Scientific evidence / arguments for God

[1robin]

The problem with morality:

When a concept of The Good is formed, the concept of Evil is automatically formed.

Having formed a concept of Evil, Evil must now be opposed, as dictated by The Good.

In opposing Evil, one only makes Evil stronger.
(as the history of the world is testament to)

Therefore, the sage never tries to do [moral] good.
*****


True virtue does not display itself
for all to see,
and thus is truly virtuous.
Inferior character
always keeps virtue in sight,
and thus lacks true virtue.
The highest virtue is without action,
Yet things always get done.
Lesser virtue creates much effort
in order to get things done.
Kindness
requires effort to keep its name.
Righteousness
requires effort to maintain itself.
Moral rules
require a response or it raises a hand to enforce.
In this way, the natural Tao is lost
and cultivated virtue is all that is left.
When virtue is lost,
Kindness follows.
When kindness is lost,
Righteousness follows.
When Righteousness is lost,
Rules of propriety prevail.
The veneer of false sincerity thins
and chaos begins.

Tao te Ching, Ch. 38

Not if good actually throws evil in hell.

 

[1robin]

The bible isn't historically accurate. Even biblical scholars can say that much. It's their word, not mine.

Is that why it is used as a primary source for archeology by both sides? The Bible has about 5% scribal error, outside this it is historically scary accurate though after a thousand copies all other secular works are riddled with error so in time a few more may be found in the Bible but it has been burying it's historical critics just about as fast as they appear.

God murdered people in mass numbers, some of which weren't even "sinning." I've never even thought of murdering anyone.

Prove that murder is wrong without God. Heck prove good and evil are absolute categories of truth without God. If you look around I have spent a large amount of time explaining why God had sufficient moral justification for his actions.

Islam and Christianity is the same with only minimal differences really. In what ways do you "experience" god? By feeling a sense of euphoria when you worship him? Yes, many others have experienced those same feelings, and they don't worship the Christian god.

Here is a satirical but extremely accurate poem on modern moral secularism. Pay attention to the bolded section please.
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

I see humans making cars all the time. Fail analogy.

That actually proves my point. What a strange conclusion.

I pay no attention to Christian morals whatsoever. Mine are Buddhist morals.

Buddha was no more capable of assigning humans worth or making murder a moral crime than you are. However that does not mean his morals are not good just not justifiable without God.

 

[godnotgod]

In no way conceivable is God an arbitrary moral foundation than morality without an actual God and therefore no transcendent standard but instead is redefined by billions who wish to act as if they are God. Without God there is no absolute right, wrong, good, or bad just whatever we invent. If God does not exist then that just adds one more to the already long list and there is no need to discuss the issue.

As I previously mentioned, you think that without 'God' the world will descend into some sort of chaos. But just in the animal world, we have organization and structured behavior patterns designed to deal with aggression. The bonobos immediately come to mind, who effectively deal with aggression with sex and a maternally-organized society. What 'morality' or 'God' exists here? There is, instead a highly developed group consciousness working to create a harmonious society.

The fact that humans can create a system of aggression control amongst themselves (eg; Social Contract Theory) without a God tells us that there is some innate source of ethical understanding within man. It just makes sense, not from a moral standpoint, but from one of self-preservation. The infusion of a God only makes matters more complicated, and actually contributes to aggression, rather than to eliminate or control it. It divides people into those favored by God and those not favored by God, creating conflict between the two groups, as the bloody history of religious warfare is testament to.

 

[godnotgod]

Buddha was no more capable of assigning humans worth or making murder a moral crime than you are. However that does not mean his morals are not good just not justifiable without God.

So if his morals were good, why is God a necessity? To whom must Buddha justify his morality, if his morality 'just works'? You want to take something intrinsically good and poison it.

 

[1robin]

You contradict yourself with more erroneus logic:

Nothing erroneus is logic.

