Why Morality cannot come from God

[Curious George]

No your baggage, and your statements of uncertainty . . .

What? You are confounding the subject. I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

Yes. I do not have certainty that objective morality actually exists. Any framework for objective morality relies on other assumptions. I can discuss something that is theoretical and not necessarily actual. If you have issues with that then such is indeed, not my baggage.

 

[Curious George]

Thank you for the clarification.
But I can find no meaning in that statement, whereas you apparently can. What's an example of a moral fact?

Except, I do not believe you. I think you are going to have to more clearly describe your issue with the statement.

 

[Curious George]

The problem with this in the history of humanity and in different cultures and religions is that the morals are not consistently objective and uniform to be necessarily true. I do not believe that you nor anyone else can provide a specific standard of morals and ethics that are 'necessarily true,' which would the claim of many Christian apologists like Craig.


Which standard would you provide a specific objective necessarily true standard for the following morals and ethics.

It is an objective fact that 'wrongful death' is immoral in virtually all cultures in the history of humanity, but the differences as to what is 'wrongful death' from culture to culture over time has a very high subjective variation.

It is an objective fact that most, not all, cultures in history believe wrongful taking of property is immoral, but the actual standard varies from culture to culture in history.

Is divorce immoral is a problem because it is highly variable and not necessarily immorally true. The New Testament and the Roman Church state it is immoral, the Old Testament allows divorce, and many if not most Christians today do not consider it immoral.

Slavery being immoral shows no consistent necessarily true moral standard over time and in different cultures and religions.

The concept of lying, 'bearing false witness.' is too highly variable between cultures and over time to have any objective standard.

I would say that you have focused on moral statements. That you can point to some variation in some moral thought does not mean that there is no objective standard.

 

[Curious George]

I agree to. in a way, but the problem is @Curious George has made conflicting incoherent statements concerning the nature of his belief that the standard of 'objective morality' is necessarily true and objective.

Please explain where you think the conflict is.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I do not have certainty that objective morality actually exists. Any framework for objective morality relies on other assumptions. I can discuss something that is theoretical and not necessarily actual. If you have issues with that then such is indeed, not my baggage.

You just described your anecdotal subjective baggage.

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that you have for used on moral statements. That you can point to some variation in some moral thought does not mean that there is no objective standard.

There is no evidence that an 'objective morality exists.'

 

[Paradox22]

The problem with this in the history of humanity and in different cultures and religions is that the morals are not consistently objective and uniform to be necessarily true. I do not believe that you nor anyone else can provide a specific standard of morals and ethics that are 'necessarily true' .

Go back and read Curious George's statement:
'Objective morality is a system of moral facts which are necessarily true."

He is saying that objective morality says that there are some moral facts that are necessarily true. He is not say that there is an objective moral principle that is necessarily true. In fact, he seems skeptical of the idea that there are any moral facts that are objectively true. Instead, Curious George is just pointing out that objective principles of morality require that there are some things that are "right" or "wrong" no matter what any given culture says about them, or what any individual person thinks. This is generally used as part of the definition of what it means to be an objective moral theory. This description is not generally controversial. Only the question of whether there are things that are necessarily right or wrong. There is plenty of disagreement about that. I think we all agree in that we are skeptical about that

 

[Woberts]

Who cares if morals come from a God(s) or not?

 

[shunyadragon]

Go back and read Curious George's statement:
'Objective morality is a system of moral facts which are necessarily true."

He is saying that objective morality says that "moral facts" are necessarily true. He is not say that there is an objective moral principle that is necessarily true. In fact, he seems skeptical of the idea that there are any moral facts that are objectively true. Instead, Curious George is just pointing out that objective principles of morality require that there are some things that are "right" or "wrong" no matter what any given culture says about them, or what any individual person thinks.

True, but he also said:

What? You are confounding the subject. I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

 

[Paradox22]

What? You are confounding the subject. I am not sure whether or not morality objectively exists. I do understand that some claim it does, and it is not an anachronism.

Seems awkwardly worded. I can only guess that C.G means that he is skeptical about whether there is a true objective moral principle. Or maybe that he is skeptical that there are moral facts that are necessarily true. [shrug]. Frankly, I don't know what is meant by the claim "it" is an "anachronism." Maybe someone said that and I missed it. Maybe someone could explain it to me?

But it's not appropriate for me to speak for him on that

 

[Curious George]

You just described your anecdotal subjective baggage.

How is that anecdotal subjective baggage? I think you are using words incorrectly.

You seem to think that because something is theoretical it cannot be discussed or that we can conclude that it does not exist.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus spoke in figures of speech all the time.

To excuse the fact he didn't do half the stuff he said we could do with faith? Kid Krishna could use a mountain like an umbrella. Why couldn't Jesus?

So yes a little amount of faith can move a mountain. Translated as an insurmountable problem in ones life if placed by faith in the hands of God can be overcome. With God all things are possible. Mat 19:26

Except for protecting Jews against the Romans and later on, Germans. That seemed to have been too hard.

 

[Stonecrown29295]

When believers say, or more importantly the scriptures, say that God is Good, it means that goodness is an innate aspect of His Being and essence. God is the origin and source of goodness.

Is he both good and evil

 

[Truthseeker]

I would refer to the use of the death penalty over time and in different countries, regardless of how it is specifically enforced today in the USA. The conclusions are very clear; there is not relationship between the death penalty and lower rates of criminal murder.

Part of the reason for the process you describe in the USA today is the long history of a large number of innocent people who were executed in the past, particularly the high proportion of blacks.

