The Moral Argument for God

[brewer]

The article answered your position.

" the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists."

It may help support a (your) belief (which many are free to have) but does not support existence.

[Mr.wizard]

Ya its evidence in the sense it supports a belief but its not evidence for the existence of god.

[Brian37]

Skip the scientific absurdity of the naked assertion of an invisible sky wizard by any name. But even without that, once the believer proclaims the attribute "all powerful" the character ceases to be moral. Parents have a reason in reality as to why sometimes bad things happen to their kids, because they cant be everywhere all the time and protect the kid all the time. But using the claim "all powerful" means that you have the power to never let anything bad happen. To fail or neglect or ignore that ability is immoral. When humans under conditions where they can do something fail or cause harm the parent is held accountable. I see no logic in giving a claimed "all powerful" being a pass.

The attribute as a claimed idea is a failure in logic. The observation in reality is bad things happen. Of course nobody likes bad things happening, especially not to kids. Humans fail to consider that there is no magic security sky wizard in the sky, and the only thing that reduces bad things from happening is our understanding of reality, not gap filling with superstitious claims and fictional beings.

[Pat Mustard]

The problem with that argument is that it asserts by fiat that objective moral values are contingent on the existence of God.

I (and many others) disagree on that.

Why should we accept that assertion?

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Take god out of the picture for the moment...

Now, ask yourself two questions:

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The problem is, though, that you are simply asserting something to be true and desirable because it is your personal opinion that it must be true and desirable. In order for your premise to stand, you have to provide evidence that it is logical, plausible and supported by reality. "Because I will it to be so" is not sufficient to have it so.

[Pat Mustard]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

According to the bible (and this is a non-exhaustive list):
1) Child abuse; it is ok to murder your children if they backtalk.
2) Terrorism; it is ok to commit genocide on people living in the land god said is yours.
3) Racial discrimination; see 2
4) Rape; it is ok to rape a woman if you then marry her, it is ok to offer your daughter for rape to stop the gheys sodomising a stranger
5) Murder; it is ok to murder any male in your land who is practising the wrong religion, even if they offer to surrender to you and convert to your religion.

I find it amusing that you use five examples of an "objectively moral bad" which are explicitly condoned in your magic book.

[Natachan]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this discussion, but here goes...

I've been looking at arguments for and against the existence of a "supreme being", and I'm focused on the moral argument at the moment. There are numerous versions, but a simple wording of it looks like this:

1. If objective moral values and duties do not exist, then God does not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The logic of the argument is solid, so any disagreement must involve the definitions of the terms, one or more of the two premises themselves (of course), or both.

So, what do you think about this argument, and how would you go about dismantling it?

Thanks.

Hey, so I thought I'd take a wack and give you my thoughts.

While the soundness of your argument here is fine in form, I hesitate to say that it is "sound." The first premise claims that "If objective moral valued do not exist, then God does not exist." Well, maybe objective moral values don't exist. You went on to point to a few actions and asked if they would ever be considered moral in order to justify your premise that objective morals and values do exist. I tend to think this is a misunderstanding of what morality is. Morality is a set of rules of thumb that we as humans (and other social species) have come up with to guide our actions. "Good" and "evil" are simply labels that we put on things that produce certain outcomes or that comply with a certain set of value judgements. Notice I said "value" which implies that there must be someone to do the valuing. As such the idea of "objective" morals which exist independent of any mind stops making any sense. If there is no one to do the valuing, there are no values and no good or evil.

Of course, you could concede that this might be true, but it is God that does the valuing. But that isn't objective morality, it's arbitrary.  Let's say (just hypothetically) that your arbiter of morality says that wearing cotton poly blend clothing is immoral. Does that make it so? Why? Many try to get around this by defining morality as acting in accordance with God's will, but I don't buy that definition.  It removes the moral agency of each individual. If you are simply acting on orders you are not moral or immoral, you are amoral.  If you want to define morality this way, fine, but we have to end the discussion there because we are unable to move forward because that isn't the definition that most people use.

But let's assume that we are all operating under a definition of morality that runs something like "the evaluation and guiding of actions that are promoting harmony and happiness and lessening discord in accordance with one's values" or something along those lines. What would indicate that God is the origin of those values or of morality in general? Even if we can all agree that objective morals do exist (and there are atheists who do hold this position) that does not automatically mean that a God is behind that. There are some that give secular origins of objective morality.

