Evidence for God from Science

How about defining objective morality for me.

Objective: being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject.

Objective morality is that system of right and wrong upon which the mind dwells and draws meaning from. Thus, the meanings of right and wrong are not imputed to things by the mind, but rather they are drawn from them by the mind.

An illustration:

Suppose there are three apples on the table. Both the number of pieces of fruit and the kind of fruit before me are objective facts. My mind does not decide that there are three apples. It discoveres something about reality: namely, that there are three apples. If I said there were four bananas, you could tell me, rightly so, that I was mistaken.

Compare this to a subjective idea: the best flavor of ice cream. The meaning of "best" is determined by my mind. It is a subjective fact as it is telling you something about my thought process. You cannot tell me I am wrong if I say the best is chocolate whereas you say the best is vanilla. In fact, what I am saying with my assertion is, "My favorite flavor of ice cream is X."

Now, the question whether or not morality is objective or subjective. If subjective, then when you say, "Murder is wrong," all you are really saying is, "I do not like murder." I cannot argue that you are correct or not. You are correct simply because you are telling me something about yourself. However, if morality is objective, then when I say, "Murder is wrong," I am not speaking about my personal preferences. I am speaking about reality in itself, apart from what I believe about it. Thus, if I say, "Murder is not wrong," only if morality is objective can you tell me that I am mistaken.

Didn't you use murder as an example of absolute morality?

Nope, and I never will. I don't care about absolute morality. No sophisticated theist argues in favor of of absolute morality. We argue in favor of objective morality.

Would you like to edit this so it makes sense?

I'm only asking on what basis murder is objective wrong.

I assume you agree that you can't tell me that my assertions about the best flavor of ice cream are WRONG--that is, incorrect or mistaken. On what basis, then, would you tell me that my assertions about the moral rightness or wrongness of something is incorrect or mistaken?

Society's laws.

If society legalizes murder, would you then believe that it was morally permissible, or would you think that society was wrong? If murder was still wrong, and society had legalized murder, then on what basis, beyond what you LIKE, would you say they were incorrect in their moral assessment?

Why so?

Because objectivity by definition requires a feature to be in the thing itself and not in the mind. If God does not exist, then morality is not something that exists independently of the human mind, and thus, it must be subjective. If God does exist, then morality exists independently of the human mind (it exists in the mind of God), and we DISCOVER that fact.

What effect does YOUR value system have on anyone else?

Unlike you, I believe in objective morality. So the effect that mine has is exactly the same effect as arguing over how many apples are on a table. If there are three and you say four, then I am telling you that you are WRONG. You are MISTAKEN. I don't care how much you believe it, it IS NOT TRUE. It's a good thing we can recognize such objective facts, too. Take building codes. They are based on the fact that we can recognize objective reality. So if someone builds a house that is not up to code, I can sue them and have it condemned, because I can know that it is unsafe.

Thus, I can stand up and condemn slavery as an abomination. You can't (and be logically consistent). All you can do is stand up and scream about how much you don't like it. That has about as much meaning as me trying to get a house condemned, not because it is unsafe, but because I don't like it.

How is this any different under your value system? ... and you ARE trying to force your morality on others.

Of course I am.

Wayne, you are, too. What I am trying to get you to see is that you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you know that there is objective morality. You live by it. You call things like torture and murder wrong, and if someone says that they are right, then you tell them (correctly) that they are mistaken. But then you go and say that objective morality can exist only in the human mind, which is a logical absurdity. If something ONLY exists in your mind, then it, BY DEFINITION, is subjective!

We all try to force our morality on one another. That's because we all KNOW that morality is objective. What I am telling is that if morality is SUBJECTIVE, then you have NO RIGHT to tell anyone else they are wrong. It would be a stupid statement. Consider the following conversation:

Me: I like chocolate ice cream.
You: NO YOU DON'T!
Me: Of course I do. I think it is the best!
You: NO YOU IDIOT YOU DO NOT BECAUSE I THINK CHOCOLATE IS THE BEST

You would NEVER say something so stupid as the above because you know that you can't call a subjective statement WRONG. If God doesn't exist, then morality is strictly subjective, and thus, NOTHING CAN BE WRONG.

Why is "objective morality" real?

Why is reality real? Why is length, width, or depth real?

If morality is defined by God why has what is "right" and "wrong" changed over time? Did God change His mind?

It hasn't changed over time. People have argued about what really is right and wrong. People have disagreed about what is right and wrong. But right and wrong itself hasn't changed.

Let me ask you this: if the age of the universe is an objective fact, then why has it changed over time?

That's a stupid question. It hasn't. But people's ideas about it have. Same with morality. God hasn't changed, but people's ideas have. But notice, Wayne: this can ONLY be true if morality is objective. How can people argue if something is really wrong or wrong if nothing is right or wrong? Consider the following argument:

Me: Slavery is morally acceptable.
You: What is wrong with you. No it isn't. It's wrong.
Me: Sure it is, because a, b, and c.
You: No, you are wrong. a isn't a good reason because a'; b isn't a good reason because b'; c isn't a good reason because c'. Actually, it is wrong because x, y, and z.

