The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Cephus]

. In Christianity for example there is no commandment against rape. There is however a broad consensus in secular morality that rape is immoral. So if you see rape as immoral, you did not get that from scripture.

The Bible also has no commandment against slavery, in fact, every time it is brought up, it portrays slavery as a good thing. Not once is it ever stated in the Bible not to own another human being. Anyone who thinks slavery is wrong, that certainly didn't come from the Bible either.

 

[Kirran]

The Bible also has no commandment against slavery, in fact, every time it is brought up, it portrays slavery as a good thing. Not once is it ever stated in the Bible not to own another human being. Anyone who thinks slavery is wrong, that certainly didn't come from the Bible either.

Have you read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, by any chance?

 

[Ouroboros]

It is a tad heavy-handed. But this was mostly written in henotheist times.

Yes. Only a tad heavy(!)

 

[Cephus]

Have you read Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, by any chance?

Indeed I have. Why?

 

[Deadtroopers]

I would say that "absolute morality" is what society in general is working towards. Our subjective morality is evolving to reach some kind of absolute morality that has not been achieved as of yet. "Objective morality" would not necessarily exist at all because there is a chance that the "absolute morality" doesn't exist until we discover it. In other words, the idea of absolute morality might be a human invention occurring only when we figure everything out.

And how would you know that you discovered it or figured everything out?

Ciao

- viole

Absolute morality is a fact, like gravity or quantum physics, discoverable by science. There was gravity and quantum physics before man; there will be after man; and so with moral facts. As with every other philosophy, when morality becomes a science, we will find that 'god' was just a placeholder.

 

[Glaurung]

I was going to reply, but this thread slipped my mind

The basis for our morality comes from secular society and genetics.

Firstly, what does the principle of secularism have to do with questions concerning our moral conduct, if all secularism address is the neutrality of the state in religious affairs? Secondly, how (and to what extent) does the physical expression of genetic traits determine how we ought to conduct ourselves in daily life?

So the foundation, in my submission, is utilitarianism and our evolutionary history which has driven many of us to attain some moral standard. I don't think a solid foundation for moral behavior with religion either because you ultimately decide your interpretation and morals from some book, or from the society around you. So because of the fact that you select your moral foundation, it makes the consequences irrelevant

I'm not certain what you're saying here this paragraph borders on incoherent by the second sentence.

This is cheating in many ways. Our conscience and experience may tell us that morality is irrelevant, in which case you've just been given a free pass to do whatever you want without consequences because there isn't a conscience. Such is the case with psychopaths or those who have been brought up in cultures with a vastly different standard of ethics such as the Aztecs, who thought they were saving the world by ripping out people's hearts. THis is like saying that if you don't feel guilty, then God won't judge us. That is garbage because everyone has a varying scale of moral objectivity that makes the entire concept moot and illogical in the first place.

It's a good thing that I've said nothing of the sort.

The Christian view is that there is a God who because of his position as creator and sovereign over everything that exists, has the right to determine the moral standard expected of his creatures. God is the objective measure of all goodness as he is that very goodness in of his own very being. His standards are what it means to be moral and virtuous, as God is the truth. However, human knowledge of God and thus his standards are limited, not only because we do not have full sight of God, but also because we have been tainted with a propensity towards sin.

This limitation does not absolve us from striving towards virtue, as God has revealed though Christ his will for us and his expectations on how we are best to conduct ourselves. Nonetheless, because of our frailties God does not expect us to achieve complete transcendence over sin in this life, thus Christ has taken that upon himself to the cross so that though him we can find mercy from God. As God has complete perspective on everyone and their circumstances, his judgement will take it all into account and is therefore utterly just. If you are found unworthy of salvation, it is not because God held you to an unfair standard as compared to others, but because you actively rejected the grace required for your salvation. We are not all the same, therefore God does not judge us all identically. We nonetheless all have the sufficient grace to reach salvation and we are all expected in whatever capacity we have to strive in virtue and persist in grace.

