Evidence for God: The Moral Argument

[SLPCCC]

I think this fails at about every stage.

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

I agree that there has to be emotions involve. We are emotional beings but we can reason things out although emotions can get in the way.
I see many atheists don't believe in objective morality. This is where premise 2 falls apart for them.

I think this fails at about every stage.
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.

This is where I disagree. I think what you stated above was always wrong even though the society of that time thought that it was right. Sacrificing babies in the fire was always wrong even if no one was around to see it and the people who were doing it thought that it was right. That throws moral emotion out the window.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that there has to be emotions involve. We are emotional beings but we can reason things out although emotions can get in the way.
I see many atheists don't believe in objective morality. This is where premise 2 falls apart for them.

But I think our emotions are an essential part of morality. Reason alone, even with a few axioms, is not enough to derive morality.

This is where I disagree. I think what you stated above was always wrong even though the society of that time thought that it was right. Sacrificing babies in the fire was always wrong even if no one was around to see it and the people who were doing it thought that it was right. That throws moral emotion out the window.

Morality is ultimately about human well-being and flourishing. And that depends on the people involved, their culture, and their beliefs about what is desirable. What is or is not moral depends enough on those circumstances that saying most things are right or wrong irrespective of them just seems, well, wrong.

I will agree that I would not want to live in such a society. it fails Rawl's test for societies. But that is *my* set of values. There is no objective set of values other than what people choose them to be.

 

[Polymath257]

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."

Furthermore they arrived at this conclusion through the use of 'moral reasoning'. It was based on the values of that society.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

It is against *my* values. But this s that deities often have the morality of the worshipers. The Old Testament God told his followers to do exactly this and said it was the moral thing to do.

This is another reason why God cannot be the source of morality. it is logically conceivable that a creator deity could be evil. And that says that morality, if it exists objectively, cannot come from God.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

It is against our current, subjective, morality. And as such, we can condemn them and the deity that told them to do it.

We have broadened the scope of the group we extend moral protection to. I see that as an advance and want to promote such advances. At the time, morality was primarily tribal.

 

[epronovost]

Here's the meat and potatoes of the argument:

View attachment 53360

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

P1: Morality is a rational enterprise.

What the hell is a rational enterprise? I suspect it means an enterprise that is based on reason or requires the use of reason and intellect to succeed, but that's extremely wide and might not apply to all moral systems. Some are based on faith like the famous Divine Command Theory. That's not based on reason as we commonly understand it. Thus, the idea that morality in general is a rational enterprise is false. This is only true of most systems of morality.

P2: Moral Realism is true, moral facts ad duties exist.

Well that's questionable and debatable at best. Moral subjectivism obviously disagree, non cognitivist moral theories also disagree. Why should we assume they are wrong?

P3: The moral problems and disagreements amongst humans are too much for us to assume that moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

This one is the weakest since it doesn't make much sense. Because humans disagree on what is moral and what is not? This proves human rationality isn't behind morals? If we take rational enterprises of humans there are giant disagreements on basically anything and everything. Just crack open a book in economics and weep at humans bickering without end on what is sound economics. You can do the same with law, politics, war or decoration.

Plus, what's a "source of rationality".

P4: Moral facts and duties are based on a necessary rational source.

Again, what's a "source of rationality" beside human thinking about things and seeing of the result match with observable reality.

P5: This source is what call God.

Why? Are you sure you want to call that source God that source could be anything or everything. It might not even be conscious especially if you subscribe to a platonic worldview where ideas and concept exist in their own dimension which we can glimpse thanks to our mind. Why should that source be revered and worshiped? This sounds like an fallacious equivalence more than anything else.

 

[SLPCCC]

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?

I have heard atheists say, "if there is a God, He would stop the evil in the world." Then these same atheists would condemn God for killing all the Canaanites who were doing horrible things like sacrificing babies. It's like damn if you do and damn if you don't. Plus, you were saying that objective right or wrong doesn't exist so why don't you see the killing of the Canaanites as subjective due to them killing babies and the Israelites needing space? Why is it so objectively wrong for God to have killed them? You should understand that you may disagree with God killing them, but others may not.

 

[epronovost]

I have heard atheists say, "if there is a God, He would stop the evil in the world." Then these same atheists would condemn God for killing all the Canaanites who were doing horrible things like sacrificing babies. It's like damn if you do and damn if you don't.

