A quick refutation of the argument that seems to be debated on YouTube right now with the return of VFX. Christians are once again recycling the moral imperative of believing in God in order to have a sound basis for moral judgment. Putting aside that this is an appeal to consequences, this argument is a non-sequitur since the two issues are unrelated.
Option 1: God is able to determine what is moral
If theists are saying that God is wise enough to weigh out all the facts and see the given issue from all sides and make the correct determination as to what is right or wrong, than morality exists outside of God. Things that are wrong would still be wrong even if God ceased to exist.
Option 2: God decides what is moral
If theists are saying that God is the celestial law-giver essential for morality to exist, that things are right or wrong because God says so, than this is not universal objective morality. At best, this is deferring one's subjective moral judgment to the subjective moral judgment of a higher being. At worst, this is a celestial dictatorship based on the principle that might-makes-right. Either way, there's nothing "objective" about this morality since it comes from the decree of the arbitrary judgments of one being.
Option 3: God is morality
This touchy-feeley explanation is often used by apologists when they're presented with the first two options. This argument can be dismissed as a tautology. The apologist is presenting a definition of morality and then using that definition to prove that the definition is true. This is classic circular reasoning. "We know that God is good because God is good".
All three fail. The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong.
Option 1: God is able to determine what is moral
If theists are saying that God is wise enough to weigh out all the facts and see the given issue from all sides and make the correct determination as to what is right or wrong, than morality exists outside of God. Things that are wrong would still be wrong even if God ceased to exist.
Option 2: God decides what is moral
If theists are saying that God is the celestial law-giver essential for morality to exist, that things are right or wrong because God says so, than this is not universal objective morality. At best, this is deferring one's subjective moral judgment to the subjective moral judgment of a higher being. At worst, this is a celestial dictatorship based on the principle that might-makes-right. Either way, there's nothing "objective" about this morality since it comes from the decree of the arbitrary judgments of one being.
Option 3: God is morality
This touchy-feeley explanation is often used by apologists when they're presented with the first two options. This argument can be dismissed as a tautology. The apologist is presenting a definition of morality and then using that definition to prove that the definition is true. This is classic circular reasoning. "We know that God is good because God is good".
All three fail. The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
