God and Morality: Separate Issues

[theVOID]

Then you misunderstood his point, which is not necessarily his fault and certainly not the fault of his analogy. He defined the property relation in this way: just as charge and mass are properties of fundamental particles, such that without the latter the former is unintelligible, so goodness is a property of God, such that without God goodness is unintelligible. You can push is analogy to extents he never intended with it, but that is your doing and not his. All analogies break down if you push them far enough. But why not contend with the analogy as he presented it, instead of pushing it to extent he did not?

You did a little switcharoo there, from 'fundamental properties of particles' to 'properties of fundamental particles', that changes the meaning significantly, the former is a property that belongs to all particles necessarily, the latter is a property of elementary particles. Even in the case where you switch the position of fundamental in the sentence it still doesn't work, charge and mass are optional.

You would hardly say "Goodness is to god as optional properties are to elementary particles" would you?

And I didn't "push" his analogy at all, I just pointed out that it doesn't work at face value, he has misunderstood the thing to which he was using to illustrate the relationhship between goodness and God.

And if his case was that Goodness is unitnelligable without God then he is more lost than I had initially thought, goodness works perfectly well without any assumption of deity as a property of an interaction between beings where the values of one person are increased by the actions of another or that one individual sacrificed something they value in hope of increasing the values of others.

[Ryft]

My experience has been that the amateur apologist is every bit as "skilled" as the professional apologist, since there really is no skill involved. It's not like a real academic pursuit where there's anything to know. It's just a matter of finding some canned arguments that have been recycled for centuries, skillfully using logical fallacies and mental slight of hand ...

Your unsolicited opinion is noted, but I prefer to let the readers draw their own conclusions without poisoning the well ahead of time (which is itself a logical fallacy, so bravo, mate). You may do so, of course, as you have just done here—to each his own—but I am content to let the reader draw his or her own conclusions about the skill, knowledge, and fallacies exhibited in our conversation.

Excellent. So then we agree that #3 is not a valid argument.

Wrong. The third option ("God is morality") is presumably valid, so far as I can tell prima facie—but it is not an ontological claim that either myself or Stempy (as he noted) has ever witnessed any Christian apologist making. Equating God and morality as ontologically identical creates a host of problems, never mind being inconsistent with Scripture. What is invalid, sir, is the epistemological claim described subsequently, "We know God is good because God is good." THAT is invalid, since it is viciously circular.

Neither claim (or argument) is made by any capable Christian apologist because both claims are boneheaded, with the latter being fallacious.

Since it sounds like you would not use that argument yourself, then I'm curious as to what argument you would use. ... How do you relate the two topics of morality and God's existence? Do tell.

One that is either the same or very similar to the one that Stempy alluded to, that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

Actually, these fields [metaphysics and epistemology] are closely connected ...

You and I (and presumably certain others) are already very aware of that; moreover, nobody in this thread has argued or suggested otherwise. This borders on a red herring. However, their being intimately connected does nothing to refute the point I had made, that metaphysics and epistemology are separate categories. Can we agree or not, that conflating distinct and important categories is a logical error and should thus be avoided?

And, as I did, I will call you out on your failure to elaborate.

No, sir. The whole issue of "I don't have to explain" is a matter between you and Stempy. It was something you called him out on. Do pay attention, please.

What do you mean by "begging the question"?

When the very question is whether or not God is necessary vis-a-vis morality, it will not do to beg that question; that is, to assume the very thing to be proved. To do so is to commit your very own vicious circle.

Or are you content to just throw out an accusation with no explanation?

No, I am content to assume my opponent is not ignorant and can see the fallacy he committed when it is indicated to him. If he cannot, then I am content to explain it when he asks. But your gratuitous invective here is duly noted and brought to the attention of the readers.

---

---

You did a little switcharoo there ...

No, I did not. What I did was correct you, because YOU had pulled a switch there. You changed it to "fundamental properties of particles" from what Stempy had actually said, which was "properties of fundamental particles."

You would hardly say, "Goodness is to God as optional properties are to elementary particles," would you?