Notice what is going on here. We aren't arguing about personal opinion. We are arguing about an objective FACT. But, again, that can only exist if morality exists independently of the human mind as an object of contemplation. That requires a God.

The murders they committed weren't perpetrated in the name of atheism, they were the result of a corrupt regime. Some theistic regimes use religion as a weapon to incite and "justify" murders and torture (inquisition, radical Islam, ... ).

I expressly said that they did not kill "in the name of" atheism. I made a major point out of that. Are you going to be one of these idiots who argues for the sake of arguing and attributes to people statements that they don't hold and/or have already expressly repudiated? Or are you going to be one of these people who argues with someone without reading and comprehending their points? Why are you bringing up an argument against me that I've already repudiated?

Sure I can tell him. I doubt that my telling him will stop him.
You can also tell him. Do you really think doing so have any more effect?

I have a logical basis to do so. Whether he stops or not is his choice. You don't. If you reject God, then morality only exists in the human mind.

Why should he base his behavior on your personal beliefs? Obviously, he shouldn't.
Why should he base his behavior on an objective fact? Because that is reality. I can inform him that he has misunderstood reality. Whether or not he chooses to act in accordance with reality is up to him.

Either of us can condemn him. The effect on him will be the same regardless of which of us condemns him. If God does define a specific morality, shouldn't He be responsible for enforcing it? Why does He need to rely on "helpers" to tell us what he meant to say.

I'm not talking about the effects of condemnation. I'm talking about the logical basis for it. I have one. You don't. I'm not talking about enforcing it, either. God will, and does, do that. I'm, again, talking about the logical basis for it.

You don't have a logical basis to condemn in others as wrong what you simply don't like. I, on the other hand, am not condemning what I just don't like. I am condemning what is objectively wrong in and of itself, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks about it.

In a nutshell, you you seem to believe man is incapable of developing a viable code of conduct and thus our code must have come from God (please correct me if I'm reading you wrong). I believe our codes of conduct (and there are many, each culture has a variation, and most have changed over time) originated from the primitive but effective codes that are necessary to keep any group of social animals together and functioning for the common good. Human intelligence and adaptability have allowed us to refine our codes over time.

I couldn't care less WHERE our code of conduct came from. Let's assume Darwinian evolution is true in its fullest extent. Let's assume that I got my morality from a combination of evolution and culture. Fine. That doesn't mean that morality is true or false, however. Supposedly, we got our belief in God from a combination of evolution and culture. Does that mean that He does or does not exist? Of course not. It would be a genetic fallacy to argue either way on that.

THAT is why I don't argue for absolute morality. You are right that moral values have changed over time. I have no problem with that. But the reason I can look at other cultures that have a different moral system from me--say, with early American slavery--and condemn it is because THEY WERE WRONG. THEY MISUNDERSTOOD MORALITY. THEY MADE INCORRECT STATEMENTS.

You can't say that. All you can say it that they had a different value system than you do. You have no LOGICAL basis on which to condemn them. I do. The fact that you condemn them anyway shows that you are borrowing from theism. You can't have objective morality without God, but you assume it anyway and deny its necessary source. You are being logically incoherent. That's plain irrational. This is why I repeatedly say: ATHEISM IS IRRATIONAL.

If God had defined morality, it seems to me that He could have done so on the first try - in other words a God-based morality should be constant throughout time and across cultures. On the other hand, if morality was defined by man, it would most likely vary between cultures and each culture would tend to refine their morality over time.

If morality is defined by man, then IT IS NOT OBJECTIVE, and this by definition. If morality is defined by man, then murder isn't wrong, because what if men come along and say, "I declare murder good!" Then, by definition, it is good! You can't say that it is wrong, and thus, you can't say you think that they are wrong. All you can say is that you personally don't like it.

This goes all the way back to my first point. If no God exists, then nothing can be right or wrong. In order for right and wrong to exist, God must exist.

OK How do YOU "read" God's objective morality?

In other words, how do YOU determine if [insert activity here] is right or wrong?

Not to be technical, but I don't DETERMINE anything. I discover it. To determine something is to be its cause. To discover it is to find out its cause.

In subject morality, I determine right and wrong.
In objective morality, I discover it.

How, then, do I DISCOVER objective morality? The same way as I discover anything else about reality. But reason. By observation. By questions. Specifically, I think the system called virtue ethics has the most explanatory power (compared to deontology or the more popular teleology of today). In virtue ethics, things are not good or bad in and of themselves. They are good or bad based on the virtue (or vice) from which they flow. Put differently, a virtue ethicist doesn't ask, "Is murder wrong," but rather, "Does a virtuous person commit murder?"

It gets rather detailed, but the idea is to point out certain things that are clearly virtuous and work from there. Honesty, courage, patience, kindness, etc. are obviously virtues. Those are things that are obvious to everyone. The lack of courage is the vice called cowardice. The lack of kindness is the vice called cruelty. The lack of honesty is the vice called deception, etc. You then proceed to work things out from there.

