Laws are not morality. Even God's laws do not produce morality. Laws are derived from moral truths (if they are not then they are not moral) and are applied through law. For example the moral would be that human life has infinite worth and a purpose. So the law though shall not murder is an application of that moral truth. Making a law that says though shall not murder without the foundation for it will never produce moral truths. Your talking about ethics not objective morality.
Yes well it get difficult as some people constantly confuse the two, so it is easier to think of ethics as group morals. Then there is my personal morals. However you're right it's better termed ethics.
I am not trying to convince you what morals are true. I am trying to show that without a transcendent source none of them are true. This is not an argument about which morals are best or even how we come to know them. This is about the nature of morality it's self.
The nature of morality I find is that I have a inherent sense of right and wrong. It may or may not be much different than yours. No guarantees. In some cases I can consciously understand the source of this morality, sometimes I can't. What I feel is right and wrong I don't necessarily choose.
Anything externally applied, such as "God's Laws" I see them as ethics. Christian ethics since they would be enforced by God. God's morality, since God would be the source, man's ethics since assuming man is not the source.
I agree but if my God exists you will be absolutely accountable for those decisions eternally. So those moral precepts which you denied will none the less apply to you anyway. That is the very nature of objective things. I can deny gravity but I still going to fall if I jump out the window. Gravity is objectively true and if and only if God exists is morality objectively true.
Do you believe God could control gravity or is God subject to it? If God is all powerful then gravity is not a universal truth. I would think God allows gravity to exist and we are subject to it. I think we agree?
If there is no God as an Atheist might say then there is no truth... Personally I think the ultimate position of a lack of God is nihilism. My personal beliefs aside, I can't be certain whether you or the Atheist is correct. I am personally ready to accept either case as the truth of it becomes apparent to me.
So I am fine with nihilism. Whereas sometimes atheists try to find a way to avoid it. If it is the case then we are free to set our own purpose. Determine our own morals.
What? are you from the anti-gravity coalition? Let me say this one more time. Mathematics is a language used to quantify and describe natural laws and events. Gravity is just a mysterious force which we do not understand at all beyond what it's strength relates to. I agree man created mathematical language but we did not create the truths it describes. No man ever made 2 things plus two things equal to four things. We simply came up with an equation 2 + 2 = 4 to describe it. I have said two things from the start.
We determine the division. We decide that something is two not one. Sorry, my beliefs. There is only unity not division. Division is an arbitrary perspective of man. I've no guarantee that man's perspective is the truth. I seems arrogant to me to assume that man's perspective of what is true is universal. It may be true enough for man, doesn't make it universal.
1. Man has never created a mathematical truth.
2. Unless by math you mean the language used to describe natural processes.
What about geometry? The concept of a line is based on a number of unprovable postulates. Accepting something which is unprovable the concept of which was created by man we determine the "truth" of other mathematical concepts.
Integration of the outside radius equation then subtracting the integral of the interior radius leaves the volume of the interior.
The concept of a sphere. What sphere exists naturally in the universe? We developed the concept and apply it. No man, no sphere, nothing existent to apply.
Does or does not mankind generally dominate the animal kingdom? There are some exceptions but in countless ways animals act subservient to humans even when not threatened. It is almost impossible to force a horse to run into a man. We have no natural defenses and are very weak creatures yet we subdue the mightiest creatures on earth. Humans have authority over their freewill. No other human can make me will something I chose not to. Humans are moral agents. We have authority over our moral decisions.
Umm... That what I am saying. Your claim is there exists a higher authority, I think?
Your perceptions can but only if God exists can your perceptions be based in fact. You may believe that murder is wrong. With God you would be right, without him your would be wrong.
I wouldn't be wrong for me. When Moses murdered the Egyptian overseer was that right or wrong?
Let's say that this was 1942. Hitler is exterminating Jews by the millions and euthanizing the infirm in Europe. Your the US president. The only way you can justify stopping him is if you have a transcendent criteria or moral truths which Hitler has violated. Without God you literally have to violate the system you support to stop him. Without God Hitler's opinions are just as valid as yours and there is no transcendent standard to see who is right. You either have to stop him regardless of the fact you can not show you are right or you have to invent a standard you cannot found on anything. IOW you must become a liar and a hypocrite to stop him without God. That is why no politician tried to get support through Social Darwinism to stop Hitler but instead insisted Hitler had violated objective moral duties which are true only if God existed. I can give countless examples like this.