As an analogy to illustrate a point? Yes. As ontologically accurate? Not at all. Obviously this analogy breaks down if pressed too far; any and every analogy would, insofar as nothing in this universe compares accurately to the nature of God. They will all necessarily fail. But it is hoped that people are intelligent enough to know this within the attempted conversation.

Goodness works perfectly well without any assumption of deity ...

That simply begs the question. You are free to leave it at that, of course, but fallacious reasoning is not likely to be intellectually compelling, and is certainly bereft of logical merit.

[DeistPaladin]

Your unsolicited opinion is noted

Hardly unsolicited since we were discussing the qualifications of different apologists, amateur and professional. I'm offering that there is little to distinguish one from the other and why.

I wonder if your frivolous accusations of logical fallacies ironically count as trying to poison the well?

Neither claim (or argument) is made by any capable Christian apologist because both claims are boneheaded, with the latter being fallacious.

One that is either the same or very similar to the one that Stempy alluded to, that moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and revealed prescriptively in his commands.

Bold emphasis mine.

Explain how these two statements are different. It seems to me that the "boneheaded" one is just a simple summation of your version that I've highlighted in bold.

Afterwords, you can explain what exactly that means and what you base that on. It's one thing to invent a definition like "God is morality" or "moral order is grounded in the very nature of God" and then proceed to offer this as "proof" to support your opinion that God is therefore required for moral order to exist. It's another thing to offer sound logic to support your assertions.

When the very question is whether or not God is necessary vis-a-vis morality, it will not do to beg that question; that is, to assume the very thing to be proved. To do so is to commit your very own vicious circle.

You still have not explained how I have done this.

[Godscreated]

Read through this debate you all sure can throw the words around, wish I could do that but us hillbillies just never got that gooderst of an edukaysuhn. Seriously I really enjoyed the debate but there is a problem here, no one has given a real example for the stated question. With the ability you guys have with words I'm sure there must be a few examples you could elaborate on. Ooops just got a call from a friend and need to run hope to see some examples next time I check in.

[Captain Scarlet]

Whatever version of Option 3 or 4 you want to put forward, there are some real big holes:

1) what does it mean to be "good by nature". I ,for example, am human by nature based on my genetic heritage, but not good bad or anything else; which are emergent properties and are clearly subjective based on the observer.
2) anyone going in for this argument owes a rough sketch of the method of transmitting "goodness" into the universe. Is it an incantation, radiation, instantiation at t0 of the universe.
3) the ontological arguments put forward by apologists for the existence of a god are not convincing, mostly becuase no-one has demonstrated the existence of objective moral values.
4) Even if the argument was to be carried you then have the problem of which god, as a culmulative case cannot be made, there could be a god of morality, a god of creation, a god of design, a Jesus, a god of prayers etc.
5) You can equally argue that god is all evil, is evil by nature, is the locus of evil values, is the source of evil, wills us to do evil (but freely allows us to do good) etc. It better explains the god of the OT and the problem of evil if you are set on convincing people of the Abrahmaic religions.

I have never heard a convincing and thorough answer on these points leaving it (for me at least) a very weak argument. Where does it leave the theist going in for this type of argument - nowhere. The atheist can merely point to the evolution of natural ethical systems and appeal to occams razer.

[Godscreated]

A quick refutation of the argument that seems to be debated on YouTube right now with the return of VFX. Christians are once again recycling the moral imperative of believing in God in order to have a sound basis for moral judgment. Putting aside that this is an appeal to consequences, this argument is a non-sequitur since the two issues are unrelated.

---

Option 1: God is able to determine what is moral
If theists are saying that God is wise enough to weigh out all the facts and see the given issue from all sides and make the correct determination as to what is right or wrong, than morality exists outside of God. Things that are wrong would still be wrong even if God ceased to exist.

Option 2: God decides what is moral
If theists are saying that God is the celestial law-giver essential for morality to exist, that things are right or wrong because God says so, than this is not universal objective morality. At best, this is deferring one's subjective moral judgment to the subjective moral judgment of a higher being. At worst, this is a celestial dictatorship based on the principle that might-makes-right. Either way, there's nothing "objective" about this morality since it comes from the decree of the arbitrary judgments of one being.

