The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@sonship said
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.

No, I do not. Feel free to cite anything I have said to back this characterization up ~ and I have written prolifically about morality ~ because until/unless you do, I rather think it is you who is debating "out of one side of your mouth here", and not me.

@sonship said
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.

How can there be "moral truth" if people like you think torturing people for thoughtcrimes is the "perfect morality" and people like me don't? Clearly, we are in a realm of subjectivity. Your certainty and sincerity about your religion does not create objectivity.

The fact that, between humans on earth while they are alive, "justice is avoided" sometimes or even frequently, or is imperfect, or what purports to be justice is not justice at all, none of this is evidence that there is supernatural justice. It is simply a reason why you yearn for supernatural justice and your religious beliefs satisfy that yearning.

@sonship said
But I think if there is no justice there is no real moral law.It is not just ineffectual. It is not existing.

Well then, it's a good thing for you personally that you have a god figure of some kind to which you attribute the meting out of what you see as "justice", otherwise you'd perhaps be lost somewhere on a topsy-turvey psychological landscape.

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

So you agree with an atheist that the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments are man made, that no such God exists, that the Jews are deluded and, more importantly, their made up God appeared and disappeared never to appear again?

There's really no basis for you to claim that you're a believer in Jesus.

@secondson said
There's really no basis for you to claim that you're a believer in Jesus.

In my own conversations with divegeester, he has been very emphatic about his belief in "sin" and in people being "forgiven" and "saved" because of Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. Like a lot of people, theists and atheists alike, he differentiates between the meaning of "sin" and "morality".

@FMF

Well then, it's a good thing for you personally ...

And by saying " its a good thing for you personally " you are affirming the existence of an objective good outside of you and I in a transcendent sense.

"That's a GOOD thing for you personally sonship."

For you there is an objective standard that makes something "a good thing" for me personally GOOD.

So the question now is are you God who pronounces what is good or is someone else God defining what is good?
.
I believe it is someone else. You need God to make your case. You just want take on that role that needs to be filled.

@FMF

Your assertion that your absorbed-from-your-environment superstitious outlook and beliefs somehow create a basis of an ultimate right judgment

But while you talk about superstition we have Someone in history who epitomizes the highest standard of human morality.

The Christian theists has a model to point to in time and space in history.
You have to get to work constructing a massively convoluted conspiracy theory that Christ was dreamed up.

on what ought and ought not be done is purely subjective

On what grounds is this "purely subjective" with me but your criticism not "purely subjective" with you?

If our moral standards are all just "purely subjective" then yours are also "purely subjective" and need not be assumed they're any more valid. You shoot yourself in the foot.

That is unless you are playing the part of a final arbitrator.
I believe Someone else besides you and I is a transcendent final arbitrator - God.

~ as is my moral compass, and, indeed, as is everyone's.

Then if everyone's "moral compass" is just an opinion with no more or less validity then anyone else's then your's concerning my compass is inflicted with the same untrustworthy limitation.

Again you have to steal from a God grounded universe in order to argue against God. Your argument presupposes an ultimate knowing of what is really real and what is just illusionary - "just subjective to YOU sonship. Says ME."

You're arguing that man is the measure of all things and FMF is the man.

@dj2becker said
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?

Yes pretty much, that’s it.

@secondson said
So you agree with an atheist that the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments are man made, that no such God exists, that the Jews are deluded and, more importantly, their made up God appeared and disappeared never to appear again?

There's really no basis for you to claim that you're a believer in Jesus.

Morality is mentioned possible once in the bible and only in certain translations. Morality is a human construct; the Bible talks about the “law” righteousness and sin.

You mention the “law”, you call it the “moral law” bit in fact it is not refereed to as that in the bible. The law was given as a written guide to be adhered to without question and disobedience was met with severe consequences. However, the law has changed, it is no longer forbidden to wear garments of mixed fibre. Perhaps you do...not sure I would be surprised if you did. But anyway the law has changed but God does not change, so unless you are proposing that God’s “morality” changes then you probalby need to think again.

As for your last comment. LOL.

@sonship said
And by saying " its a good thing for you personally " you are affirming the existence of an objective good outside of you and I in a transcendent sense.

No. Nothing of the sort. By saying "it's a good thing for you personally" I am affirming and illustrating that it is something subjective.

@sonship said
For you there is an objective standard that makes something "a good thing" for me personally GOOD.

No. We have our subjective standards.

@sonship said
So the question now is are you God who pronounces what is good or is someone else God defining what is good?

No, I am not "God" or a god or any one of a number of gods. I am not a supernatural being. My personal moral compass guides me in discerning what is good and bad, as best as I can. Your moral compass has the same function for you. Our compasses are not the same. It is a realm of subjectivity. I am not a god. You are not a god. Your god figure is not my god figure.

@sonship said
You need God to make your case. You just want take on that role that needs to be filled.

I do not. You may need to attribute your moral compass to the existence of a supernatural being who you firmly believe created that compass or created the kind of moral magnetism that decides where it points, but I see that magnetic force as being created by our individual natures and experiences, by our families, by neighbourhoods, by cultures, by societies, by nations, by religions and ideologies and philosophies, and by history.

This reality, and the countless subjectivities it weaves together, certainly does not need me to fill the role of or replace the god figure that you say we all need in order to have our moral compasses.

@sonship said
On what grounds is this "purely subjective" with me but your criticism not "purely subjective" with you?

The things we are talking about are purely subjective for both of us.

@sonship said
If our moral standards are all just "purely subjective" then yours are also "purely subjective" and need not be assumed they're any more valid. You shoot yourself in the foot.

Both your moral standards and my moral standards are subjective. It is you who is shooting himself in the foot by characterizing what I am saying incorrectly and then wrestling with that incorrect characterization.