Well it doesn't seem trivial to many, many people who believe they will stand in judgment for the actions they've committed. They will be judged by their intentions, like your implying, and therefore thought crimes. When thought crimes exist and you'll be punished in the next life by God for an apparently arbitrary moral standard which was very ambiguous and unclear, then you have a whimsical and sinister dictator by definition. A judge, jury, executioner, and a law maker. I can't think of any better definition of a totalitarian regime.

Its even worse though.God set us up to fail. He knew we were going to fail before we were created because he is all powerful and all knowing. Why should we be judged for something that was already determined? Its entrapment and a self fulfilling prophecy. God would have created us so we could sin. It tells me that if there is a God, he either doesn't care about petty human morality, or there isn't a such thing as divine punishment/reward, which also goes back to the "not caring" scenario you propose.

Something tells me you have no intention of understanding anything, but already have your own predetermined views fed to you by disingenuous anti-religious rhetoric. God is never arbitrary, nor a dictator, nor does he predetermine anything. Your ultimate fate be it in Heaven or Hell, is a product of your active choice to accept or spurn the grace given to you by God for your salvation. Hell is the fate of those who by their own freedom choose to spurn God and persist in evil until the very end. God has done everything necessary to save every single human being, but because God is a 'dictator', he has given those humans the right to reject his efforts to their own eternal well being.

What if I just interpret the bible or whatever to justify rape and or commit genocide or enslave people?

Then you will answer before God to such the extent that you have deliberately chosen to spurn his standards which he has revealed though Christ, and is taught by the Church he founded.

 

[Kirran]

Indeed I have. Why?

I actually just read it yesterday, before I replied to this, I could Sam Harris talking in your post

 

[Cephus]

I actually just read it yesterday, before I replied to this, I could Sam Harris talking in your post

Oh, I've been doing this a lot longer than Sam Harris has been writing books, I assure you.

 

[Kirran]

Oh, I've been doing this a lot longer than Sam Harris has been writing books, I assure you.

Maybe he read your posts before he wrote his book then

 

[serp777]

I would say that everybody has their version of morality, but is their morality dictated by the one who wrote the book on morality? If it falls short of "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. And love your neighbor as yourself." Then it is missing the most crucial component, God. Man knows what God expects of him, that is, to trust in God but he or she would rather try and take the place of God when God is the beginning and end of morality. This is the reason why things like rape happen, people try to be God and operate out of a skewed morality.

Unless you have a secular utilitarian framework, who are you to say we shouldn't rape? The bible frequently cites the Isrealites murdering a population but allowing the virgin women to survive for purposes i wont specify. So you haven't demonstrated any objective morals unless you can prove that you know the mind of God and that therefore you're an authority on interpreting the bible. its simply your interpretation that God has moral values that you align with. You would believe the same thing, but with entirely different morals in bronze age Palestine. You essentially need to prove you're a prophet, but since that isn't provable, its your subjective interpretation and therefore completely relative. So with or without God you cannot avoid subjectivity.

I would say that man definitely does NOT know what God expects of him, and I have no idea how you justify that claim. God did not come down and unambiguously describe specific moral guidelines to every person with undeniable proof--like writing moral commandments out of stars; maybe rearranging them in Aramaic that would defy the laws of physics and could be observed by telescopes. God should know what would convince everyone too since he is omniscient. Then you could reasonably say that God has informed us, but until then I have no idea what God would expect of me. I do my best to guess but because of all the different religions and ethical codes, I have no idea what to trust. The reason you cant say people know what God expects of them is because almost everyone has different morals depending on time period, culture, friend groups, upbringing, etc. And some people have genetic flaws which make them psychopaths whom have no moral compass whatsoever.

So in conclusion objective morality is impossible regardless of religion and God.

 

[serp777]

I was going to reply, but this thread slipped my mind


Firstly, what does the principle of secularism have to do with questions concerning our moral conduct, if all secularism address is the neutrality of the state in religious affairs? Secondly, how (and to what extent) does the physical expression of genetic traits determine how we ought to conduct ourselves in daily life?


