The moral argument for the existence of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

thedoc wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:16 am I would question the existence of "objective moral values" aren't all values subjective in that they are human in nature.
When it is universally accepted that something is right or wrong, that is an objective moral value placed upon that knowledge.
Values appear in you, they are sourced in you, and you is not 'human' ...you are the subject of knowingness to become known .
Subject being the I Am

You are the unknown knower subject of everything objectively known via the knowings made manifest appearing as conceptual knowledge. You are not the knowledge, you are the knower of knowledge.

If you were the knowledge you would have direct experience of what a human is, but human is just an idea, just like any concept. All you know is this immediate ''knowing presence'' via the senses. Senses that are the same tangible experiences present in every single sentient creature alike and yet are intangible even to it's own capacity to be tangible.
thedoc wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:16 am If you assert that is is immoral to torture and kill a child than you must also assert that it is immoral to torture and kill anyone, and to extend it further it is immoral to torture and kill anything. What did you eat for your meal, even if you are vegan you had to torture and kill something alive to survive. So it comes down to the question is it moral to survive?
If there is no God...then one cannot assert it is immoral to kill an innocent child. That it does appear to be a moral issue, evident in the human being's consciousness expressed through the body vehicle ...suggests there is a moral rational conscientious rational being existing as and through the human body...Notice though, that this rational moral conscientious mind is sourced in the human expression only - ??

As for killing and eating animals...How do you think the creator of everything in the universe is going to feed itself? ...notice how animals and plants can only feed off of other plants and animals, in other words, life feeds off of itself....but for human consciousness being made in the image of God...see here..https://www.openbible.info/topics/eating_animals

The creator of a physical universe being the absolute law maker, can ultimately decide how to run it's created universe as the ultimate custodian and author of it..it can also change those physical laws when ever it chooses to do so.....as we've already seen in cases such as spontaneous healing where a cancer tumor will completely disappear without medical intervention or explanation.

.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Londoner »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:51 am The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-argument.htm

In other words.....
You cannot be a moral person and at the same time say there is NO GOD....why?
In your link, Premise 2 is justified:

Most people want to uphold premise 2 of the moral argument....Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

If our sense of right and wrong really is intuitive, then the objectivity of moral values would rest on this - as a fact about humans. For example; It is an objective fact that humans all share value 'X' : That would be a fact in the same way as 'It is an objective fact that all humans have noses' is a fact...or any facts about animals, or plants, or rocks.

To put it another way, I might also observe that humans have an intuitive fear of snakes. I do not need to posit God must therefore exist, as the creator of 'a fear of snakes' which he must have placed inside the humans' minds.

So I'd say this isn't really a distinct argument for God. It is really just part of the 'why is there anything?' argument.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

Dontaskme wrote: Here's one>

To know that killing and torturing innocent children is Absolutely Wrong
One would have to presume God first in order to give evidence that there is an absolute immorality of this, and then you'd have to find a place in said word where this is forbidden. I don't recall there being one in the words you keep quoting, which are meaningless words without first presuming the conclusion you're trying to demonstrate. The bible does not forbid torture of children, but I might be mistaken. I don't think it explicitly forbids the killing of them either in any form specific to children, except in the places where God actually commands the killing of them, for the apparent offense of being in a place coveted

So how is that absolutely wrong? It isn't even a universal moral relative to humans let alone other things. Does it mean it is immoral to eat bean sprouts with my salad? Will the measles virus be held responsible for making my kid miserable for over a week? These would all be implications of your example being an absolute thing.

I notice the article linked had to reach for that same argument from emotion to bolster what was already completely fallacious. I had hoped it to be an unbiased discussion on the merits and flaws of the argument, but no, it concludes at the end: "the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God." I learned nothing.

An argument that completely edits out the opposing viewpoint is not an argument at all.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:45 am [
Not really superfluous , when you consider the word ''MORAL'' could not have been known without the word.
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.

This Bishop tells us how your religion invented that foolish and meaningless concept. Start at 17 min.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMtA1N3_eQ

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote:
Here's one>

To know that killing and torturing innocent children is Absolutely Wrong.

--------------------------------

I see a lack of imagination in the above. I think I can refute this with this following scenario.

First, let me say that Yahweh, in the story of King David did exactly what you say is wrong. Have you analysed that story and are you saying that God himself is a murderer. I agree if you do.

