Why Morality cannot come from God

[blü 2]

Fair enough. Just as long as you have read both articles thoroughly and understood them.If you have the subjective opinion that something is moral does that make it actually moral?

What else makes it moral?

If the judgment of others, then one by one, what makes their judgments moral?

If they disagree, what makes either of them wrong?

 

[tayla]

Either the person stating that "God is good" is appealing to "good" as a characteristic outside of God, and thus, the person is effectively asserting that a higher standard of morality exists outside of God, and is judging God by that standard.

God is good because we sense the concept of ultimate goodness. We are not decreeing God to be good; rather, we are noticing that it/she/he is good. The philosophical use of arguments such as these about God don't make any sense when speaking of God. God is beyond philosophy yet indwells it somehow. That's all we can know about it.

 

[tayla]

So I don't see a problem accepting God as being outside the sphere to which moral judgements apply.

Yes. But that said, I still think it is appropriate to consider God as having moral attributes such as holiness, goodness, beauty, love and etc. as long as we don't think we are somehow defining its/her/his nature. As we observe it/her/him we reflect upon what we see.

 

[tayla]

Because nobody has proven God's existence?

God's existence can't be proved. Only things in the material universe can be proved via the scientific method. There is no corresponding "spiritual" method to prove things non-material.

That said, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in a monotheistic panenthestic God who created everything in the physical realm and the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

That's pretty limited. Take two issues: Death penalty and Abortion

• How does love provide an answer to whether the Death penalty is morally sound?
• How does love draw the line between when it is morally acceptable to have an abortion?

The best that can be done is cases such as these is to form a reasoned opinion. There is no absolute right or wrong answer.

 

[tayla]

Who determines whether the part is good or bad? The Answer the designer.

You first have to assume (and prove) that the revelation (the Bible and Christian teaching) providing God's opinions about such things are trustworthy.

 

[tayla]

But then, I don't think there's such a thing as objective morality anyway. If there is, no one knows what it is, since no one has ever given me an example of a moral rule that's objectively correct. Indeed, since such a rule is a concept, an abstraction, about proper behavior, how could a moral rule exist independently of the brain that holds the concept?

Yes, moral rules are ideas; that is to say, they reside within the spiritual realm.

I think Immanuel Kant came closest to a workable universal rule. "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

 

[tayla]

The laws of physics determine whether the design was good or bad and thereby whether a particular part is good or bad. The designer used those laws of physics in an attempt to make a good design.

Also, the end user will have a say in the matter.

 

[tayla]

I have read considerable over the years concerning the claims of Christians for an 'objective morality, particularly in the apologetic argument for the existence of God based on the necessity of an objective morality. ALL have failed to demonstrate an 'objective morality' in human behavior.

Christians are the only religion that argues for an 'objective morality.' I see no others than Christians on this site nor any other I debate with that argue for the existence of an objective morality. do not believe they evoke any other God. except maybe if you revert to the descriptions in the Pentateuch,

I wouldn't mind that Christians have an objective morality if it wasn't such a horrible one.

What other sites are you referring to if I might be so bold as to ask?

 

[suncowiam]

God's existence can't be proved. Only things in the material universe can be proved via the scientific method. There is no corresponding "spiritual" method to prove things non-material.

That said, I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in a monotheistic panenthestic God who created everything in the physical realm and the spiritual realm.

Sufficient evidence? You mean sufficient circumstantial evidence. Which is fine but it's still a technicality.

 

[tayla]

There is a designer who created all that you are, see and experience.The designer determined the laws of physics. Thus its inescapable. The designer chooses what he wishes. Right and wrong

Yes, but this assumes that Christianity has the correct teaching about this Designer. Not everyone agrees it does.

Without revelation that is provably without error, we can't know much about God. And so we can't know much about what it/she/he wishes.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. But that said, I still think it is appropriate to consider God as having moral attributes such as holiness, goodness, beauty, love and etc. as long as we don't think we are somehow defining its/her/his nature. As we observe it/her/him we reflect upon what we see.

I know nothing about God. I'm just being honest about that. You can prescribe any attributes you like to God. I'm not going to say they are wrong but I do question anyone's ability to know the truth of what's claimed about God.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, moral rules are ideas; that is to say, they reside within the spiritual realm.

I think Immanuel Kant came closest to a workable universal rule. "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

I'd have said that ideas exist only as physical states in working brains.

And that the spiritual realm is another example of an idea.

I also think that Kant's 'universals' are vastly better explained through an understanding of concepts.

From which you'll gather my outlook is materialist.

 

[ArtieE]

What else makes it moral?

If the judgment of others, then one by one, what makes their judgments moral?

If they disagree, what makes either of them wrong?

That is exactly what those two articles explain. If you had understood those articles you couldn't have asked those questions. So I'm afraid we have reached the end of the line. I don't know how to explain it better than those two excellent articles.

 

[blü 2]

That is exactly what those two articles explain. If you had understood those articles you couldn't have asked those questions. So I'm afraid we have reached the end of the line. I don't know how to explain it better than those two excellent articles.

They wholly fail to explain anything. That's my point.

Anyway, if you're off now, thanks for the conversation.

 

[ArtieE]

They wholly fail to explain anything. That's my point.

I'm afraid it's the other way around. They do explain a lot, but you have failed to understand. That is your problem and not the fault of the excellent articles. (No offense intended.)

Anyway, if you're off now, thanks for the conversation.

You too.

 

[shunyadragon]

I wouldn't mind that Christians have an objective morality if it wasn't such a horrible one.

What other sites are you referring to if I might be so bold as to ask?

For the classic Christian view William Craig: “Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

For the skeptic view of 'objective morals: William Lane Craig Doesn’t Believe in Objective Moral Values

 

[tayla]

Sufficient evidence? You mean sufficient circumstantial evidence. Which is fine but it's still a technicality.

I don't think circumstantial evidence is the correct phrase. The evidence bears directly on the question at hand. But nothing in the spiritual realm is provable, I readily agree with this.

 

[tayla]

I know nothing about God. I'm just being honest about that. You can prescribe any attributes you like to God. I'm not going to say they are wrong but I do question anyone's ability to know the truth of what's claimed about God.

Yes, I agree. Nothing can be proved about the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

I'd have said that ideas exist only as physical states in working brains.

And that the spiritual realm is another example of an idea.

I also think that Kant's 'universals' are vastly better explained through an understanding of concepts.

From which you'll gather my outlook is materialist.

I agree that the brain participates. But the subjective experience of consciousness is not explainable via materialism. The philosopher David Chalmers agrees and posits that there is an additional property of matter called mind or whatever. Perhaps you would enjoy viewing videos of him on YouTube.