is something God tells us about himself, who is the ground of moral order. Under Christian meta-ethics, moral terms do not indicate ontological properties but relational properties; something is a moral good insofar as it conforms to the nature and will of God, and something is a moral evil insofar as it fails to do so. (This is why it is impossible for God to be evil; it is a meaningless contradiction to suggest that the nature or will of God could fail to conform to the nature and will of God—that is, A cannot be ~A at the same time and in the same respect.)

I am not sure I've understood you correctly. God is only good because he told us and not ontologically? How do we know he is not lying?

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

The argument itself is a valid modus tollens. The soundness of the first premise is defended logically using a TAG form of reasoning; namely, that morality neither obtains nor is intelligible under anything other than biblical presuppositions (as necessary for any conclusion to be reached whatsoever).

Thank you for this. Logically valid but hardly sound. One point of clarifcation is around whther you mean some form of objective morality. P1 if morality exists then why does it need a god? DP has covered this in more detail. P2 is a fallacy of a floating abstraction. Morality is an abstract concept and as such is not instantiated in the universe. Like Logic and maths only exist within their own frameworks, created by the human mind.

The latter half of your comment answered the first half; God as revealed in Scripture is the axiomatic presupposition upon which everything else is built, and he is argued as the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of anything, including morality (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, etc.).

Really? I think the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Animists, Scientologists etc may disagree with you and they all could make their own claim with equal validity. There is no evidence that this is anything other than speculation and special pleading for the christian view.

[Ryft]

It may be internally consistent but [it is] all totally meaningless.

The fact that you understand what I am saying and form objections that are logically relevant proves that it is actually not meaningless. (If it really were meaningless you could not respond intelligently. But you are.) So I suspect that you must have meant something other than meaningless here, since you are clearly engaging me relevantly and coherently on the matter.

So once again: (1) in order for something ethical to inform us about God we have to know what is ethical; (2) in order to know what is ethical we have to have a meta-ethic; (3) when meta-ethics is grounded in God it follows that moral statements do not tell us about God, but rather that God tells us about moral statements (i.e., understanding morality rightly requires understanding God rightly). This is why I said that the proposition "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God" tells us something about morality and nothing about God.

I am sure [a person can summarize] objective morality and the mode that God would use to transmit goodness into the universe. I would have thought it would be an easy request and wholly realistic. I did just ask for a rough sketch, not a book. So can you do it?

Generally speaking? Of course I can. With you? I have rather grave doubts; I suspect a book-length treatment is required to preclude such hand-waving dismissals as you have shown a willingness to do (see above), expanding and extrapolating with details that provide the meaning which you actually already grasp. Shall we test this? Here then is a rough sketch:

Insofar as meta-ethics is grounded in the very nature and will of God, morality is objective by definition (such that 'objective' means independent of any human mind). The mode by which God transmits goodness into the universe is divine immanence on one hand and creating human beings as 'imago Dei' on the other.

I am not sure I've understood you correctly. God is only good because he told us, and not ontologically? How do we know he is not lying?

God is good tautologically, insofar as meta-ethics is grounded in the very nature and will of God. If something is morally good such that it conforms to the nature and will of God (thus moral terms express a relational property, not an ontological one), then to say that God is good is to say that the nature and will of God conforms to the nature and will of God—a tautology. Again, "Under Christian meta-ethics, moral terms do not indicate ontological properties but relational properties," such that the moral value of X is a function of its relation to the nature and will of God. Thus, by the same token, something is a moral evil insofar as it fails to conform to the nature and will of God, which is why God being evil is a meaningless contradiction; it is saying that the nature and will of God fails to conform to the nature and will of God—that is, A is not-A. And we know he is not lying on the same basis; namely, since God is truth, the idea of him lying is a meaningless contradiction (i.e., A is not-A).

If morality exists, then why does it need God?

Because "morality neither obtains nor is intelligible under anything other than biblical presuppositions," which your question had to ignore to even be asked.