In the King David story, it is a baby being tortured and murdered and that is slightly different from children which makes your claim easier for me to refute.

Imagine that you are a law enforcer and arrest a man and his child who know where a nuclear device is planted that will kill many and you only have a short time to save the many victims.

You have a choice. Wait for the bomb to blow while doing nothing, or try to torture the information out of the man and child.

I don't know about you, but in my hands, both the father and child would be subjected to torture so as I might gain the location of that bomb so that I might save the many.

I would recognize what I did as quite heinous and turn myself in to the authorities, but I think a court would find me innocent due to the circumstances described.

The needs of the many, in this case life, outweighs the needs of life of the two murderers who would not, or perhaps did, disclose where their bomb was.

What would be your verdict in such a case?

Mine would be justifiable torture and homicide.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Noax wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 1:02 pm

So how is that absolutely wrong? It isn't even a universal moral relative to humans let alone other things. Does it mean it is immoral to eat bean sprouts with my salad? Will the measles virus be held responsible for making my kid miserable for over a week? These would all be implications of your example being an absolute thing.
A conscientious rational moral mind would not choose to murder or torture a child. There is a conscience there. That conscience comes from a rational absolute moral being. If that being did not exist, then every action would simply be relative, which means the opposite is also true...in that it would not be wrong to slaughter innocent children, rather it would be totally acceptable to do so with no guilty conscience toward that action. If you are taking the position of commanding a right or wrong action , then the acceptance of an opposing view would have to be true. For example: a certain action that is wrong for one persons world view, would according to some other persons world view be totally acceptable. This is not the design of an intelligent being. Humans cannot live that way. There is a conscience there, evidence of an absolute rational moral mind.

An argument that completely edits out the opposing viewpoint is not an argument at all.
As you can see, I have included both sides of the argument now. If there is no God, then everything is relative, it is not morally wrong to murder innocent children.

If there is no absolute law giver, but rather everything has come about by pure accident, and life has no real purpose, direction or meaning, and nothing ultimately matters as we're all just heading for the fertilizer pit anyway...then what purpose for a conscience at all?

But clearly, that is not the case, I see evidence of a very clear conscientious consciousness.


.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Noax »

Dontaskme wrote:As you can see, I have included both sides of the argument now. If there is no God, then everything is relative, it is not morally wrong to murder innocent children.
How very robust.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:23 pm
What would be your verdict in such a case?

Mine would be justifiable torture and homicide.

Regards
DL
My verdict would be to say certain sacrifices have to be made for the good of the whole, and I do not know why the whole chooses to act in certain ways, just that it does. We could say that God murdered his only Son by leaving him to die, but that sacrifice had to occur to prove that God is not a destroyer, and cannot be destroyed. As depicted in the resurrection. Clearly, God is a conscientious rational being, a creator. As a rational being one would make the right sacrifice according to it's moral compass...which is what Jesus made when he gave his life to save us, so we in turn must give up our temporal life to live as one with God for all eternity...else the opposite would be to turn away and live in darkness. When we know who we are truly, there will be no room for sin or evil to exist.

.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:26 pm
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:23 pm
What would be your verdict in such a case?

Mine would be justifiable torture and homicide.

Regards
DL
My verdict would be to say certain sacrifices have to be made for the good of the whole, and I do not know why the whole chooses to act in certain ways, just that it does. We could say that God murdered his only Son by leaving him to die, but that sacrifice had to occur to prove that God is not a destroyer, and cannot be destroyed. As depicted in the resurrection. Clearly, God is a conscientious rational being, a creator. As a rational being one would make the right sacrifice according to it's moral compass...which is what Jesus made when he gave his life to save us, so we in turn must give up our temporal life to live as one with God for all eternity...else the opposite would be to turn away and live in darkness. When we know who we are truly, there will be no room for sin or evil to exist.

.
Wow. What a cop out. I was talking of humans and you deflected to God's unnecessary crime against his own son.

"My verdict would be to say certain sacrifices have to be made for the good of the whole,"

That is not a verdict which would be guilty or not guilty, so why cop out again?

Who are you to say that many should be sacrificed so that one terrorist and his accomplish child should live?

I note that you ignored my question as to what your verdict would be.

Get on the jury and show your morals my friend.