First you state that fair and unfair can only be determined via comparison to absolute standard, and then go on to say that crooked can only be known when compared to its relative opposite.
Fair and unfair, straight and crooked, are inseparable and relative values, in that you cannot know one without the other, but the real issue is that they are all concepts. In reality, there are no crooked or straight sticks: there are less crooked or more crooked sticks. There is more fairness or less fairness, to a relative standard that society holds in a relative paradigm. Fair/unfair and straight/crooked are a matter of degree.
[/QUOTE] I can agree with that if no God is known to exist. In fact if you can agree with the philosopher of science Ruse that with nature alone morality is an illusion, or Dawkin's saying nature is indifferent and cold then we are in agreement. At least they were honest, by concluding as Dawkins did that "on evolution who is to say Hitler was not right?" However degrees of straight are ridiculous. There are degrees of crookedness but not of being straight. That is like saying there are degrees of infinity. That is also a thermodynamic principle.

Humans do not make crooked sticks because of their fallibility, but because the degree of acceptable crookedness or straightness works for the particular application in question. A walking stick does not need to be perfectly straight for it to work. In fact, a somewhat crooked walking stick is highly desirable. A tenon cut to fit a mortise in a drawer needs to be accurate to a certain degree, but not to the degree that a machinist might require. In fact, less accurate hand-cut mortise and tenon drawers are highly desirable and more valuable in an antique reproduction than factory made drawers. [/QUOTE

] The first part is unknowable to you. The second is just nonsense and I do not care about walking sticks and their practicality.

God must be a real slob because he consistently created nothing but crooked sticks. Nowhere in nature do you find a single straight stick. All of God's rivers meander. None straight. All of God's stars randomly placed. None in mathematical/geometric order, but all exactly where they should be. Even his planets and moons are not perfectly spherical, and they can wobble, and their orbits are out of round.
[/QUOTE] No he created straight sticks which his power maintained the straightness of. Once the stick refuse the power it drooped and produced crooked sticks ever since. In your system it is not possible to know what a straight stick is and they always remain crooked. In mine we are told what straightness means and we eventually receive it if we believe.

Maybe God had something other than utility and efficiency in mind; maybe he just likes to play around with variety for the sheer fun of it.

Or maybe love requires freewill. However make up anything negative as needed to justify dismissal of God.

The only thing that determines what God thinks should be is man.

This is now the proud owner of the most ridiculous statement I have ever read medal. Congrats.

Simpletons like to make the tail wag the dog by driving square pegs into round holes. They sleep better at night that way.

This is not coherent, relative, or meaningful enough to agree or disagree with not warrant it.

 

[godnotgod]

Not if good actually throws evil in hell.

It can't. Evil is needed in order for good to exist as good. You cannot know good without knowing what evil is, and vice versa. These are relative values, which cannot exist one without the other.

Besides, you have not established the existence of hell. It is only a belief, a concept, you maintain as reality within your own mind.

 

[Thief]

As I previously mentioned, you think that without 'God' the world will descend into some sort of chaos. But just in the animal world, we have organization and structured behavior patterns designed to deal with aggression. The bonobos immediately come to mind, who effectively deal with aggression with sex and a maternally-organized society. What 'morality' or 'God' exists here? There is, instead a highly developed group consciousness working to create a harmonious society.

The fact that humans can create a system of aggression control amongst themselves (eg; Social Contract Theory) without a God tells us that there is some innate source of ethical understanding within man. It just makes sense, not from a moral standpoint, but from one of self-preservation. The infusion of a God only makes matters more complicated, and actually contributes to aggression, rather than to eliminate or control it. It divides people into those favored by God and those not favored by God, creating conflict between the two groups, as the bloody history of religious warfare is testament to.

You mention chaos? .....
the one fellow I know for sure will make continual denial of any point by declaring all things to be illusion.

Now THAT'S chaos!

I believe in heaven.
And heaven is a place of peace.
Hierarchy is then required....Someone in charge....an Almighty.

Without hierarchy we do indeed stand into chaos.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are writing from a corrupted perspective of not actually allowing for that God to exist.

And you're writing from a corrupted perspective of not allowing that God goes not exist.

Do not accuse me of bias in lieu of actually acknowledging my argument. If my characterization of the basis for your theistic morality is inaccurate, please indicate in what way.

In God does exist and does institute a system on moral requirement by what standard could you ever say they were wrong?

