The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@dj2becker said
Do you have a better argument for moral obligation than the existence of a righteous creator God figure (who not only sees everything we do in secret but also knows the deepest motives of the heart) to whom we should all give account for what we have done?

Do you have an explanation as to why atheists
adhere to the same (more r less) moral codes as theists?

Do you have an explanation as to why there are
disproportionately more theists in prisons than atheists?

@wolfgang59 said

Do you have an explanation as to why atheists adhere to the same (more r less) moral codes as theists?

God created us all with a conscience and a sense of right and wrong.
Romans 2:14 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.."

Do you have an explanation as to why there are
disproportionately more theists in prisons than atheists?

Non religious countries tend to have more liberal laws... (Assuming your claim is true, you have given me no reason to believe it is true)

@wolfgang59

Do you have an explanation as to why atheists
adhere to the same (more r less) moral codes as theists?

Same reason why both have working digestive systems or functioning circulatory systems or operating respiratory systems.


They both were created by the same designer.
And both have free wills to accept this or reject this.

Freedom of choice belongs to both, by design.

Do you have an explanation as to why there are
disproportionately more theists in prisons than atheists?

Assuming you have hard statistics, which I doubt, it could reflect that people turn to belief in God AFTER being incarcerated in large numbers.

Or assuming you have hard statistics, it could reflect many people came from homes of church goers, which really says little about their own beliefs.

While you on statistical matters then, how many humanitarian organizations have been founded to relieve human suffering of an initial atheistic philosophy verses an initial theististic philosophy ?

@sonship

It is ambiguous sometimes what the scope of that "community" is. It is not definite what constitutes the boundaries of the "community". Is is defined by the limits of the town? is it described as the limits of the state? Does the community always end at the shore line or the national boundary?

The "community" I am referring to would be members satisfying at least all the following: (a) they actually exist (b) they merit moral consideration based on the type of entities they are (c) their circumstances are within the influence of your moral dealings and activities. Yes, you are correct that there exists contention over the delimitation of such a community; one need to look no further than the subject of abortion or animal rights, as examples, to see that. I'm not sure how pointing out such contrariety of opinion is relevant.

Secondly the effect of one's doing as to consequences requires knowledge which is finite. Only God could know the ultimate ripples of effect my decisions would make in the largest sense. What impact my action may have on the fabric of the whole world and whole history would only be known by one transcendent over all the world and over history.

One does not need perfect and comprehensive knowledge of the consequences of one's moral activity in order to be able to reasonably identify those to whom one owes moral duties or obligations. And, surely, one does not need such perfect knowledge in order to provide counterexamples to your claim that all such duties are owed to God.

So the moral duties you relate, I agree, have practical application. We could live by such realizations in society. But with these limitations some justice will not be meted out. And if you want to admit that some people will just get away with some things and others will not be rewarded for some things. I suppose that system works somewhat….But I think that leads to a limited moral obligations in which many actions will escape the justice due them because they slipped through the cracks of human limited awareness. Society will miss many things. Society will make mistakes because of human error. And how wide is the scope of "society" anyway?

Yes, news flash: social systems of justice in the real world are imperfect. By and large, we do the best we can under limited resources and knowledge. But there are some who intentionally subvert the system; and there are other instances where things fall through the cracks despite good intentions, as well as other systemic failings. The imperfection of human social systems is a rather trivial observation. Nothing of interest with respect to the moral argument for God follows from it. It lends precisely zero weight toward either substantive premise. When you try to imply otherwise, you are inferentially challenged.

If you know of some definite rebuttals after the fact towards quotations of Moreland or Craig, I'll look at them.
I'd rather do it that way because I don't recall precise details of my quoting either one of them.

You could revisit the later stages of our exchange here: Thread 158249.

It may not have to do with one's belief in God.
But it does have to do with HOW did this sense get into the person?

No, this is another mistake on your part. The etiological particulars of our moral faculty are not relevant to the legitimacy of those reasons that we evaluate when we employ it. Regardless of how our moral faculties came about, it is a further question regarding the legitimacy of the types of considerations we process through them. (FYI, irrelevant though it is, our moral faculties came about through evolutionary processes under various selection pressures – the same as every other one of our faculties).

That grounding morality in God is "garbage" does nothing for me to establish your view as more legitimate.