As to Jesus and his unnecessary sacrifice, I am happy to debate that with you and thus I begin with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9g ... gest-vrecs

The bottom line is that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Can you refute that statement?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:41 pm
Wow. What a cop out. I was talking of humans
And I'm talking about consciousness, not some guy on the ground wearing a spacesuit.

"My verdict would be to say certain sacrifices have to be made for the good of the whole,"
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:41 pm That is not a verdict which would be guilty or not guilty, so why cop out again?

Who are you to say that many should be sacrificed so that one terrorist and his accomplish child should live?

No, I'm saying the child should be sacrificed to save the many, I used the Jesus story to make the point.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:04 pm
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:41 pm
Wow. What a cop out. I was talking of humans
And I'm talking about consciousness, not some guy on the ground wearing a spacesuit.

"My verdict would be to say certain sacrifices have to be made for the good of the whole,"
Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 4:41 pm That is not a verdict which would be guilty or not guilty, so why cop out again?

Who are you to say that many should be sacrificed so that one terrorist and his accomplish child should live?

No, I'm saying the child should be sacrificed to save the many, I used the Jesus story to make the point.
Jesus did not die or he would have stayed dead.

Your wording fooled me but it seems we agree and would find me not guilty of murdering those two. Why didn't you say so?

Now do you care to analyse if God was justified in torturing and killing an innocent baby because of anger at his father, King David.

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

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?

Regards
DL
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Science Fan »

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. Or, a God could exist, and still not be a source of objective morality. We would merely add God's moral opinions to the rest of our moral opinions, and there is no reason to give God's opinion any greater weight than anyone else's opinion on morality. Or, God could exist, and not care about morality at all.

The second premise is not false, as some people claim --- it is rather unknown. No one has ever established morality to either be subjective or objective. Moreover, the first premise also assumes an unknown --- the existence of a God.

Therefore, the conclusion is not supported by established, true premises, and even if they were true, the premises still would not logically support the conclusion.
User avatar
Greatest I am
Posts: 2964
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 5:09 pm

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Greatest I am »

Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:20 am 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. Or, a God could exist, and still not be a source of objective morality. We would merely add God's moral opinions to the rest of our moral opinions, and there is no reason to give God's opinion any greater weight than anyone else's opinion on morality. Or, God could exist, and not care about morality at all.

The second premise is not false, as some people claim --- it is rather unknown. No one has ever established morality to either be subjective or objective. Moreover, the first premise also assumes an unknown --- the existence of a God.

Therefore, the conclusion is not supported by established, true premises, and even if they were true, the premises still would not logically support the conclusion.
"it may be possible to establish objective morality"

I do not think so but am open to debate on whatever you offer as an objective moral tenant for us to examine.

An objective moral tenant would be irrefutable and always the right way to go. Right?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:37 pm
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.


Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:37 pmI 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?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The moral argument for the existence of God

Post by Dontaskme »

Greatest I am wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2017 2:09 pm
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. God can know himself as the imageless image maker. The causeless causer...Evidently appearing in the form of every image in spacetime cause and effect duality.

Words have built the story of the human world, even though words in and of themselves are meaningless. And yet meaning exists, it is put there by you yourself. It's a process operating as and through you. And behind that process is an intelligent rational moral conscientious mind..aka God...
God is with you intimately throughout eternity. You being the handmaiden of God...so to speak, but not in the way you have been conditioned to believe. God is not and never superior to you, because without you there is no God. You are a very important aspect of God's plan.

Life is a miracle, only GOD can make life. Man didn't make life. The story of the human experience is manifesting as and through the human body mind mechanism, it is a process that cannot be denied my man or stopped by man, man can't even make an ant. But something did make life, and to deny that something is foolish. And does it matter what we call that something, does it matter that we call it God or what ever we want to call it?

Meanings where no meaning exists are put there by a rational conscientious living mind...otherwise the possibility of words appearing as meaning would never have existed...The word MOTHER OR FATHER are put there in exactly the same process as the word God.

I don't see people denying their mother and father's existence, and yet these things are just ideas put into words. In truth, No one has ever seen a mother or a father, these things are known concepts only ... believed to exist literally for real..and that's just one part of God's plan..

The only real thing here in reality apart from the human story made of words, is the eternal knower or the witness of the story made by words....it's a divine paradox...in that the story keeps on changing, but the story teller, witness and knower never changes.

.

.
Post Reply