You're spectacularly missing the point and failing to comprehend a single word I've said. The question is: which system of morality is more arbitrary?

It is far more reasonable to conclude you evolution raddles brain has selected for survival whether survival is good or bad.

Survival is an instinct.

God's character does not change the way our maturity changes does mandate he adjust things along he way.

So, God doesn't change - but he does change. Gee, that's not a massive contradiction.

It is exactly the same thing we do with a child as they grow up as God does with humanity as it grows up.

You mean, we teach children that slavery and stoning people to death for relatively minor crimes are okay, but when they grow up we teach them to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbour? You must know some seriously messed-up kids.

You may question or reject and inconvenient system of morality you wish even if God created, and in fact I believe you have done that very thing. What you can't do is produce a firmer foundation for morality that would provide a transcendent objective by which to judge God. This is nonsense. I can chose to believe the sun is made of ice or that light speed is - 56 pounds per arc degree. What defines their character and the character of what they effect will not change a bit whether I reject it and invent an arbitrary description as desired or not.

I fail to see an answer to my question. I also see that you're continuing in just repeating yourself ad nauseum and don't understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary".

It appears that since right and wrong can be objectively rooted the new target is the definition of arbitrary. First by what method have you established that whatever it is you arbitrarily invent is known to be consistent with the known moral truth of the universe? There are only a few possibilities.

This statement is rooted in freighted language and ridiculous assumptions. Something isn't arbitrary just because you put the word in front of it: go and look up the definition.

1. A God exists and says A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.[/FONT][/COLOR]
2. I come along and say A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.
3. My claims are grounded in the absolute foundation of the nature of God and the universe (including us) he created.

Which is completely arbitrary since God could literally say anything and you'd agree with it. That's the very definition of arbitrary: to say, do or believe something without thinking about it or actually working it out.

1. A God exists and says A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.
2. You come along and say you do not care if A, B, and C are actually good, you declare P, Q, and R are actually what's moral.
3. Given that in this scenario God exists, you could very well say God was evil or you did not like what he wanted and you instead were going to do P, Q, and R. However you have no frame of reference by which you could say God was immoral and you were moral. That is a logical absurdity. You are left with simply redefining moral good as P, Q, and R. Let me show you why this is meaningless. Let's say that Genghis Kahn conquered the world and killed off everyone that disagreed with his blood thirsty narcissism. He could have had murder instituted as a moral good. How would you have proven him wrong without simply arbitrarily assuming human optimality was good beforehand? If God said X was right by what authority can you PROVE him wrong even if he was (though that is not even a coherent idea).

Completely asinine point that fails to address the question. You still do not seem to understand what "arbitrary" means, nor have you answered the question.

1. There is no God and he never said anything.
2. You simply assert that human optimality or flourishing is good.
3. Human flourishing means most things will not flourish.
4. You assume we have more value than everything else without any way to prove it.
5. What if a more powerful race shows and demands their flourishing is good. I can guarantee this moral ambiguity would disappear from your mind in about half a second and moral absolutes that only God can justify asserted and defended with your life.

This is, again, completely asinine and irrelevant since barely any of those things have actually been said. Don't invent strawmen; answer the question.

Since you will only answer my previous question with a ineffective return question to me, let me make it easier. Please show that human flourishing is objectively good. Simply redefine good as equal to human flourishing is not an answer. Heck I will make it as easy as possible. Prove any action is better than another objectively without God. Or how about proving right and wrong exist as absolute categories of moral truth.

Please demonstrate to me that anything is objectively anything.

Can't do it? That's because it's a stupid, unanswerable question and entirely irrelevant to the point and to my question. I've never claimed secular morality is objectively good or better than anything - my point is that SECULAR MORALITY IS NOT ARBITRARY, whereas THEISTIC MORALITY IS. You have yet to even comprehend that point.

This is such an obvious issue and you are more than intelligent enough to understand, that I think that now you are just contending for pride or the heck of it. There really is no debate concerning foundations for morality given these scenarios.

Correct. Secular morality is better, because it isn't arbitrary like theistic morality is. I'm glad we agree.