I do not believe that you have to have the Bible to know right from wrong. I think all people recognize it because all people, whether consciously or not, appeal to the virtues. They say, "That's not fair!" or "that was such a generous thing to do!" or "Wow! If you had not been so patient . . ." It's rather like the people who have never had any formal math training but still count. They may not know how numbers work, but they understand how reality works.

Of course, all this is on the assumption that morals are objective. I have to have something objective to ground these virtues in or else they are just my personal preference (or society's collective preference; either way, they are still preferences and completely subjective and thus really meaningless). I ground them in God's nature (not His commands). We call kindness good because God is kind. We call patience good because God is patient, etc. Since we are made in His image, we have access to not only these traits, but also to the recognition of them. This explains why murder and rape in the animal kingdom are not immoral, but they are among humans. Animals don't live by the virtues. They have no concept of them because they are not in God's image. Humans, though, being in God's image, do have those concepts, and are thus bound to them by virtue of their relationship to God.

Like I said, objective verses subjective. In any case, whatever their relationship to God, it is apparent that if God does not exist and morality is simply a human construct, then it is, by definition, strictly subjective and therefore meaningless. They only way to have objective morality--the only way things can be truly right or wrong--is if there is a God in whom to ground the meaning of the words.

Jac3510 wrote:Not to be technical, but I don't DETERMINE anything. I discover it. To determine something is to be its cause. To discover it is to find out its cause.

In subject morality, I determine right and wrong.
In objective morality, I discover it.

How, then, do I DISCOVER objective morality? The same way as I discover anything else about reality. But reason. By observation. By questions. Specifically, I think the system called virtue ethics has the most explanatory power (compared to deontology or the more popular teleology of today). In virtue ethics, things are not good or bad in and of themselves. They are good or bad based on the virtue (or vice) from which they flow. Put differently, a virtue ethicist doesn't ask, "Is murder wrong," but rather, "Does a virtuous person commit murder?"

Isn't this subject to what a contemporary person considers "virtuous". How is this a more reliable determinant of "virtue" than the Golden Rule?

It gets rather detailed, but the idea is to point out certain things that are clearly virtuous and work from there. Honesty, courage, patience, kindness, etc. are obviously virtues. Those are things that are obvious to everyone. The lack of courage is the vice called cowardice. The lack of kindness is the vice called cruelty. The lack of honesty is the vice called deception, etc. You then proceed to work things out from there.

Minor point - wouldn't the lack of kindness be apathy?

I do not believe that you have to have the Bible to know right from wrong. I think all people recognize it because all people, whether consciously or not, appeal to the virtues. They say, "That's not fair!" or "that was such a generous thing to do!" or "Wow! If you had not been so patient . . ." It's rather like the people who have never had any formal math training but still count. They may not know how numbers work, but they understand how reality works.

OK

Of course, all this is on the assumption that morals are objective. I have to have something objective to ground these virtues in or else they are just my personal preference (or society's collective preference; either way, they are still preferences and completely subjective and thus really meaningless).

Why couldn't the Golden Rule serve as the standard?

I ground them in God's nature (not His commands). We call kindness good because God is kind. We call patience good because God is patient, etc. Since we are made in His image, we have access to not only these traits, but also to the recognition of them.

How do you know God's nature?

This explains why murder and rape in the animal kingdom are not immoral, but they are among humans. Animals don't live by the virtues. They have no concept of them because they are not in God's image. Humans, though, being in God's image, do have those concepts, and are thus bound to them by virtue of their relationship to God.

Many (most??) species have very strict rules of conduct prohibiting "murder". Murder (killing another member of the social group) is very rare except in certain specific situations. Killing a group member who doesn't adhere to the code of conduct (which we call "capital punishment") happens occasionally as does killing between groups competing for the same resource (humans call it "war"). Humans have largely, but not totally, forgone killing as a means of improving or maintaining one's place in the social hierarchy, but it was quite a recent refinement in many (but not all) our codes of conduct. Most other species use ritual combat for this purpose to avoid serious injury or death while renegotiating one's position in the group.

Rape is pretty much a non-issue in other species.

Like I said, objective verses subjective. In any case, whatever their relationship to God, it is apparent that if God does not exist and morality is simply a human construct, then it is, by definition, strictly subjective and therefore meaningless. They only way to have objective morality--the only way things can be truly right or wrong--is if there is a God in whom to ground the meaning of the words.

First off, even if morality is subjective, it's far from meaningless.

Secondly, objective morality needn't be dependent on God. ANY fixed benchmark will serve - genetic "wiring", the Golden Rule, etc.

Thirdly, if objective morality depends on God, it is necessary to convince everyone that God exists and agree upon what is God's definition of the basis of objective morality.

Isn't this subject to what a contemporary person considers "virtuous". How is this a more reliable determinant of "virtue" than the Golden Rule?

Are you willing to conceed that morality (apart from the existence of god)is not objective? As Jac has pointed out, you are stealing from objective morality.