Morality is an abstract concept and, as such, is not instantiated in the universe. ... [It is] created by the human mind.

That is false under the Christian view of meta-ethics and therefore irrelevant to a critical analysis thereof. To presuppose the truth of that meta-ethic in a critical analysis of the Christian meta-ethic is to beg the very question, by which such analysis invalidates itself. You might presuppose the truth of that meta-ethic in preference to the Christian meta-ethic, but that just leaves the Christian one unchallenged—which leaves me with nothing to address.

Really? I think the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Animists, Scientologists, etc. may disagree with you ...

Sure, and they are allowed to. But I hope you realize that disagreeing with view X has no bearing on view X.

... and they all could make their own claim with equal validity.

Unless they are begging the question, which is bereft of validity. (Or perhaps they simply presuppose the truth of their view in preference to the Christian view, which leaves the latter unchallenged and me with nothing to address. To prefer view Y over view X has no bearing on view X.)

There is no evidence that this is anything other than speculation and special pleading for the Christian view.

It might be mere speculation given the criteria of your view, but that criteria is neither a given nor relevant in a critical analysis of the Christian view. And there is no special pleading for the Christian view here, if special pleading "occurs when someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception."

[Captain Scarlet]

Oh dear Ryft, perhaps you should climb down from that pedestal of intellectual hubris you've erected for yourself. We've heard these arguments a thousand times and you've heard the reverse, I'm sure.

To say good is grounded in the very nature of a being is an intelligible sentence but is still meaningless. Of course you have to argue this to avoid the meta-ethical argument for atheism.

As a rough sketch goes a little more detail would be nice (not too much). Specifically I am looking for how a god transmits goodness (or whatever term you wish to use) into the universe. All you have provided is "divine immanence", which just replaces the word trasmit without defining what you mean. I can only think of 4 fundamental ways (there may be variations on a theme or others of course):
1) it was instantiated at t0 of the universe and is a necessary quality
2) it is radiated out somehow into the natural realm (from the supernatural?) without an action from a diety and is necessary quality
3) it is coded into certain beings by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
4) it is ushered in, in real time by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
Just something like this, you seem to suggest something like 2). I'm sure my poor mind and hand waiving dismissals will grasp it.

If a god is not capable of lying then he lacks omnipotence. Being able to tell lies or only speak the truth are emergent qualities of a being. This seems to apply to your god too. Using scripture, we can determine that the Abrahmic god lied to Abraham to get him up that hill and prove his devotion didn't he? as he really wasn't going to ask him to sacrifice his son. Jesus also lied to his followers, apparently not wanting to return during their lifetime after all. He was certainly a little 'economical with the truth' to Jepthah and neglected to mention that he would end up slaying is own child. Seems like this god is a distance away from the one your trying to sketch for us.

You don't feel the need to justify that Morality exists, as its axiomatic to your case. I was pointing out that in my view it cannot be axiomatic to any case, as it is an abstract concept. The view that morality exists would be false under the views that I hold.

You seem to be narrowing this debate to an argument just of the chrstian meta-ethic. This is just one view of morality, one to which I'm sure you subscribe. The title of the thread did not specify this. I feel justfied in pointing out that others have equally valid and differing views to yours (including natural explanations for morality), and that this is an argument for an atheistic perspective, in much the same as religious confusion is.

[DeistPaladin]

Insofar as meta-ethics is grounded in the very nature and will of God, morality is objective by definition (such that 'objective' means independent of any human mind).

Objective means independent of any mind, human or otherwise. This is why morality can't be objective if God makes decisions as to what is and is not moral.

Here's an analogy that might shed some light on this debate. A ruler measures length. Length is an objective measurement. The ruler doesn't decide how long a foot is. The measurement of the length of a foot is grounded in the very nature of the ruler.