Depending on what my personal sense of right and wrong I might even support hm. Many did. My personal morals say what he did was bad. If I can find enough other people to agree with me, then I can enforce my personal morals. They just happen to be in common with enough other people. I don't need them to be universally moral.
Genocide is "wrong" for me, it is wrong for enough other people we can enforce my personal morals on the rest of the world. If Hitler was strong enough then he could have enforced his. Just because we happen to have some morals in common doesn't make them universal.
I don't need them to be universal to justify them or even justify them. I am going to go ahead and act according to my morals whether you see them as right or wrong. The only thing that is going to stop me from doing that is some kind of enforcement like a war. War stopped Hitler. Might allowed us to enforce a set of morals we held in common. This whether God exists or not.
No governments take away permissions as they see fit. If I am entitled to the pursuit of happiness no one can strip me of that right and they will ultimately be accountable for their attempts to do so. hey can only deny me permission to actualize that right for a period of time. Governments do not have any rights to give anyone. It was not the government Jefferson cited as the source of rights but God. And he was certainly no Christian. They cannot bestow or take away rights. They can only interfere with my ability to exercise them. Having a right and the ability to exercise it are two entirely different things.
Idealism created by man like the sphere. If you can get enough to accept it's truth it works. We all agree to the truth of this and act as if it were true then it might as well be true for all intents and purposes. Whether it has any actuality or not. It's a postulate. Something not provable but something we choose to accept and base other truths on.
Governments cannot take away rights. Lets say God granted I have the right to bear arms. A government cannot take that right away even if they took me guns. After this geological microsecond is over and we go into eternity I will be compensated for the infringement upon my rights and they will be held accountable for their attempts to limit my ability to exercise them.
You are making claims the truth of which is not readily apparent. You are basing truth on something unprovable. Same as a non-believer might do. For me I see "truth" doesn't have to have actuality for man, only acceptance. Acceptance is no guarantee of actuality. However that doesn't mean it can't work for us.
That is why we say our rights are being trampled on or infringed upon instead of saying trampled away or infringed into non existence. A right and the ability to exercise it are distinct concepts.
So a right is something you believe you should be able to do. Belief is no guarantee you will actually be able to do it. What I believe I should be able to do and what I believe you should be able to do maybe different. So which of us have the power to determine that?
Nope, if the illusion is all we have then it never mattered too much. After this brief life Hitler and my destiny are the same. In fact everything ends the same for eternity. Compared with laws that reflect actual eternal truths and that earthly accountability reflects eternal accountability mere perception is almost meaningless. However I have not been discussing what could be the value of the illusion or the real thing. It has been what the nature of the thing really is. I really only have two points:
A. If God exists objective moral truth exists.
B. If he does not it cannot.
That's it.
The only differing possibility I would note is the existence of a "God" without objective moral truths.
Basically I don't see whether a God exists of not as a justification for the existence of moral truths.
Not your argument, I understand. So otherwise I agree. The bug in my shorts is the disbelief that God provides morality. Maybe a position you don't want to argue against so I'll try to keep that in mind.
Now that is just not even close to true. If God exists then I may be rewarded for good deeds, prayer may be answered, insight into transcendent truth may be granted, my actions will have eternal consequences, final justice will prevail. Now if he did not merely thinking that was true will never make it true.
Well, I agree with the last line.
Actually the universe is lawful not chaotic. From a math background I am not even sure chaos is possible. Everything is either the result of laws like cause and effect, natural determinism, or freewill. I agree they may seem chaotic to us but I am not sure if anything is truly chaotic. We can't even build truly random number generators intentionally trying to do so.
I find that intelligence creates order. I choose to create order. I don't believe order can exist without intelligence. So no God or no man, no order. It is easy to assume the order we create, "find", has always been there.
I would mostly agree here. I think in most cases common knowledge or perception is better than nihilism, but in some cases chaos may be better than intentional evil.
The judgement of evil is the root of morality...
I judge evil based on my morals which I accept I can't justify. That is not a problem for me. I enforce my morals where I can. Just because I can.
If there exists a God, I would assume God to enforce God's morals just because God can, not because there exists a universal moral truth.