Let us say that all the child molestors in the world get together and start a new society on an island. This culture determines that child molestation is morally acceptable. Is child molestation "wrong" if the society agrees that it is morally right?

Is the Golden Rule a determinant, or a discovery (interpetation) of what is objective? If it is the former then this is why Jack is saying, "so what?" Do unto others is simply your preference and how you have determined in your mind, or how your culture has determined in its minds, to live. If so, then you are forcing your version of morality on others. If however, "Do unto others...." is objective, then those who abide by it are simply interpreting what is objectively true. And thus there is a God, an objective source of morality beyond our own human failings.

When you take a test and answer, 5, for "what is two plus two?" you are objectively wrong. It doesn't matter how much you think you are right, or how much you prefer, 5, over the true answer, 4. The teacher is not forcing their view on the student. The teacher is properly interpreting a fact, a truth that is not subjective. If teachers graded this work subjectively then imagine the chaos that would insue. If something that is objective is graded subjectively then chaos is the result. And I think it is pretty obvious in this world, in the realm of morality, that chaos abounds.

Now I grant you that morality is not as easy to interpret as is math. But there is something that resonates through humanity that speaks to the fact that murder IS objectively wrong, and not simply a preference. In fact, I know (suspect w/ confidence) that you can not reconcile that in your mind.

Many (most??) species have very strict rules of conduct prohibiting "murder".

Most? examples? Where are these rules? How are you defining murder? Murder is a conscious act of purposely taking a life of another.

waynepii wrote:....That was my point in my previous post, it seems that God's morality should be constant. The fact that morality varies between cultures and over time makes me question where God fits in. For example, God's "written word" (The Bible) is at best accepting of slavery, most contemporary societies have totally rejected slavery.

Warning - Long Post Below...

Waynepii, you stated that your morals come simply from the Golden Rule which as you pointed out consist of Respect and Love for others and self. The editied (my) Copyrighted draft material below may help you and the readers search this matter out a bit more:

Introduction

The Golden Rule is described in Matthew 7:12 and Matthew 22:37-40. Secularist moralist, atheists, those that disagree with Christianity leaves out love for God and only accepts the other parts as the basis to determine what is truly moral and amoral.

Secularist moralist, atheists, those non-religious whom disagree with Christianity like to point out that the Golden Rule is a human invention derived by common sense and not from some kind of deity. They claim that human love and respect is the sole manner towards doing unto others as you would have them do unto you which called Respect.

If we say our own human love, or respect, is the basis of human morality, then what guidelines do we have that serve to direct our morality as being right and good? Human love and respect, can be easily misled us as to what is right and wrong. This is due to the fact that what we deem beneficial to us as good maybe in fact bad to another or even ourselves. Our standards of human love and respect are flippant to the whims of convenient change.

You see, human love and respect alone is not the true standard for governing morality of a person, society, or a culture. This is borne out by people loving to hate, loving to show anger, loving to be selfish, loving political intrigue and ideology, drugs, alcohol, etc and etc. All these distort our love and respect because now we can love whom we want and hate whom we will - all justifiably obfuscated by the words love and respect we use.

We also have do not have any social or cultural guidelines that can adequately guide our love and respect to confirm for us what true morality is. This is because our own social or cultural guidelines of morality norms are also subject to social or cultural change as well. We need someone to reveal to us what true morality consists of and is. That person is God himself.

The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule

For the Christian and the Jews, God sent humanity the Ten Commandments in order reveal the absolute standards of the Golden Rule so we can know what true morality consist of and is not. From this comes the standard for what makes morals — moral.

However those that disagree with these religious views like to point out other religions and modern secularism basically teach the same principles albeit without God of the bible in the picture. Why is this? Where did this intuitive knowledge of love and respect come from — world wide? How come none can even keep the principles of the Gold Rule for very long?

Since variations of the Golden Rule do come form other places in the world, how did this knowledge come about? Was it derived by human common sense? Or was it predestined by God into humanities psyche?

Principles of the Golden Rule

If the principles of the Golden Rule were impressed by God into humanities psyche, then where did it originate and how was it passed on? Has anyone even considered that humanities first parent's taught their offspring an understanding of God and what true morality is to be based on eons ago? What principle did Cain break when he murdered his brother Able?

This would in effect make the hypothesis that the Golden Rule was known by the immediate offspring of Adam and Eve. Over the epochs of time, these take on the appearance of being of human origin when in fact the principles of the Golden Rule was what was passed on by Adam and Eve to their progeny and disseminated into the world etc and etc.

Therefore what Adam and Eve knew about God and the principles of the Golden Rule were passed on. In fact, the principles of Golden Rule are lain out in Genesis 1:26-28 demonstrated as how humanity was to run the world entrusted to them by their Creator. These standards would have been passed on to later generations and over the epochs of time fell into varied forms of corruption.

This would indicate that these Golden Rule ideas were in play before they were written by Moses and made known in writing. In fact Romans 1:19-21 alludes to this. Therefore, God consolidating these passed on principles into Ten Rules would not be, well, surprising. However what is surprising is that the Golden Rule (Love God and Others) tells us how to test our human love and respect to see if it is truly moral.