Is this what you mean when you say "grounded in the very nature of God"? Just as the ruler doesn't make decisions about how long something is, God doesn't make decisions about what is or is not moral. They simply measure what they measure and the determination is not a matter of subjective judgment but objective reality.

So how do we make rulers, then? How is it that all manufactured rulers, assuming they're made correctly, have the same measurement of inches, feet and yards? Or centimeters, for those on the other system? The nature of the ruler is determined by its manufacture in accordance with accepted measurements. It reflects established rules that our society has agreed to with regard to the measurements of objective lengths.

The ruler has no control over how it is made. Dimensional length exists outside the ruler. It is objective and does not change. A foot will still be a foot and a centimeter will still be a centimeter even if the ruler didn't exist.

So how is the nature of God determined, then? Is God, like the ruler, unable to control Its nature and measures objective morality according to principles that would remain the same even if God were to cease to exist? Or is God, unlike the ruler, able to determine Its nature? If the former, morality exists outside of and independent to God. If the latter, God determines Its nature and therefore the nature of what morality is and so morality is subjective to God's wishes.

As we can see, the third option becomes a choice between the first two.

[Ryft]

Oh dear Ryft, perhaps you should climb down from that pedestal of intellectual hubris you've erected for yourself.

Insults to my character have zero bearing on the merits of my argument.

To say good is grounded in the very nature of a being ...

"Good" is a term expressing what is moral. "What is moral" is a matter of ethics. "Ethics" is not the subject of this argument. Gross misrepresentations such as this leave me nothing to address. I should think that someone who has heard an argument a thousand times before would find it trivially easy to keep in mind what that argument is.

Of course, you have to argue this to avoid the meta-ethical argument for atheism.

My argument is not about avoiding some meta-ethical argument for atheism (should such a thing even exist). My argument is about defending meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity, for what it is and against what it is not. The original post of this thread gave three views of meta-ethics purportedly advanced by Christians—which turned out to be nothing more than some unknown Catholic vidiot on YouTube. So the only thing I am doing here is defending what Christian meta-ethics is and exposing what it is not. I have never even heard of a meta-ethical argument for atheism, much less am I trying to avoid one.

As a rough sketch goes, a little more detail would be nice (not too much). Specifically, I am looking for how God transmits goodness (or whatever term you wish to use) into the universe. All you have provided is "divine immanence", which just replaces the word transmit without defining what you mean.

I find myself wondering from whom you have heard this argument a thousand times, such that you could so misunderstand divine immanence like this. In addition to you being unable to keep in mind what this argument is, it might be fitting to question whether or not you really have heard this argument before. That is to say, your posts are consistent with someone for whom this argument is foreign, not familiar (unless you are mispresenting the argument on purpose, which I am not prepared to believe yet—notwithstanding the character insult you opened with above).

At any rate, divine immanence is simply the creative and sustaining presence of a sovereign God actively unfolding his purpose for creation. Therefore, morality being grounded in the very nature and will of God, his active immanence in creation, and human beings created as imago Dei are how goodness is "transmitted into the universe." Simply none of the four ways you listed correspond to meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity, since all four treat goodness like an ontological property; whatever arguments you have heard a thousand times before, this does not seem to be one of them.

Using Scripture we can determine that God lied to Abraham ... Jesus also lied to his followers ... a little 'economical with the truth' to Jepthah ... Seems like this God is a distance away from the one you're trying to sketch for us.

Only if you are correct, and you are not. (And since this is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread, I will not be pursuing it here. The issue being discussed here is complex enough as it is without tossing additional issues into it. Feel free to start a different thread on it.)

You don't feel the need to justify that morality exists, as its axiomatic to your case.

No, the existence of morality is not axiomatic in my case—which ought to be self-evident in the proposition "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God"; i.e., morality (B) is accounted for by the existence of the triune God of Scripture (A). Think about it: if B is justified by A, then B is not axiomatic.

I was pointing out that in my view it cannot be axiomatic to any case, as it is an abstract concept. The view that morality exists would be false under the views that I hold.

