My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

This is the thing. How do we define God? God means a being Worthy of Worship. This includes moral excellence, not just being ultra powerful.

If we are defining God, then this is going to be a really short conversation. At best, we might discover what God is, but you don't get to make up circles, define the points, and then say everything proves everything else.

Part of the definition of God is whoever/whatever made morals possible or the only being which morals are possible through. It's not a poor part of the description of God and in fact also points to the totality of his names and aspects, and is one of God's all-beautiful names.

1. God is whoever/whatever caused morals to exist.
2. Morals exist
3. Therefore God is real.

This is almost for sure the worst logical argument I've ever seen.

[LadyForCamus]

Am I the only one CL hasn't taken off ignore yet? [emoji53]

[Mystic]

Objective morality and God, in my opinion, go together. I personally can't see or make sense of how objective morality can exist without some sort of God(s).

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.   ;)

I want to take a different angle to this all.

I've mentioned this issue before, but, how does a good action get inherited to a person's identity and become part of them? 
 (A) It is just memory and how we psychologically feel about it? (B)Or is part of us in a reality living existing type way?

Forget what you know for certain. The fucking dark forces don't stop shouting "how do you know for certain" or if you know at all.

I'm asking you sincerely and you don't even have to reply to me if you don't want to. Which of the two options do you feel is more right?

[robvalue]

There is absolutely no evidence for B. I barely understand what it even means.

Plenty of evidence for A.

Certainty is of no relevance.

[Mystic]

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

Very understandable. Since you don't believe in God, objective morality doesn't really make sense.

Yes, I thought when I disbelieved in God, I would be able to believe in objective praise/morality somehow. I couldn't. And I realized I could not truthfully have subjective praise without belief in objective praise. 

I went through a crisis. I didn't want to believe in God simply because I wanted to. I had to know him to be true. The dark night of my soul was distressing.

[Mystic]

This is the thing. How do we define God? God means a being Worthy of Worship. This includes moral excellence, not just being ultra powerful.

If we are defining God, then this is going to be a really short conversation.  At best, we might discover what God is, but you don't get to make up circles, define the points, and then say everything proves everything else.

Part of the definition of God is whoever/whatever made morals possible or the only being which morals are possible through. It's not a poor part of the description of God and in fact also points to the totality of his names and aspects, and is one of God's all-beautiful names.

1.  God is whoever/whatever caused morals to exist.
2.  Morals exist
3.  Therefore God is real.

This is almost for sure the worst logical argument I've ever seen.

I think the case with God and his signs, is that God is manifestation of his signs and his signs are also manifestations of God. They have this double relationship.

The signs point to God precisely because God is what reveals them and manifests them.

[IATIA]

I've mentioned this issue before, but, how does a good action get inherited to a person's identity and become part of them? 
 (A) It is just memory and how we psychologically feel about it? (B)Or is part of us in a reality living existing type way?

Forget what you know for certain. The fucking dark forces don't stop shouting "how do you know for certain" or if you know at all.

I'm asking you sincerely and you don't even have to reply to me if you don't want to. Which of the two options do you feel is more right?

The answer is close to (A).

Basic 'morals' are genetically enforced for the survival of any species through evolution. A species cannot kill itself off and continue. Genetic instinct helps protect a species from abhorrent behavior that is not conducive to survival.

[Kiekeben]

God is supposed to be all powerful. That is absurd, but if I accept that, then no other analogy is fitting. He could easily make it so that sex is possible, but non consensual sex isn't.

If he can't do that, he's not anything like all powerful.

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of will / free will. The *only* difference between consensual sex and non-consensual sex is willingness. People having consensual sex (freely) chose to have it. One or more people having non-consensual sex did not freely choose to have it.

So yes, an all powerful God could have easily made it so that non-consensual sex wasn't possible...by negating free will. That is, by making it impossible for a human to even consider the choice "Should I have sex with this person who doesn't want me to?". That is literally the only way God could do that, other than swooping down every time someone was about to get raped, which as I pointed out, has it's own problems (if God prevents all evil, then humans have no knowledge of evil, therefore cannot redeem themselves).

You are also making the false assumption that an all powerful being *has* to do certain things a certain way. That isn't necessarily the case; presumably God also has free will, so he also has a choice in the things he does. Just because God could make a human being who never died for instance, doesn't mean he necessarily wants to do that.

I think what you are perhaps confusing is omnipotence and omnibenevolence, or at least a combination of the two. That is to say, if a God is all-good and all-powerful, he would logically stop all evil (because if he failed to stop all evil, either he is not all good, or is not all powerful). However, again we can argue free will; that God can be all-good and all-powerful, but holds human's free will as more important than getting directly involved.

To use an analogy of parenting. If a parent spots their child about to make a mistake, is it good parenting to stop them before the mistake is made (and therefore preventing them from being aware of the mistake itself) or is it better to let them make the mistake and learn from it themselves? I'd argue that both examples are good parenting, depending on how you look at them, but each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.

Then maybe we wouldn't have arms and legs - some animals do survive without them.

Right, but we do. I fail to see what this "what if" has to do with anything.

We would theoretically conceptualize evil, but none of us would have the desire to do it. Why should we understand it any deeper when none of that is actually happening?

I don't think you can trivialize evil like that. Evil isn't some singular ability like flying; it's not really an ability at all. It's a way of using an ability. Sex with a willing partner is not evil; sex with an unwilling partner is, for example. Flying isn't evil, but flying into buildings is.

The problem with being able to conceptualize evil is that as soon as you can, you know how you could do evil things.

As for not having the desire to do it; again, that violates free will, which again brings me back to my original point.

And why should anyone agree that that is a good plan? What would be wrong with God simply creating heaven? 

Speaking of which, is there free will in heaven? If there is, then there can be free will without the bad consequences (all you need is a place where there can be no physical or emotional harm, and there you go - assuming fw makes sense, individuals can still act freely, but no one gets hurt). And if there isn't fw in heaven, then why is fw important in the first place?

Lastly, even if there is fw (here on earth), I for one have no desire - and am sure I never will have the desire - to, say, kill an innocent person. Nevertheless, on your view, I still presumably have fw. So why couldn't God have created only humans who have no bad desires?

I'm not a theologian or even a believer, so I can't answer you. Whether or not it's a good plan is irrelevant to the point though; the Christian doctrine is that humans cannot understand God (the "mysterious ways" argument), so whether or not you personally think it's a good plan, if you are a Christian you have to take it on faith that it is.

Yeah, after posting the above I realized you're not an actual believer. But anyway, my point is not irrelevant: whether the plan in question is a good plan should be part of what's under discussion.

[IATIA]

What we believe is that an act can be objectively wrong, in and of itself. Like, killing innocent people for example.

That is still 'subjective' morality. The example is based on the "innocence" of the victim. "Innocent" by whose standard? Subjective.

[Mystic]

What we believe is that an act can be objectively wrong, in and of itself. Like, killing innocent people for example.

That is still 'subjective' morality.  The example is based on the "innocence" of the victim.  "Innocent" by whose standard?  Subjective.

The issue is subjective and objective sometimes intertwine or at least subjectivity is very much related to the objectivity sometimes.