The Ten Commandants do this as they sum up what kind of love should govern us as Jesus revealed in Matthew about the Golden Rule. What many people fail to realize is that the Ten Commandments reveal to us the absolute Moral Standards that should govern our human love and behavior to know what right, good is, just is, as opposed to what is bad, wrong, and evil.

They were made to correct us away from our selfish notions of love to rely on one (God) to change us back into what God desires humanity to be like before the fall that corrupted our love and what we respect. However, human nature as it is even corrupted the intent of the Ten Commandments turning them into legalism and self appeasing works of performance.

Let us next look at the Ten Commandments and learn how these demonstrate the principles of the Golden Rule which define what makes moral — moral. The principles and purposes of the Ten Commandments were summed up by Jesus in the book of Matthew.

Morality Governed How?

Notice that in Matthew 22:37-40 it reveals that the Golden Rule involves first loving God and next to love your neighbor as you would love yourselves. Matthew 7:12 adds the emphasis of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you laying the ground work for defining respect. The Ten Commandments and all the Laws are fulfilled by these principles.

Exodus 20:1-5 sets the first principle of what makes morality moral and good The first standard of true Morality is to first love God and not just any god or gods of the world, or ideology, or philosophy, but the one true God that the bible speaks of and reveals.

Now if one truly loves God then they know that the Lord does not want us to live in a house of slavery to sin anymore. We can learn progressively how to be free from sins by God's own acts and hands, not our own. Surrendering to God's work done through Christ is an act of love towards God. He sent Jesus to set the captives free. The need for Christ is laid out in verse 2 that Morality begins by trusting in the Lord's provided deliverance.

Next in verse 4-5, if we truly love God then we would have no other gods (or things we make as a god, whether it be job, people, things, lust, etc…) besides the Lord God. Nor would a person be busy making physical carved images / idols, exploring human oriented works based religions, or even creating idols in ones mind that supplants God if they really first loved God.

True morality first begins first by loving God who loves us enough to freely offer deliverance and freedom from the automaton of sin. This Commandment tests our morality. Do we love God or love our idols, works oriented religions, ideologies, philosophies, so much more that they supplant God's rule in our daily lives?

What makes morality true and good?

Exodus 20:7 tells us what makes morality true and good. If we love God, then we would never take his name in vain nor use it to attain vain things, nor invoke his name in such manner as to manipulate God into performing for us like, the old quickie prayer states, “God get me out of this jam and I'll believe you, never do bad, again, _____ (fill in the blank).”

We would cease tempting and testing God and cease declaring God is not real and not exists. Cease proclaiming that all religions lead to the same ends. All religions do not lead to the same end as they are human performance oriented to earn redemption, or gain favor from a deity, force, power, entity, and do not rely of God's work and grace sent to change (John 1:14). These deny the true favor of God's grace and supplant his work for our own.

In this, Christianity, by its shear difference from other religions, makes a truth stand out pointing out the true path directly to God. Our own human parents warn us of not following the crowd but do we apply this when it comes to matters of religion? When we are called to first love God and to have nothing we make that supplants God, then why do we follow the crowds into the religious worlds and secular ideologies created by men? Do we love God more than these? The difference makes the difference in determining truth.

A Day of Rest

Exodus 20: 8: If we truly love God we would honor God by taking a day of rest on the seventh day from the first day we have been scheduled to work (Genesis 2:3). I am not here to argue the Saturday doctrine. The principle of rest first came as the seventh day from the first day one worked. Later it came into a community principle and became corrupted by legalism and dead formalism.

Jesus corrected the Sabbath. The existing Sabbath is not a legalistic adherence because he Sabbath was made for human beings and not human beings for the Sabbath: Mark 2:27. Also, Saturday is from the Solar Calendar System and did not exist in the Lunar system used by the ancients. If Passover, which is considered a Sabbath falls on a different Solar calendar day every year, so would the Community Sabbath. It is the principle of resting on the seventh day from the first day we first work that is important, not legalistic formalistic adherences.

If we love God, we would honor the need for a day of rest for all whatever that day falls on for them. Also since we are to rest from our labor the true Sabbath is future tense because we cannot enter into Heaven by our own works (Hebrews 4:4-9). True morality honors a day of rest and does not impose working harshness to employees, servants, domesticated beast as it knows we all need a day of rest.

Is the Sabbath a legalist work for you? Or any seventh day of rest from first day you worked? Which breaks moral principle of the Sabbath day rest? Do we show and grant a day of rest to others or harshness?

Loving Neighbor as Thyself and Respect

Exodus 20:12: If you truly love and respect your neighbor and others, true morality consists of honoring your parents, taking care of them, helping them because they helped you. However, due to sin this honor has been broken by divorce, abandonment, drugs, alcoholism, abuse, neglect, death. If parents love their children, the children will honor their parents. The test, if the parent's did or did not. Do you honor them? Or abandon them to the State as worthless eaters unproductive to the whole and not worthy of care?

