Morals without god/the bible

[Manfer84]

I think you totally missed the point of my analogy.
You are taking the position that life has no inherent value. That life is no more significant than an elephant fart. Inherently speaking of course.
The point is to show you that when confronted with these two value systems, it is easy to see that one is right, and one is wrong. There are two parties involved, so there is no majority ethic here. It is one ethic verses another. Life does have inherent value. Right and wrong can and are measured.

I agree with you, one side is right the other wrong, the difference is that you say that your definition of right and wrong come from a “higher source” and I say that it comes from how people interact with each other in order to live as a society.
And again I said, just as I assign value to my great-great-great-granddad watch (that is in fact worthless) I assign value to life, whether it has “real” value or not doesn't matter. I give value to that watch, just as mankind give value to itself.

[B. W.]

B.W.
I read your post and it seems you say that because absolutes exist a moral absolute must exist, which I don´t seem to follow.

For absolute truth to exist, the opposite of such truth must exist as well, so that what is absolutely true is manifested and made known.

I hope that last part didn't make me sound like a sociopath, which by the way I´m not.

Why are you worried about being a sociopath?

What makes such people wrong in your eyes?-

Again, I understand that you say that absolutes exist, and I agree they exist, but (maybe is my lack of through understanding of the English language) how do you tie that to absolute morality.

That line was kind of a joke but, you don't think sociopaths are "wrong"? I think they are because of how they behave in accordance to our society, they are a problem to society so I think they are bad.

If you agree that absolutes exist then why cannot moral absolutes?

Absolutes include the existence of morality cemented in truth gleaned from the light of right and wrong…

Where did society come up with rules and why?

Next, What standard do you use to judge sociopaths as doing wrong?


Lastly, It is not a matter of assigning value to things but rather that there is right and there is wrong. These exist. Right and wrong exposes what makes morals — moral. Through the process of discovery one simply discovers that right and wrong do indeed exist.

If right and wrong exist, isn't then that an absolute?

How can right be right if there is nothing contrary to right to make right — right? Likewise, how can wrong be wrong if there is nothing contrary to wrong to make wrong — wrong?
-
-
-

[jlay]

I agree with you, one side is right the other wrong, the difference is that you say that your definition of right and wrong come from a “higher source” and I say that it comes from how people interact with each other in order to live as a society.

Then there can't be right or wrong. Because how one society interacts versus another, could make what is right in one society wrong, and vice versa. How did people who stood against slavery, determine that they were taking a moral position? We may discover darkness and light, and assign value to each one. But, this is certainly not subjective.

There are certainly relative things when it comes to value. You are talking about dollar amounts, or personal relative value of an heirloom. That doesn't exactly relate to what we are talking about. You wouldn't use this rationale if we were talking say, mathematics. Certainly we assign value to things such as a single object being assigned the numeric value, one. But does that mean these are subjective standards. No. We are discovering objective truth, and assigning values we can comprehend to such things. Do you see the difference? I am not saying there isn't subjective morality. I believe in subjective morality. People/societies/cultures can and do differ on such things. This doesn't negate objective morality. It simply proves that free thinking, self aware beings can elect to ignore the objective standards, or misinterpret them.

In society we may have relative interpretations of right and wrong. Someone may go to jail for lying in court, versus a timeout for a child lying to their parents. But the fact remains that these are both based on the fact that lying is wrong. Objectively wrong.
It is written on our hearts. That is why these things can arouse feelings and emotions. We become enraged when someone treats us unjustly, or steals from us, or lies to us, or harms our family. When someone harms us or our family, we don't start thinking, "Well, their preference is different than mine." No, we want justice.

[Manfer84]

Thanks Jlay, that last answer of yours is good enough for me to think about it, I don´t think I'm gonna get another one better than that and also I don´t think I´m capable of continue this “debate” because I don´t have enough knowledge on the matter, besides what I think (which I think is not enough on a debate). So Thanks to you and B.W. for all the interesting answers and see you next time something about religion comes to mind.

I just have one more thing I find curious, why would you say this??:

I said:
Then again, just for the sake of asking something else, let's say there was a creator, what makes you think he'd care to stick around? Or it's a sentient being that loves you? Or he didn't create a thousand moments just like? Or that he died as a consequence of creating us because it took all his power to do it? Or that he cares about us?, because if his all-powerful it must have taken him the same amount of energy to create this moment as to create a grain of sand. Or any other crazy thing I could come up with about a creator.
You said:
“Those are all questions that have good answers. But explaining them now, would be the equivalent of explaining advanced Algebra to someone who has yet to grasp that 2+2=4. I don't mean that in a condescending way. Only that it is putting the cart before the horse.”

What would I need to get an answer to those questions?

