The Moral Argument for God

[athrock]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

According to the bible (and this is a non-exhaustive list):
1) Child abuse; it is ok to murder your children if they backtalk.
2) Terrorism; it is ok to commit genocide on people living in the land god said is yours.
3) Racial discrimination; see 2
4) Rape; it is ok to rape a woman if you then marry her, it is ok to offer your daughter for rape to stop the gheys sodomising a stranger
5) Murder; it is ok to murder any male in your land who is practising the wrong religion, even if they offer to surrender to you and convert to your religion.

I find it amusing that you use five examples of an "objectively moral bad" which are explicitly condoned in your magic book.

All you have done is explain why you do not wish to be a Jew or a Christian. You have not explained why you are not a theist, because objecting to one "magic book" (and what makes it mine?) is not the same as objecting to the general idea of a supreme being, does it?

The Moral Argument attempts to give reason to think that a god exists. Nowhere does it attempt a connection to Yahweh or Jesus.

---

Skip the scientific absurdity of the naked assertion of an invisible sky wizard by any name. But even without that, once the believer proclaims the attribute "all powerful" the character ceases to be moral. Parents have a reason in reality as to why sometimes bad things happen to their kids, because they cant be everywhere all the time and protect the kid all the time. But using the claim "all powerful" means that you have the power to never let anything bad happen. To fail or neglect or ignore that ability is immoral. When humans under conditions where they can do something fail or cause harm the parent is held accountable. I see no logic in giving a claimed "all powerful" being a pass.

The attribute as a claimed idea is a failure in logic. The observation in reality is bad things happen. Of course nobody likes bad things happening, especially not to kids. Humans fail to consider that there is no magic security sky wizard in the sky, and the only thing that reduces bad things from happening is our understanding of reality, not gap filling with superstitious claims and fictional beings.

Well, that's certainly one attempt at taking down the Moral Argument, but not one that succeeds.

Alvin Plantinga has argued successfully that "free will" is a reasonable explanation for the problem of evil. This isn't just my opinion, btw. You can read what other philosophers have concluded about his argument. The problem of evil simply isn't the playground that it used to be, and ironically, your argument that "bad" things happen implies that there is an objective "good". See where this line of thinking is leading? And so the problem of evil must be answered by skeptics, also.

No, to disprove the Moral Argument, you have to demonstrate that one or both of its two premises are not true.

---

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Take god out of the picture for the moment...

Now, ask yourself two questions:

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The problem is, though, that you are simply asserting something to be true and desirable because it is your personal opinion that it must be true and desirable. In order for your premise to stand, you have to provide evidence that it is logical, plausible and supported by reality. "Because I will it to be so" is not sufficient to have it so.

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.