Killing all the Canaanites is killing all their babies too. So killing all the Canaanite babies is better than some Canaanite babies? Well that's damn if you do and damn if you don't. The Israelite didn't "recue" the children of the Canaanites. They slaughter them like their parents and some might have taken the virgin girls as sex slaves. Way to miss the point on this one.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

I said the human body and mind doesn't follow objective morality (there isn't such thing) because if we hurt someone else or they hurt us (rape, so have you) our human nature is meant to protect itself. So it's "wrong" in a sense it goes against our survival and imposes on the health and well-being of others.

As a society we build laws and determine morality based on these evolutionary traits so humanity can live together without means of harming others without consequence.

Objective morality or a rational foundation doesn't play in outside of humanity. The trees don't have morals nor do animals yet they do their thing pure and simple basic living.

I honestly don't know how a rational foundation, if it existed, would think/do/be anything and how it can be an entity to worship. We make our own morals but I'm not at all sure where rational foundation apart from humans play in because without humans, no morals would exist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have heard atheists say, "if there is a God, He would stop the evil in the world." Then these same atheists would condemn God for killing all the Canaanites who were doing horrible things like sacrificing babies. It's like damn if you do and damn if you don't. Plus, you were saying that objective right or wrong doesn't exist so why don't you see the killing of the Canaanites as subjective due to them killing babies and the Israelites needing space? Why is it so objectively wrong for God to have killed them? You should understand that you may disagree with God killing them, but others may not.

How do you know that the Canaanites were sacrificing babies? Because the winners (who wrote the Bible) told you so? And were there no other cultures doing the same around the world (check out the Incas and Aztecs, for example)?

And here's the damned thing -- which I've said about a billion times but the religious appear unable to read (it must become invisible on their screens by divine magic) -- the Israelites WERE Canaanites.

And by the way, what has "Israelites needing space" got to do with anything? Does that make it right to take that space from somebody else -- like Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders did from their own native populations? Does that make Hitler's claim to needing "lebensraum" (room to live) a solid justification for what he unleashed?

 

[rational experiences]

Men as scientists the only thinker human in theory said they were God.

As humans are making all claims we then do a summary about just a human thinking.

Then we own a claim a human in an experience to state my claim was identified.

We are all human we all know humans own the exact equal mutual living conditions.

We all know two human parents as adults lived first for everyone and had sex.

They owned human consciousness first. We are all babies who develop a one of human adult memory. Like data.

Memory the lived life got recorded by voice and image as gods O earths heavenly owned history.

Science heard as voice after the ice age heard it from pre lived human death. Past life pyramid earth gas mass and gas conversion human machine equals accumulator answer.

Dust on ground reacting took life away minused into dust itself. Human combustion.

We all died. Satan owned the machine death lived living life recording. Overlooked how and why animate inanimate objects not bio get recorded image also and transmitted in same atmospheric state.......every body was combusted attacked in a one of past life incident.

We taught ourselves why we placated human mother father memories in God gas heavens as a holy presence. Holy image. Holy voice. Both human.

Human.

Humans said father was God. Human memory only after death.

Records.

Human spiritual higher conscious memories held in water cloud mass water mass greater than what we bio live within.

Obvious reasons why...more communicators recording transmitting in cloud reaction.

We are not God. Science said no man is God. As science human taught I sacrificed human life and put encoded life and voice human into the water body ground abducted.

It flew off into heavens. Why first deceased human parents of all humans own lived life sexual atmospheric recorded images. Their man self having first sex with a human mother virgin.

First DNA now a recorded cloud memory of humans. Human life hence is having sex in the heavens after human death.

Feedback by gases cooled by water implemented seven images of natural human sex.

We get ground image parent angel cloud mass water given back to life in phenomena irradiation causes.

Human experience of flying as water gets ground evaporated by radiation fall out. Fall of man explained.

Humans are owner in person of the spiritual self.

Gods atmosphere just a higher memory of humans.

Gods atmosphere cloud state assists human healing by changing radiation that attacks bio life. Can cause radiation change that assists cell healing by destroying pre existing sick cells.

Known. Gods heavens can heal sickness.

Ignored humans should not be sick as the first status.

Gods heavens explained was living humans by sex advice.

 

[SLPCCC]

Killing all the Canaanites is killing all their babies too. So killing all the Canaanite babies is better than some Canaanite babies? Well that's damn if you do and damn if you don't. The Israelite didn't "recue" the children of the Canaanites. They slaughter them like their parents and some might have taken the virgin girls as sex slaves. Way to miss the point on this one.

Again, if morality is subjective, what's wrong with killing all the Canaanite babies, slaughter their parents, and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves? If we look through the scope of that time, maybe that's how they did things back then. All tribes would raid their neighbors to take slaves and women. I don't understand how atheists can justify those events as wrong if they are not objectively wrong. It should be looked at subjectively. That's how it was done back then. To say that it was something evil, I believe, is to use objective morality.


