(October 3, 2015 at 2:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah, it's just that this argument totally fails because if God makes morality then it's still not objective. It's subjective to GodIt is still a matter of opinion, just his opinion. And if you trust someone's opinion completely, never using your own thought, that is an amoral and dangerous system. Us atheists clearly do have morality, or else we'd all be running around murdering and raping, right? I know some theists like to pretend that this is what is happening, but it's not.
There is another option, that morality is based on God's nature, not opinion. I believe that you are also confusing sin with morality. I am differentiating here, in morality being always wrong for all people. Whereas sin may be in regard to a specific people or individual in relation to God's command.
The other thing, that I notice in this post, and I want to point out as directly as I can, because it is too often mis-understood (no matter how many times it is explained). The argument of morality, has nothing to do with behavior or whether people (any group) are moral. It has to do with the basis for morality and the source of objective morality.
Throughout culture, geography, and time; man has a sense that there is an objective morality, outside of themselves. There may be some disagreements, but then others are almost universally held to (if morality is objective, then it's truth is not dependent on recognition or knowledge of it) We feel free to judge other cultures and times, as good or bad in regards to morals, and think that there is a moral standard which should be held to. If morality is subjective, and can change from person to person, or group to group (as agreed upon), then it is incorrect to judge another person or group by a different standard (your own subjective morals). Many betray themselves, because on one hand, they say that the standard for morality is subjective (changes and is based on individual opinion). Then they desire to judge others and even God saying that there is another standard.
So then if morality is subjective, many are incorrect in applying moral judgement against others (including often mis-understood arguments against God). If morals are objective, then it is difficult for a naturalist to account for the cause or source of morals using only matter and the laws of physics. Science cannot tell you what ought to be, and the laws of physics are inadequate as a cause, as they are a constant force. It's not good or bad, better or worse, it just is, and has no choice of what is. From the argument from morality, similarly to the argument from reason, requires a personal cause.