[jlay]

What would I need to get an answer to those questions?

Common ground. For example this thread is on morality. If we can not come to a place where you would at least concede, "sure, there are some good arguments for looking into morality being objective."
Notice, I am not asking you to just blindly throw away your position. As you can imagine, this isn't my first rodeo, as it is no anyone else's here. My point in conversing with you is not to win an argument. It is to glorify God, and see your soul won for the Kingdom. (That's as candid as I can be.)
My experience demonstrates that there are those who will deny the possibility of objective morality at any expense. Even if it means painting themselves as a borderline sociopath. First let me say that you've demonstrated yourself well for a good part of this debate. You seem to have some sincere interest in actually understanding these positions. But you also exhibit some signs, that create an impasse for us to address those next questions.

Your own question really answers this,

Or any other crazy thing I could come up with about a creator.

To get a serious answer, you have to start with a serious question. One of the habits of non-believers is to attack from multiple positions at the same time, bombarding with the next question before the previous one has even been rightly addressed. Or, if the answer weakens the non-believers position, then the pattern is to do the, "well what about this, well what about that," approach. In fact, I did already address some of those things earlier when we were talking about the character and nature of God. For example you asked, why is the God of the NT different than the God of the OT. I responded, "If you see me disciplining my child one moment, and later hugging my child, did I change?"
To ask the question, means you need to have an argument with facts that support the NT and OT reveal a different or changed God. Based on your silence to my response, I can only assume that you don't. That perhaps you simply picked up this objection, and that in reality it is not your own. That is a very common occurrence. I can't say positively that this is the case. But I have found that many do not arrive at their own objections, but instead place their faith in the objections of others. Others they've never met, or even questioned.

So, it would be very difficult to progress without even being able to come to some agreement that OM is a feasible, logical and reasonable possibility. It is one thing to say, you are not convinced of objective morality. It is another to say you know that there is no objective morality. It's a self refuting argument. If you claim, "there is no objective morality," then you are claiming that YOUR OPINION is objectively true. You can not disprove OM by holding to objective positions. To this point, I have seen little position to reject OM other than faulty analogies, and your feelings. I've politely discussed why your feelings are not a device for determining whether something is or isn't. Feelings do not determine facts. Also, you are dragging things (analogies) into a discussion that don't pass the test. No one is saying you can't value something (your granddad's watch) more than someone else. It is just that it doesn't apply. No one here is saying that subjective morality doesn't exist. Let's make it clear now. It does. I like analogies and use them, as you can tell. But they have to hold up to reason.

You and I both know, that if you come to see that morality is objective, your entire world view will crumble. It is not as if you don't know what is at stake. Everyone has a worldview. A faith position. But if you are going to so religiously cling to that position, I would expect you to be able to say more than, "that's just how I feel."
A good many Christian, before they were converted, watched the rope they held to, unravel, and snap.

[Manfer84]

I´m sorry if it didn´t get trough what I was trying to say with my last post, but in fact I was just trying to say exactly what you just said.
"sure, there are some good arguments for looking into morality being objective."
I believe that now thanks to all your answers and how you have presented them. I also believe there are good arguments in favor of the existence of God, I don´t think I gave the impression that I didn´t.

And the thing about the OT and NT, you said: "If you see me disciplining my child one moment, and later hugging my child, did I change?". That's right you haven´t change and you continue to discipline your child and hugging him trough all your life, but God he used to kill people like nobodies business, sending bears after little kids, burning whole towns to the ground, “flooding” the whole planet, and now he just loves us.
So just like you during your whole life “change” from discipline your child to hugging him, is God gonna go back to burning whole towns? Again just a question to feed my curiosity, you don´t have to answer.

[jlay]

but God he used to kill people like nobodies business, sending bears after little kids, burning whole towns to the ground, “flooding” the whole planet, and now he just loves us.

Again, this doesn't demonstrate change.
We must first understand that God is not like us. Can you create even one atom from nothing? Well, He created the entire universe. The Bible does not portray God as being like us. In fact it goes to great lengths to show just how wonderous, mighty and awesome God is, compared with ourselves. I would use the word 'infinately', but it still fails to convey just how big God really is. And I'm not just talking about physical big.

Take the analogy again of me disciplining my child. In which situation was I loving my child? When I was hugging or disciplining? The reality is both. In fact I may have been demonstrating more love during discipline, than in a casual hug.
The problem as I see it, is that you are ascribing human quality to a indescribable God. As if God's judgements against mankind, are just like some pissed off man throwing a tantrum. The bible does say God destroyed the earth with the flood. Now if you view God as a mere human, then it is no wonder you come to such a position of being a mean genocidal brute. But if the Bible is true, then this is not what God is at all. You are not his equal. God HAS the right to give life and take it. Unlike humans. We are each others equals. We are not qualified to exact such judgment. God is.

