Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Esquilax]

Regarding moral values. Of course humans can use their minds and develop a system of moral values. This process leads to subjective moral values. How do you create subjective moral values? What factors do you weigh? You will probably agree with Sam Harris' position on the foundation of morality as "we should define ‘good’ as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures" and since increases in well-being can be reasonably measured, we have a foundation for a moral values system.

He has redefined 'good' (which in this context means "that which is morally right; righteousness") to mean supporting well-being, so when you ask the question why is the pursuit of our well-being good, it is the now the same as asking why is the pursuit of our well-being supporting well-being. You go in circles. He is not really talking about moral values. He is talking about judgments on what is more or less conducive to life.

You can only say that Sam Harris has "redefined" good to mean something else by first establishing that there was an initial definition based upon something effective and true. In short, it's all well and good for you to point to morals derived from well being and call them subjective, but you haven't even made the first step toward demonstrating the existence of superior, objective morals, or even that morality is an objective thing that exists beyond the minds of sentient agents. My position is that morality exists only where there are moral agents capable of dealing in moral acts, and yours seems to be that morality exists separate from humanity, either as an objective item, or a function of god's presence in the universe.

That's great, but if you want that position of yours to present a problem for mine, you'll need to demonstrate the existence of either thing. You can't just assert it and then expect us to tapdance on imaginary quicksand.

As to why well being should be our yardstick for moral goodness, well... in a universe where morality doesn't come from an external source the only way in which morality could even be a thing is in the presence of thinking agents. You call that thinking agent god, and credit him as the source of morality, but I don't believe he exists; to me, the source of morality necessarily is the only available thinking agents we know of. Conscious creatures in our world. In a world where morality is sustained by thinking minds it's only natural that it also revolves around them.

Our morality is derived from well being because what else is there?

Contrary to what Harris believes, science can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. It certainly cannot tell us we have a moral obligation to take actions which are conducive to human life.

Which, again, rests on the assumption that moral obligations are divorced from human minds, which I don't think is true. Care to make a case for that?

A further problem is that 'ought' implies 'can'. Dawkins, Harris and others freely admit that free will is an illusion and that all of our actions are causally determined by our molecules.

Did you read up on compatibilism? I'm not required to fight the battles of Dawkins or Harris, they're separate beings with their own opinions on these matters, but I happen to find that compatibilism solves this problem you have with determinism quite handily.

If God does not exist, then there is no objective moral values/duties/laws.

Yyyyup.

Any action whatsoever is philosophically permissible.

Nnnnnope. Do you realize that "objective morals or no morals at all," is a false dichotomy? I explained in detail a method for acquiring subjective morals that is conducive to a well run human society in my last post; dismissing that out of hand isn't very nice.

If you object to this:

1. If God exists, objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.

I think you've yet to even attempt to prove point two, there. I'll listen, if you care to start. But merely asserting it, just the same as William Lane Craig does, isn't convincing.

you are left with what Dawkins says: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA...It is every living object’s sole reason for being”

Do you not see something rather inconsiderate in sitting there and telling us what we must believe? You don't see any of us demanding that if you don't accept atheism you're left with some other undesirable thing, do you? Where do you get off, thinking you can impose these false dichotomies onto us, rather than letting us speak for ourselves?

Yes, it is illogical to conclude that the source of moral law can command something immoral. By definition, it becomes moral. Of course one should be damn sure a command comes from God.

So then you don't have objective morals coming from god, you have a set of dictates from on high. Objective morals can't be altered, they're immutable, dare I say it, objective and separate from any orders given, yet you've just said that whatever god says becomes moral, even if it was immoral before.

You just fell right into the prongs of the Euthyphro Dilemma, my friend.