Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm)Chuck Wrote: I think you are dancing around in the superstructure without establishing the foundation. The fact that Plato described it doesn't mean it it not airy speculation based on no firm supporting structure.
What is objective morality? An morality that not only is agreed upon, but would be agreed upon (in some way) in any circumstances?
Objective morality existing is an assumption the argument makes. I will make a thread about what I think objective morality is and how we can know objective morals, but as far as this thread goes, I'm not going to get into discussion of objective morality.
Most people cannot explain objective morality, but I believe are justified in believing in it.
That premise can be disputed and if it is, then the argument would not be conclusive.
I've said it before - all arguments towards God make use of properly basic faith/intuitive knowledge.
As far as this argument, yes, you need faith in morality being real and objective and not all subjective or a delusion.
Without that faith the argument fails.
You have that backwards. One does not argue from conclusion and still expect to be taken seriously.
(July 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm)Chuck Wrote: You have that backwards. One does not argue from conclusion and still expect to be taken seriously.
The argument was not meant to prove objective morality exists. It was meant to prove given objective morality exists, that it's eternal. The proof of that lies in the premise "If God were to exist, he cannot create morality".
July 12, 2012 at 4:40 pm (This post was last modified: July 12, 2012 at 4:50 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 12, 2012 at 4:24 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: . It was meant to prove given objective morality exists, that it's eternal. The proof of that lies in the premise "If God were to exist, he cannot create morality".
1. "If God were to exist" - Not established. Even when established it is not meaningful at all unless god is fairly specifically defined.
2. "He cannot create morality" - Even if 1 is given, 2 does not convincingly follow
3. "given that objective morality exist" - meaningless without defining what is objective morality. One might as well replace "objective morality" with any arbitrary symbol or letter.
4. "It is ethenal" - does not follow from 1, 2, and 3 for any number of possible meanings of "god" and "objective morality".
The conventional vision of God is the unity of everything, the one and only thing. If it were so how could it be immoral or moral?
How could morality exist on its own?
Morality is about the interaction of different things, there must at least be a duality, before morality can come about.
Even in a duality it would be hard to say if one part was to consume the other whether that would be a moral or an immoral action.
July 13, 2012 at 7:21 am (This post was last modified: July 13, 2012 at 7:23 am by NoMoreFaith.)
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Now from this, I think it would be rational to conclude, morality must be eternal. The reason is that if God can't create morality from nothing, then neither can evolution. I think this is rational to conclude.
You wouldn't think it was irrational would you? What an odd addendum to the sentence.
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (1) If God exists, he cannot create morality when morality didn't exist.
This declaration puzzles me, if he has no power to create morality, then how is "it" God. The ability to adjust, tune, create, affect reality seems to be a necessity for any projected deity.
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (2) If God cannot create morality when morality didn't exist, then neither can evolution.
Why are we using abstract ideas in the context of physical entities to be created?
Morality and Evolution aren't "things", they are both ideas.
You could apply the same thing to Marxism, if God can't create Marxism, then neither can Evolution! If God can't create Imagination, then neither can Evolution! If God can't create thoughts then neither can evolution.
If God™ can't do it... nothing can!
Seeing as morality can at least be theorised as developing through natural selection, its probably unfair to declare it "Can't".
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (3) Therefore if morality were to be real/objective/non-delusion, it would be eternal.
God can't know how a bike ride feels, therefore neither can mankind... therefore bike riding is eternal.
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: (5) Therefore Objective morality is eternal.
Therefore I do not find it rational to conclude.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
(July 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I'll bite.
Double negative. Rephrased:
(1) If God exists, he can create morality when morality did exist.
This is a nonsensical premise -- how can god create what is already there?
Ok I will rephrase the statement:
God cannot create morality.
Quote:Faulty premise -- you have not established that evolutionary derived 'morals' are dependent on God creating morality.
For all you know, codified behaviors are part of an evolution of a social species, which would make said "morality" an emergent property of said social specie evolution.
If God can create evolution, and evolution can create morality, it follows that God can create morality. But premise 1 says that is not true.
Quote:How is "morality" a coherent object that persists? How is it inherited and yet some form of "eternal" state?
There is a mystic explanation to this but briefly we are linked to God.