I'm not certain what you're saying here this paragraph borders on incoherent by the second sentence.


It's a good thing that I've said nothing of the sort.

The Christian view is that there is a God who because of his position as creator and sovereign over everything that exists, has the right to determine the moral standard expected of his creatures. God is the objective measure of all goodness as he is that very goodness in of his own very being. His standards are what it means to be moral and virtuous, as God is the truth. However, human knowledge of God and thus his standards are limited, not only because we do not have full sight of God, but also because we have been tainted with a propensity towards sin.

This limitation does not absolve us from striving towards virtue, as God has revealed though Christ his will for us and his expectations on how we are best to conduct ourselves. Nonetheless, because of our frailties God does not expect us to achieve complete transcendence over sin in this life, thus Christ has taken that upon himself to the cross so that though him we can find mercy from God. As God has complete perspective on everyone and their circumstances, his judgement will take it all into account and is therefore utterly just. If you are found unworthy of salvation, it is not because God held you to an unfair standard as compared to others, but because you actively rejected the grace required for your salvation. We are not all the same, therefore God does not judge us all identically. We nonetheless all have the sufficient grace to reach salvation and we are all expected in whatever capacity we have to strive in virtue and persist in grace.


Something tells me you have no intention of understanding anything, but already have your own predetermined views fed to you by disingenuous anti-religious rhetoric. God is never arbitrary, nor a dictator, nor does he predetermine anything. Your ultimate fate be it in Heaven or Hell, is a product of your active choice to accept or spurn the grace given to you by God for your salvation. Hell is the fate of those who by their own freedom choose to spurn God and persist in evil until the very end. God has done everything necessary to save every single human being, but because God is a 'dictator', he has given those humans the right to reject his efforts to their own eternal well being.


Then you will answer before God to such the extent that you have deliberately chosen to spurn his standards which he has revealed though Christ, and is taught by the Church he founded.

Firstly, what does the principle of secularism have to do with questions concerning our moral conduct, if all secularism address is the neutrality of the state in religious affairs? Secondly, how (and to what extent) does the physical expression of genetic traits determine how we ought to conduct ourselves in daily life?

I said from "secular society" for starters, not secularism. A secular society requires a logical framework from which to base moral decisions because it doesn't have an alleged divine revelation or some other holy doctrine. A religious society, on the other hand, usually bases its morality on an ancient book or some traditional values. Utilitarianism is one such framework, in a secular society, that produces many positive moral values, often in spite of religion. And genetics doesn't tell us how we ought to conduct ourselves; it tells us that there is a predisposition towards certain moral values which increase cooperation and lead to a more efficient society. Murder, rape, and theft would have a destabilization effect, so its logical that functional societies would only form if they

I'm not certain what you're saying here this paragraph borders on incoherent by the second sentence.

I missed one word and a comma since I was typing a lot of responses quickly.

"I don't think a solid foundation for moral behavior IS with religion either, because you ultimately decide your interpretation and morals from some book, or from the society around you."

Yes I admittedly a mistake, but it seems like you should have been able to fill in the gap easily enough. The point was that many religious people determine their morality based on some arbitrary interpretation from an ancient book, or from the religious community that they happen to coexist with or were brought up in. So its inherently subjective, or it depends on your society/culture, which can still be classified as subjective.

It's a good thing that I've said nothing of the sort.

Hmm, really? How about when you say:

Christianity poses that we will all stand before God and answer for our lives according to our conscience.

Thus, this implies that regardless of our actions, as long as we have lived according to our conscious, then God should be happy with us according to Christianity. So you absolutely said something of the sort. Everyone has a different conscience depending on many variables. If you want to recant this I would understand because it is an absurd moral position to take. Also, it definitely isn't objective if it just depends on our conscience. Then its dynamic and arbitrary.

The Christian view is that there is a God who because of his position as creator and sovereign over everything that exists, has the right to determine the moral standard expected of his creatures. God is the objective measure of all goodness as he is that very goodness in of his own very being.

