Evidence for God: The Moral Argument

[ChristineM]

So what I'm getting at is that differences of opinion aren't really objections to the existence of facts. There are good reasons to doubt moral realism but the observation that people have disagreements about moral issues isn't one of them. That's all.

I just don't see moral facts as being valid. Maybe we have different interpretations of fact

 

[AppieB]

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise,

Well, It's not only a rational enterprise. Of course, we use reason and the facts of the universe to conclude if something is moral or not. But the basis of this all is our empathy and personal preference to value human life and well-being.

So I disagree with P1

P2. Moral realism, is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.

They only exist in our minds because we value human life and well-being. There are no cosmic moral laws and duties. Our moral evalutation is based on our preference, which is subjective.

So I disagree with P2

Therefore the argument is flawed and the conclusion can not be accepted.

 

[Yerda]

P1. Morality is a rational enterprise,

Well, It's not only a rational enterprise. Of course, we use reason and the facts of the universe to conclude if something is moral or not. But the basis of this all is our empathy and personal preference to value human life and well-being.

So I disagree with P1

P2. Moral realism, is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.

They only exist in our minds because we value human life and well-being. There are no cosmic moral laws and duties. Our moral evalutation is based on our preference, which is subjective.

So I disagree with P2

Therefore the argument is flawed and the conclusion can not be accepted.

Normally by saying an argument is flawed we mean the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

So if I argue as follows:

(1). If it is raining the ground is wet
(2). It is raining
(C). Therefore the ground is wet

My argument is logically sound (flawless, baby!) even if you look out the window and see it isn't raining and reject (2).

Also nice to meet you and welcome.

I just don't see moral facts as being valid. Maybe we have different interpretations of fact

Yup. It's all good.

 

[Heyo]

Normally by saying an argument is flawed we mean the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

So if I argue as follows:

(1). If it is raining the ground is wet
(2). It is raining
(C). Therefore the ground is wet

My argument is logically sound (flawless, baby!)

Nope.
Your argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses. It is sound if the premises are true.

 

[Yerda]

Nope.
Your argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premisses. It is sound if the premises are true.

Ah, ok. Good point.

I stand corrected.

 

[AppieB]

Normally by saying an argument is flawed we mean the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

So if I argue as follows:

(1). If it is raining the ground is wet
(2). It is raining
(C). Therefore the ground is wet

My argument is logically sound (flawless, baby!) even if you look out the window and see it isn't raining and reject (2).

Also nice to meet you and welcome.

Yup. It's all good.

Thank you for the example. I will pay more attention to my English.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans living on earth are natural first.

Were babies human who grow into lying adult theists. For science concepts.

Creation naturally formed is naturally present.

Humans said I will call all planets a God.

And did.

Humans said I will invent science a human owned practice and did.

I get born. I am told God created my life.

Two humans a father and a mother had sex. My natural aware human self says my parents are not any God. What are you preaching?

I then look at pre science status. Religare ion. Religion. Creation thesis said by humans.

Notating they infer gods by men and female titles.

I know animals have sexual genetalia. So do humans. So I thought how evil old theists were.

As I did not begin my human life as a human female in out of space concepts.

Reactions said a human theist was using natural human consciousness. A sexual experience by genetalia.

Conscious concept sexual.

Falsely expressed in thesis.

Lied.

Made false science comparisons. Of spatial creation to genetalia.

So I realised adult humans lied.

What is a child to adult supposed to say to liars? Who by human ego self presence claim status by inferences to planetary God themes?

Huge power themes equate to a huge human ego.

Instead of dealing with human family issues?

Write a medical DNA genesis human.living owned DNA human genesis stating NO Man human is God by two.

As human two of is denoted by man status as life body.

Hu man. Yet two selves exist.
Man.
Wo man.
Male.
Fe male.

Theist concept proven by word values said by human man.

We always knew human men in science lied and are life's destroyer. Always knew.

