Morality and God

[Echoside]

Well I typed up a longer explanation but got connection destroyed oh well here it goes again :

Basically, we all know that there are certain logical truths like the law of non contradiction that when followed can lead to objective truths. 1+1=2 for example, I don't think anyone would attempt to argue against that.

An idea like morality at first glance to me seems more of an abstract idea, where objective truths do not necessarily have to exist. That is indeed the only position of anyone subscribing to a naturalist philsophy.

But when you put God into the equation, it is often asserted that morals are now objective. What makes this apparent change? Things like euthyphro's dilemma seek to show that there is no real logical objectivity as to why something is good. It is simply the god(s) preference.

I listened to WLC's opinion of this, it seemed to go towards an idea that God is simply good, and his essence and being just contain all of the attributes like love, etc. But if you stop there on the analysis, does that not still simply say, God's preference is what is good?

I did a bit of reading, and happened to stumble by Genesis 1:27. It actually seems like a good explanation. If we are indeed beings created in God's image, then I am sure we are also imparted with knowledge of god and his essence, namely morality. We are all held to one standard, God's standard, because it is the only one that exists. To say morality is subjective and use that as an excuse for wrongdoings is completely foolish. God has not only imparted with us the written word of his standard, but the innate essence of himself so that we are all held to a standard which there can be no debate. As such, we are all on even playing ground and I actually laughed when I thought about this as it seems that is the only fair way to do it, but where did I get this concept of fairness?


Anyways, if anyone has thoughts on morality and God (specifically Christianity) I'd like to hear some input. I didn't really have an answer a couple years ago in my ethics class when we were asked about divine command theory and it's negative implications, it's kind of surprising how many answers I've read up on that are out there yet weren't advertised, looks like the secular train of thought is trying to hide some things

[domokunrox]

You should really read what I wrote. See now you write more information and you only dug a hole, and continue to show that you like to chase your own tail.

Once you claim "There is no objective truth"

The inevitable happens and you shot yourself already, and here I am pointing at the bullet wound in your chest.

"Is THAT an objective truth?"

You say you understand the law of non-contradiction, but do you really? 1 + 1 = 2 and then in the next paragraph your logic self destructs once you start using words. Its as if you went 2 + 2 is subjective.

The Buddist says "The Tao goes beyond thought"

What is your response to that?

Also, you got WLC DEAD WRONG on the Euthyphro dilemma. For your benefit, I will put his answer here word for word.

We don't need to refute either of the 2 horns of the ED, because the dilemma it presents is a false one. There is a 3rd alternative, namely, God wills something because he is good. What do I mean by that? I mean that God's own nature is THE standard of goodness, and HIS commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God.
So moral values are not independent of God because God's own character defins what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard defining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect His moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. When the atheist or agnostic demands "If God were to command child abuse, would we be obligated to abuse our children?" He's asking a question (here's a logic you are familiar with, echoside) like "If there were a square circle, would its area be the square of ones of its sides?" There is no answer because it is logically impossible.
So the ED presents us with a false choice, and we shouldn't be tricked by it. The morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it.

End quote (On Guard by William Lane Craig, p.135-136.

So, you see, God does not have a preference. God is THE good.

Good: noun
1. God

Not arbitrary or subjective.

Objective.

[Echoside]

You should really read what I wrote. See now you write more information and you only dug a hole, and continue to show that you like to chase your own tail.

What makes you think that this was a response to you personally?

Once you claim "There is no objective truth"

"Is THAT an objective truth?"

I'm not sure, but I do know this is a strawman. To deny objective truth in one area is not to deny the idea from applying to other things, any more than embracing objective truth in one area is not to embrace objectivity for every thing.

You say you understand the law of non-contradiction, but do you really? 1 + 1 = 2 and then in the next paragraph your logic self destructs once you start using words. Its as if you went 2 + 2 is subjective.

Please, show me how I did this?

Also, you got WLC DEAD WRONG on the Euthyphro dilemma. For your benefit, I will put his answer here word for word.

The answer tells me that God is a number of things that we define as good, but it does not tell me that we are on the same level of accountability. Other than God being more powerful than us, is there a reason for God to uphold his morality over us if we do not share that same set of standards? If our morality is different? You don't need to answer this by the way, I did so in my initial post.

If you would read what was written, this entire thread was just made for me to spin off some of my thoughts on the subject. Not to debate or make a point against Christianity. How often the proclaimed word of God is spread with more desires to win arguments than show the gospel?

[domokunrox]

Oh, I am sorry echoside. You are totally right. Monkeys were banging on a typewriter in the world of imagination and it happened to appear here and disturb the only existing truth you were imparting to yourself.

I will make sure the monkeys don't ever write Shakespeare, and use the internet portal from the bizzaro world to the world here.

Won't ever happen again. I promise.

[Echoside]

Oh, I am sorry echoside. You are totally right. Monkeys were banging on a typewriter in the world of imagination and it happened to appear here and disturb the only existing truth you were imparting to yourself.