But the point i've been making over and over again in this thread is that you don't know the mind of God, so on what authority do you claim to know his moral expectations? People who have made very similar arguments to you have argued that the bible or the Qur'an, for example, provides the basis for knowing God's mind and his objective morality; however, you're assuming first that the bible is an accurate depiction of God's mind and his moral values, and second that you can sufficiently interpret the bible. Its not reasonable to use your own subjectivity to determine God's objective moral values unless you have a DSL connection to heaven. Its completely illogical and senseless. In addition, God cannot expect me to know his particular morals because there are so many competing religions, and so many differing codes of ethics. He knows that I don't know the true morality if he's scanning my mind. So how would it be just or fair for him to expect me to follow moral standards that im unaware, especially when he could simply rearrange the stars or something to tell the world exactly what morals to follow? I would definitely accept God and any morality he gave me at that point.

Something tells me you have no intention of understanding anything, but already have your own predetermined views fed to you by disingenuous anti-religious rhetoric. God is never arbitrary, nor a dictator, nor does he predetermine anything. Your ultimate fate be it in Heaven or Hell, is a product of your active choice to accept or spurn the grace given to you by God for your salvation. Hell is the fate of those who by their own freedom choose to spurn God and persist in evil until the very end. God has done everything necessary to save every single human being, but because God is a 'dictator', he has given those humans the right to reject his efforts to their own eternal well being.

This is all a subjective interpretation essentially, which is exactly my point. For all you know we may just be God's lab rats--interesting experiments where he tests various hypotheses. He may be arbitrary, or a dictator, or he might predetermine everything because he was omniscient when he was creating us (meaning he knew the outcome before we started our existence). And regardless, everything he does would be valid, perfect, and moral because he's God and therefore has the right to those parameters as you've suggested. You make all of these claims for God, but I don't accept that you're a prophet, and I don't accept that you have special knowledge. In the words of Neils Bohr, don't tell God what to do.

I certainly don't claim to speak for God; I don't know his mind, but apparently you do. So on what authority do you make these bold proclamations? Until you give evidence, then why should anyone accept any of your assertions? And your claim about my "predetermined views" is preposterous. I'm an agnostic, which is the furthest position from predetermined that you could possibly have. Its especially ironic that its coming from a person who is literally spelling out what God does and does not do. And I do understand, but just because I understand it doesn't mean I have to agree. That statement is a false allegation, a red herring, and an indication of hypocrisy.

Finally, if God exists, I wouldn't think that he would be so petty as to care about what appropriations we do, or what holy days we observe, or what our sexual preferences are. You have quite a lot of work to do to justify the jump from deism to theism. In other words from a God who created the universe and just an observer, and a God who occasionally breaks the laws of physics to do things like getting his son tortured to death in Palestine in order to save us from himself.

disingenuous anti-religious rhetoric

This is just hot air and doesn't enhance your argument in the slightest. There's nothing disingenuous about it. Apparently in your mind, denying objective moral values somehow means anti religious rhetoric. You're the same kind of person who thinks that any sort of religious criticism means anti religious rhetoric.

 

[RedDragon94]

unless you can prove that you know the mind of God

"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. for who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also know one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 2:10-11)

If I have the Spirit of God living in me I can know the will and plan of God. How do you know the Spirit of God is at work in a person? "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17)

"Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (I Corinthians 2:12-13)
If you're truly a spiritual person you will hear the Spirit of God and believe his words. His words are not subjective.

I would say that man definitely does NOT know what God expects of him, and I have no idea how you justify that claim.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20) My challenge to you is to try and reason spiritual things from what you see in nature until you find a conclusion to your confusion.

So in conclusion objective morality is impossible regardless of religion and God.

Not if you know the God of creation personally. How many religions offer that?

 

[serp777]

"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. for who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also know one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 2:10-11)

If I have the Spirit of God living in me I can know the will and plan of God. How do you know the Spirit of God is at work in a person? "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17)

"Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (I Corinthians 2:12-13)
If you're truly a spiritual person you will hear the Spirit of God and believe his words. His words are not subjective.