Every single scholar on your side has said one of a few possibilities are true in the hundreds of hours of professional debate, debate transcripts, and research I have been exposed to.

Again with these mythical "scholars" of yours. I'm not interested in what "scholar" do, say, or think. I'm interested in a response to my question from you. Is that so difficult for you?

It's a simple yes or no. If you think I've mischaracterized anything, please indicate how and in what way, but so far your entire argument seems to be that secular morality is arbitrary and baseless, just because you say it is. Whereas theistic morality is objectively true, just because you say it is, which makes it not arbitrary, just because you say it does, even though God has apparently changed their mind on lots of issues repeatedly throughout human history, which renders his morality just as arbitrary and non-objective as you claim secular morality to be.

You do not understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary", so stop using it to prop up your position. Your moral beliefs are, clearly and demonstrably, more arbitrary than my own.

 

[1robin]

I have had it. Your comments are petty and childish, made more for effect that substance and you have no interest in actually sincerely debating issues but choose statements for sensationalism. The subject deserves far better scholarship, instead of saying anything necessary to attempt to win a word fight. I have lttle use for color commentary and some sort of arrogant us against them argumentational style. I leave you to it. When science actually manages to produce the first example of what you claim it already has you let me know.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just checking in. Any scientific evidence for the existence of gods yet? Anybody?

Still waiting...

 

[1robin]

And you're writing from a corrupted perspective of not allowing that God does not exist.

Of course I allow that God may not exist, I question my faith daily as most Christians do. I just keep getting the same answer. It is also hard to not believe in someone you have met (spiritually) and makes comprehensive sense out of know reality better than any other theory.

Do not accuse me of bias in lieu of actually acknowledging my argument. If my characterization of the basis for your theistic morality is inaccurate, please indicate in what way.

For a simpler but similar example let's say that I claim if God instructs me to kill someone then his instruction is morally justified. You would of course say no it isn't. What I gather from that is this. You are assuming no God exists and some claim and actions would be unjustified. The reason I say this is because if God does exist then there is no way you can prove his commands are evil. Lets say he said to kill Hitler in 1935. You would jump up and insist that was evil because you do not view God as real. However 50 million people would have been spared if you had faith. It seems you determinations are arrived by the assumption God does not exists and therefore claims that he said to do X are immoral. I am not even sure how to show his requirement to kill mother Theresa would be wrong. I would think it was and you would think it was but how could you prove it? Of course everyone running around saying God told me to kill someone is quite problematic but we are discussing hypotheticals not application.

You're spectacularly missing the point and failing to comprehend a single word I've said. The question is: which system of morality is more arbitrary?

Yours.

Survival is an instinct.

Even if true why is survival good. Our survival is not good for 90% of nature. The aliens that would eat us survival would not be good for us. You again are simply redefining good as selfish gain for an arbitrary species.

So, God doesn't change - but he does change. Gee, that's not a massive contradiction.

If that is what I meant that is what I would have said. God does not change but how he relates to a creature that does change will. The same way the same parent changes the way they relate to a growing child.

You mean, we teach children that slavery and stoning people to death for relatively minor crimes are okay, but when they grow up we teach them to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor? You must know some seriously messed-up kids.

Quit drawing unintended parallels for the sole purpose of spin. We teach our kids that for them to drive or own a gun is morally wrong and then later allow them to do those very things. This isn't rocket science.

I fail to see an answer to my question. I also see that you're continuing in just repeating yourself ad nauseum and don't understand the meaning of the word "arbitrary".

I have no need to move on until you can or will address what I have already said. Arbitrary means: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. You simply decide good means X. There is no way to show it does and no way to even argue it does you just assume it. That is arbitrary and not moral.

This statement is rooted in freighted language and ridiculous assumptions. Something isn't arbitrary just because you put the word in front of it: go and look up the definition.

Done. Your explanation of morality without God is archetype example of arbitrary. I cannot think of better one. You have decided what is moral by assuming what is without any reference to what is moral nor a system that even allows it to be known.

Which is completely arbitrary since God could literally say anything and you'd agree with it. That's the very definition of arbitrary: to say, do or believe something without thinking about it or actually working it out.