I will make sure the monkeys don't ever write Shakespeare, and use the internet portal from the bizzaro world to the world here.

Won't ever happen again. I promise.

If you would like to actually discuss morality and God within a Christian framework pertaining to anything I've said thus far in this thread, please do so.

If all you have to contribute is ad hominems, straw man arguments, and the endless over dramatic misrepresentations of my posts, you are more than welcome to join any of the endless number of atheist forums that know these tactics all too well.

[jlay]

Can a moderator step in here and restore some civility?

Dom, nothing wrong with challenging someone, but let's not get personal. Peace.

[Byblos]

Can a moderator step in here and restore some civility?

Already have, privately.

Dom, nothing wrong with challenging someone, but let's not get personal. Peace.

Agreed.

[domokunrox]

I've made no personal attacks here. Its very dry, yes. But I only play out the irony that echoside wants. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Look at the reply of echoside here

Other than God being more powerful than us, is there a reason for God to uphold his morality over us if we do not share that same set of standards? If our morality is different? You don't need to answer this by the way, I did so in my initial post.

By this statement, that settles it then?? My reply REFLECTS this. There wasn't a need to answer him. He answered it for himself. Hence, I'm sorry. Nobody should have replied. Is this what this discussion forum is for?

Was my reply satire. Yeah, I admit it. Look at him. You don't think that is satire? Really? We got an bonafide expert on God here telling us Christians here on a Christian website that I don't need your input.

Echoside, how long have you been doing philosophy? Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is a strawman.

Its interesting that you say you want people to comment about morality within the Christian framework. I will address your thread and your comments all within proper context.

Christianity (as well as other religions) has 3 enemies in the worldview today.
Relativism, Pluralism, and Naturalism. Your worldview is actually sort of a collection of it all.
We're interested in finding truth here. Thats the entire point to logic, but in order to find truth we need to define it. Lets do the crash course. Luckily for you, I know what truth is in philosophy and in Christianity. So, you get both.

Lets define truth

What is truth?
Truth is what corresponds to the facts (Darkness is the absence of light)
Truth matches its object (This website is godandscience.org)
Truth is telling it like it is (I woke up today)
Truth is what corresponds with reality (I woke up today and I was well rested from a full night sleep)

What is falsehood?
Not truth (Self explanatory)

The law of non-contradiction
Opposite ideas cannot be true at the same time and same sense (The Earth is round and not round) This is false

The principle of self-stultification
A self-stultifying statement is a statement that contradicts itself (Even though this website says godandscience.org, this website is not godandscience.org)
The case it advances as proof (This website is google.com)
The presuppositions inherent in the subject matter being discussed (This website is google.com half of the time)
The presuppositions inherent in the speech act (All sentences are meaningless)

Lets do some more examples here

I cannot speak a word in english
Did you say that in english?

I don't believe truth is telling it like it is
Is THAT telling it like it is?

Opposites can both be true
Is the opposite of THAT true?

There is no truth
Is THAT true?

You can't know the truth
Is THAT the truth?

There is no absolute truth
Is that absolutely true?

Its true for you, but not for me
Is that just true for you, and not for me?

Nothing is true for everyone
Is that true for everyone?

No one knows the truth
How do you know that is true?

Objective truth about God is subjective
Is that an objective truth about God?

You get it? In short, none of the statements can be denied without affirming them
Which is entirely why your worldview shoots itself before you even say anything, echoside.

Here are some truths about truth
All truth claims are absolute, narrow, and exclusive
1+1=2
Claims of truth excludes its opposite
Truth is discovered, not invented (Gravity existed before Newton)
Truth exists independently of anyone's knowledge of it (Gravity, mathematical tables, etc)
Beliefs cannot change facts despite how sincerely they are held (I sincerely believe I have $10000000000 USD in the bank)
Truth transcends all culture (1+1=2 in the USA as well as in Tibet)
Law of non-contradiction is the same all over the world
Moral law is exists in all parts of the world
Raised in a different culture doesn't make your beliefs true (Santa claus comes down the chimney with presents for me 1 night every year)
A person's attitude doesn't change the truth (I don't like math, they only teach you that there is only 1 answer to problems)

Ok, so that should be enough.

So, echoside here wants to know about morals and God. Well, God created the world, so morals correspond to reality. The reality is that moral values and duties are objective

Now echoside here is going "Can you prove it without asking 'Is X really wrong?'" and this is kind of funny because I believe echoside just isn't interested in finding out I think. Its sort of like romance without a partner. However, lets go ahead and give him the benefit of trying it out.

We're going to go ahead and accept Echoside's position that morals are not objective. They are subjective. So, again this means the the moral law varies from person to person depending on how they were feeling that day, what clothes they were wearing, etc.

