The Moral Argument for God's Existence

I would like to throw in my two cents about what I understand to be the Moral Argument for God's existence. I didn't read the article at CARM.

In terms of what it is NOT.

1.) It is not an argument that all God believing people are good.
2.) It is not an argument that one has to believe in God to be good.
3.) It is not an argument that an Atheist cannot do good things.
4.) Sometimes overlooked IMO, it is neither an argument that man can produce a perfect written code of conduct.

5.) It is not an argument that some ethical situations are not very difficult to solve, or that all moral situations are EASY to figure out.

It is an argument that without God there is no objective good or evil.

Am I right about the argument ?

@sonship said
I would like to throw in my two cents about what I understand to be the Moral Argument for God's existence. I didn't read the article at CARM.

In terms of what it is NOT.

1.) It is not an argument that all God believing people are good.
2.) It is not an argument that one has to believe in God to be good.
3.) It is not an argument that an Atheist cannot do good thing ...[text shortened]... an argument that without God there is no objective good or evil.

Am I right about the argument ?

@sonship said
I would like to throw in my two cents about what I understand to be the Moral Argument for God's existence. I didn't read the article at CARM.

In terms of what it is NOT.

1.) It is not an argument that all God believing people are good.
2.) It is not an argument that one has to believe in God to be good.
3.) It is not an argument that an Atheist cannot do good thing ...[text shortened]... an argument that without God there is no objective good or evil.

Am I right about the argument ?

@kellyjay said
I only know I need a savior because of standard God gives. Just loving God with
all my heart I fall short, loving all others I fall short. If I'm the standard of right and
wrong there is no real short to worry about. If there is, then as soon as we come
in contact with truth we know we come up short, as Paul said it wasn't until the
Law was clear to him did he know he ca ...[text shortened]... s to ourselves is only looking
at one bad example suggesting it is better than another bad example.

@thinkofone said
If you didn't have poor reading comprehension skills, you might understand the argument. Set your pride aside and get the help you need KJ.

@sonship said
I would like to throw in my two cents about what I understand to be the Moral Argument for God's existence. I didn't read the article at CARM.

In terms of what it is NOT.

1.) It is not an argument that all God believing people are good.
2.) It is not an argument that one has to believe in God to be good.
3.) It is not an argument that an Atheist cannot do good thing ...[text shortened]... an argument that without God there is no objective good or evil.

Am I right about the argument ?

@ThinkOfOne

No.

It's an argument that God necessarily exists since there is objective good or evil.

As a side-effect, when people insist on making ill-considered arguments such as this, it ends up driving logical people further away from Christianity.

@sonship said
@ThinkOfOne

No.

It's an argument that God necessarily exists since there is objective good or evil.

I think that is about the same thing.

As a side-effect, when people insist on making ill-considered arguments such as this, it ends up driving logical people further away from Christianity.

First, I think I have the argument pr ...[text shortened]... om breaking the law of God is not an end in itself.

"How then shall we live?" remains a question.

@thinkofone said
I think that is about the same thing.

Actually it isn't. That you fail to understand the distinction speaks to a lack of critical thinking skills on your part.

Who gets turned of and who gets turned on the Christianity is not terribly relevant to the truth of the argument.

I didn't say it did. Did you not understand the meaning of the phrase "As a side-effect"?

@dj2becker said
Boring ad hominems is all you ever bring to the party.

The point you disingenuously continue to ignore is the fact that your interpretation of the Bible is VERY subjective. This is underscored by the fact that you are unable to provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible,

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

No objective standard for interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.

@thinkofone said
Yet somehow you continue to be unable formulate a logical refutation of the following:

The point you disingenuously continue to ignore is the fact that your interpretation of the Bible is VERY subjective. This is underscored by the fact that you are unable to provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible,

The Bible very widely open to interpreta ...[text shortened]... ard.

No objective standard for interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.

@thinkofone said
Yet somehow you continue to be unable formulate a logical refutation of the following:

The point you disingenuously continue to ignore is the fact that your interpretation of the Bible is VERY subjective. This is underscored by the fact that you are unable to provide an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible,

The Bible very widely open to interpreta ...[text shortened]... ard.

No objective standard for interpretation of the Bible. No objective moral standard.

@kellyjay said
Try the Holy Spirit!

@dj2becker said
Traditionally, atheists have acknowledged that God is a necessary condition of objective moral values (i.e. the sort of moral truths that are discovered rather than invented by humans and which are "valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not"

Most atheists also understand that the first premise of the moral argument is ontological rather than epistemologi ...[text shortened]... anding of the argument:

https://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god

@thinkofone said
Since you seem to need to have it spelled out for you:
You've been speaking of an objective moral standard for a very long time now as if the Bible gives you an objective moral standard that you can rely on. The fact is that it doesn't.

The point is that without objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, you have no objective moral standard available to you.