That is like saying heat is an arbitrary determination of energy and motion. Morality is inherent in God's nature. God's nature is about the most absolute concept possible. You won't anwser this but what the heck. Prove if God exists there also exists anything less arbitrary than his nature and the morals it results in.

Completely asinine point that fails to address the question. You still do not seem to understand what "arbitrary" means, nor have you answered the question.

This is getting old. A meritless argument always goes the semantic technical route. If there is an absolute and objective moral you moral values are made completely independent from it. Moral objective facts and your moral truth are unrelated except by chance. You simply assume moral good equals human flourishing. Actual moral truth could be insect flourishing. You conclusion is arbitrary in regards moral facts if they exist.

This is, again, completely asinine and irrelevant since barely any of those things have actually been said. Don't invent strawmen; answer the question.

I give up. If you haven’t got it by now I am wasting my time.

 

[ArtieE]

Even if true why is survival good.

If survival isn't good how come the goal of every Christian is eternal survival?

 

[1robin]

If survival isn't good how come the goal of every Christian is eternal survival?

This obfuscation is inevitable I guess. I never said life was not "good". I said that without God there is no argument that can show it is actually good. Why is there never an answer from you only another question? I can claim goodness for life because within a Christian framework God has incorporated actual objective worth to human life. External coexistence with God would be the height of "good" as it is consistent with our purpose, destiny, and his nature. It agrees with the moral intention of the universe. You can't import an objective "good" or worthiness of life that does not exist without God into a Godless system. It is like saying cold is good or up is good. Human survival is not good without God; it is a part of the psychological fabric of human existence. You still have not and apparently never will tell me why our flourishing is "better" than cow or pig flourishing. You simply assume it is and instead of accounting for what can't be ask me questions instead.

If I was a non-theist I would simply say we invent morality as a subjective tool to meet arbitrary goals or common desire. Theism may ground morality better but that is only if a God you can't prove exists is real, and move on. No need to defend the undependable. No need to attack the improvable. I can agree that my God is not a proven fact, why can't you admit your morality is an assumed convenience. Sincere arguments never frustrate me but the need of non-theists to defend the un-defendable, confuse the obvious, trivialize the momentous, and use double standards is quite mystifying. There is no counter argument even theoretically possible to the claim: If a universal moral author created all reality then moral truth is better grounded in him than in rejecting him and inventing it based on assumptions, convenience, or even biological survival instincts if they actually exist instead.

 

[Straw Dog]

If I was a non-theist I would simply say we invent morality as a subjective tool to meet arbitrary goals or common desire.

As a non-theist, I simply say that morality arises out of necessity as an intersubjective, experiential tool to meet personal desires or social goals. There is a middle ground between ethical altruism and vain egotism. Enlightened self-interest often puts the needs of others first as a means for cultivating social nature and well-being. This seems more stable yet flexible than putting faith in something overly abstract and beyond my comprehension.

 

[1robin]

As a non-theist, I simply say that morality arises out of necessity as an intersubjective, experiential tool to meet personal desires or social goals. There is a middle ground between ethical altruism and vain egotism. Enlightened self-interest often puts the needs of others first as a means for cultivating social nature and well-being. This seems more stable yet flexible than putting faith in something overly abstract and beyond my comprehension.

Well I agree with most of the first part. Without God morality is a tool that depends on a goal. However that goal is not objectively good but simply desirable. I disagree with the idea; I think you asserted that God is non-comprehensible. The Biblical God made us specifically to comprehend him, and if true is the most substantial foundation of morality theoretically possible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course I allow that God may not exist, I question my faith daily as most Christians do. I just keep getting the same answer. It is also hard to not believe in someone you have met (spiritually) and makes comprehensive sense out of know reality better than any other theory.

The point is: stop accusing me of approaching this subject from a position of bias. I am no more biased towards God's nonexistence than you are biased towards God's existence.

For a simpler but similar example let's say that I claim if God instructs me to kill someone then his instruction is morally justified. You would of course say no it isn't.