Exodus 20:13-17: True morality refines our love because we will not commit premeditated acts of murder, nor will we slay one with our words and deeds of gossip and slander assassinating another's character. We will not have outburst of anger that murders another in our own hearts. As for war, since we live in a fallen world where there are real enemies, there is a time for war and peace. Know the time.

The absolute standard of the Golden Rule

Exodus 20:14-17: True morality let's us know that what is good is not to do the following things in many diverse and twisted ways. If we really love and respect others then we will not commit adultery or steal as you defraud others as well as yourself by these acts. You cause woe, damage, and hurt.

Have we stolen and broken another's heart? Destroyed their dreams? Bad mouthed and implanted negativity into our children by our words? How many ways do we steal from others? How have lifestyles and addictions steal from our very selves? True Morality governs real Love not to do these things for any self justification.

How does fornication and adultery pervert the good in people's lives and not only sexual types but also the emblematic perverted ways of lust, desires, and morality of the world? True morality does not give into these and shuns them. Have you?

Again the Standard first of Loving God balances and demonstrates the difference between the morality of the world as opposed to the absolute standard of the Golden Rule. Next, if we really love God, this will guide our morality not to bear false witness against another, covet, or lust after what another has. This is opposed to the morality of the world.

By the Ten Commandants we learn what true morality consists of but we all fail to keep these in many clever and diverse ways. Without this governing standard which lets us know how to love and respect correctly, we would continue to twist morality to whatever suites our taste.

Without this governing standard which lets us know how to love and respect correctly, we would continue to twist morality to whatever suites our taste. We cannot keep even one of these for any length of time. In fact, we cannot even keep the Golden Rule.

The law and Commandments were meant to bring us to Christ, the deliverer, who frees us from being an automaton to sin and dead self works so we can be changed by God's moral hands to live not as the world (Exodus 20:2, Romans 7:12-13, Galatians 3:24). If not, by this, God can judge the world justly because all intuitively know about the Golden Rule and beak it everyday and in every conceivable way (Note: Romans 1:19-20).

Conclusion

The Purpose of these standards is to lead us to the knowledge that we need a deliverer, someone to set us free from the amorality within us all. That Deliverer is Jesus Christ. We need the deliverer so we can learn to live freely from sin and death which prepares us for eternity with God. This was what was preordained before the foundation of the world: God's word, His call that invokes a choice before all humanity (John 1:1).

The outcome of this choice is already known by God. It is true that that God has no need to consider a man further that he should go before God in judgment (Job 34:22-24). But without the act committed how can God be absolutely just in his judgment and perfect in all his ways?

We can cite God as a criminal for allowing evil but the criminal is in us, not God. God justly removes evil at an appointed time and we should seek the deliverer to free us from our own evil within.
-
-
-

Note: Parts of this discourse is under Copyright Protection
Copyright By B. W. Melvin
Author: A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion

waynepii wrote:Isn't this subject to what a contemporary person considers "virtuous". How is this a more reliable determinant of "virtue" than the Golden Rule?

I thought I already covered the difference in "determine" and "discover." Tell me, does a yardstick determine how long a football field is just because you can use it to measure one? Of course not. Neither do the virtues determine what is right and wrong. They are a means of helping us discover right and wrong.

Secondly, I never said that the Golden Rule was a bad way of helping you discover right and wrong. I said it wouldn't DETERMINE right and wrong. I said it wasn't an objective means of deciding right and wrong. If objective morality doesn't exist, then neither the virtues nor the Golden Rule are anything other than personal preference. The only reason I brought them up was to explain to you how I DISCOVER (which I even capitalized so that we wouldn't have this misunderstanding again) objective morality.

Minor point - wouldn't the lack of kindness be apathy?

I would take a lack of empathy to be apathy, not a lack of kindness. One of the things we need to understand is the evil is not a thing in and of itself. It is a lack of something else, just as darkness and cold are not things in themselves but a lack of light and heat, respectively, which are things in themselves.

Why couldn't the Golden Rule serve as the standard?

Because no rule can serve as any standard. Plato proved that a long time ago with his Euthyphro Dilemma. If things are only good because they are commanded (be it by society or by God), then they are not really good in and of themselves, ad thus, could be changed arbitrarily by the commander. If society suddenly legalized murder, would that make it right? Of course not. Likewise, if God suddenly said that murder was good, would that make it right? Nope. As proof, consider one of the main arguments against the Christian God: in the OT, He seems to command the murder of the Canaanites! Now, if good and evil are based on God's COMMAND, then you can't say that is EVIL since God commanded it.

In reality, the Golden Rule just summarizes the virtues. It is a way to help us understand what a virtuous person does.

How do you know God's nature?

The same thing I know anything's nature: by examining it. I know that God is self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, timeless, simple, immutable, etc. all from examining what it means to be God (and more technically, by examining the concept of Being). Likewise, by examining morality, I find that the only way for morality to be objective is if it is rooted in some eternal, moral Being. But it cannot be rooted in that Being's commands for the reason above. Rather, it must be rooted in its nature.

