The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

Well, to continue that train of thought, the theist would argue against the conclusion of the second horn by saying that God wills that which is good because he IS, as you say, by nature "good". How does this move the problem back a step?

It moves the problem back a step, because it now begs the question, where did the god get his nature from?

If he is the author of his own nature, then his "good" nature was a subjective choice he made. Could he have provided himself with another nature besides "good"? 

If he is not the author of his own nature, then where did he get his nature from? If he did not provide his own nature, then he is just communicating this "good" nature from the source where he got it from.

Well, I'm not sure this isn't meat for another thread, but theists would argue (I think) that God is the uncreated creator, the uncaused cause. He did not choose the nature He has God has always existed. There was no time when God was without this nature before choosing to take it on. Nor is He simply communicating or choosing that which is "good" as if "the Good" was something outside Himself. He IS good, and everything that He commands or communicates to us IS good because He is good.

If God exists, then He cannot contradict his own good nature today by willing something not good nor can he do so by changing his mind tomorrow. As I wrote in a prior post, the theist claims that God IS the standard for measuring right and wrong just as the original artist is the standard against which all the cover recordings are compared.

Then this god you are describing is not omnipotent.

Oh? So, if God can't make a rock so big even He can't lift it, then He's not omnipotent?

I don't mean to be rude, but that's freshman-level argumentation. God cannot do something that is a logical contradiction. Like make a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor.

As for the conclusion of the first horn, if we could simply "discover" objective morality on our own, one has to wonder why this has not happened universally. Far too many people still seem to believe that raping children is acceptable for this discovery to be considered a universal truth. The fact that it still occurs seems to suggest that the process of discovering moral truths is hit and miss, at best. And some societies or cultures seem to have discovered that killing Jews or mutilating women is perfectly fine. Can we agree that the holocaust would still be considered objectively wrong even if the Nazis had won the war?

I believe we have already discovered a form of objective morality. The objective nature is measured against physical reality. 

Google "The superiority of secular morality" for an excellent lecture.

Okay. Thanks!

Those things you mentioned, are immoral, not because any god says they are. They are immoral because they harm the well being of other sentient beings. Just because the societies that perform them believe they are moral, does not make them so. 

That's kinda the point of the moral argument, isn't it? Exactly WHO (or what) has the authority to say that they are not moral?

I mean, you are shrinking back from the idea that killing Jews is acceptable because you think it is wrong, but why is your opinion right and that of the millions of Germans who signed off on the holocaust wrong?

---

I forgot what the scientific proof that established the well-being of sentient beings as being objectively valuable was. Could you remind me?

All you have to do is ask the sentient beings on the negative side of an immoral action how they feel about it.

Murder is wrong, because it harms the well being of sentient beings. Would you rather be murdered, or continue living? If you answer like the vast majority of people would, then you have your answer. 

All you have to do to determine that slavery is wrong, is ask he slaves how they feel about it. Would you rather be enslaved, or continue to be free?

"The needs of the many out-weigh the needs of the few."  ~ Mr. Spock

So, if killing a single person or even a minority of people is beneficial to the well-being of the majority of the species as a whole, asking the minority how it feels doesn't really matter, does it?

---

I did recently see an interesting article concerning this subject.   Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist

1. Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing
   
2. Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil
   
3. Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise
   
4. Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust
   
5. Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality
   
6. Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions
   
7. Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance
   

Relativism is different from subjectivism. Most members here, it seems, are of the subjectivist position when it comes to morality, not relativism.

How I see it is moral subjectivism is about feelings and preferences determining what's individually or universally right and wrong. Relativism is about accepting that the moral standards of other individuals or cultures should be respected no matter what.

So, if the man living next door to you decides that an honor killing is necessary because his teenage daughter walked out to the mailbox without a male escort and without wearing her burqa, are you gonna respect his culture "no matter what"?