Would I? I have no idea what basis God has for giving his instruction. I don't operate from a position that God exists, and thus all religious morality is, to me, derived from human philosophy. If we operate from the position that God does exist, I would need to know a lot about exactly what kind of God we were talking about and their reasoning before I can say it is morally justified. The point is that it is more arbitrary to say "it isn't justified if God says it isn't" than it is to say "it isn't justified because I have come to the conclusion through observation, experience and empathy that it would cause unnecessary harm". Do you understand that?

What I gather from that is this. You are assuming no God exists and some claim and actions would be unjustified. The reason I say this is because if God does exist then there is no way you can prove his commands are evil.

Actually, I can. Murdering the vast majority of an entire planet is evil. Unless you disagree with that.

In any case, the morality of a supposed God is not in question. The question is whether morality supposedly derived from God is more or less arbitrary than morality derived from a non-theistic source.

Lets say he said to kill Hitler in 1935. You would jump up and insist that was evil because you do not view God as real.

Erm, what? What on earth are you talking about and how on earth could you possibly know what I'd claim in such a spectacular set of circumstances?

However 50 million people would have been spared if you had faith.

Huh? Now you're making even less sense. What would my faith have to do with anything?

It seems you determinations are arrived by the assumption God does not exists and therefore claims that he said to do X are immoral.[/QUOTE
Again, you're arguing against things I've never said or even implied. Where are you deriving these statements? Where have I made them?

Even if true why is survival good.

I've not said it is. It's an instinct. And, as a human being, I am aware that my life is (most likely) all the existence I get, and my life is filled with things I enjoy, things that make me happy, and I things I love to experience. Therefore, I want to enjoy it, be happy and have as many experiences as I can during it.

Our survival is not good for 90% of nature. The aliens that would eat us survival would not be good for us. You again are simply redefining good as selfish gain for an arbitrary species.

Again, I've not made any objective assessment of the good or bad value of life whatsoever, so this seems to be an argument you're having with yourself.

If that is what I meant that is what I would have said. God does not change but how he relates to a creature that does change will. The same way the same parent changes the way they relate to a growing child.

God doesn't change, but what God tells people is right or wrong does change - according to the Bible. Therefore, Gods morality is conditional, subjective, and arbitrary in all the same ways that you've accused secular morality of.

Quit drawing unintended parallels for the sole purpose of spin. We teach our kids that for them to drive or own a gun is morally wrong and then later allow them to do those very things. This isn't rocket science.

There's a huge difference between growing into maturity, and teaching an entire planet of humans that slavery and genocide is okay at one point and then not the next. That's not brain surgery.

I have no need to move on until you can or will address what I have already said. Arbitrary means: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. You simply decide good means X. There is no way to show it does and no way to even argue it does you just assume it. That is arbitrary and not moral.

You don't seem to understand a word I've said. How is it any more arbitrary if the sum total of your rationale is "God says it's good, therefore it's good" rather than "something that is good is something that produces the most positive effect, harms the least number of people, and pleases the largest number". That's not arbitrary.

Done. Your explanation of morality without God is archetype example of arbitrary.

Again, you clearly haven't read a word I've written.

I cannot think of better one. You have decided what is moral by assuming what is without any reference to what is moral nor a system that even allows it to be known.

Do I have to explain this again? Secular morality is developed over time, through examination, philosophy and empathy. How is that more arbitrary than "I know it's right because God said it"?

That is like saying heat is an arbitrary determination of energy and motion. Morality is inherent in God's nature.

Then why did God permit slavery, genocide and rape?

God's nature is about the most absolute concept possible.

Unless God changes their mind, in which case their nature is not absolute. It's conditional.

You won't anwser this but what the heck. Prove if God exists there also exists anything less arbitrary than his nature and the morals it results in.

That's not even a coherent question. Also, stop asking me to "prove" things when you're clearly not willing to acknowledge any answer you don't like.

This is getting old. A meritless argument always goes the semantic technical route. If there is an absolute and objective moral you moral values are made completely independent from it. Moral objective facts and your moral truth are unrelated except by chance.

And your moral standard isn't yours at all. It's all determined entirely at random by what people a thousand or so years ago decided a supernatural being probably thought. You accepted your moral standard at face value, and follow it without questioning. That doesn't make your moral standard objective - it makes it rigid, baseless and arbitrary.

