Moral Argument for God's Existence

[CapnAwesome]

Apes who murder other apes are not held morally culpable for their actions. Aggressiveness and passiveness in dogs is similarly regarded as part of their nature - not something they bear moral responsibility for. The effect of genes maybe mish-mashed into our morality, but the extent of that effect can be separated and to the extent it is responsible for behavior, desires, sex-drive etc. we do not hold people morally responsible for them. This is not a difference in content - like moral differences of elephants and lions - it is a fundamental difference in its nature. The "evolution of morality" argument specifically addresses the precursors of human morality - but morality itself has come a long way from that. Ignoring all the other factors responsible for development of morality and limiting the answer to just evolution makes for a shitty argument.

I didn't mean to imply that it was just limited to evolution, but I do believe the question is where does morality come from. If you are talking about in an overall sense for human beings I think the answer has to be evolution. The same as we evolved out intellect we evolved our morality. That our intellect is separate from animals does not mean that it is somehow not from evolution. I didn't mean to imply that our individual morality is the result of evolution. It's obviously a factor of culture and other factors. But as a species morality has helped us survive.

[genkaus]

I didn't mean to imply that it was just limited to evolution, but I do believe the question is where does morality come from. If you are talking about in an overall sense for human beings I think the answer has to be evolution. The same as we evolved out intellect we evolved our morality. That our intellect is separate from animals does not mean that it is somehow not from evolution. I didn't mean to imply that our individual morality is the result of evolution. It's obviously a factor of culture and other factors. But as a species morality has helped us survive.

In that case, the answer to everything would be evolution. If I ask where science comes from, the answer would be "it comes from our ability to perceive and draw rational conclusions, which in turn, comes from evolution - therefore science come from evolution". The same goes for law or logic or aesthetics - they all come from evolution. I regard that answer as trivially true, but essentially meaningless. When discussing morality in a philosophical context, the question "where morality comes from" refers to its function and need, i.e. its final cause, not efficient cause. And evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the content of our current morality.

[max-greece]

I didn't mean to imply that it was just limited to evolution, but I do believe the question is where does morality come from. If you are talking about in an overall sense for human beings I think the answer has to be evolution. The same as we evolved out intellect we evolved our morality. That our intellect is separate from animals does not mean that it is somehow not from evolution. I didn't mean to imply that our individual morality is the result of evolution. It's obviously a factor of culture and other factors. But as a species morality has helped us survive.

In that case, the answer to everything would be evolution. If I ask where science comes from, the answer would be "it comes from our ability to perceive and draw rational conclusions, which in turn, comes from evolution - therefore science come from evolution". The same goes for law or logic or aesthetics - they all come from evolution. I regard that answer as trivially true, but essentially meaningless. When discussing morality in a philosophical context, the question "where morality comes from" refers to its function and need, i.e. its final cause, not efficient cause. And evolution is not a sufficient explanation for the content of our current morality.

Of course the nice thing about it is that God also therefore comes from evolution too.

[Chas]

Morals are not objective, they are the negotiated behavior of groups of people. One person alone cannot have, and does not need, morality.

Where did you get that? A fortune cookie? The application of morality is not limited to group behavior. They can be objective, subjective, rational, nonsensical or anything in between. And a person alone would still need morality and is capable of having it.

Please describe a person's morality absent the existence of other people.

[genkaus]

Please describe a person's morality absent the existence of other people.

Morality is a conceptual standard that serves as a guide to human behavior. When considering if an action should be undertaken, if that action is in accordance with a person's accepted morals, then it is considered good. If it contradicts them, it is considered bad. On what basis the person has accepted that particular standard or how it came into existence in the first place does not necessarily require the existence of other people. You want more?

[Minimalist]

They apply to human behavior and, as a matter of norm, are not affected by an individual's perception of them.

The comparison fails when entire cultures practice, even celebrate, deviations from those norms.

[Faith No More]

How can there be a "moral argument" for such a morally ambiguous creature?

They circumvent that with typical apologetic tactics. They see that a god's actions do not meet a certain criteria, i.e. moral or good, so they then have to ascribe that criteria as an instrinsic property of god. Fr0d0, would come in here and tell you that god is morality, therefore every action he undertakes is moral, regardless of how it appears to us. I could equally say that god is humor, which would mean giving babies cancer is actually hilarious, despite how it looks, because god cannot contradict his nature.

Remember, the first rule of apologetics is that an unfalsifiable excuse shall be me made when your argument fails.

[genkaus]

They apply to human behavior and, as a matter of norm, are not affected by an individual's perception of them.

The comparison fails when entire cultures practice, even celebrate, deviations from those norms.

Deviation from norm, cultural or otherwise, does not make the norm subjective.

[Chas]

Please describe a person's morality absent the existence of other people.

Morality is a conceptual standard that serves as a guide to human behavior. When considering if an action should be undertaken, if that action is in accordance with a person's accepted morals, then it is considered good. If it contradicts them, it is considered bad. On what basis the person has accepted that particular standard or how it came into existence in the first place does not necessarily require the existence of other people. You want more?

Behavior in relation to what? There are no other people to help or to harm, there are no other people to judge the behavior. What does morality even mean in that context?

[genkaus]

Behavior in relation to what? There are no other people to help or to harm, there are no other people to judge the behavior. What does morality even mean in that context?

Behavior in relation to himself. His behavior can help or harm him. He is there to judge his own behavior. And that is what morality means in that context.