The moral argument for the existence of God

[Dontaskme]

The first premise is false. Even without a God, it may be possible to establish objective morality; one would merely need to establish objective morals without any reference to a God.

Morals cannot exist without an absolute moral law giver. That law maker is God. If there is no God, then there are no laws, no rules to life, everything is relative subject to one's own personal world view that is always subject to change at anytime through the whim of a personal emotional desire. So to say there is no God is to say everything is just relative which means nothing is either wrong or right, good or bad, moral or immoral...However, when we add God into the equation, God being your higher conscience, evil would be considered ABSOLUTELY wrong. Because God is Love clearly by the fact that reality exists at all. Life is ultimately pure joy, love and beauty - anyone who fails to recognise that must be blind deaf and dumb.

So if there is no God then the ''human person'' is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals that have magically appeared out of total nothingness....even though life cannot possibly come from non-life...And so, if there is no absolute moral law giver... life has no meaning or purpose, we can so easily adopt an attitude that it is okay for a person to choose to be evil, simply because life is nothing, and death is all there is to look forward to, so I can basically do what ever I want ...nothing really matters anyway, it's my life, and I'm going to live it my way.

If we believed this to be true, then that would be our lot, people would invent their own personal world views...but then someone with an evil world view would not be compatible with the person whose world view is goodness, and if everything is just relative, then it would not matter which view you hold, it would be no one else's business denying you your world view because they would be just the in flavour of a particular desire.
If one person chooses to hold the position of saying something is morally wrong, then so too must the opposite be true in that someone else can disagree and say it's not morally wrong. As you can imagine,this is not the work of a rational conscientious moral mind.Humans beings simply cannot and do not in general live by that rule. That's because humans are in essence rational moral conscientious beings, made in the image of the moral law giver...they are unique expressions of the mind of God.

There is only One God operating through life. The other aspect of this One God is the body vehicle it chooses to express itself through, those bodies appear as the many... although it seems there are many bodies ..there is only One God in each of those bodies, it's the same One God in every body.

.

[Harbal]

Morals cannot exist without an absolute moral law giver.

Of course they can. We all have our own, individual set of morals, if they came from one "law giver" we would all have the same morals.

If there is no God, then there are no laws, no rules to life,

The laws and rules come from us, we make our own up.

everything is relative subject to one's own personal world view that is always subject to change at anytime through the whim of a personal emotional desire. So to say there is no God is to say everything is just relative which means nothing is either wrong or right, good or bad, moral or immoral...

And this is exactly the case so you've just undermined your own silly argument.

So if there is no God then the ''human person'' is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals that have magically appeared out of total nothingness....even though life cannot possibly come from non-life...

We are just a bunch of chemicals and it appears that life can, indeed, come from non-life, or do you possess proof that no one else is aware of?

And so, if there is no absolute moral law giver... life has no meaning or purpose,

Except the meaning and purpose you give it yourself.

If we believed this to be true, then that would be our lot, people would invent their own personal world views...but then someone with an evil world view would not be compatible with the person whose world view is goodness,

This is exactly how it is, you numb skull. You are putting forward an argument and then illustrating why your argument is a load of rubbish.

If one person chooses to hold the position of saying something is morally wrong, then so too must the opposite be true in that someone else can disagree and say it's not morally wrong. As you can imagine,this is not the work of a rational conscientious moral mind.Humans beings simply cannot and do not in general live by that rule.

Are you really as dumb as you seem to be?

One God in each of those bodies, it's the same One God in every body.

So why do we all behave in different ways then?

[attofishpi]

If we believed this to be true, then that would be our lot, people would invent their own personal world views...but then someone with an evil world view would not be compatible with the person whose world view is goodness,

This is exactly how it is, you numb skull. You are putting forward an argument and then illustrating why your argument is a load of rubbish.

Naaaw! Two Yorkshire puddings nocking skulls.

[Dontaskme]

One God in each of those bodies, it's the same One God in every body.

So why do we all behave in different ways then?

You are taking my discussion out of context like you always do. You do not appear to understand or have any tolerance of other peoples literally styles of discussion, or the way they put their ideas into words. You do not read any of my writings, neither do you listen.
But I'll reply to you anyway because I feel that your need to understand God is obvious since you are here once again on my thread.

People behave in different ways because that's what they were created to do, otherwise you'd have a pretty weird kind of reality if we were all identical robots.



The reason we all behave in different ways is because the creator doesn't make copies.

There is only one creator, but it's creations are many.

The whole of creation is dependant upon the same one sustenance - alternatively known as energy. Everything is basically one energy at play.

That there appears to be difference is a well established illusion created by the one creator itself.

I'm sorry you have a hard time understanding this Harbal.

If you want to look at the context I am trying to put this discussion into then take a look at these illustrations to give you some idea of what's being pointed to.

The reason we behave different is because nature doesn't make copies.

God is a metaphor ... to illustrate what I mean, I will use the concept of snow and sand...

Snow will always be snow, but each flake is different and unique, while the stuff that makes the flake is same.




Same idea applies to sand, sand will always be sand, but each grain is different and unique, while the stuff that makes the grain is same.

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/magnifi ... 1394180703

In other words, things are not what they seem to be, nor are they otherwise.

[Harbal]

Naaaw! Two Yorkshire puddings nocking skulls.