Don't misunderstand me here, Wayne. I am not saying that I know God's nature and THEREFORE I know morality is objective. I am saying that the only way morality can be objective is if they are rooted in God's nature. Since I believe that morality is objective (and I believe you do, too), I am forced to conclude, if I am intellectually honest, that God exists and that He exists in a certain manner.

Many (most??) species have very strict rules of conduct prohibiting "murder". Murder (killing another member of the social group) is very rare except in certain specific situations. Killing a group member who doesn't adhere to the code of conduct (which we call "capital punishment") happens occasionally as does killing between groups competing for the same resource (humans call it "war"). Humans have largely, but not totally, forgone killing as a means of improving or maintaining one's place in the social hierarchy, but it was quite a recent refinement in many (but not all) our codes of conduct. Most other species use ritual combat for this purpose to avoid serious injury or death while renegotiating one's position in the group.

Rape is pretty much a non-issue in other species.

No. Social species have evolutionarily gained (or Divinely designed) instincts that prohibit killing within the group. But when they do and are "punished" by society, it is hardly a "moral" issue.

This makes a great case study of what I am talking about. I am perfectly willing, for the sake of argument, to concede that the human disdain for murder is completely gained from evolution. Now, let's recognize that. But what makes that different from the fact that humans only believe in God because evolution taught them to (either directly or indirectly)? Once I recognize that there is REALLY no such thing as right and wrong, it is just a social construct invented by evolution, why can't I just throw that aside? Because it is bad for the society? What if I just say "so what?" Because it is bad for me? What if I just say "so what?"

If it is just an evolutionary idea, then it isn't REALLY wrong. It's just a taboo.

Now, I have no problem with the idea that killing another member of one's social group is taboo in the wild. But is there anything to suggest that it is morally wrong? And if so, who says so? Why is it immoral some species but not others? Is murder only evil in some species?

I cannot emphasize this enough, Wayne: I'm not interested in the ORIGIN of morality. Have that debate with someone interested in absolute morality. I'm interested in the AUTHORITY of morality. If no God exists, then morality is only a social construct, and it has NO INHERENT AUTHORITY. It has no inherent meaning. Something may be wrong in one culture and right in another, and the one doesn't have the right to accuse the other. Slavery, then, wasn't wrong. And in a culture where murder is permissible, it isn't wrong either, despite your personal distaste for it. The only way for slavery and murder to be REALLY wrong is if it is objective, but that requires it be grounded for its authority in something higher than social constructs.

First off, even if morality is subjective, it's far from meaningless.

It is meaningless in the sense that it has no inherent meaning.

Consider the word "comment." In English, this word means "a remark." In French, however, the word means "How?" The word "comment" in and of itself is meaningless. Different people assign that collection of sounds their own meanings, but the sound in and of itself has as much meaning as "flughableitzholm."

Likewise, if morality is subjective, then it too is meaningless. Sure, you can assign the labels "right" and "wrong" to something, but there is nothing to say that others may not assign the opposite terms to the same ideas, and who would be right? Answer: just as neither the French, Spanish, or English are "right" about the correct meaning of the word "comment," so neither of you are right about the correct meaning of "right" or "wrong." Morality is inherently meaningless.

Secondly, objective morality needn't be dependent on God. ANY fixed benchmark will serve - genetic "wiring", the Golden Rule, etc.

No, as discussed above, "fixed wiring" is no more authoritative than any social construct. The things you are talking about only explain behavior. They don't explain "ought." They explain WHY we don't like murder. They don't explain whether we OUGHT to murder or not.

Thirdly, if objective morality depends on God, it is necessary to convince everyone that God exists and agree upon what is God's definition of the basis of objective morality.

Wrong. Let's return to an illustration I used a long time ago.

Suppose you and I are drinking from a stream. Suppose that stream is fed by a waterfall. Do you need to convince me that the waterfall exists before I can drink from it?

In the same way, I don't have to convince you of the SOURCE of morality before I can convince you that something is right or wrong. Indeed, if morality is objective, then BY DEFINITION I don't have to convince you of its source because you have direct access to it yourself.

Consider another example: do you have to convince me that reality exists before I can use a tape measure? You may think so, but what if I told you that I was a solipsist, and I deny reality's existence. Do I still need to believe in reality to use the tape measure properly? No, because what the tape measure says is OBJECTIVE.

AGAIN, Wayne, the issue is really very simple:

The only way for morality to have any objective meaning is if it is grounded in something higher than the human mind, collective or individual. For if it is grounded only in our mind, then it means only what the mind decides that it means. But if it is grounded in something external to the mind, then the human mind DISCOVERS what it means, not decides it. And since morality fundamentally has to do with the behavior of moral creatures, then if morality is grounded in something external to the human mind, then it must be grounded in an intelligent, moral being with a direct relationship with Man. This being can only be God.

Either God exists and morality can exist, or God does not exist and morality cannot. There is no middle ground.

Let's try a different tack:

How did YOU determine (or discover, or determine, or decide, or whatever) that [ insert "evil" act of your choice ] is immoral? Be specific please.