And if you have a system of VALUE so that some concepts are morally worthless - garbage, I think it presupposes human dignity. But what basis is there for that exalted view of human worth if a cockroach is just as good as a human being in your atheistic scheme?

I don't have an "atheistic scheme" according to which "a cockroach is just as good as a human being". So your question is predicated on a false antecedent. You might want to actually study some secular ethics; it would help dissolve your caricature-laden understanding of atheistic morality. This is a complete, utter failure of other-perspective-taking on your part. You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically share human concerns irrespective of theism/atheism dividing lines.

My comment about "post-hoc garbage" was in reference to KJ’s theoretical commitments regarding human value. It is something I have already discussed in some detail with the "schizophrenia" that occurs between present-moment practice and post-hoc theory: Thread 173001.

I said human dignity is derived from the fact that we are made in the image of God. That's who you are trying to deny yet stealing from a God acknowledgment world view to hold on to human dignity.

You have presented no actual argument for the idea that one can consistently hold to human dignity only if he holds to a God acknowledgement. That relates to one of the substantive premises of the moral argument that no one has actually bothered to demonstrate.

Your caricature of God is coming across. I see nothing more than your sense of ungrateful resentment of God being an authority.

No, your caricature of atheism is coming across. I do not have a "sense of ungrateful resentment of God being an authority" because I do not even think the concept 'God' has an actual referent! That is simply definitional to atheism.

But the presence of a conscience is what I deal with at the moment, and HOW it arrived to exist in men whether they be thiests or not.

I'm not sure why you continually belabor this point. It has nothing to do with the moral argument for God's existence! At any rate, we already discussed this several times in past threads. The hypothesis that God exists is completely unnecessary (and, frankly, ontologically profligate) to explain something like the origins of human moral faculty, conscience, etc.

Interesting. The feverish passion seemed to be coming from your side to announce to the world that it is "garbage" to believe in a Creator as a source of dignity, who in turn bestowed it upon man.

I thought the feverish passion was displayed by your retorts of "childishness" and "garbage" in the presence of an inadequate grounding for ultimate moral goodness.

Obviously, you are having some trouble reading, since that is an atrocious redescription of what I wrote. Feel free to go back and re-read.

Well let's ask you this. If great maturity and final utmost development of morality was ever expressed in a person who lived on this earth, to whom would you say most clearly manifested that kind of unchildish HIGH moral sense ?

Any names as you review the contributions of the life and words of those who have lived on earth since man existed ?

I think to that person we should consider his or her views on the matter of ultimate standards of goodness and accountability.

So what person in history do you think is most authoritative and mature in that arena ?

All utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t have to appeal to any historic authority figures in order to orient my ethical commitments. Luckily, I have cleansed my thinking of such nonsense. That’s a deep notional misunderstanding that affects your position, not mine.

@dj2becker said
Do you have a better argument for moral obligation than the existence of a righteous creator God figure (who not only sees everything we do in secret but also knows the deepest motives of the heart) to whom we should all give account for what we have done?

Of course. Is that supposed to be a challenge?!? That's like asking if I have a better argument for lightning bolts than the existence of Zeus.

@lemonjello said
@sonship

You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically share human concerns irrespective of theism/atheism dividing lines.

Lemonjello to sonship: You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically share human concerns irrespective of theism/atheism dividing lines.

There it is in a nutshell. And it's fascinating. When cornered in a discussion by a non-believer, one of the old chestnuts sonship often whips out is the assertion that the disagreement with his perspective is caused by the non-believer's anger at "Jesus" and a fear of [sonship's] god figure and general rebellion against something the non-believer supposedly knows deep down is "true" about the things sonship holds to be true.

In other words, non-believers are reframed as de facto believers who feign a lack of belief and forever wallowing in their own disingenuousness and pique.

So, underneath sonship's inability to take up an honest view of atheism - even under a hypothetical posit - perhaps, is an inability to actually believe that there are real atheists ~ instead, there are just rebels willfully and dishonestly denying the "truth" of all sonship's assertions.

And it's worth noting that when you are not around [which seems to happen for periods of time, from time to time], sonship likes to boast about how he runs rings around you when you are here ~ something he then is decidedly unable to demonstrate on the threads where the two of you engage each other.

A couple of months ago, he claimed that in a discussion earlier this year, he had demonstrated that you had been unable to differentiate between a cockroach and a human being, morally speaking ~ because of your atheism ~ and that he had run rings around you blah blah blah. Fascinating.