I don't understand why you would resort to posting gratuitous insults when you're not much good at it.

[thedoc]

Naaaw! Two Yorkshire puddings nocking skulls.

I don't understand why you would resort to posting gratuitous insults when you're not much good at it.

Attofishpi certainly doesn't need to post an insult to you.

[Harbal]

Attofishpi certainly doesn't need to post an insult to you.

Thank you for your valuable input, doc.

[Science Fan]

Anyone who claims that morality cannot exist without god is making a false claim, factually. It's certainly true that morality can exist without religion, and the two are not the same. We know this for a fact historically, especially since we see moral systems in place in our closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, even to the point where shame and guilt are displayed, along with alpha males and alpha females being sanctioned for violating group norms, showing that there really is a distinction being made among bonobos and chimps between what "is" and what "ought to be," which is a real moral system. Chimps and bonobos, however, are not members of any religious congregations, and there is no reason to believe that our ancestors from millions of years ago would not have displayed similar moral systems.

Moreover, we know how the human brain is structured and develops that morality precedes religion ---- in fact, no religion could establish any moral claim if this was not the case. If the human brain was not wired for morality, how could anyone accept any moral claim? One couldn't. It would be impossible.

Finally, any moral claim has to be moral independently of any alleged god. If a claim is only moral because a god says it is then all we would have is might makes right, which is itself an immoral position to take. For any god to be moral, it would have to adhere to moral principles. Therefore, whether we are speaking of our human history, neurobiology, or metaphysics, we know that morality is independent of any alleged god, and any specific religion.

When theists claim that morality is dependent on god, what they are really saying is that atheists are scum, which is an immoral position for theists to take. This literally makes their claim self-refuting, but, the irony is lost on them.

[Harbal]

When theists claim that morality is dependent on god, what they are really saying is that atheists are scum,

When atheists make sweeping statements, such as this, what they are really saying is that they want to create conflict between the two sets of ists.

[Dontaskme]

Moreover, we know how the human brain is structured and develops that morality precedes religion ---- in fact, no religion could establish any moral claim if this was not the case. If the human brain was not wired for morality, how could anyone accept any moral claim? One couldn't. It would be impossible.

Morality is an absolute law of nature. Else life would be totally and utterly chaotic where only pandemonium would ensue. That is not the design of an intelligence moral rational CREATOR MIND...why would an intelligent creator mind want to create such chaos? I personally don't see chaos or pandemonium in nature..Rather, I see perfect order and design everywhere.

Man cannot wire his brain for morality, no more than he can wire his brain to experience pleasure only and never pain. Where does morality come from?

And please quit the ridiculous them verses us / believers are angels verses non-believers are scum mentality. This is not helpful to the discussion. People are free to believe what the heck they want to believe, people can live quite harmonious and compassionate lives without the belief in a God. They just know that's the right way to live.


Now all you have to do is answer accurately... where does morality come from? we know the reason why morality exists, but do you know exactly where it comes from?

[Greatest I am]

It is already demonstrable that God having Jesus murdered is not justifiable as he could have just forgiven us outright.

God is not a sinner, or a liar...he's just and fair, so much so that he personally absorbed through his son, himself in the flesh, all the sins of the world so that they may be forgiven for their sins. God offered forgiveness to man. It was up to man to do the forgiving, not God.
Death are the wages of sin, which was clearly demonstrated in the sacrifice, a sacrifice necessary to teach us how to love and forgive each other. So basically, if you sin you pay the consequences which is death, but if you follow the will of the sinless one,who does not lie to you, and live by those characteristics then you are forgiving yourself for your transgressions. God offers you the choice to be with him in heaven because he wants to spend eternity with you, because he loves you..or you are free to turn away and walk your own path without him. God does not force you to do anything you don't want to do.

I say that it was not justified because I answered this following question which I pose to you.

Who is more likely to demand and accept the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty? Satan or Yahweh?

Answer my last question and then I will look at why you adore a genocidal son murdering p****.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The word is nature. That is our teacher and not some guy in the sky.

Nature is what man reads to know what he is and is the first thing we tried to understand.

Your Word, is meaningless as to call a God a word is not too bright. It becomes a meaningless term.

No one has ever seen God's face to make a judgement call on who or what or why he is. Only God himself can make that call.

I will agree with you here, but you might have noted that your guy in the sky is not popping up to tell us if he is moral or not.

Do you think genocide is a moral practice?

If not, why do you adore a p**** of a God that uses it?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

When theists claim that morality is dependent on god, what they are really saying is that atheists are scum,

When atheists make sweeping statements, such as this, what they are really saying is that they want to create conflict between the two sets of ists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDbiqlhAirE

All religions and political entities are bound to conflict as they all see things differently. The link above goes further into this.

Note how fractured the various religions are even as they all read the same holy books. There are more denominations to Christianity and Islam than you can shake a stick at.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Moreover, we know how the human brain is structured and develops that morality precedes religion ---- in fact, no religion could establish any moral claim if this was not the case. If the human brain was not wired for morality, how could anyone accept any moral claim? One couldn't. It would be impossible.

Morality is an absolute law of nature.

I will agree with this, when it applies to sentient life.

Have a look at this link and tell us what religion the babies in this link are following when they have no idea of what a God is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIc-4h9RIvY

Regards
DL

[Science Fan]

Prove that morality is an absolute law of nature. That's absurd.