The same way you do, Wayne.

How am I not being clear? My argument has NOTHING to do with how we know what is right or wrong. That is an epistemological question. My argument has to do with what right or wrong IS in and of itself, which is an ontological question. What something is and how you know what something is are different issues. The first is ontological; the latter epistemological. You are worried about the epistemological question, which doesn't address my argument. We all agree that atheists can know what is right and wrong. What I am saying is that regardless of how we come to know it (epistemology), if atheism is true, there is no such thing as right and wrong in the first place (ontology).

When I ask "What is right and wrong?" I am not asking "How do you know if it is right or wrong?" I am asking "What is the nature of right and wrong?" I am not asking "Is THAT wrong?" I am asking "What IS wrongness?"

If there is no way to accurately, reliably and consistently determine the (alleged) objective morality of a situation or act, what does it matter whether there IS an objective or not?

Who said you can't accurately discover it? I think you can. Just because people get it wrong doesn't mean that it is impossible to get it right. How many problems are there in modern physics that we haven't gotten right yet? How many ideas did people used to hold to that we have realized now are wrong? Research has led us to realize that we were wrong, and we recognize that future research may possibly overturn current ideas as well.

Likewise, people have held (and sometimes still hold to) wrong ideas about morality. But we can criticize those ideas on an objective basis and say that they were wrong (i.e., American slavery). The reason it matters is that if morality is not objective, then you CANNOT say that American slavery was wrong. You can't say that murder is wrong.

Remember this entire conversation came up because you argued that things could REALLY be wrong without God's existence. I'm saying that if morality is not objective in and of itself, then it cannot REALLY be wrong, yet objective morality presupposes God's existence.

Note again, morality's being objective does not mean that everyone will get it right. I took pains to make that distinction when I talked extensively earlier about the rejection of absolute morality and our ability to disagree on it. Whether or not you get it right or wrong is a question of our knowledge, much like our ability to get our sums right or wrong. But if there are no such things as correct sums in and of themselves, it makes no sense to say we got them wrong. Likewise, if there is no such thing as morality in and of itself, then it makes no sense to say we can get it wrong.

But there are proofs of what the correct answers are for arithmetic problems so someone can determine unequivocally whether they are right of wrong. How do you prove whether the morality of a given issue is right or wrong (ie what the pertinent "objective morality" is).

Do you not think the slave holders of the 18th and 19th centuries thought "they had it right"? How did "objective morality" affect the anti-bellum South?

Wayne, if math was simply a matter of personal preference, would it be POSSIBLE to find "proofs of what the correct answers are for arithmetic problems so someone can determine unequivocally whether they are right of wrong"?

As far as how objective morality affected the culture of the South in the 18th and 19th centuries, it ultimately led to the abolition of the practice. Will a child know he has gotten his sums wrong without a teacher to correct him? Likewise, those people had to be corrected. Do you think they were mistaken in their assertion that it was OK, Wayne?

Jac3510 wrote:Wayne, if math was simply a matter of personal preference, would it be POSSIBLE to find "proofs of what the correct answers are for arithmetic problems so someone can determine unequivocally whether they are right of wrong"?

But it's NOT a "preference" there are PROVABLE correct answers.

As far as how objective morality affected the culture of the South in the 18th and 19th centuries, it ultimately led to the abolition of the practice.

SOMETHING changed the morality. You'll need to provide some proof of your assertion that it was "objective morality".

Will a child know he has gotten his sums wrong without a teacher to correct him?

Quite possibly. Put 3 rocks in a pile, add 2 more, count the rocks - ergo 3+2=5.

Likewise, those people had to be corrected. Do you think they were mistaken in their assertion that it was OK, Wayne?

I do. Many contemporary preachers did not.

But it's NOT a "preference" there are PROVABLE correct answers.

You are still confusing ontology with epistemology. If you don't have the expertise to prove someone wrong on some matter, does that mean that they are not wrong? What if the math problem was particularly complex and you weren't capable of showing me where my answer was wrong. What if the math was so complex, that no one was yet able to show me my error? Does that mean that I am not really wrong?

In any case, you missed the point of my question. I asked a "what if." If it so happened that math was only a matter of preference, would it make any sense for you to be able to say I was wrong? To go back to my ice cream example, why can't you tell me that I am wrong when I say that vanilla is better than chocolate?

SOMETHING changed the morality. You'll need to provide some proof of your assertion that it was "objective morality".

The morality didn't change. Our position on the question changed. What WE THOUGHT changed. Look at it this way:

They thought it was right --- They were incorrect. It was wrong
We think it was wrong --- We are right. It was wrong.

Do you see that what we THINK is what changed? What did not change was the fact that it was wrong. Again, you are confusing epistemology (which deals with what we know) and ontology (which deals with what a thing is).

I do. Many contemporary preachers did not.

Good. So you think those preachers were MISTAKEN? You think that they made an incorrect judgment? An objectively incorrect judgment?

What differentiates this from if they had said that chocolate ice cream was better than vanilla (or insert your favorite flavor ice cream to make the point)?