Anyway, thank you all for your responses. I needed to hear the atheists' arguments and points of view.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Yeah, that premise is in the eye of the beholder. So given it's subjective it's not factually true, at least not for all. So there's goes the argument.

 

[Magical Wand]

This is a terrible argument for several reasons:

P1: Morality is a rational enterprise.

What the hell is a rational enterprise? I suspect it means an enterprise that is based on reason or requires the use of reason and intellect to succeed, but that's extremely wide and might not apply to all moral systems. Some are based on faith like the famous Divine Command Theory. That's not based on reason as we commonly understand it. Thus, the idea that morality in general is a rational enterprise is false. This is only true of most systems of morality.

P2: Moral Realism is true, moral facts ad duties exist.

Well that's questionable and debatable at best. Moral subjectivism obviously disagree, non cognitivist moral theories also disagree. Why should we assume they are wrong?

P3: The moral problems and disagreements amongst humans are too much for us to assume that moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

This one is the weakest since it doesn't make much sense. Because humans disagree on what is moral and what is not? This proves human rationality isn't behind morals? If we take rational enterprises of humans there are giant disagreements on basically anything and everything. Just crack open a book in economics and weep at humans bickering without end on what is sound economics. You can do the same with law, politics, war or decoration.

Plus, what's a "source of rationality".

P4: Moral facts and duties are based on a necessary rational source.

Again, what's a "source of rationality" beside human thinking about things and seeing of the result match with observable reality.

P5: This source is what call God.

Why? Are you sure you want to call that source God that source could be anything or everything. It might not even be conscious especially if you subscribe to a platonic worldview where ideas and concept exist in their own dimension which we can glimpse thanks to our mind. Why should that source be revered and worshiped? This sounds like an fallacious equivalence more than anything else.

Very sharp!ㅤ:）

 

[F1fan]

But p3 is not accurate. Moral disagreements aren't due to some unknown dilemma, and the moral rules we do have can't be said to be from some "other" source. Immorality and disagreements from moral good is often due to some form of greed and power. Morality is fairly simple and common. the problems arise from flaws in humans minds, or immaturity, who don't want to recognize moral good. There's even mental illness.

I see no reason to assume some other source is at the root of any of it. Actually, some other sources that is presumed to be from a God makes me wonder why it's influence isn't stronger on the immoral. There are a lot of questions here.

 

[F1fan]

Again, if morality is subjective, what's wrong with killing all the Canaanite babies, slaughter their parents, and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves?

If God says you can do it, and God is on your side, then nothing is wrong. So sayeth the mortal middlemen to God.

 

[epronovost]

Again, if morality is subjective, what's wrong with killing all the Canaanite babies, slaughter their parents, and taking the virgin girls as sex slaves? If we look through the scope of that time, maybe that's how they did things back then. All tribes would raid their neighbors to take slaves and women. I don't understand how atheists can justify those events as wrong if they are not objectively wrong. It should be looked at subjectively. That's how it was done back then. To say that it was something evil, I believe, is to use objective morality.

Indeed, the Israelite did believe it was righteous. Other disagree of course, but saying that such act is evil doesn't equate to objective morality. That morality can be subjective doesn't mean that it's without importance to the subject. I personally don't subscribe to "objective morality" in that I don't believe things are inherently good or evil only their consequences in relation to specific objectives. When I say it was evil to massacre all the Canaanites, I say it so because morality has for objective human flourishment and exterminating each other isn't helping us flourish in any way shape or form.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Strictly speaking, when a bee pollenates a flower, it's raping the flower.

Do you think it's immoral for a bee to do this?

 

[epronovost]

Strictly speaking, when a bee pollenates a flower, it's raping the flower.

Do you think it's immoral for a bee to do this?

Dude, plants want bees to pollinate them. They evolved fragrance and colors to attract them for that purpose. On the other hand they are also not self conscious nor do they have a human conception of sexuality and privacy. That's a very stupid and inapt comparison.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dude, plants want bees to pollinate them.

You think that plants have desires?

They evolved fragrance and colors to attract them for that purpose.

And humans evolved pheromones, secondary sex characteristics, etc., to attract mates. Sex without consent is still rape.

On the other hand they are also not self conscious nor do they have a human conception of sexuality and privacy.

They also have no capacity for consent; therefore any sexual act on a plant - i.e. pollenation - is non-consensual.

That's a very stupid and inapt comparison.

... says the person anthromorphizing flowers.