The Struggle to do Good

[Foxaèr]

Meh, anyone who ever tries this moral argument, no matter how polite they phrase it, is a complete asshole.

Except that I would argue there is that which is objectively morally good as opposed to something just being good because religious says so.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most people feel the same way. It's not just our opinion that skullfucking our neighbor to death is bad, like it's our opinion that one flavor of icecream is better than another. This doesn't really matter to a divine command nutjob. You're a subhuman incapable of moral agency and not qualified to comment on the morality of the divine.

[Foxaèr]

Anyone with the opinion that any conception of the divine is above reproach needs a head examination.

[brokenreflector]

It's not just our opinion that skullfucking our neighbor to death is bad

If God doesn't exist, then that would just be your opinion that may or may not be shared by the majority of people.

An opinion produced by a bag of skin and bones. A bag of skin and bones that didn't have to exist that is the byproduct of a mindless natural process that didn't have to exist that just so happens to be pointed towards increasing the survivability of species rather than what is true.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then these principles that you admit are "not just our opinion" would be ultimately grounded in the first, necessary, and maximally powerful being.

[Mr.wizard]

It's not just our opinion that skullfucking our neighbor to death is bad

If God doesn't exist, then that would just be your opinion that may or may not be shared by the majority of people.

An opinion produced by a bag of skin and bones. A bag of skin and bones that didn't have to exist that is the byproduct of a mindless natural process that didn't have to exist that just so happens to be pointed towards increasing the survivability of species rather than what is true.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then these principles that you admit are "not just our opinion" would be ultimately grounded in the first, necessary, and maximally powerful being.

Your god existing doesn't solve the problem your raising, because all you've done is say that right and wrong would be a matter of god's opinion instead of our opinion and that doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion.

[brokenreflector]

If God doesn't exist, then that would just be your opinion that may or may not be shared by the majority of people.

An opinion produced by a bag of skin and bones. A bag of skin and bones that didn't have to exist that is the byproduct of a mindless natural process that didn't have to exist that just so happens to be pointed towards increasing the survivability of species rather than what is true.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then these principles that you admit are "not just our opinion" would be ultimately grounded in the first, necessary, and maximally powerful being.

Your god existing doesn't solve the problem your raising, because all you've done is say that right and wrong would be a matter of god's opinion instead of our opinion and that doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion.

It wouldn't be merely an opinion if it is grounded in God's existence because God is by definition a necessary being. In philosophy, a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist. In other words, if God were intrinsically different in any possible world, then He wouldn't be a necessary being. This means God's moral values are the same in every possible world.

To use an analogy, 2 + 2 = 4 is true in all possible worlds, including the actual world. That's why 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. Its truth isn't contingent upon anything external.

The same is true for God and His properties.

But if God doesn't exist, then there's no such kind of foundation for moral values. What's odd is The Grand Nudger seems to think there is such a foundation, despite not believing in the existence of God.

[Mr.wizard]

Your god existing doesn't solve the problem your raising, because all you've done is say that right and wrong would be a matter of god's opinion instead of our opinion and that doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion.

It wouldn't be merely an opinion if it is grounded in God's existence because God is by definition a necessary being. In philosophy, a necessary being is one that cannot fail to exist. In other words, if God were intrinsically different in any possible world, then He wouldn't be a necessary being. This means God's moral values are the same in every possible world.

To use an analogy, 2 + 2 = 4 is true in all possible worlds, including the actual world. That's why 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true. Its truth isn't contingent upon anything external.

The same is true for God and His properties.

But if God doesn't exist, then there's no such kind of foundation for moral values. What's odd is The Grand Nudger seems to think there is such a foundation, despite not believing in the existence of God.

Doesn't matter if god is a necessary being, if he is the foundation of morality than morality is whatever god says it is, which makes it subjective. Your 2+2=4 example actually doesn't make your case because morality as you defined it is contingent on god. 2+2=4 whether or not god exists, murder is only wrong if god exists, those two are not analogous.

[brokenreflector]

Doesn't matter if god is a necessary being, if he is the foundation of morality than morality is whatever god says it is

But what God "says it is" flows from His necessary being which is the same in all possible worlds, including the actual world, similar to how 2 + 2 = 4 is the same in all possible worlds, including the actual world.

Your 2+2=4 example actually doesn't make your case because morality as you defined it is contingent on god.

That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is contingent upon 2 + 2 = 4 existing. So I agree. But God's existence isn't contingent upon anything external and neither is 2 + 2 = 4.

[Mr.wizard]

Doesn't matter if god is a necessary being, if he is the foundation of morality than morality is whatever god says it is

But what God "says it is" flows from His necessary being which is the same in all possible worlds, including the actual world, similar to how 2 + 2 = 4 is the same in all possible worlds, including the actual world.

Your 2+2=4 example actually doesn't make your case because morality as you defined it is contingent on god.

That's like saying 2 + 2 = 4 is contingent upon 2 + 2 = 4 existing. So I agree. But God's existence isn't contingent upon anything external and neither is 2 + 2 = 4.

But we are talking about what morality is contingent on, not god's existence, which is why I said it doesn't matter if he is a necessary being. So if morality is contingent on god's existence then your saying that god decides what is and isn't moral, it doesn't get more subjective than that.

[brokenreflector]

But we are talking about what morality is contingent on, not god's existence, which is why I said it doesn't matter if he is a necessary being. So if morality is contingent on god's existence then your saying that god decides what is and isn't moral, it doesn't get more subjective than that.

God's moral values are intrinsically bound up in His necessary existence.

2 = 2 = 4 is intrinsically bound up in 2 = 2 = 4's necessary existence.

What are you having trouble understanding?