The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@rwingett

Of course they're wrong, at least in my subjective opinion.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

@sonship said
@rwingett

Of course they're wrong, at least in my subjective opinion.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

What do you think?

@rwingett said
The society that most closely aligns with what I believe.

Do you believe your morals should be followed by others because they are right?

@dj2becker said
Do you believe your morals should be followed by others because they are right?

They should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.

We can keep going around in circles like this for as long as it amuses you.

@rwingett said
They should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.

We can keep going around in circles like this for as long as it amuses you.

If your morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?

@dj2becker said
If your morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?

My morals do not exist in a vacuum. There is broad agreement on most of them. It is only on a few narrow topics that there is really any disagreement at all. On those items, they should be followed by others because it is my firm belief that if they were, the outcomes would be beneficial to society.

@rwingett said
They should be followed by others because I think they are subjectively right. They cannot be objectively right, as there is no such thing.

We can keep going around in circles like this for as long as it amuses you.

If they are right and should be followed by everyone solely on the basis that you believe they are right, why wouldn't the beliefs of a rapist be right based solely on the basis that they believe them and be followed by everyone?

@dj2becker said
If they are right and should be followed by everyone solely on the basis that you believe they are right, why wouldn't the beliefs of a rapist be right based solely on the basis that they believe them and be followed by everyone?

If you can convince enough people that rape is right, then I guess your views will prevail. I doubt you'll succeed, though.

It should be kept in mind that for much of human history, crimes like murder and rape were considered wrong only if committed against the "in" group. If they were committed against people outside your group then it either overlooked or praised. I'm sure you could find many examples in the bible of that sort of thing.

@rwingett

What do you think?

What do I think?

I think that even though I don't well understand the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, it seems to be right. And the path you are going down demonstrates that to me again.

No ultimate transcendent standard of rightness leads to loss a weak basis for human ethics. It boils down to someone's personal taste. Not too strong. It is not a problem when an ultimate Governor of what OUGHT to be exists - like God.

It is puzzling why some moral ethicists don't realize the problem. Morality without God becomes like a ballet in outer space.

I have other thoughts, since you asked.
That's all the time I have now.

@sonship said
@rwingett

What do you think?

What do I think?

I think that even though I don't well understand the Moral Argument for the Existence of God, it seems to be right. And the path you are going down demonstrates that to me again.

No ultimate transcendent standard of rightness leads to loss a weak basis for human ethics. It boils down to someone's pers ...[text shortened]... ballet in outer space.

I have other thoughts, since you asked.
That's all the time I have now.

Let's be quite clear, I didn't ask.

Look at the huge number of moral systems mankind has had throughout his history. Cannibalism has been accepted and condemned. Slavery, human sacrifice, the killing of opponents, vast inequalities in wealth, torture, and a host of other things that we now view as "bad" have been either been tolerated or encouraged. We are foundering around as best we can, without guidance, in conditions that are specific to different eras. There are no doubt a host of issues we now accept that future generations will look back upon and shake their heads in disbelief that we would willingly accept such barbarisms. I do not claim to "know" whether or not there is a god, but the universe behaves exactly as you would expect if there were none.

@dj2becker said
which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?

You may as well ask "which football fans support the correct team?"

@sonship said
Morality without God becomes like a ballet in outer space.

Assuming "a ballet in outer space", is a bad thing, then, I welcome you being preoccupied with a god or gods - if it means you will end up conducting yourself in a morally sound way.

@dj2becker said
The moral argument for the existence of God is the argument that God is necessary for objective moral values or duties to exist. Since objective moral values and duties do exist, God must also exist. The argument is not claiming that people who don't believe in God cannot do kind things or that atheists are generally morally worse people that religious people are. The argum ...[text shortened]... a real standard of good does exist to make "doing good" possible.

https://carm.org/moral-argument

The premises and conclusion given are:

1. For an objective moral standard to exist, God must exist.
2. An objective moral standard does exist.
C. Therefore, God exists.

At the bottom, the article admits some pertinent weaknesses in the argument. "It also suffers from the fact that, while no rational ground for objective moral values and duties besides God has ever been thought of, that does not automatically mean that one does not exist that we have not yet discovered." (even here, how can he be so sure no one has ever conceived of an alternate source of objective morality? Humans have decent imaginations, and have been thinking hard about this stuff for thousands of years...)

That quote is essentially an admission that the atheist has grounds for rejecting premise 1.

The rest of the thread has plenty of reasons, most given by rwingett, for rejecting premise 2.

@rwingett said
My morals do not exist in a vacuum. There is broad agreement on most of them. It is only on a few narrow topics that there is really any disagreement at all. On those items, they should be followed by others because it is my firm belief that if they were, the outcomes would be beneficial to society.

If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?

@dj2becker said
If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?

Because I see no evidence that god exists. And since human morality obviously changes over time, we would have to conclude that your hypothetical god either has no influence on that morality, or that his own morality is likewise changeable.