Also, His love is not what you or I grasp as love. The bible says that God showed His love to us in this way. That while we were still sinners, Christ DIED for us. God didn't show his love by handing out lollipops and hugs. The bloody death of Jesus Christ was His demonstration of love to you. The cross satisfied God's uncompromising justice, so that you could even come into His proximity and receive His mercy. I've really already explained this. Imagine the most heinous, vile act that could be perpetrated on one of your loved ones. Now imagine, this person who did it, captured, and standing before you. Would you have any problem with a judge sending him to his death?? Would you have any problem judging such a person yourself?
Well who are you to judge?
Sounds ridiculous for me to question you in this doesn't it?
Also imagine your family in danger. People are trying to hurt your family. Would you kill another to protect what you cherish?
Who are you to protect your family? What right do you have?
Silly isn't it?

God is jealous for His own, like a mother bear is for her cubs. Just try taking a cub from a mother bear and see what happens.

God sees lies as utter abominations. You see things as abominations. You have absolutely ZERO problem judging by your standards. But He is not like you. His standards are not your standards. Your thoughts are not His thoughts. His ways are not your ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are God's ways higher than your own. God is not on some emotional roller coaster. He doesn't lose his temper. He is always angry with the wicked. And He is always loving. One doesn't cancel the other.

[Manfer84]

Thanks for that answer.
I have more questions such as that one so I´m gonna star a new thread about it, because I'm satisfy with the whole “moral” thing.
I hope Jlay you would answer the questions I post, because it´s been fun talking to you.

[jlay]

Ditto,
Look forward to conversing with you on other threads.

[sweetadeline112358]

I was discussing this thread with one of my Christian acquaintances. He said an absence of observable evidence to the positive in no way necessitates a negative conclusion. that's fundamental logic. there must exist an absolute truth and by all known measures conceived by man thus far the Christian God is clearly the most likely candidate for said truth. you may not know that He is with you, but the world was no less round when we thought it flat.

"thus far the Christian God is clearly the most likely candidate for said truth"

Why? This is just the "god of the gaps" argument. There are plenty of other accounts for reality that accept metaphysically-oriented propositions as perfectly legitimate, and not all of them are religion-based.

You can accept the inherent limitations of empiricism without being a Christian.

[jlay]

God of the gaps. Not exaclty sure why you bring that up here. Are you referring to the statistical odds I mentioned earlier?
I wouldn't argue that the statistical odss point to a specific God. It only points the reality that life on earth was against all odds. That it appears that many factors are is delicately balanced and coordinated to allow life to be. Science does not and can not answer the question, "what is the meaning of life?" This is not a claim that science can't explain, and so God must be the explanation. Sciences job is not to undertake philosphical questions. We are dealing with an absence of scientific explanation here.

We know that these statistics exist. We know that the odds, beg us to ask a philosophical question. If you are walking and look up in the sky and see your name spelled out in the sky, you might ask, "what are the odds of that?" But you would also ask, "Who is responsible?"
Science can not explain why the statistics are so mind blowing. It only demonstrates that they are such.

[sweetadeline112358]

God of the gaps. Not exaclty sure why you bring that up here. Are you referring to the statistical odds I mentioned earlier?
I wouldn't argue that the statistical odss point to a specific God. It only points the reality that life on earth was against all odds. That it appears that many factors are is delicately balanced and coordinated to allow life to be. Science does not and can not answer the question, "what is the meaning of life?" This is not a claim that science can't explain, and so God must be the explanation. Sciences job is not to undertake philosphical questions. We are dealing with an absence of scientific explanation here.

We know that these statistics exist. We know that the odds, beg us to ask a philosophical question. If you are walking and look up in the sky and see your name spelled out in the sky, you might ask, "what are the odds of that?" But you would also ask, "Who is responsible?"
Science can not explain why the statistics are so mind blowing. It only demonstrates that they are such.

Well science is not out to disprove god. Originally science was referred to as "natural science" with the purpose of studying the natural causation of what is observable. Science will not answer paradoxical questions because they are recognized as such. :p

Us given the possibility to discuss what the odds are for or against the existence of the human race is futile. Every person on this planet is only alive for such a short period of time to make any sort of substantial prophetic discovery that will in return explain the existence of all things. Meaning is not ascribed, rather it is achieved. Life does not have a sole purpose or meaning. It is relevant to each individual. One may say that the earth is intelligently designed because the laws of nature and the balance of existence prove this. It also hard to discern that intelligent life created everything when assuming that everything has a creator except for the creator of everything which is called God. Accepting the paradox of an eternal transcendent creator is just as understandable as a pantheistic argument.

