The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@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 Abrahamic believers are certain that the belief in the existence of a singular god means that their god is THAT one. They are deluded.
The Abrahamic religions are manmade.
Their god was nowhere to be found for over 4 billion years. Their god didn't even exist 6000 years ago. Then they claim he showed up 2000 years ago and disappeared, never to appear again.
Morality has nothing to do with any god, it is a purely a human belief. Associating morality with any singular god divides humanity, not unites it.

@caissad4 said
The Abrahamic believers are certain that the belief in the existence of a singular god means that their god is THAT one. They are deluded.
The Abrahamic religions are manmade.
Their god was nowhere to be found for over 4 billion years. Their god didn't even exist 6000 years ago. Then they claim he showed up 2000 years ago and disappeared, never to appear again.
Morality h ...[text shortened]... a purely a human belief. Associating morality with any singular god divides humanity, not unites it.

When you say they are deluded you mean to say you have the truth? Why don’t you share the truth with us and enlighten us all? I have a suspicion you are just as delusional as the next person.

@caissad4 said
The Abrahamic believers are certain that the belief in the existence of a singular god means that their god is THAT one. They are deluded.
The Abrahamic religions are manmade.
Their god was nowhere to be found for over 4 billion years. Their god didn't even exist 6000 years ago. Then they claim he showed up 2000 years ago and disappeared, never to appear again.
Morality h ...[text shortened]... a purely a human belief. Associating morality with any singular god divides humanity, not unites it.

Morality is a human construct, I completely agree.

@dj2becker said
When you say they are deluded you mean to say you have the truth? Why don’t you share the truth with us and enlighten us all? I have a suspicion you are just as delusional as the next person.

I certainly do not know the ultimate truth and never would claim to.
But I can identify delusion or an outright lie.

@sonship said
The way you frame the question implies that Christ's redemption is not a part of what God would do in the matter of an accounting for every sin.

The redemption of Christ is a part of God's dealing with actual guilt because of actual wrong doing because of actual true moral OUGHTS about life.

My point was that God knows when the sinning doctor assumed no one else knew. ...[text shortened]... ience of God is related to the reality of a transcendent universal morality and ultimate obligation.

Well, if you need to convince yourself of all this ~ and this makes you able to both condemn the medical doctor's raping of the patient AND see that he is "forgiven" for it as a kind of 'reward' for his subscription to a particular religious ideology [which, as it happens, you subscribe to] ~ BUT it stops you - and likeminded people - from raping unconscious patients ~ then I welcome its effect on you. It's still subjective; it's still part of the 'nurture' process that has had a bearing upon you; and it's still a very convoluted idea based on beliefs in supernatural phenomena/beings that you cannot expect everyone to sign-on to. It therefore is not "The Moral Argument for God's Existence'; it is merely a statement of how you came to believe that a medical doctor raping a patient is morally wrong.

@divegeester said
Morality is a human construct, I completely agree.

What about good and evil?

@caissad4 said
I certainly do not know the ultimate truth and never would claim to.
But I can identify delusion or an outright lie.

If you don't know what the ultimate truth is, how do you know that you are not the one who is delusional?

@dj2becker said
What about good and evil?

What about them?

@divegeester said
What about them?

Human constructs as well?

@FMF

It therefore is not "The Moral Argument for God's Existence'; it is merely a statement of how you came to believe that a medical doctor raping a patient is morally wrong.

I don't see it that way.

It is a statement that your atheism has no basis of an ultimate right judgment on what ought and ought not be done.

That you love your wrongdoing and prefer to have no ultimate accountability is understandable. You wish yourself to be the ultimate authority in the universe.

You pushed may example in the direction of redemption of sins.
That a final judge to whom final accountability is due, has also a plan of redemption which is just, is my Christian faith. With that I concur - forgiveness can be obtained righteously is the Gospel message.

But minus that part about forgiveness, which you really introduced with your question, I think as long as there is no knowledge and no accounting it is futile to talk about real wrong doing. There is no ruler against which to measure straight from crooked.

If there is no ultimate accountability, there is no straight ruler against which crooked line can be compared. Maybe others do not frame the argument exactly as I have here. But I think if there is no justice there is no real moral law.
It is not just ineffectual. It is not existing.

Out of one side of your mouth here you talk a lot about moral wrongs (ie. of religious people). But from the other side you really argue for an essentially free-for-all anarchy at heart.

With you the medical doctor got away because with some acts secrecy means justice is avoided. If there is no ultimate justice then how can you say there is moral truth? We're not all going to come to you for final judgment.

@dj2becker said
Human constructs as well?

In as much as they are both adjectives to describe behaviour, yes.

@divegeester said
In as much as they are both adjectives to describe behaviour, yes.

Is there more to it or is that it? Do you believe God is required to explain their existence or is it all man made and imaginary?

@sonship said
It is a statement that your atheism has no basis of an ultimate right judgment on what ought and ought not be done.

Your assertion that your absorbed-from-your-environment superstitious outlook and beliefs somehow create a basis of an ultimate right judgment on what ought and ought not be done is purely subjective ~ as is my moral compass, and, indeed, as is everyone's.

@sonship said
That you love your wrongdoing and prefer to have no ultimate accountability is understandable. You wish yourself to be the ultimate authority in the universe.

I don't "love" my wrongdoing. I have a moral compass which I use to navigate my way as best I can through the puzzles and pitfalls of "the universe". So do you. So does everyone.

If you choose to ascribe "ultimate accountability" to a man who was executed 2,000 years ago ~ and also ascribe "ultimate authority" to him ~ and if that's what the philosophical gymnastics are that you have to engage in in order for your moral compass to function, then so be it.

Having said that, you have cited the neverending torture of people in revenge for having the "wrong" beliefs as "perfect morality", so there's a a bit moral question mark over your compass as far as I am concerned.

@sonship said
If there is no ultimate accountability, there is no straight ruler against which crooked line can be compared.

That's right.