Man humans thinking by his side concept. Man self and other self.

Man....wo man. Theist said by my side said a man.

Never considered by men human as the theist making all false claims. Theism.

 

[blü 2]

Here's the meat and potatoes of the argument:

Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterprise.

No, morality is a social enterprise. It's about how humans should encounter and interact with other humans. It's a mix of evolved tendencies and acquired behaviors.​

Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.

No, there are no absolute statements and that includes moral statements. The nearest thing to moral 'facts' are the evolved and learnt behaviors I mentioned, and from the observer's point of view they're not imperatives; the manner in which they are or aren't imperatives for the subject will vary greatly.
​

Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

As I said, they've evolved to suit us as gregarious primates who benefit greatly from cooperation.
​

Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source (from 1, 2,3).

Not even close.
​

Premise 5: This source is what we call God.

The term 'God' has no definition appropriate to a real entity, such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether it was God or not. Without that, the expression 'God' is meaningless.
​

Conclusion: Therefore, God Exists.

Nope.​

 

[Jack Smitten]

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?

It is possible God could be real
but I don't think so. if someone in a book is made out to love his creation can so easily try and destroy it we should all live in fear.

God could be real. but id he is he's a tyrant who should be torn from his Silver city

 

[Ostronomos]

Morality is 100% real or objective.

Images of evil are recognized by the good to be evil and the evil to be good.

I ask, something distinctly metaphysical makes "good" good and "evil" evil. Hitler was evil.

An example in modern times: The internet contains evil and the wise can identify it and distinguish it from ordinary images but atheists such as Polymath and Evangelicalhumanist will no doubt fail to distinguish it.

Images have an obvious and clear distinction and can be identified as right or wrong on first glance because they "speak louder than words". But the atheist is too stupid to deduce this fact.

Morality without qualification as Kant argued is an absolute.

 

[blü 2]

Morality is 100% real or objective.

Then would you please oblige me with a 100% real and objective moral proposition, because not only have I never seen one, but I can't think of any manner in which such a thing could exist.

 

[Ostronomos]

Then would you please oblige me with a 100% real and objective moral proposition, because not only have I never seen one, but I can't think of any manner in which such a thing could exist.

The appearance of evil is clear and obvious to anyone with a discerning eye. The reason you dismiss it is because you believe there is no metaphysical essence to the image of evil. We all have a metaphysical identity that reflects the union of opposites.

 

[blü 2]

The appearance of evil is clear and obvious to anyone with a discerning eye. The reason you dismiss it is because you believe there is no metaphysical essence to the image of evil. We all have a metaphysical identity that reflects the union of opposites.

But you didn't provide me with an absolute moral statement ─ indeed you didn't even define 'evil'.

'Evil' is from Old English yfel 'bad', which remains its basic meaning. And 'bad' means 'injurious or unpleasing to me, to mine and/or to causes I support' and thus is the opposite of 'good'. Thus 'good' and 'evil' are always relative terms, and the way they're understood changes over time.

At the same time we've evolved to have instinctive moral tendencies appropriate to living together as gregarious primates. But that doesn't stop our morality being relative.

As you've shown, there are no moral absolutes.

 

[infrabenji]

The appearance of evil is clear and obvious to anyone with a discerning eye. The reason you dismiss it is because you believe there is no metaphysical essence to the image of evil. We all have a metaphysical identity that reflects the union of opposites.

As Blü 2 pointed out you are using evil in its broadest sense. Certainly some pain or suffering is good as is often seen in the Bible and cannot be considered inherently evil. Good and evil are not necessarily separate. There are many positions one can hold on morality and I’m sure you’ll find yours. But firstly, you should address the god and morality question. All you need to do is admit to yourself that god lacks one or all of these qualities omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence. If you cannot then there is a logical contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Then you just need to abandon absolute certainty over an unfalsifiable proposition. At this point you should be asking yourself why you can’t be correct.