Do Morals Come From God?

[Caladan]

do people need to be told not to murder? steal? etc.?

there are different sets of what we might call morality: ones that are typical to our own society, while other societies may have different standards and taboos.
society creates and is defined by its morals, which have evolved through time, once the authorities decided its morale to kill offenders, or 'offenders', today in the western world capital punishment is unheard of.

morality was not invented by religion, it evolved out of our biological-social world to further cooperation inside our group, it has evolved for the betterment of the group.
many of the ancient moral codexes were preoccupied with taboos (like the Hittite code), the same way a great part of religious morality is, while in reality the laws were based on efficiency and the logic of the time.
for example, in the Hittite kingdom someone who has killed another person, was not put to death as the law said, because that would be regarded as an unreasonable lose of manpower, instead the offender would need to take care of the family of the person who was killed, he would work their fields etc. this is similar to the biblical 'eye for an eye' which in reality meant to pay back for destruction of others property or another's life, not in blood but in material goods.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

do people need to be told not to murder? steal? etc.?

you may ask this question to crimnals or thief?

killing is not a taboo in specific surcumistances ,

such as; when King david PBUH killed Goliath

Allah said in Qura'an in surah 2:251

251. By God's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and God gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed. And did not God Check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief: But God is full of bounty to all the worlds.

relegion put the RESTRICTIONS for people's behaviors ?

don't kill is not an abstract law ?

it doesn't matter whether the killed person is a gentile or isreali !

the law controls all people, we are all equal.

 

[Caladan]

muhammed beiruti,

and yet religious people murder as well.
also, is murdering and stealing the social standard?
people who might murder know that it is against the law and the general morality and they still do it.. seems that you are using a straw man here.

 

[Mike182]

It is an impossible question to answer. Even if the existence of God can be objectively proven, the Euthyphro dilemma still stands.

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It is an impossible question to answer. Even if the existence of God can be objectively proven, the Euthyphro dilemma still stands.

"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

Very briefly, Euthyphro's dilemma (found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro) goes something like this: If moral goodness is commanded by God because it is good, moral goodness is independent of God and God is little more than a passer-on of knowledge. Why, then, cannot human beings bypass God and go straight to he source? If, on the other hand, something is morally good because it is commanded by God, good is based merely upon God's whim and therefore arbitrary.

Both parts of the dilemma assumes a finite God.

If God is infinite, he is both unchanging and, in whole or part, the definition of goodness itself. This turns the dilemma into a tautology.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

How could anyone prove morals come from God?

Why should they have to?

Why, indeed?

It is self evident that morals exist outside of God.

It is equally self evident that a percentage of humans feel the need to justify their morals by assigning them to what they see as an unimpeachable authority.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Why, indeed?

It is self evident that morals exist outside of God.

You, like the dilemma, are assuming a finite God. There is no "outside" of infinity. (I thought you were a rationalist.)

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This is tautology. You are, like the dilemma, assuming a finite God.

You are mistaken, my friend. I assume no God.

You are assuming the premise of God's existence.

In the absence of God, morals do not (obviously) flow from Him. The fact that God does not exist for a portion of our population, while they still exhibit commonly acceptable moral behaviour is a clear demonstration that morals do not (necessarily) flow from God.

I don't think the issue could possibly be more clear.

If you believe in God (which you obviously do) then you can claim that your morals are derived from your belief in Him. I have no grounds to dispute your claim, nor do I care. I am happy that you (or anyone) demonstrates good morals (to the extent that they do), regardless of their origin.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You are mistaken, my friend. I assume no God.

I know, but your argument does.

You are assuming the premise of God's existence.

This is irrelevant to the subject matter.

In the absence of God, morals do not (obviously) flow from Him. The fact that God does not exist for a portion of our population, while they still exhibit commonly acceptable moral behaviour is a clear demonstration that morals do not (necessarily) flow from God.

I don't think the issue could possibly be more clear.

This, too, is irrelevant to the subject matter. Edit: Actually, however, this is not true. This has long come under what is called "general revelation." (It appears you're a few centuries behind in your beliefs and/or arguments.)

If you believe in God (which you obviously do) then you can claim that your morals are derived from your belief in Him. I have no grounds to dispute your claim, nor do I care. I am happy that you (or anyone) demonstrates good morals (to the extent that they do), regardless of their origin.

Once again, this is irrelevant to the subject matter.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Your entire position is based on assuming not only the existence of God (which is at the very heart of the question), but also assuming certain attributes of that God.

If the original post had asked "assuming the existence of an infinite God, must all morals flow from Him?" then you would have footing for trying to force me to live in your world. Such is not the case. The question is "Do morals come from God?". If you wish to limit the frame of the discussion, then you need to start another thread that delineates that premise.

The original post actually goes beyond this, and asks a second question - "How could anyone prove that morals come from God?"
If you wish to address that question, then you should be discussing the methodology of gathering (or showing) evidence for such.

You are not addressing the questions as they were asked, you are trying to force everyone else to argue from your perspective.

