Evidence for God: The Moral Argument

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here's the meat and potatoes of the argument:

View attachment 53360

Look again at the five points in this argument.
1. Morality is a rational enterprise.

If this is true, who/what is doing the reasoning (because that's what "rational" means)? In every human case, it is the human himself or herself (or maybe itself, zeself, zheself and whatnot -- I dunno and I'm going to stop doing that right now).

2. Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.

I refuted this in my previous post -- it is simply not supported by any evidence you can provide. (Or so I believe -- if you think you can demonstrate a moral fact or duty that never, ever changes, under any circumstance, then please present it.)

3. I'm not going to type that whole thing out -- but what it basically says is that we're not smart enough to figure it all out, implying that whatever such "truth" might be belongs outside of us. That's just escapism.

Which leads to the rest of the argument being refuted.

 

[SLPCCC]

Premise 2 is simply wrong. There are NO "objective" moral facts and duties. Morality is, among humans, 100% subjective. What is right and wrong, what duties are required, are entirely dependent upon the circumstance in which each actor finds himself, in relation to the other actors around him.

Without consideration of other people (who I am calling "actors" here), nothing is either moral or immoral, required or not required. When there is no effect upon on actors, nothing that I do is either right or wrong, required or not required, unless I deem it to be so. Without the need to consider anyone or anything outside myself, I can masturbate to my heart's content or cut my penis off, entirely for my own reasons and at my own pleasure (though that "pleasure" seems odd to me, there are those who think otherwise).

This is the huge problem with all of these arguments -- the presumption that there is some "objective moral fact or duty." If you think that there is such a thing -- and by "objective" I mean can never, ever be otherwise no matter what the circumstance -- then you need to present an argument for why it is so.

For example: "it is always wrong to kill." Okay, is it? Always? Can you think of a mitigating circumstance? Or, it is always wrong to make love to somebody else's spouse? Once again, prove that this is always true, that there is no possible circumstance that could make it the right thing to do in the moment for the people involved.

So you are saying that sticking a needle in a baby's eye, if one likes doing that, it's really not wrong?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Moral Argument​

I think this argument for God is convincing. Do you agree? For those who don't, where do you see the breakdown?

These aren't good arguments.

1. Existence of moral facts and duty

The morality of "right in wrong" on why not to hurt a person is based on evolution (lack of better words). When someone harms us our body and mind remembers physiologically and psychologically to where it avoids doing that same action again or putting oneself in danger. We base our morals (which are different per person, society, and culture) off of human nature.

2. Moral facts and duties exist (discussed in another video)

3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much to assume morality comes from a human source

Human nature doesn't have right or wrong. It has survival of the fitness both from a psychological perspective and biological one. Whatever intentions we add to it helps explain this phenomena but are not defined by these explanations.

He also makes assumptions and conclusions then poses them as facts. He's assuming because we are not perfect, we aren't the foundation of moral knowledge--thereby he assumes there is such a thing as a foundation. Yet, when all humans die no morality will exist. It doesn't exist outside of society. That's how we know morality is trial and error.

He's making a fallacy statement here: If X is the case, then Y must be true. It shows no reasoning behind this so it's an opinion. Morality, by definition, is not objective. Logical deduction in this case he is using is a logical fallacy not an argument noneless philosophical one.

3. "This necessary unchangeable foundation must also be rational and sentiment"

Objective morality (no such thing) can't be sentient. There's no consciousness to reality and if there were because objectivity is not bound by feelings, opinions, etc, it can't be sentient.

4. Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source...

but saying this claim doesn't make it true. It just means he's making a claim and hoping that claim supports itself.

He totally killed his argument when he makes this foundation a conscious, rational, necessary entity.

How did he get an entity from rational source?

Also, this entity (seems like he made up a placeholder to describe objective morality)-anything we put to it-is from humans. People say god is unknowable so this video also fails because it assumes the claims and logical fallacies define god but then (though not sure if this is his belief) no one can describe god.

Another is how do you look to rational objective reality for advice even worship? Personifying rational source or entity (which does not exist without humans) doesn't make god real other than used as a label.

Also, this is biased. It would be better to listen to an unbiased argument about morality to determine if there is a rational source apart from humans. Life doesn't have a rational source. We make that to live in harmony in the world no matter how imperfect (if there is such a thing) one would be.