Quote:Also, how does this premise operate while this one cannot:
(3) If morality is a temporary object formed within the mind of an individual, then morality is around as long as that individual is around.
Not if an eternal individual exists that is the source of morality to others.
Quote:I'm not gonna even poke this one...
Good that's another discussion...this proof relies on assumption that objective morality is true.
What's a "creator"?
What's a god?
What difference do you claim between "morality" and "objective morality" that does not involve special pleading and circulcircular reasoning?
July 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm (This post was last modified: July 13, 2012 at 5:41 pm by Reforged.)
(July 12, 2012 at 3:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:
(July 12, 2012 at 3:16 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: As far as I know morality doesn't exist in any place other than in the minds of human beings.
You might as well ask if thought was created from nothing which would be pointless because our brains create our thoughts dependent on sustenance and sensory information received.
Why do our brains create thoughts based in morality? The same reason we have thoughts about food, drink, shelter and sex. Survival. Animals that travel in groups are more likely to survive and procreate which means it is beneficial to contribute to the survival of the group as a whole. This would lead to acts of kindness, selflessness and courage. The groups who co-operated the most would be the most likely to pass down their genes thus increasing the probability of "morale" behaviour manifesting itself as an innate attribute of the species as a whole. Combine this with high intellect and adaptability causing this behaviour to take more complex forms to maximize co-operation and by default survival and you end up with the human races modern take on morality.
I understand your view point. The argument is based on two premises:
If God exists, then he cannot create morality. ( I argued why in OP).
Objective morality exists.
The conclusion will follow if you assume these two are true.
As for 1, I've seen Atheists argue with Euthyphro dilemma that God cannot decide morals as that would make it arbitrary. In fact, atheist philosophers do it all the time to show we don't need God and morality is independent of God. I think it proves the opposite. That morality is impossible without God.
But both these premises seem widely agreed upon, therefore, if not conclusive, this argument is still very potent.
Saying evolution created morality and it exists only in mind of human beings...this is exactly what the whole argument was aimed at disproving.
It proves morality is eternal (if you agree on the two premises I mentioned). You can even substitute "goodness" with "morality". And you would concluded goodness is eternal.
But both of these need consciousness. Therefore it follows conscious is eternal.
I can further make the argument, that goodness has infinite potential, and all must exist eternally. Thus Ultimate Goodness exists. Therefore God.
You can also substitute the word "greatness"...and the same would be true. Then you reach conclusion of Ultimate Greatness.
I have not expressed any viewpoint of my own, I have simply stated how morality would develop, not simply be created, along the lines of evolution. We know evolution to be a fact through an incredible amount of evidence.
What you were suggesting is that morality is impossible without God. Well firstly no, it obviously isn't. I just presented you with a highly plausible alternative.
Secondly, you have no proof God exists. You are basing your assertion on an unbacked assumption. I don't see anything you've presented in this thread that requires a serious debate.
I have not seen God abide by any morale standard in any text of any religion other than what suits him at the time and he imposes these standards upon his creations whether it be a morale standard or not. These standards would appear to change from age to age too which would discount the idea of a one, true and eternal morality. Based on this alone it would appear your argument has no significant weight behind it. You're the only one here claiming anything is eternal and you have no proof to speak of. If you are going to insist on this line of reasoning would you please focus on the things you can prove are demonstrably true rather than the things you can't, doing the latter is a pointless endeavour and a waste of time to all involved.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred.
(July 12, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think the answer to this question is no. The Euthyphro dilemma shows that if God commands what he wants of morality, then, morality would be arbitrary.
But remember this is a god that is supposed to have pulled everything you see out of his own ass. If being vs nothing is no issue for a god, why should morality be. After all, doesn't the creation of matter and energy from nothing at all make atomic structure and everything else we discover arbitrary? Why get upset over morality being cobbled together any old way the big guy wants, but not over an arbitrary physics?
Do you imagine a creator god as working within constraints of some kind or as a totally magical genie?
1) The Christian god (the one you're referring to by its name, God) can do anything, therefore it can create objective morality. (It's not bound by logic, so the fact that one of its properties may be illogical is irrelevant.) If it can't create objective morality it may be a god, but it's not God.