"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20) My challenge to you is to try and reason spiritual things from what you see in nature until you find a conclusion to your confusion.


Not if you know the God of creation personally. How many religions offer that?

For one, you're only providing your interpretation of a book which may or may not be correct. Again, I don't accept that you're a prophet or that you have the authority to speak for God and tell me what his objective moral values are. You've got a lot to prove if you want me to believe that another human being can tell me what to do under divine authority.

And God hasn't revealed to me through the spirit. I do my best to be moral, but i don't have special knowledge and a personal hotline to God like you do. I can't even trust that God is actually communicating with you. There's no basis to believe that. And furthermore, God frequently has to do miracles and revelations to convince people of his truth (sorcery basically), so why do I have to take things on faith? He should recognize that if people in bronze age palestine wouldnt be easily convinced, then why would a 21st century skeptical scientist be at all persuaded by the bible when there are thousands of different religions and evolutionary psychology?

But since you like bible quotes so much, here's the morality you should accept.

" If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)"
Therefore I should be dead.

"The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night. (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)"

Sounds like objective morality to me. /jokes

" For the land of Israel lies empty and broken after your attacks, but the LORD will restore its honor and power again. Shields flash red in the sunlight! The attack begins! See their scarlet uniforms! Watch as their glittering chariots move into position, with a forest of spears waving above them. The chariots race recklessly along the streets and through the squares, swift as lightning, flickering like torches. The king shouts to his officers; they stumble in their haste, rushing to the walls to set up their defenses. But too late! The river gates are open! The enemy has entered! The palace is about to collapse! Nineveh's exile has been decreed, and all the servant girls mourn its capture. Listen to them moan like doves; watch them beat their breasts in sorrow. Nineveh is like a leaking water reservoir! The people are slipping away. "Stop, stop!" someone shouts, but the people just keep on running. Loot the silver! Plunder the gold! There seems no end to Nineveh's many treasures – its vast, uncounted wealth. Soon the city is an empty shambles, stripped of its wealth. Hearts melt in horror, and knees shake. The people stand aghast, their faces pale and trembling. (Nahum 2:2-10 NLT)"

More objective morality.

"
The tribe of Benjamin, however, failed to drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem. So to this day the Jebusites live in Jerusalem among the people of Benjamin. The descendants of Joseph attacked the town of Bethel, and the LORD was with them. They sent spies to Bethel (formerly known as Luz), who confronted a man coming out of the city. They said to him, "Show us a way into the city, and we will have mercy on you." So he showed them a way in, and they killed everyone in the city except for this man and his family. Later the man moved to the land of the Hittites, where he built a city. He named the city Luz, and it is known by that name to this day. The tribe of Manasseh failed to drive out the people living in Beth-shan, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and their surrounding villages, because the Canaanites were determined to stay in that region.



When the Israelites grew stronger, they forced the Canaanites to work as slaves, but they never did drive them out of the land. The tribe of Ephraim also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Gezer, and so the Canaanites continued to live there among them. The tribe of Zebulun also failed to drive out the Canaanites living in Kitron and Nahalol, who continued to live among them. But they forced them to work as slaves. The tribe of Asher also failed to drive out the residents of Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Aczib, Helbah, Aphik, and Rehob. In fact, because they did not drive them out, the Canaanites dominated the land where the people of Asher lived. The tribe of Naphtali also failed to drive out the residents of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. Instead, the Canaanites dominated the land where they lived. Nevertheless, the people of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath were sometimes forced to work as slaves for the people of Naphtali. As for the tribe of Dan, the Amorites forced them into the hill country and would not let them come down into the plains. The Amorites were determined to stay in Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim, but when the descendants of Joseph became stronger, they forced the Amorites to work as slaves. (Judges 1:21-35 NLT)"

Even more objective morality. Murder and slavery.

" "Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)"

"

Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." (Genesis 9:20-27 NRSV)"

So here's your biblical morality. Why don't you cite these passages? Oh, because you pick and choose all of your religious morals? You're making a God in the image of your chosen morals rather than the other way around.