@lemonjello said
Of course. Is that supposed to be a challenge?!? That's like asking if I have a better argument for lightning bolts than the existence of Zeus.

Seems you only have a strawman there. You seem quite hesitant to make it.

@sonship said
@wolfgang59

Do you have an explanation as to why atheists
adhere to the same (more r less) moral codes as theists?

Same reason why both have working digestive systems or functioning circulatory systems or operating respiratory systems.

So being a theist is not a prerequisite for being moral?

@wolfgang59 said
So being a theist is not a prerequisite for being moral?

I read that you believe morality is entirely subjective. Is that correct?

If so, then do you believe the theory of evolution is derived at by purely subjective analysis, or do you believe that science observes the natural world by means of an objective standard of scientific inquiry?

My point is if science observes the natural world objectively, then why can't morality be observed according to an objective standard of right and wrong?

@lemonjello said
I don’t have to appeal to any historic authority figures in order to orient my ethical commitments. Luckily, I have cleansed my thinking of such nonsense. That’s a deep notional misunderstanding that affects your position, not mine.

Then to what do you appeal in order to orient your moral/ethical commitments?

"Luckily, I have cleansed my thinking..."

How did you get so lucky? There's just something disingenuous about that statement. I read a few of your posts above and noticed you use a lot of high sounding language in order to perform the mental gymnastics necessary for justifying the cleansing of your thinking of any notions of a 3-O creator. It's as if you're in competition with it.

No doubt you'll have objections to the above, but why don't you simply say you don't believe there's a creator God and leave it at that?

Cleans you thinking all you want, but you'll never prove, even to yourself, there is no God.

If you did, you wouldn't be here posting.

@fmf said
Lemonjello to sonship: [b]You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically ...[text shortened]... eaking ~ because of your atheism ~ and that he had run rings around you blah blah blah. Fascinating.

Seems you have found an intellectual equal with which to align yourself in order to lambaste your chosen whipping-boy.

@dj2becker said
Do you have an explanation as to why atheists adhere to the same (more r less) moral codes as theists?

God created us all with a conscience and a sense of right and wrong.
Romans 2:14 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the w ...[text shortened]... ore liberal laws... (Assuming your claim is true, you have given me no reason to believe it is true)

The first part is clearly right but I also like to think of it as atheists never really overcoming their culture.

Perhaps the average atheist IQ is slightly higher than the average theist IQ, but we are talking about something like 100 to 105.

The average atheist has about enough intelligence to be overly cynical and infected with the second option bias, but it is also clear that he doesn't really have the brainpower to actively try to transcend his culture.

So, the atheist just borrows his whole Christian culture and throws out Christ.

Perhaps an even more interesting argument that would ot go over well with liberal Catholics or Protestants here... The enlightenment culture, and the protestant culture, was already atheism 0.5. To doubt the presence of Christ in the communion, to doubt the metaphysics of the church and the divine hand of Christ upon the Priests and Bishops, and to even doubt him to some degree in his actions of setting up Kings over us -- this is all the beginnings of atheism.

So as it stands the culture of America and Europe is fundamentally an atheist one at its core, and so it easily melds with the athesit thinkers today, while the Christian must actually rebel against it.

@fmf said
Lemonjello to sonship: [b]You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically ...[text shortened]... eaking ~ because of your atheism ~ and that he had run rings around you blah blah blah. Fascinating.

This is actually a really interesting time to pop the question.

What is at the bedrock of your beliefs, then?

He says that Christianity is basically what is there, and a western value system has to be underpinned by God, yada yada yada, You know the drill.

But how about you give us the big reveal and show us what is under the hood!

@secondson said
I read that you believe morality is entirely subjective. Is that correct?

If so, then do you believe the theory of evolution is derived at by purely subjective analysis, or do you believe that science observes the natural world by means of an objective standard of scientific inquiry?

My point is if science observes the natural world objectively, then why can't morality be observed according to an objective standard of right and wrong?

Morality is man made. The standard of right and wrong, therefore, may vary from culture to culture. (Though usually there is shared morality on significant issues, such as murder).

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Morality is man made. The standard of right and wrong, therefore, may vary from culture to culture. (Though usually there is shared morality on significant issues, such as murder).

Some cultures love their enemies and other cultures eat their enemies. Do you have a personal preference?