The arguments are logical fallacies so they can't prove a rational objective morality exist; it's an oxymoron.

 

[SLPCCC]

It breaks down for me at premise 3. If Moral realism is true, then there is another possible source other than God. The potential human source is in the form of Empathy+Community. The argument in the video makes sense to me when considering a single individual imperfect human failing at coming to universally accepted moral principles. But once the individuals form a collective group; it becomes plausible that seperate communities would come to the same conclusions regarding morality. Over time, eventually, there would appear to be a general consensus among communties about moral decisions.

For example: An individual on their own might rationally decide that their own interests overule any others. Therefore they might feel justified to murder and steal. However once the individual joins a community it makes sense that the group would determine that murder and theft in the community are bad. After that it's only a matter of time until murder and theft are deemed wrong outside the community as well.

Hope this answers your question,

But don't you think that there are wrongs and rights outside of one's opinion? If a collective group 1, or tribe 1, goes to another tribe to rape and enslave those of the other group for no reason, would it not be wrong even if group 1 believes that it is ok?

 

[PureX]

I think it's a very poorly articulated argument.

I would pose it this way:

Everything that we observe to exist expends energy to maintain its state of existing.

Therefor, it is presumably better to exist than not to exist.

And since this logical observation applies to that which exists both within and beyond humanity, it is a universal ethical value.

And is therefor a "divine ethical imperative" (as opposed to being merely a human ethical imperative).

"God" is the only universal source of such divine imperatives, so if there is such a divine imperative, there must be a God.

 

[dybmh]

But don't you think that there are wrongs and rights outside of one's opinion? If a collective group 1, or tribe 1, goes to another tribe to rape and enslave those of the other group for no reason, would it not be wrong even if group 1 believes that it is ok?

Right, but over time there will be more than 2 groups. So group #3, group #4, and group #5 would naturally object to group #1's actions not wanting to be invaded themselves. The result would be a rule not to invade, rape, and enslave other tribes.

 

[Magical Wand]

I have to agree with premise 2 because right or wrong will always be right or wrong whether a person likes it or not. For example, raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

Sure, you're in your epistemic rights to agree with the 2nd premise if it is self-evident to you. I'm saying the things you mentioned are wrong only in the sense that they're associated with the feeling of wrongness. So, it is self-evident to me that these things wouldn't be wrong if there weren't anybody there to feel they're wrong (indeed, such a notion seems logically impossible given the nature of morality, i.e., as feelings of minds).ㅤ:）

Moreover, I never talked about "liking or not". The moral feeling of wrongness is independent of the feeling of liking something. So, this remark of yours doesn't seem pertinent to the question we're discussing.

But, as far as I know, apologists like Jones (IP) don't want only to preach to the choir. Rather, they want to convince non-believers, and if some premise isn't self-evident to non-believers (and was meant to be self-evident), then the moral argument is useless.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But don't you think that there are wrongs and rights outside of one's opinion? If a collective group 1, or tribe 1, goes to another tribe to rape and enslave those of the other group for no reason, would it not be wrong even if group 1 believes that it is ok?

Let's say you have Tribe A and Tribe B. Both tribes are dying out because of increased birth defects due to lack of genetic diversity. No female in Tribe A would ever willingly mate with a male from Tribe B. Nor would any female from Tribe B ever willingly mate with a male from tribe A. What is the moral thing to do? Force women from each tribe to mate against their will to increase the genetic diversity and save both tribes from extinction or to allow both tribes to die off due to a lack of genetic diversity?

 

[SLPCCC]

These aren't good arguments.

1. Existence of moral facts and duty

The morality of "right in wrong" on why not to hurt a person is based on evolution (lack of better words). When someone harms us our body and mind remembers physiologically and psychologically to where it avoids doing that same action again or putting oneself in danger. We base our morals (which are different per person, society, and culture) off of human nature.

2. Moral facts and duties exist (discussed in another video)

3. Moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much to assume morality comes from a human source

Human nature doesn't have right or wrong. It has survival of the fitness both from a psychological perspective and biological one. Whatever intentions we add to it helps explain this phenomena but are not defined by these explanations.

He also makes assumptions and conclusions then poses them as facts. He's assuming because we are not perfect, we aren't the foundation of moral knowledge--thereby he assumes there is such a thing as a foundation. Yet, when all humans die no morality will exist. It doesn't exist outside of society. That's how we know morality is trial and error.

