An objective moral standard outside of God.

[jlay]

I

If objective morality is true,(and it is) are you telling us you can't examine the Hindu faith and see if it is consistent as a source? Do you consider yourself a reasonable person? If so, on what grounds should we value reason? Do you consider yourself a moral person? On what grounds? When a person claims that reason matters, and morals matter, they aren't saying, "because it's society's preference." They are saying whether acknowleding it or not, that these things really matter. Otherwise one is forced to conceed the sloppy mess that comes with relativism and subjectivism. One can not boast that they are reasonable without unknowingly standing on the ground of objective truth.

The reality is that we can't even think about such things without first presupposing that logic, reason, and many other truths are functioning, and functioning objectively. If the human mind is the source of these things then truth is illusory and means nothing. There is no point in believing evolution, being reasonable, moral, or anything for that matter. It would be pointless. Of course you don't live this way. So, we don't have to prove to you, because even if not realizing it, you prove it by the way you think. The reality is that by denying God, one has no way to account for reason, logic, inherent value, etc. But you don't live that way. You live as if logic, reason, etc. are objectively sourced, and that being reasonable is inherently good.

The Christian can account for the source of this. We have every reason to revere logic, reason, and moral ethics. From our starting point, reason, logic and moral ethics REALLY matter. They are not arbitrary, subjective, accidental, or self-sourced. The atheist wants to argue their points and pretend that these matter. Tell an atheist he is unreasonable. Will he say, "so what, reason is just a product of the mind." Tell an atheist they are immoral, and they will most certainly beg to differ. They act as if these things are inherently true, but then out of the other side of their mouth deny them, and even trample on them. The atheist has to operate out of willful ignorance, which really isn't reasonable at all. In fact it is a self-defeating, contradictory way to live.

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying that because reason and logic and morality exist that you have to concede to Christianity. We are saying you should conceed a source of logic, reason, and morality. Then we can examine to see if Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc comply. We can also examine those traits and reasonably understand that a source of them, MUST possess other traits. Without going into a lot of detail we can instantly throw out the polytheistic pagan religions. Pantheims also fails miserably. Only monotheistic religions are consistent with such a source, and that basically narrows it down to two choices.

It's not a deadend argument. It is only that you refuse to look beyond your determined positions on the matter. We can in fact examine such things. You say we can't prove. Ok, prove that we can't. You've simply determined in your mind what can or can't be proven. Which is really just another way of saying, "you can't convince me." There is a difference between prove and convince. Are you a reasonable person?

[CallMeDave]

But I'm saying you can't "prove" that statement any more than a Hindu can "prove" that humans were created by their Gods with morals. No one can disprove either point, either. That's why it's a dead-end argument, because neither stance can be disproven or proven.

Please give specific answers to both of the following questions. Thanks. : Would you agree that if the Bible can be shown to be supernaturally inspired (objectively) , supernatural in origin (objectively) and that modern science is pointing toward the Biblical Creator ... that we can conclude the Moral Law which is written on all our hearts came from THIS same (biblical) Creator instead of one of millions of Hindu 'gods' or the god of Islam ? If this could be shown to you conclusively, HOW willing would you be to follow his revealed moral mandates for your life and surrender yourself to his Ownership ?

[sumsum1]

Is there one?

No

I guess I'm a little confused. If God is the source of morality, (God = what's Right) then If God said throw babies off of buildings that would be moral.
Of course the natural response is "God wouldn't do that because it's wro-"
but then that response points to a morality outside of God. ?

[B. W.]

Is there one?

No

I guess I'm a little confused. If God is the source of morality, (God = what's Right) then If God said throw babies off of buildings that would be moral.
Of course the natural response is "God wouldn't do that because it's wro-"
but then that response points to a morality outside of God. ?

A Moral God must make morals known to those He created as morally reasoning beings. His moral standards are based upon Himself alone, who and what He is. Created morally reasoning beings need guidance as to what is morally right by looking at their Creator. The first moral lesson was to trust God because God trust Himself. Humanity failed in that regard.

A morally reasoning being can make their-own moral codes. Not allowing this, would be morally unjust for a perfectly just God to do. Without guidance, erring morally reasoning beings cannot fathom truth as what makes correct or incorrect regarding moral affairs without a standard. Therefore, God trust himself so He teaches humanity, to trust Him. He proves His trust true through Jesus Christ.

Do you know truth?
-
-
-

[seveneyes]

I think that an atheist could argue objective morals outside of God. That does not mean that he is in any way correct though since God is known to be real and active. The atheist just hasn't realized that fact.