And finally there is still the problem that a definition of God is not given. Before we can even begin discussing its possible existence we have to define what it is that we are talking about. I could just as well claim that flibbityjibbet is the source of all morality, and the form of the argument would stay the same, and it would retain just as much meaning. What is this God? What positive evidence can you give for its existence? What are its attributes and abilities? How would we tell a universe that did not have a god from one that did?

[athrock]

Next, which of these would you say is or was acceptable EVER:

• child abuse
  
• terrorism
  
• racial discrimination
  
• rape
  
• murder (not merely "killing")
  

According to the bible (and this is a non-exhaustive list):
1) Child abuse; it is ok to murder your children if they backtalk.
2) Terrorism; it is ok to commit genocide on people living in the land god said is yours.
3) Racial discrimination; see 2
4) Rape; it is ok to rape a woman if you then marry her, it is ok to offer your daughter for rape to stop the gheys sodomising a stranger
5) Murder; it is ok to murder any male in your land who is practising the wrong religion, even if they offer to surrender to you and convert to your religion.

I find it amusing that you use five examples of an "objectively moral bad" which are explicitly condoned in your magic book.

All you have done is explain why you do not wish to be a Jew or a Christian. You have not explained why you are not a theist, because objecting to one "magic book" (and what makes it mine?) is not the same as objecting to the general idea of a supreme being, does it?

The Moral Argument attempts to give reason to think that a god exists. Nowhere does it attempt a connection to Yahweh or Jesus.

---

Skip the scientific absurdity of the naked assertion of an invisible sky wizard by any name. But even without that, once the believer proclaims the attribute "all powerful" the character ceases to be moral. Parents have a reason in reality as to why sometimes bad things happen to their kids, because they cant be everywhere all the time and protect the kid all the time. But using the claim "all powerful" means that you have the power to never let anything bad happen. To fail or neglect or ignore that ability is immoral. When humans under conditions where they can do something fail or cause harm the parent is held accountable. I see no logic in giving a claimed "all powerful" being a pass.

The attribute as a claimed idea is a failure in logic. The observation in reality is bad things happen. Of course nobody likes bad things happening, especially not to kids. Humans fail to consider that there is no magic security sky wizard in the sky, and the only thing that reduces bad things from happening is our understanding of reality, not gap filling with superstitious claims and fictional beings.

Well, that's certainly one attempt at taking down the Moral Argument, but not one that succeeds.

Alvin Plantinga has argued successfully that "free will" is a reasonable explanation for the problem of evil. This isn't just my opinion, btw. You can read what other philosophers have concluded about his argument. The problem of evil simply isn't the playground that it used to be, and ironically, your argument that "bad" things happen implies that there is an objective "good". See where this line of thinking is leading? And so the problem of evil must be answered by skeptics, also.

No, to disprove the Moral Argument, you have to demonstrate that one or both of its two premises are not true.

---

Because it is the most reasonable conclusion of careful thought about the matter.

Take god out of the picture for the moment...

Now, ask yourself two questions:

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

The problem is, though, that you are simply asserting something to be true and desirable because it is your personal opinion that it must be true and desirable. In order for your premise to stand, you have to provide evidence that it is logical, plausible and supported by reality. "Because I will it to be so" is not sufficient to have it so.

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

[Heat]

Yes, let's just assume everyone magically agree's there is no other factors to consider. Clearly if morality exists god must exist.

And you're here telling me the logic of that argument is solid?

[Vincent]

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

1. All moral values are subjective. 
2. If a God were to "create" morals based on what it believed to be right or wrong, that is still subjective because what is decided by opinion (even if the opinion belongs to a supreme being) cannot, by definition, be objective.

[athrock]

Yes, let's just assume everyone magically agree's there is no other factors to consider. Clearly if morality exists god must exist.

And you're here telling me the logic of that argument is solid?

No. Because that is not the argument.

If OBJECTIVE moral values exist, then there must be an independent standard from which these values are derived or against which they are evaluated.

Otherwise, our moral values are merely the result of personal preferences or social conventions.

---

1. Do any objective moral values exist or are all moral values subjective?
2. If objective moral values exist, what is the basis for or source of them?

1. All moral values are subjective. 

So, it's racial discrimination is okay under some circumstances, places and times? It's not always wrong to treat people differently because of the color of their skin?

2. If a God were to "create" morals based on what it believed to be right or wrong, that is still subjective because what is decided by opinion (even if the opinion belongs to a supreme being) cannot, by definition, be objective.

Euthyphro's Dilemma again. Answered previously. In brief, theists argue that God does not "decide" what is good; God IS good, and all things are measured against that absolute standard.