What is the point of morality if you're a theist?

[MindForgedManacle]

Good to hear, you're just being wrong a purely logical level then I don't mind that so much. You see all things that are caused have a cause. No infinite regresses of causes either as it would take an infinite number of causation's to cause anything to happen therefore nothing would ever be caused to happen. Solid philosophical proof of God there.

Aside from the fact that you're merely copying from the D-list philosopher William Lane Craig, the argument has the following flaws:

1) It doesn't support God. It only concludes that there must exist something that either:

1a) Was the first, uncaused cause

or

1b) Existed tenselessly, as per the B-theory pf time, wherein the casually prior state of the universe was that of a 4-dimensional block of spacetime in a tenseless state.

2) If our understanding of quantum mechanics is correct (and the available evidence seems to indicate such is very plausible), then there are in fact things that can begin to exist or happen uncaused. These include quantum phenomena like photon decay, nuclear decay, virtual particle pair production, etc.

So a 'solid proof' it is definitely not.

---

We often give humans more credit than they deserve. We don't go around killing/raping/stealing from each other because it's simply not in our nature to do so. Invoking morality suggests some sort of active thought process; a balancing of the scales so to speak. We don't ask, "why don't fish go around killing each other?" or "why don't elephants go around killing each other?"

Humans kill each other all the time. "Not in our nature" at best means such is not a typical action done by 'normal' members of our species. And yet in the last century alone hundreds of millions died from war and other human-chosen atrocities, despite it not being normal to do so.

There is something like an active thought process as to why you don't do such things. Have you never walked away from a fight? If so, why? Was it not because you rationally considered what woukd happen?

It seems to me that we are just intelligent enough to learn, reason, and be convinced, but not intelligent enough to do it well. Our intelligence gives us motives that are simply not present in other animals - some of those motives are positive, some negative - and morality is how we deal with those motives.

I would say that science and philosophy nick that whole 'we don't reason well' assertion.

Take "not killing" as an example. Not killing people is not a moral question. We simply don't do it (yes, I know some do, but that's mirrored in the animal kingdom also). It only becomes a moral question when we have the opportunity to rationalise our decision making process. Is it right to kill one to save many (for instance)? Generally speaking, you'd have to say yes, but our nature shows itself when you realise how hard it would be to do.

That is a moral question. Morality is by definition what one ought do, which entails what one ought not do as well. And rationalizing our decision-making process is ingrained in moral considerations. We tend to have predispositions (as you said) against certain behaviors which we generally take as sort of moral axioms (or very nearly so), not to be transgressed except under circumstances in which other moral axioms are under distress.

The questions I would ask religious people are, what true moral dilemnas does your religion actually answer? Would most people, of any religious persuasion come up with the same answer? Could someone else from the same religion come up with a different answer?

I'd like to see those questions answered by the religious as well.