[jlay]

Well science is not out to disprove god.

Sadly, many people do. and try to use science to do it.

Life does not have a sole purpose or meaning. It is relevant to each individual.

According to you. So, you are God, that you can claim what is or isn't the meaning of life? What evidence do you base this on?

It also hard to discern that intelligent life created everything when assuming that everything has a creator except for the creator of everything which is called God.

Not at all. Only created things would have a creator. If God is, then He is the creator. Eternal, uncreated, unchanging. Which oddly, is exactly how the Bible portrays Him.
1-Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2-The universe has a beginning
3-Therefore the universe has a cause.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... HgWeLANucz

Accepting the paradox of an eternal transcendent creator is just as understandable as a pantheistic argument.

In what way. Because you don't believe in either one?

[sweetadeline112358]

Well science is not out to disprove god.

Sadly, many people do. and try to use science to do it.

Life does not have a sole purpose or meaning. It is relevant to each individual.

According to you. So, you are God, that you can claim what is or isn't the meaning of life? What evidence do you base this on?

It also hard to discern that intelligent life created everything when assuming that everything has a creator except for the creator of everything which is called God.

Not at all. Only created things would have a creator. If God is, then He is the creator. Eternal, uncreated, unchanging. Which oddly, is exactly how the Bible portrays Him.
1-Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2-The universe has a beginning
3-Therefore the universe has a cause.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... HgWeLANucz

Accepting the paradox of an eternal transcendent creator is just as understandable as a pantheistic argument.

In what way. Because you don't believe in either one?

I said life lacks meaning. It is close minded to say that I am god. Have you not branched out to other theistic philosophies other than your own?

My problem with many Christians is this...they seek out evidence only to in return prove themselves correct and reject evidence against their claims. This is also the definition of a horrible scientist. Many scientists do the same thing. It is hard to have a conversation with you guys because it is simple for me to discern whether or not you have done research with an open mind. I would put a bank roll on the fact that you hold a strong bias through your research.

also

God of the gaps. Not exaclty sure why you bring that up here

Because:

this
> an absence of observable evidence to the positive in no way necessitates a negative conclusion.
this
> Science can not explain why the statistics are so mind blowing
and this
> the Christian God is clearly the most likely candidate for said truth.

This is the "god of the gaps". Empiricism offers a local design argument, religion offers a global design argument. In other words: science starts by observing small, localized changes while religion attempts to provide a single account for everything in one broad stroke.

Both accounts utilize a specific form of inference: abductive reasoning. This is the "inference to the best explanation". The "god of the gaps" is basically an informal / slangy / colloquial way of referring to the conclusion that since localized accounts will always be incomplete, some specific global account (such as the Christian account) is automatically the best possible explanation.

Like inferences, abductive arguments never evaluate to absolute truth / falsehood values in the way that statements in deductive arguments do. With a regular inference you have to decide which possibility seems more likely based on some smaller sampling of the greater whole. This is the aristotelian notion that when things happen "always or usually" it is not of coincidence / necessity. With an abductive inference you propose that one account is the best possible explanation.

A classic example of this is that terrible watch-maker argument. This is a more specific form of abductive argument: the comparison of analogues. The problem is that when you compare to things (watches, living organisms) you must compile an entire list of both objects qualitative properties (ie, metaphysical properties / attributes). So if you list all possible properties of a watch, all possible properties of a human and all possible properties of some other organic entity, whatever two have the most qualitative matches are the most similar. The watchmaker argument sucks, because there are lots of things that are more like living organisms than watches. Namely, OTHER LIVING ORGANISMS. Interestingly, this is exactly the approach local design happens to take when it comes to attempting to understand the composition of life.

This is also an example of stuff that's in the domain of metaphysics (ie, the pesky, potentially infinite list of qualitative properties) interfering with the Christian desire to leverage it to justify their belief system. Yes, a posteriori-heavy accounts have their limitations, but with metaphysics, you have to be prepared to accept whatever weirdness you are committing yourself to and other metaphysicians will gladly point it out. It's not all rock'n'roll anti-science pro-Christian land out there at the pythagorean, a priori shindig.

There are other problems with accepting a global design / first cause position. "Is there room for free will in a world that is entirely deterministic?" etc...

[jlay]

I said life lacks meaning.

Objectively or subjectively? Now, prove it.

In other words: science starts by observing small, localized changes while religion attempts to provide a single account for everything in one broad stroke.

What's your point?

Let me suggest that you peruse the main board. And review the purpose and rules.
To this point, it appears as little more than an attempt to derail the thread and throw out multiple points that you take contention with. Even things that arent' being specifically discussed on this thread. There are threads on the different matters you bring up.

Good day.