 

[viole]

Absolute morality is a fact, like gravity or quantum physics, discoverable by science. There was gravity and quantum physics before man; there will be after man; and so with moral facts. As with every other philosophy, when morality becomes a science, we will find that 'god' was just a placeholder.

Well, not so fast.

First of all, we need some definitions, before we can talk of facts. What is your definition of "aboslute morality"?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

Absolute morality is a fact, like gravity or quantum physics, discoverable by science. There was gravity and quantum physics before man; there will be after man; and so with moral facts. As with every other philosophy, when morality becomes a science, we will find that 'god' was just a placeholder.

Is your morality entirely correct?

 

[Ouroboros]

"these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. for who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also know one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." (I Corinthians 2:10-11)

The problem using the spirit to prove what is moral or not is that the spirit says different things to different people. I was a Christian for 30 years and belonged to several churches over those years, and I know instances when even our pastor contradicted himself on multiple occasions while giving prophetic words from the spirit.

If I have the Spirit of God living in me I can know the will and plan of God. How do you know the Spirit of God is at work in a person? "You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." (Matthew 7:16-17)

History shows that one person hears the spirit telling them to help the poor and sick, while another person hears the spirit tell them to kill people in the name of God. We can't trust morality based on people's subjective ideas of what they think the spirit says.

Essentially, saying that morality comes from a person hearing the spirit is to say that morality is completely and utterly based on subjective experiences only. A person experiences what the person experiences. It can't be shared. The experience isn't shared with others and can't be properly tested. Bob says the spirit told him to jump from the roof. How do we know he did or didn't? It's all subjective if you use this argument. There's no objectivity in using the spirit. Sorry.

"Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual." (I Corinthians 2:12-13)
If you're truly a spiritual person you will hear the Spirit of God and believe his words. His words are not subjective.

Perhaps not, but the spiritual person's hearing is subjective. And I've seen it firsthand many times how different people heard different words from the spirit, and they all were very spiritual and very dedicated and devout Christians.

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:19-20) My challenge to you is to try and reason spiritual things from what you see in nature until you find a conclusion to your confusion.

I did. My conclusion is that all things, all together, constitutes God. Including us. It led me to atheism, and then to naturalistic pantheism. That's how the spirit led me.

Not if you know the God of creation personally. How many religions offer that?

I do feel I know God personally. God, the creation, all of it, it's all personal, and personal experience. So I know my belief offers that. Mediation can provide that for many people as well. Can your religion offer meditation and experience of the eternal?

 

[leibowde84]

Absolute morality is a fact, like gravity or quantum physics, discoverable by science. There was gravity and quantum physics before man; there will be after man; and so with moral facts. As with every other philosophy, when morality becomes a science, we will find that 'god' was just a placeholder.

What leads you to believe this? Is there evidence to support this, or is this just a hypothesis? I ask because you state this claim as if it is determined fact.

 

[Cephus]

Absolute morality is a fact, like gravity or quantum physics, discoverable by science. There was gravity and quantum physics before man; there will be after man; and so with moral facts. As with every other philosophy, when morality becomes a science, we will find that 'god' was just a placeholder.

And how have you demonstrated that it is a fact? Where is your evidence? Where is your reasoning? Gravity and quantum physics have evidence to back them up. Absolute morality does not. Color me unimpressed with your claim.

 

[leibowde84]

And how have you demonstrated that it is a fact? Where is your evidence? Where is your reasoning? Gravity and quantum physics have evidence to back them up. Absolute morality does not. Color me unimpressed with your claim.

Agreed. The guy seemed pretty certain considering the FACT that he provided absolutely no evidence.

 

[Cephus]

Agreed. The guy seemed pretty certain considering the FACT that he provided absolutely no evidence.

There's an awful lot of people around here like that. There are many who have included some god character in their own self-identity. They refuse to imagine a world without this god, therefore they insist that it has to be true or their entire self-concept comes crashing down. That goes for more people than would like to admit it.