I'll stay with the original question, since that is the thread that I decided to participate in.
In spite of your attempt to dismiss my argument as "irrelevant", it is not only relevant - it addresses the question as asked, as opposed to answering a question of my own making (as you are trying to do).

 

[Dunemeister]

You don't need to assume the existence of God. What's assumed in this discussion is the existence of morality. The question is how to account for moral truths. God does the trick nicely. For those who'd like to suggest alternative sources of morality, I'm all ears, although I doubt they'll hear anything particularly helpful....

 

[scottb]

How could anyone prove morals come from God?

Morals come from culture. They are memes. They evolve. They change over time.

Morals are mores. They come from one's social group. If you belong to a religion, your religion plays a big role in your mores. Mores about right and wrong are morals.

Morals grow from human nature and human needs.

The question is: How could anyone prove that social mores about right and wrong come from God [not from religion]?

Or phrased a little differently: Is it possible to prove that the mysterious thing that has created all things [by definition "God"] also created our social mores about right and wrong?

Am I misunderstanding the question?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Your entire position is based on assuming not only the existence of God (which is at the very heart of the question), but also assuming certain attributes of that God.

If the original post had asked "assuming the existence of an infinite God, must all morals flow from Him?" then you would have footing for trying to force me to live in your world. Such is not the case. The question is "Do morals come from God?". If you wish to limit the frame of the discussion, then you need to start another thread that delineates that premise.

The original post actually goes beyond this, and asks a second question - "How could anyone prove that morals come from God?"
If you wish to address that question, then you should be discussing the methodology of gathering (or showing) evidence for such.

You are not addressing the questions as they were asked, you are trying to force everyone else to argue from your perspective.

I'll stay with the original question, since that is the thread that I decided to participate in.
In spite of your attempt to dismiss my argument as "irrelevant", it is not only relevant - it addresses the question as asked, as opposed to answering a question of my own making (as you are trying to do).

As I recall, I said something about not having to prove anything.

Your response is irrelevant because it approaches the problem from the bottom-up while the OP poses the question from the top-down (see the above post).

Even so, if rationalists can exercise the privilege of basing their theorems on a priori axioms, why can't theists?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Let me clarify. The question, "How could anyone prove morals come from God?" assumes the existence of God. My response, "Why should they have to?" implies that if God is, the question is redundant and proof is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if in your mind there is no God, the question, "How could anyone prove morals come from God?" is meaningless to you. Your response to mine, "It is self evident that morals exist outside of God," implies two things: first, it implies God exists; second, it implies God is finite. But at the same time, you say God doesn't exist. :areyoucra

 

[The Voice of Reason]

On the other hand, if in your mind there is no God, the question, "How could anyone prove morals come from God?" is meaningless to you. Your response to mine, "It is self evident that morals exist outside of God," implies two things: first, it implies God exists; second, it implies God is finite. But at the same time, you say God doesn't exist. :areyoucra

I don't think it is humanly possible to mangle a simple thought any worse than you have here.

How on earth you can take the statement that "it is self evident that morals exist outside of God", and think that that implies that God exists is absolutely insane. It is just not possible to misunderstand (and then misrepresent) such a straightforward statement.

To then extend the non-sequitur, and think that it implies that God is finite - well - I just don't think I can help you.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

How on earth you can take the statement that "it is self evident that morals exist outside of God", and think that that implies that God exists is absolutely insane. It is just not possible to misunderstand (and then misrepresent) such a straightforward statement.

So much for your claim to being a rationalist.

 

[ChristineES]

I have more to add to my answer-- each person's morals may come from different sources. A person may be moral because of religion, another may have learned them from their peers, parents, or other people.

People also have different definitions for being moral. What may be considered moral for one person could very well be considered immoral or amoral by someone else.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

So much for your claim to being a rationalist.

The errors in your position just keep piling up. This is like watching a slow motion train wreck.

How on earth you can take my statement, and infer that it implies the existence of God is beyond understanding. It is a total non-sequitur. You aren't even close to making sense.

If I were to take your statement "Why should they have to (prove the morals come from God)", and tell you that you have implied that all cars are red, and therefore you are mistaken - it would be no more egregious than the error you have committed.

Before you respond, please take the time to digest this simple statement - "it is self evident that moral exist outside of God". After you have truly thought about it, you will understand that it in NO WAY implies the existence of God. The very statement is based on the assumption that God does NOT exist.

YOU are inserting your religious views into my simple statement.

Take your time. It really isn't that difficult to follow that line of thought.

Well, then again - maybe it is.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I have more to add to my answer-- each person's morals may come from different sources. A person may be moral because of religion, another may have learned them from their peers, parents, or other people.

People also have different definitions for being moral. What may be considered moral for one person could very well be considered immoral or amoral by someone else.

You are right. Nevertheless, we see many in RF using the argument that atheists, too, can be moral as evidence showing belief in God is unnecessary. Little do they realize that Paul in his letters addressed this and today is called "general revelation."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

YOU are inserting your religious views into my simple statement.

Yup. And as an atheist, you have to keep God out of it if you want to make sense. You should have said something like, "Such proof is impossible because there is no God."