RE: The Moral Argument for God
December 3, 2015 at 7:04 pm
(This post was last modified: December 3, 2015 at 7:06 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 3, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Chad32 Wrote: The moral argument is a common one. One of the major flaws is that people think morals can come from anyone, and still be objective. If they come from god, they're subjective. That's what subjective means. If they're objective, they don't come from any one/three individual(s), and thus we don't need a god for our morals. If morals come from god, they're as subjective as anyone else's opinion of morals.
Good old Euthyphro's dilemma.
"Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?"
If the first horn of the dilemma is true, then the god is not the author of morality, but just the communicator of morality. And therefore, we could discover it on our own.
If the second horn is true, then morality is not objective, but subjective to the god's will. There is nothing stopping such a god from changing his mind tomorrow on what is moral and immoral.
Some theists will state at this point, "but that would be against the god's nature". Which does not help their argument, it only moves the problem back a step.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