Our physical and emotional make up as well as our relationships within a society dictate that certain things work and do not work, and/or cause us and others pain and lead to strife and conflict. Hence some things are wrong and others are right. A good example could be that nature shows that it is wrong for someone to kill another person for reasons other than self protection, or protection of others. It is shown to be wrong because it inflicts emotional pain and unwarranted physical pain upon the innocent, and socially murder is destructive to community. In a sense, nature does show objective morality, and to an atheist, this is not the effect of God, but of natures construct. However, it could be reasoned that eating other human beings is justified because it is for nourishment, and ultimately the whole argument fails because atheism inevitably slips into subjective morality based on carnal passions that are justified in a myriad of ways.

-Pass the ribs please, not those, the baby back ribs...Thanx

Did I just say that Atheists would eat babies? Apart from Gods moral law in our world. Sure they would, and why not?

[Ivellious]

There were thousands of years of non-Christians who had never heard the word of God who got by just fine without eating babies or murdering the innocent. The vast majority of animal species on Earth outside of humans (none of which are capable of having a Godly objective moral standard) do not partake in cannibalism. Just because Christianity says it's not ok to eat babies does not make Christianity the only reason why we don't eat babies...that's a sensationalist statement that I've heard way too many people use as an argument against non-Christian ways of life, and it's just baseless propaganda. Seriously, please grow out of those kinds of attacks.

[seveneyes]

There were thousands of years of non-Christians who had never heard the word of God who got by just fine without eating babies or murdering the innocent. The vast majority of animal species on Earth outside of humans (none of which are capable of having a Godly objective moral standard) do not partake in cannibalism. Just because Christianity says it's not ok to eat babies does not make Christianity the only reason why we don't eat babies...that's a sensationalist statement that I've heard way too many people use as an argument against non-Christian ways of life, and it's just baseless propaganda. Seriously, please grow out of those kinds of attacks.

Ok, sorry about that. I have to disagree with you though on the thousands of years part. What you may not be aware of is that even if a person hasn't heard of Gods word through some sort of organized religion construct. God has worked within our hearts. Deep within us God effects our conscious and we innately know right from wrong. Objective morality only comes from God

For a moral law, one must assume a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver, there is no moral law. If you take God away from the equation, suddenly you are free from boundaries and anything can be justified. In relative morality, there is nothing wrong with eating babies. Animals do it all the time to their own young. There is nothing wrong with genocide either because there is not right or wrong. It is only your truth and my truth and who can argue that your truth is any better than mine for we are all here for no reason anyway and will all die to no avail.

Atheism is very dark as a world view, but even atheists are effected by Gods effect on their conscious. That and the deep root God has placed within our societies is what keeps us from slipping into chaos. If there was no God and no one even considered God whatsoever, the world would be basically hell to live in.
God bless

[seveneyes]

Is there one?

No

I guess I'm a little confused. If God is the source of morality, (God = what's Right) then If God said throw babies off of buildings that would be moral.
Of course the natural response is "God wouldn't do that because it's wro-"
but then that response points to a morality outside of God. ?

Actually it does not point to morality outside of God. First you have invoked a non-existing hypothetical. It is not wise to reach many conclusions based on non-existing hypotheticals. However, possible hypotheticals can instruct.

If God did that, it wouldn't be wrong for God. He is God and if running and maintaining the universal balance required a baby to be thrown off of a building and God did that, then he has every right to do so. -We inherently know and are taught from God not to murder. We know that it is wrong. This comes from the moral law giver.

[jlay]

Did I just say that Atheists would eat babies? Apart from Gods moral law in our world. Sure they would, and why not?

As a beleiver, not sure we should make these type of statements.

There were thousands of years of non-Christians who had never heard the word of God who got by just fine without eating babies or murdering the innocent. The vast majority of animal species on Earth outside of humans (none of which are capable of having a Godly objective moral standard) do not partake in cannibalism. Just because Christianity says it's not ok to eat babies does not make Christianity the only reason why we don't eat babies...that's a sensationalist statement that I've heard way too many people use as an argument against non-Christian ways of life, and it's just baseless propaganda. Seriously, please grow out of those kinds of attacks

I'm just guessing, but if you've got time to post this, you've got time to address the things specifically directed at you in my last few posts.
I'm curious, what do you consider, 'getting by just fine?'
Also, I'm wondering whose side you are arguing for. All you have proved above is that people, even without the Bible and knowledge of Christ, know right from wrong. Well, you've only stated what Paul stated about 2,000 years ago. (Romans 1:18,19,20,21,22) And you've also proved, that since they know right from wrong, when they do wrong, they do it knowingly. Not out of ignorance. If it is wrong to torture puppies for pleasure then it is wrong all the time. In fact, it would be wrong even if there were no people or puppies on the earth at any moment.

