Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.

[Deesse23]

Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is:

Like many christians you are falsely linking disbelief in your god to evolution/Darwinism. Its wrong and telling....about you.
Disbelief has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron.  Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."

In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.

Is it a fact, or just your gods opinion that murder is not ok? Is it a fact or just your gods opinion that murdering the Amalekites was ok?
If its an objective truth that murder is immoral, was it moral or immoral of your god to command genocide on the Amalekites?
If you just answered that murder is not ok....well, that its ok as long as your god commands is...are you then a moral objectivist or relativist?

Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate.

bare assertion and wrong.

Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."


There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".

Bolding mine: Bare assertion again
You assert that objecive moral values exist and that they obviously cant come from nature, thus god.
Thats fallacious in more than one way, starting with your unsupported assertion that objective moral values exist. Please demonstrate they do! That you believe so deep down in your consciousness...that itsnt such a demonstration

The fact alone of God's existence can also be established in other ways, like the Principle of Contingent Causation mentioned on another thread.

Wrong again

Alexander Hamilton said: "Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable Law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatsoever. This is what is called the Law of Nature.

Being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, it is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [Law]."

Noone cares about what Hamilton said, until you can demonstrate he was correct. Was he? Can you?