He's making a fallacy statement here: If X is the case, then Y must be true. It shows no reasoning behind this so it's an opinion. Morality, by definition, is not objective. Logical deduction in this case he is using is a logical fallacy not an argument noneless philosophical one.

3. "This necessary unchangeable foundation must also be rational and sentiment"

Objective morality (no such thing) can't be sentient. There's no consciousness to reality and if there were because objectivity is not bound by feelings, opinions, etc, it can't be sentient.

4. Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source...

but saying this claim doesn't make it true. It just means he's making a claim and hoping that claim supports itself.

He totally killed his argument when he makes this foundation a conscious, rational, necessary entity.

How did he get an entity from rational source?

Also, this entity (seems like he made up a placeholder to describe objective morality)-anything we put to it-is from humans. People say god is unknowable so this video also fails because it assumes the claims and logical fallacies define god but then (though not sure if this is his belief) no one can describe god.

Another is how do you look to rational objective reality for advice even worship? Personifying rational source or entity (which does not exist without humans) doesn't make god real other than used as a label.

Also, this is biased. It would be better to listen to an unbiased argument about morality to determine if there is a rational source apart from humans. Life doesn't have a rational source. We make that to live in harmony in the world no matter how imperfect (if there is such a thing) one would be.

The arguments are logical fallacies so they can't prove a rational objective morality exist; it's an oxymoron.

The first premise does not deny the possibility of subjective morality evolving with humans. I think you misunderstood it. It is just saying that morality can be deciphered through rationality and reason. You disagree with premise 2 in that you don't believe that objective morality exists. But like I mentioned earlier. "...raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

So we can have subjective morality that evolved in humans and objective morality existing even if you/we are not around.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you are saying that sticking a needle in a baby's eye, if one likes doing that, it's really not wrong?

Yes, I'm saying that. If I'm a surgeon, attempting to re-attach the retina to prevent blindness, I think maybe sticking that needle (and more) into the baby's eye might very well be a pretty good thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But don't you think that there are wrongs and rights outside of one's opinion? If a collective group 1, or tribe 1, goes to another tribe to rape and enslave those of the other group for no reason, would it not be wrong even if group 1 believes that it is ok?

You call yourself a "spiritual Christian," but surely that means you would argue against the destruction of the Canaanites in the Bible, including the murder of children and the rape of virgin females, doesn't it? But the Bible does say it's okay.

 

[SLPCCC]

Let's say you have Tribe A and Tribe B. Both tribes are dying out because of increased birth defects due to lack of genetic diversity. No female in Tribe A would ever willingly mate with a male from Tribe B. Nor would any female from Tribe B ever willingly mate with a male from tribe A. What is the moral thing to do? Force women from each tribe to mate against their will to increase the genetic diversity and save both tribes from extinction or to allow both tribes to die off due to a lack of genetic diversity?

Obviously, the right thing to do would be to save our species whether others like it or not proving that right and wrong exist outside of one's feelings. Let's say tribe1 sacrifices baby girls to the fire and they believe that it is the right thing to do because girls are weaker and boys are stronger and the gods will be pleased. Is it still wrong for them to do so even though they believe it is right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The first premise does not deny the possibility of subjective morality evolving with humans. I think you misunderstood it. It is just saying that morality can be deciphered through rationality and reason. You disagree with premise 2 in that you don't believe that objective morality exists. But like I mentioned earlier. "...raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

So we can have subjective morality that evolved in humans and objective morality existing even if you/we are not around.

Raping and molesting others causes harm so the body fights against pain and all that. We build our morals (they don't exist isolated) based on this human nature. It is wrong because 'we' say it is wrong. The video is arguing there is a rational source apart from humans that dictate these actions are wrong. I disagree because he is using fallacies and assuming his conclusions (must/if so it does/etc) to present them as facts.

You'd have to explain how objective morality is conscious and how does this moral source an entity without humans ascribing labels to it?

 

[SLPCCC]

You call yourself a "spiritual Christian," but surely that means you would argue against the destruction of the Canaanites in the Bible, including the murder of children and the rape of virgin females, doesn't it? But the Bible does say it's okay.

Don't you think it's wrong even if the bible says it's ok proving that objective right and wrong exist? Or you are contradicting yourself. If morality does not exist what are you doing judging the destruction of the Canaanites. If it is subjective then it is right for them at that time.