Option 3: God is morality
This touchy-feeley explanation is often used by apologists when they're presented with the first two options. This argument can be dismissed as a tautology. The apologist is presenting a definition of morality and then using that definition to prove that the definition is true. This is classic circular reasoning. "We know that God is good because God is good".

All three fail. The issue of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to questions of right and wrong.

---

I beg to differ, the God of the Bible and morality go hand in hand they are one, you can not seperate them. I'll try and give a good example of this. I was born in 1954 when God was central to this nation. The christian church was strong, the south was truly the Bible Belt and in God We Trust meant something special to most people. Prayer and the Pledge of Alligiance were part of a school childs everyday life and no one was complaining. President Kennedy, his brother Senator Robert Kennedy and MLK Jr. were all assasinated and no real gun control laws were trying to be passed.

Then comes the slow change, prayer was taken out of schools, then the Ten Commandments were removed from schools and then for all intents and purposes the Bible was removed from schools. Then someone decided that God had no place in our goverment and the Ten Commandments were being removed from most goverment buildings. The purge was on to rid this nation of God, all in the name of human rights. Since this has come to pass we have children killing each other with guns in schools and in the streets. When I was in school if there was a disagreement we just beat the crap out of each other, got up shook hands and went about our lives, we had respect for each other even in disagreements. People are killing each other in this country over nothing and the killings are so senseless just like the most recent in Arizona. Drugs have become a extremely dangerous deal in this country, many lives are lost to drugs whether it is from abuse or murder. When I was in school we never locked our doors at night or when we would go out to the store or movies and ect. If we did not lock the doors while on vacation we did not worry we knew the neighbors were watching the place, why, because we cared about our neighbors, it was a Bible lesson, you know the love thy neighbor thing. I now have my doors locked every night as everyone else does and I have rottweilers in my home. I also have guns in my home and they stay unloaded unless they are going to be used, this was taught to me as a youngster and is a valuable lesson. People today keep guns loaded in the home because they do not feel safe any more and innocent kids are dying all the time, why, because parents do not teach gun safety with their children. Many will disagree with me on this issue but I believed in the sanctity of life before I became a christian it seemed to me to be the moral stance. In my home town over 4000 children lose their lives each year because of abortion so I'm sure that translates into millions across this country and I'm also sure that this number was far, far less when I was in school. So you see no God no morals at least as far as I'm concerned. This nation has pushed God aside and the morals went with Him, God and morality can not be seperated.

[thesummerqueen]

That is the most sensationalist piece of tripe I've read since...well, the "privilege" debacle.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That is the most sensationalist piece of tripe I've read since...well, the "privilege" debacle.

Kudos for the tripe observation, as that is an accurate general observation describing pretty much anything GC posts. I'm also quite fond of 'drivel' as completely accurate.

However,I'm unfamiliar with 'the privilege debacle'.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I beg to differ, the God of the Bible and morality go hand in hand they are one, you can not separate them.

Simple reply:demonstrably untrue. The moral principles found in The Torah are predated by Buddhist teachings and the Greek philosophers by over 600 years and by the Egyptians by around at least THREE THOUSAND years. Also worth looking at Taoism and Hinduism which also developed independently of Judaism and Christianity. PLUS at least some of the moral law found in the Torah was lifted almost verbatim from Hammurabi.

l really don't know why I bother,it's like trying to communicate with a chook.

[Godscreated]

That is the most sensationalist piece of tripe I've read since...well, the "privilege" debacle.

Kudos for the tripe observation, as that is an accurate general observation describing pretty much anything GC posts. I'm also quite fond of 'drivel' as completely accurate.


However,I'm unfamiliar with 'the privilege debacle'.

Both of you are unfamiliar with life also, all that I stated was true even if you do not care or understand and neither of those positions can change what was and what is. Grow up!

[thesummerqueen]

Both of you are unfamiliar with life also, all that I stated was true even if you do not care or understand and neither of those positions can change what was and what is. Grow up!

I know I've only been on this earth 25 years, but with all due respect Pad's been on it much longer, so for him at least it's quite silly to say he's unfamiliar with life.

Also, no one ran around with guns in any of my schools. We had to send our men over to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight the people who believed in god for them to get killed for anything having to do with religion. So bite me.