You simply assume moral good equals human flourishing.

And you simply assume moral good equals whatever you believe God says. The difference is that my morality is something I've actually worked on and built on over the course of my life and experiences. Ergo, it is not as arbitrary as your beliefs.

Actual moral truth could be insect flourishing.

It could be, but since it's impossible to demonstrate what is or is not "absolute moral truth" it's a completely meaningless subject to make claims about.

You conclusion is arbitrary in regards moral facts if they exist.

It's not arbitrary if the basis is through developing an understanding, researching and empathy. That's the opposite.

 

[Straw Dog]

Well I agree with most of the first part. Without God morality is a tool that depends on a goal. However that goal is not objectively good but simply desirable. I disagree with the idea; I think you asserted that God is non-comprehensible. The Biblical God made us specifically to comprehend him, and if true is the most substantial foundation of morality theoretically possible.

Interesting. So you disagree with determining what is good based on enlightened desires? But you agree with defining what is good based solely on what your god specifically desires? Either way, what is good comes back to what is desirable.

How can I trust that your god's desires don't conflict with my best interests or moral concience? If he moves in mysterious ways then I want to understand the details behind his motives because I don't trust shady people. Proclaiming that your god has moral authority doesn't make it true. How can we test it? Or do you believe that might makes right?

 

[Thief]

Just checking in. Any scientific evidence for the existence of gods yet? Anybody?

Still waiting...

Cause and effect.
Is it not a scientific axiom?

There is this universe all about...and the cause is what?
The singularity just happened?
Not if you believe in cause and effect.

Something (Someone) had to be there....'in the beginning'.

I don't think a self starting substance concept is the way to go.
I prefer Spirit First.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Question: Which of these two proposed explanations for morality is more arbitrary?

You are writing from a corrupted perspective of not actually allowing for that God to exist. In God does exist and does institute a system on moral requirement by what standard could you ever say they were wrong?

Yes I could. By my own standards. (Which is what we all use anyway.)

If god said slavery was cool, and even included some rules on how to treat them, I could still say "I think owning another human being is wrong."

If god said, "Murder your child because I said so" I could say, "No, I think taking the life of an innocent child is wrong."

Morality, by your definition, appears to be nothing more than obedience to authority (and in this particular case, an authority that is undetectable). That, to me, is not morality.

And on a side note, you have said that god has written morality on our hearts, or something to that effect, so in your opinion as well, we are using our own morality in making moral decisions.

It is far more reasonable to conclude you evolution raddles brain has selected for survival whether survival is good or bad.

My evolutionary/logical/reasonable brain has selected for survival because existing is better than not existing. Being happy is preferable to being unhappy. Not suffering is preferable to suffering. Being kind is preferable to being unkind, especially because I'm likely to have kind behavior returned to me.

God's character does not change the way our maturity changes does mandate he adjust things along he way. It is exactly the same thing we do with a child as they grow up as God does with humanity as it grows up.

I'm not exactly sure what this says, but are you saying that god's moral character changes and that similarly our own moral character changes as we raise kids? That what we teach our kids when they're young differs from what we teach them when they're older? If that's what you're saying, I would disagree with that.

You may question or reject and inconvenient system of morality you wish even if God created, and in fact I believe you have done that very thing. What you can't do is produce a firmer foundation for morality that would provide a transcendent objective by which to judge God. This is nonsense. I can chose to believe the sun is made of ice or that light speed is - 56 pounds per arc degree. What defines their character and the character of what they effect will not change a bit whether I reject it and invent an arbitrary description as desired or not.

You judge god every time you tell us he/she/it is moral and just.

And let's just get this straight here: The descriptions given to you as to how secular people come to make moral decisions are not arbitrary in any sense of the word. They are built on experience, empathy, social interactions, reason, logic, etc.

If we were arbitrarily making morality decisions, those decisions would be based on personal whim, random choice without any reasoned thought behind it, which is not the case, given what has been described to you. OR They would be based on the personal whim or random choice of some dictatorial authority figure. Hmmmm.