Irrelevant to a critical analysis of meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity (unless you wish to beg the very question).

You seem to be narrowing this debate to an argument just of the Christian meta-ethic. This is just one view of morality (one to which I'm sure you subscribe). The title of the thread did not specify this.

It is possible for thread titles to inaccurately express the subject of the thread, which provides good reason for paying more attention to the opening post than the title to apprehend what the thread is about. And the opening post of this thread made it rather clear that the subject is the arguments for meta-ethics that Christians continue making and why they fail. So I am not "narrowing" this debate; I am sticking to what the debate has always been about, primarily by exposing that all three options in the original post are not what Christians argue after all (but rather some unknown Catholic vidiot on YouTube) and showing what meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity actually is (which either replaces the third option or constitutes a fourth option).

I feel justfied in pointing out that others have equally valid and differing views to yours (including natural explanations for morality), and that this is an argument for an atheistic perspective, in much the same as religious confusion is.

If meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity stands, then no atheistic perspective can; it is impossible for X and not-X to both be true. So the original subject of this thread must continue—attempting to show that meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity does not stand up under critical scrutiny.

[Captain Scarlet]

Insults to my character have zero bearing on the merits of my argument.

Indeed just as questioning my ability to understand a rough sketch before you present one, has zero bearing. Nor the patronising tone of your responses.

At any rate, divine immanence is simply the creative and sustaining presence of a sovereign God actively unfolding his purpose for creation.

You are asserting the universe was created. Yet there appears to be no evidence for that assertion.

Therefore, morality being grounded in the very nature and will of God, his active immanence in creation, and human beings created as imago Dei are how goodness is "transmitted into the universe."

Which material part of the human body is created in the 'image of god'. If immaterial what is it and what evidence do you have for it? Is this quality only present in humans, or were other animals also created in the image of god?

Simply none of the four ways you listed correspond to meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity, since all four treat goodness like an ontological property; whatever arguments you have heard a thousand times before, this does not seem to be one of them.

Indeed not, it normally goes unanswered. I have never had such a clear explanation of the christian view. I can at least thank you for that. Again the patronising tone adds nothing to this argument.

Only if you are correct, and you are not. (And since this is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread, I will not be pursuing it here. The issue being discussed here is complex enough as it is without tossing additional issues into it. Feel free to start a different thread on it.)

I was providing scriptural evidence that is at odds with the reasoning that leads you to conclude that your god is incapable of lying. Whilst you may want to box this off to argue the to$$ in a scriptural debate. Prima facie I have a case, you have not refuted it.

No, the existence of morality is not axiomatic in my case—which ought to be self-evident in the proposition "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God"; i.e., morality (B) is accounted for by the existence of the triune God of Scripture (A). Think about it: if B is justified by A, then B is not axiomatic.

So what leads you to conclude that [objective] morality exists? Premise 2 of your argument rather hangs on this? How did you get to the xtian god, you reasoning is not:

1 if morality does not exist, god does not exist
2 morality exists
3 the ?christian? god exists

This does not follow and I struggle to see the culmulative case that leads you to that conclusion.

It is possible for thread titles to inaccurately express the subject of the thread, which provides good reason for paying more attention to the opening post than the title to apprehend what the thread is about. And the opening post of this thread made it rather clear that the subject is the arguments for meta-ethics that Christians continue making and why they fail. So I am not "narrowing" this debate; I am sticking to what the debate has always been about, primarily by exposing that all three options in the original post are not what Christians argue after all (but rather some unknown Catholic vidiot on YouTube) and showing what meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity actually is (which either replaces the third option or constitutes a fourth option).

It may have been the reason for starting the debate, but the opening post never limited it to that. A lot (but not all) posts are discussions which can apply to an argument for any god being a source of morality and not just the xtian god. I therefore feel justified in asking you why the argument for the existence of the xtian god is more powerful than for any other god, or one we can freely invent.