Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[zebo-the-fat]

Rabies, typhoid, ebola, Necrotizing fasciitis... thanks god, great work!

[brewer]

Rabies, typhoid, ebola, Necrotizing fasciitis... thanks god, great work!

Don't make me come there and cut off your arm, then pray.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Someone wake me when this is over.

Boru

[Astreja]

Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron.  Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."

How would morality be automatically subjective? Subjective morality means something is wrong for you if you believe it is. It is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is, objective moral facts are clearly not subjective in this way, unless you want to say murder, rape and theft is fine if murderers, rapists and thieves subjectively believe what they're doing is ok. In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.

How do you understand subjective morality, Astreja? and do you believe: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil (independent of the subjective opinions of anyone who thinks they might be good/ok", as I think you would? Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate. Even Ruse contradicted himself in another passage of his writings by saying something to the effect of: "the person who says raping children is ok is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2=5". If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.

Did you miss my comment about intersubjective morality?  This is when a community, rather than an individual, declares some behaviours to be good and others to be bad.  If you've ever studied cultural anthropology (which I have), you would know that community values are not homogeneous - they vary wildly from place to place, and from era to era.

An individual who violates a community standard (for example, by committing rape) is punished by the community.  A community that does not protect its citizens from assault will be perceived as unsafe, and people will abandon it and go live somewhere else.  Thus, successful communities appear to have objective morality but in reality have well-established subjective values that are accepted by most of the community members.  

I do not believe in objective morality - at all.  I believe that all morality is subjective, including morality derived from the commands of a god.

And morality is not mathematics.  There are no moral theorems, and no proofs that can be derived.

[Astreja]

Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective).

Do you have an argument by which you demonstrate the above? I'd be interested to hear it. Or is it just something that seems self-evident to you?

See my response to the OP in post #34 [link]. IMO morality varies too much from culture to culture to be based on an objective standard, although it evolves towards something that looks objective.

As for the god of the Bible, if it actually did exist and had deliberately created a place for sentient beings to be tormented for eternity, that one action would make it a being of infinite evil.  No amount of good intentions or "holiness" can wave that away.

If someone were to claim that if the God of the Bible isn't real then morality must just be subjective, that would be a false dichotomy. There are systems of virtue ethics and moral realism which argue for objective morality without any reference to a God.

My comment about hell wasn't intended to be an extension of the subjective vs. objective morality question. It's a critique of OP's assertion that his god (presumably the god of the Bible) is an "Essentially Good Being."

[Angrboda]

If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.

This is wrong. Nothing about atheism is incompatible with objective morals.

Honestly, you seem like a nice enough person, but you're advancing second-rate versions of age-old arguments that have been answered many times before. There's nothing wrong with learning by doing, but it's obvious you haven't done your homework and read up on these things.

[Mister Agenda]

During an investigative case, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously quipped: "There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion," said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. "It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the Goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only a Goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope for from the flowers.”

Perhaps in his later life as a beekeeper, Mr. Holmes realized that a flower's scent and color are a competitive advantage in a world with pollinating insects.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.

This is wrong.  Nothing about atheism is incompatible with objective morals.

Honestly, you seem like a nice enough person, but you're advancing second-rate versions of age-old arguments that have been answered many times before.  There's nothing wrong with learning by doing, but it's obvious you haven't done your homework and read up on these things.

Reminds me of the time Ricky Gervais was asked, ‘If you don’t believe that there’s an all-powerful god dispensing morality and justice, why aren’t you out there killing and raping as much as you want?’

Gervais replied, ‘I am.’

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.

This is wrong. Nothing about atheism is incompatible with objective morals.

Honestly, you seem like a nice enough person, but you're advancing second-rate versions of age-old arguments that have been answered many times before. There's nothing wrong with learning by doing, but it's obvious you haven't done your homework and read up on these things.

Answered but never refuted. :-)

[no one]

But if god isn't real, why am I so special?
Why am I the pinnacle of creation, I but only get 2 sets of teeth?
Why am I the master of all the Earth, yet relegated to only about 20% of it?

If the god of Abraham isn't real, and no other gods should come before it, why are there countless gods who preceed its debut? The answer, satan

What more proof can you ask for?