Christianity doesn't have to address every specific do or don't. And it doesn't. Again, you've only measured your own rope. All you are saying is that objective morality is true, yet refusing to acknowledge that for OM to be, there must exist a moral law giver outside of man.

I guess I'm a little confused. If God is the source of morality, (God = what's Right) then If God said throw babies off of buildings that would be moral.
Of course the natural response is "God wouldn't do that because it's wro-"
but then that response points to a morality outside of God. ?

There are things God can not do. This has to do with his 'being.' God will not act contrary to His being. God doesn't have potential, He simply is. And since He simply is, He is simply loving, just, holy and good.
So, the question is actually a contradiction. To ask if God could do something He couldn't do is contradictory. It is like asking, can God make a square circle. A square circle is not a thing. It is an absurdity. It is playing with words. Asking such a question may seem rational at first, but it is contradictory. Saying God wouldn't do something because it is wrong, doesn't point to a morality outside of God. God isn't simply living up to some external code. He is being who He is.

Feser can explain much better.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/10 ... lemma.html

[CallMeDave]

There were thousands of years of non-Christians who had never heard the word of God who got by just fine without eating babies or murdering the innocent. The vast majority of animal species on Earth outside of humans (none of which are capable of having a Godly objective moral standard) do not partake in cannibalism. Just because Christianity says it's not ok to eat babies does not make Christianity the only reason why we don't eat babies...that's a sensationalist statement that I've heard way too many people use as an argument against non-Christian ways of life, and it's just baseless propaganda. Seriously, please grow out of those kinds of attacks.

Actually, mankind since day one has willfully suppressed their moral conscience to get what he/she wants . People know intrinsically what is wrong but they do it anyway because they *think it has some personal merit or benefit. If something is absolutely wrong , all the time, and to all people groups...then a transcedent personal moral Creator exists who prescibed that ..otherwise, it is only mans opinion that something is wrong such as Hitlers halocaust or something is right such as Mother Theresas humanitarian efforts. Our Human RIghts are based on the intrinsic moral law which exists in all of us, we wouldnt try and hide or make excuses when we break this intrinsic moral law if it didnt exist , and, our REactions to when we are morally violated prove that there are in fact absolute moral laws which exist and which we want for ourselves / expect from others. Ive yet to meet a husband who thinks its perfectly alright for his wife to be relatively-sexual with other men (except for reprobate minded Swingers whereby both Spouses give consent to using people outside their marriage for a mere copulation) . Our moral conscience from God is infused in each persons Soul so we would act in a dignified manner, treat others with the highest of concern and respect, and so maximized civility could be realized in all societys of the world --- it ties in with the love we are supposed to have for one another because we are in fact all made in the image and likeness of our Creator and are supposed to represent his character and essence, personally .

[B. W.]

People spend much of their time trying to avoid consequences for ones actions by justifying whatever action they take. Moral relativism attempts just that. There are objective truths and denying these, because one does not like the consequences, does not nullify breaking objective moral truths. Breaking these reaps consequences. If there were no objective moral standard, there would be no consequences for ones acts.

How many people have had those – Don’t Do it - moments? And then did it anyway?

You don’t need to be a Christian to have these. God speaks to the conscience of every person sometime during one’s life. Do we listen? Or brush off such moments?

What were the consequences?
-
-
-

[CallMeDave]

People spend much of their time trying to avoid consequences for ones actions by justifying whatever action they take. Moral relativism attempts just that. There are objective truths and denying these, because one does not like the consequences, does not nullify breaking objective moral truths. Breaking these reaps consequences. If there were no objective moral standard, there would be no consequences for ones acts.

How many people have had those – Don’t Do it - moments? And then did it anyway?

You don’t need to be a Christian to have these. God speaks to the conscience of every person sometime during one’s life. Do we listen? Or brush off such moments?

What were the consequences?
-
-
-

True, you dont have to be a Christian to have these...but when One becomes a real Christian they get a deeper sensitivity to moral oughtness and along with a quickening of their heart from God living in them , they want to live correctly and make sound/ right decisions as part of honoring God with their lives . Nothing changes the persons heart/mind/Soul like the very presence of God within that person. He ends up willing to represent the very character of God in all he does and say on a continuous ongoing developmental journey.