(April 27, 2012 at 9:06 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I will actually try to respond to the content of what you wrote instead of being lazy like the other atheists here.
Thanks
.(April 27, 2012 at 9:06 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I don't understand why you're not bothered by the problem of infinite regress of objective morality. I would think that would be a major blow to the concept of objective morality. God is supposedly suppose to be the source of everything, but in this case, you seem to be saying you're fine with morality not actually coming from him. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
Slight misunderstanding. I think infinite regress is a problem, but I don't think that stopping with some standard is a problem. If objective morality exists, it is arbitrary in this sense, but there don't appear to be any inherent problems with this.
I don't think that morality is coming from a different standard. I would propose that the standard at which we stop is God's nature.
(April 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You posted it on an Atheist forum. You are lost.
Buy a GPS.
I'm responding to an atheistic argument. That's fairly appropriate for an atheistic forum.
(April 27, 2012 at 10:54 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: If it's true that God's nature is arbitary, then how can you actually tell that something is morally good because it's in God's nature as opposed to because God commands it? They both look the same; an arbitrary selection of good and bad morals.
You might not be able to. But there are arguments (used by atheists and theists alike) defending moral intuition, which would be one way to get at least some idea of what is moral and immoral.
(April 28, 2012 at 4:48 am)Kayenneh Wrote: My biggest problem with this one would be that morals are not the same around the globe. If indeed there was ONE god, from where all morality came and all the people of the world would follow this, wouldn't it be absolutely unnecessary to even debate this? “Is something moral because God commands" makes me think of a certain story in the bible, where a man is commanded to kill his son, to please his god. The god commands, therefore it must be moral, even though the bible clearly states that "thou shalt not kill". I don't see the morality here.
Not really. Moral facts need not influence how we behave. The view that there are objective moral facts that are only descriptive and do not influence us at all is called descriptivism. I don't really think that this is an accurate view and I don't know how on earth it would be defended philosophically though.
Most people who accept objectivism (objective moral facts exist) would not accept descriptivism. They would argue that we are influenced by moral facts. However, it still does not follow that we will not see large differences in moral behavior. Moral influence does not mean moral requirement. We might feel bad after doing something wrong but that does not mean that we wont do wrong things.
(April 28, 2012 at 11:27 am)toro Wrote: Your substitution of the phrase "in God's nature" for "God says so" is a simple regress that leaves us in the same position with a second question:
"Is it in God's nature Because God says so, or does God say so because it is in his nature."
If the latter, then, as before, God is not omnipotent and there are higher laws/powers directing it. If the former, then, again, God is arbitrarily choosing what his nature will be so it is moral and the morality is arbitrary. We now have the same dilemma. This cannot be ignored because it is an assertion you are making to answer the question, and therefore you need to explain all aspects of your assertion.
I am asserting that God is the ultimate moral standard. This means there is essentially no reason behind his nature. If anyone asserts that objective morality exists, there must either be an arbitrary standard or we have the problem of infinite regress. Like I responded to teaearl though, there don't seem to be any inherent problems with this.