 

[SLPCCC]

Raping and molesting others causes harm so the body fights against pain and all that. We build our morals (they don't exist isolated) based on this human nature. It is wrong because 'we' say it is wrong.

So you are saying that if we say (ie, society) that it is wrong to allow retarded children to live then it would be right to kill them? Of course not! It would be wrong even if society says it's the right thing to do. And if anyone disagrees, let them have a child that is retarded to see if they would go along with society just because they say it is the right thing to do.

 

[Polymath257]

Here's the meat and potatoes of the argument:

View attachment 53360

I think this fails at about every stage.

1. I don't think morality is ultimately rational. it is emotional.

2. I don't believe in moral realism. In particular, morality is about what people want and how to move towards more well-being of people. As such, it is contingent and variable.

I also believe that math is a product of human language. 2+2=4 is as much about our use of language as anything else.

3. Even if you accept the previous two postulates (I don't), the fact that humans do not do well at finding moral truths is mostly because people tend not to be very rational. Our goals are not rationally determined and so our morality is not either.

4. This does not follow. For example, it is easy enough to ground human morality on contingent concepts. Hence, the conclusion drawn simply does not follow.

5. I think it is clear that at no point does this argument hold nay water. but even if you accept 1-4, this step is also not logically valid. Among other things, it begs the question of whether it is appropriate to call such a source God if it hasn't been proved to be intelligent, a creator, or any of the other attributes usually required of a deity.

 

[Polymath257]

I have to agree with premise 2 because right or wrong will always be right or wrong whether a person likes it or not. For example, raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

I disagree. most people agree that these are wrong because they do not wish to live in a society that allows them.

But, of course, there have been societies where raping women is accepted (not too long in the past for most). If, for example, the woman is married, it wasn't long ago that the husband was allowed to rape her without any consequence and most people agreed that there should not be any consequences.

It wasn't long ago that slavery was seen as a completely moral, even God given right.

We have progressed morally and now see both of those as immoral. But that is our current preference and how we wish to live. I happen to agree that both are abhorrent. But hat has not always been the dominant moral view.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Obviously, the right thing to do would be to save our species whether others like it or not proving that right and wrong exist outside of one's feelings. Let's say tribe1 sacrifices baby girls to the fire and they believe that it is the right thing to do because girls are weaker and boys are stronger and the gods will be pleased. Is it still wrong for them to do so even though they believe it is right?

So you're saying that obviously the moral thing to do in this case is to allow women to get raped if the goal is the perpetuation of the species. That seems to contradict what you wrote in post #19

For example, raping women and molesting children will always be wrong even if a person believes it is right; therefore, morality exists outside of a person's opinion.

You just demonstrated that morality is purely situational and subjective. Rape is not objectively wrong in EVERY case.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Don't you think it's wrong even if the bible says it's ok proving that objective right and wrong exist? Or you are contradicting yourself. If morality does not exist what are you doing judging the destruction of the Canaanites. If it is subjective then it is right for them at that time.

How can you even write what you just wrote? What would make the "subjective" destructioin of you right ------ to you?

Right and wrong only exist because they are right or wrong TO somebody. I can give money to a statue -- and it won't do the statue any good at all, because it can't spend it. I can give money to a starving family, and it will do real good to them, at least for a while. I can slay my next-door neighbours (let's pretend they're Canaanites!) because I'd like to build a breeze-way from my apartment to theirs and have a lot more room. That's "objectively" good for me, not quite so much for them, don't you think?

And I would really, really like you to try and unpack and explain your last point, about the destruction of the Canaanites. You said, "If it is subjective then it is right for them at that time." Who do you think the "subject" of that destruction was? How can it be right?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So you are saying that if we say (ie, society) that it is wrong to allow retarded children to live then it would be right to kill them? Of course not! It would be wrong even if society says it's the right thing to do. And if anyone disagrees, let them have a child that is retarded to see if they would go along with society just because they say it is the right thing to do.

The problem is, you see, is that there are (and have been in recorded history) people who think that is precisely the right thing to do. The Romans -- very civilized, as you know -- left deformed babies "exposed" so that they would die, rather than have to deal with providing the care it would take to bring them up. And in that society, it was considered "the right thing to do."