But are other factors accounted for? Never mind, probably it doesn't deter, but we can't know for sure.

 

[Apologetics]

To excuse the fact he didn't do half the stuff he said we could do with faith? Kid Krishna could use a mountain like an umbrella. Why couldn't Jesus?


Except for protecting Jews against the Romans and later on, Germans. That seemed to have been too hard.

Jesus demonstrated that faith could move a mountain. He knew his fate was foretold by the prophets to take our place on the cross and die for our sins Isa 53 :5 hundreds of years before he came . He knew by Faith that when death came on the cross and he was laid away in the tomb that 3 days later just as he foretold, he would rise from the dead ,never to die again Rom 6:9.

To foretell his death on the cross and declare the impossible, the moving of a mountain. That mountain being raise from the dead 3 days later. Is the very demonstration of what he said could be done with just a little faith.

The Jews were being punished because they forsook their God Jer 44:13 1 thess 2:15-16 rejecting his son there only means of salvation .Both by the Romans and the Germans under Hitler as well as yet today. Because they believe not.Mar 16:16

I can tell by your responses that you have a disdain for the bible and Jesus. You have to cast aside all your human reasoning and logic that his blinding you from the truth. You are lost and dont know it. Just like many people in the USA have Pancreatic cancer at this very moment but they are completely oblivious to it and will be dead in 3 months time.

You like wise are oblivious to the truth the Bible gives to all who will receive it If you dont heed the warnings, you too will discover one day that you have a terminally ill disease ( Sin) and will die an eternal death because you refused to accept Gods plan for your salvation.

 

[shunyadragon]

How is that anecdotal subjective baggage? I think you are using words incorrectly.

You seem to think that because something is theoretical it cannot be discussed or that we can conclude that it does not exist.

No, we no one can prove the negative in this nor any other, and that is not the issue at hand. This is request is a fallacy.

In logic and arguments it is up to the claimant to prove or demonstrate the positive.

If something is ONLY theoretical without supporting evidence there is no reason to believe.

I have provided good references that describe the problems of an objective morality from either the Christian apologist and secular perspective and you have not responded

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus demonstrated that faith could move a mountain.

What mountain was moved? As I said, Kid Krishna could use a mountain like an umbrella. Didn't Jesus have enough faith?

He knew his fate was foretold by the prophets to take our place on the cross and die for our sins Isa 53 :5 hundreds of years before he came .

Saying a murderous regime is going to murder you when you are actively trying to irritate them is not a prophecy.

To foretell his death on the cross and declare the impossible, the moving of a mountain. That mountain being raise from the dead 3 days later. Is the very demonstration of what he said could be done with just a little faith.

We can't even agree on what death means NOW. I doubt the ancients had an EKG handy. Plus, John the Baptist was faithful and that didn't glue his head back on.

The Jews were being punished because they forsook their God

Jews lived in an area conquered about every other week. Syria owned the land more often than Jews did. It is a vital strategic location and that's why everyone wanted it.

I can tell by your responses that you have a disdain for the bible and Jesus.

I just don't like self-serving hypocrisy. If that was absent, I'd be more of a fan.

You are lost and dont know it.

I have a decent enough relationship with God. I don't need a book to tell me something when God can do it more directly.

Just like many people in the USA have Pancreatic cancer at this very moment but they are completely oblivious to it and will be dead in 3 months time.

And some theists are hypochondriacs, seeing illness where none except the mental instability to think of imagined sickness exists.

You like wise are oblivious to the truth the Bible gives to all who will receive it If you dont heed the warnings, you too will discover one day that you have a terminally ill disease ( Sin) and will die an eternal death because you refused to accept Gods plan for your salvation.

The Bible isn't my God. God is my God.

 

[McBell]

There is a serious logical problem with theistic objective morality. Suppose one states that "God is good." There are only two possibilities implied by this statement. 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. Thus, God is not the arbiter of morals, rather, his actions are being evaluated as being moral based on a moral standard outside of him. If, on the other hand (and this is the only other possibility), the person stating "God is good" means that "moral goodness" is defined by God's actions, then God is an entirely amoral being. Since "Good" is defined by his actions, then by definition, everything he does must be good, and, therefore, he can do anything, and it will always be good, thus he has no choice between right and wrong, and, hence, he is amoral. In either of the two cases, we have a serious logical problem for theists who state that morality comes from God.

Seems it is illogical to use logic to argue for or against a being that is not bound by the logic with which you use

 

[blü 2]

I have given a lot of consideration to morality based largely on culture.

Whereas I think the evidence is pretty clear that our most basic moral tendencies are evolved traits of a gregarious species.

I guess you would describe it as cultural relativism. I'm inclined to believe that morality evolved in society independent of religion.

I can't see any alternative to that. For example, chimps and dolphins understand moral, or at least proper, behaviors, without having any religious concepts that we know of. This suggests that genus Homo was moral long before any evidence suggests religion.

It's original basis was the ability of people to have empathy for each other.

When last I looked we knew that some bird species had mirror neurons. Mirror neurons have been studied in macaques, and I find it very plausible they exist in chimps, dogs, and perhaps all social critters. Empathy seems to me to be one of the keys to social living, hence to the behaviors of all herd and pack animals.

But that would not be complete because a satisfactory principle of morality has to explain why moral principles also include non-human members of the moral community.

Why don't arguments from evolution work here?

 

[blü 2]

Except, I do not believe you. I think you are going to have to more clearly describe your issue with the statement.

What does 'moral fact' mean? What's an example illustrating that meaning?