It appears that since right and wrong can be objectively rooted the new target is the definition of arbitrary. First by what method have you established that whatever it is you arbitrarily invent is known to be consistent with the known moral truth of the universe? There are only a few possibilities.

The method of analysis through reason, logic, rational thought, cause and effect, experience, social interactions, etc.

Scenario A​

1. A God exists and says A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.
2. I come along and say A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.
3. My claims are grounded in the absolute foundation of the nature of God and the universe (including us) he created.

Your claims are rooted in obedience to a dictatorial authority figure which you cannot question. So if god told you later on today that you should kill your newborn son, the moral decision would be to do so.

Scenario B​

1. A God exists and says A, B, and C are good and X, Y, Z are bad.
2. You come along and say you do not care if A, B, and C are actually good, you declare P, Q, and R are actually what's moral.
3. Given that in this scenario God exists, you could very well say God was evil or you did not like what he wanted and you instead were going to do P, Q, and R. However you have no frame of reference by which you could say God was immoral and you were moral. That is a logical absurdity. You are left with simply redefining moral good as P, Q, and R. Let me show you why this is meaningless. Let's say that Genghis Kahn conquered the world and killed off everyone that disagreed with his blood thirsty narcissism. He could have had murder instituted as a moral good. How would you have proven him wrong without simply arbitrarily assuming human optimality was good beforehand? If God said X was right by what authority can you PROVE him wrong even if he was (though that is not even a coherent idea).

It's not arbitrary to assume that human optimality is good. We can observe that it is good. We can observe that when humans are dead they cease to exist and therefore cannot do anything at all, so we can determine that existing is preferable to not existing.We can also determine from observation and experience that a world in which everyone is constantly trying to murder everyone else is not optimal because at any given moment your life or the life of your loved ones could be snuffed out based on the personal whim of another person. Everyone would constantly be living in fear. Which is why we determined long ago that murder is not a behavior we want present in our civilization.

We determined long before the supposed Moses story in the Bible that murder was not optimal for a human society to flourish, and it's insulting and bizarre to anyone to assume that humans couldn't have figured this out on their own without some holy pronouncement.

If you're actually going to assert that we have no way of determining that human optimality is well ... optimal, then I guess you don't believe in medical science either? Why strive to be healthy if we can't absolutely and positively know exactly what that is? Why would we want to be healthy instead of unhealthy? Why want to live instead of die? Ask yourself these things.

Scenario C.​

1. There is no God and he never said anything.
2. You simply assert that human optimality or flourishing is good.
3. Human flourishing means most things will not flourish.
4. You assume we have more value than everything else without any way to prove it.
5. What if a more powerful race shows and demands their flourishing is good. I can guarantee this moral ambiguity would disappear from your mind in about half a second and moral absolutes that only God can justify asserted and defended with your life.

See above. These are not "simple assertions" or "arbitrary" decisions. I'm not sure why "human flourishing means most things will not flourish." Why? How does one thing flow from the other? (1-5)

Plus, in regards to #5: That's like saying, "Slavery is good for the slave owners, so it aids human flourishing." Of course, that's if nobody bothered to ask the slaves how they felt about being someone else's property. It appears you're still making the assumption that human morals are arbitrary.

 

[ArtieE]

You still have not and apparently never will tell me why our flourishing is "better" than cow or pig flourishing.

You assume our flourishing is "better" than cow and pig flourishing because you think you were especially created by a god to flourish even forever in Heaven which gives you an excuse.

There is no counter argument even theoretically possible to the claim: If a universal moral author created all reality then moral truth is better grounded in him than in rejecting him and inventing it based on assumptions, convenience, or even biological survival instincts if they actually exist instead.

The operative word is "if". We can't ground anything on "if"s. We ground things on logic, reason and common sense and evidence and the scientific method, we ground things on what has been shown to exist and proven to work. We ground morals on ethics and compassion and empathy and altruism and conscience and love and respect and the Golden Rule and law obedience etc and you ground yours on what a god supposedly wrote down in a book two-three thousand years ago, "if" He even exists in the first place. You are free to ground your whole existence on an "if" but we can't. And we have plenty of reasons not to murder somebody, but "if" you should lose your faith in your god what's to stop you? Please keep believing...