Now I am the subject here, and lets just say I appeared anywhere in the world. I get a call from my friend and he says "Hey do you see me waving from my car here?" I see him and he flags me over to his car, and I get in. We exchange greetings and he asks me "Hey, can you drive the car for me? I need you to drive me around" I say ok, no problem, right? So we drive around and he asks me to stop and pull over on the corner. He gets out and says "I'll be right back". I wait for about 10 minutes and he comes back in the car with a bag, gets in, tells me to drive. I start driving and he opens the bag with money. So I ask "Where did you get that?" to which is replies "I stole it from the bank on the corner". I shrug my shoulders. No big deal. What I believe about theft is subjective anyway. He probably knows the local laws here so I'm sure this is normal here. So we drive over to another town, and we stopped to eat at the local market. Then we come back to the car and the local authorities apprehend us both. I spend the day in jail and the jailer finally comes by and he escorts me to the courthouse and they sit me on the stand and they tell me you are charged with theft, what is my plea. I say not guilty. I didn't do it, so I will be ok. So they ask me to take an oath and raise my hand. "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god?", I reply "I promise to tell what I think, all of think, and nothing but what I think, to help myself" Now at this point everyone in the court looks at me with a blank stare. A prosector comes over and asks "You stole money, don't you believe that stealing is wrong?" I look over for my lawyer and find no one, so I yell out "Objection your honor! Thats a question of subjective morals! Its different for everyone!" to which the judge replies "Answer the question".

So I sit there and I finally answer. "I don't know. I am innocent. I didn't steal anything" to which the judge is fed up with me takes me off the stand. Now him or the jury now passes his or their judgement

Take a guess what the judgement is. Remember that this is anywhere in the world. Is there such a place where the verdict is not guilty?

[Byblos]

Dom,

All we're asking is to tone down the sarcasm and satire a bit, there's really no need for that. Just engage the subject matter.

[Echoside]

Once you claim "There is no objective truth"
"Is THAT an objective truth?"

I'd like to revisit this bit as I'm not sure what you were going for exactly. I have never claimed there was no objective truth in regards to morality. The whole point of this thread, and others like it is to evaluate the claim.

However, even if I made the claim the statement is not necessarily fallacious. Objective truth as a concept is required to make the claim, but if I am speaking of morality specifically it could still be subjective while objective truths exist. Hence my previous ice cream example, even though it is a subjective preference objectivity can, and does exist in other forms. 1+1=2 regardless of whether morality, ice cream preference, or whatever turns out to be subjective.

Echoside, how long have you been doing philosophy? Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is a strawman.

True, if that was the case.

Now echoside here is going "Can you prove it without asking 'Is X really wrong?'" and this is kind of funny because I believe echoside just isn't interested in finding out I think.

Beliefs cannot change facts despite how sincerely they are held

We're going to go ahead and accept Echoside's position that morals are not objective. They are subjective.

You do realise that logically this makes your point impossible to prove? Your scenario is just a longer version of "is X really wrong?" I'm asking for something else, and if you cannot give me more then I'll take the argument not "as strong as they come".

Remember that this is anywhere in the world. Is there such a place where the verdict is not guilty?

Even if I grant you that morality is the only factor in determining laws (it isn't), advertising the fact that perhaps everywhere in the world would judge guilty is simply argumentum ad populum.

Here's another statement about truth : "What is true remains so regardless of how many people think the opposite"

[spartanII]

Your being too harsh on echo, domo. Calm down. He's being civil. Anyways, it is objective in the sense that since God knows everything (concretely) what He says is moral is objective and concrete. He knows the way we should live and what is right/wrong. That's way shorter than what everybody else has wrote but that's my take on it.

[domokunrox]

I'd like to revisit this bit as I'm not sure what you were going for exactly. I have never claimed there was no objective truth in regards to morality. The whole point of this thread, and others like it is to evaluate the claim.

You still aren't getting my point, Echoside. If you want to find the truth, than you are doing it backwards. Epistemology doesn't make discoveries, and has NEVER unveiled any kind of historical truth. All it ever does is scrutinize the subject and defeat the logic it stands attempts to stand on. All the non-logic of epistemology that is used today came from Hume, and the very basis of his ideas are circular. In order to find truth, you need to start adding objects into your logic, and not make broad subtractions.

But hey, great! Lets stop wasting time and get right to it. Its no secret to me that you don't believe objective moral values and duties exist. You are either in the state of "No" or "I don't know". Lets work from there.

However, even if I made the claim the statement is not necessarily fallacious.

You cannot deny it, without affirming it. Its very basic and very simple. It is fallacious. Add first, then subtract. Its the only way.

Objective truth as a concept

Stop right here. Truths are factual. Facts are not concepts. They are facts. Do not redefine it.
Concepts are illusions until they materialize.

I am speaking of morality specifically it could still be subjective while objective truths exist.

This is a contradiction. Objective moral values and duties either exist, or they do not. Existence is all or nothing. There is no such thing as existence in terms of percentage. Otherwise, how do you know what it is? It either exists, and the conclusion is that objective moral values and duties exist OR it does not exist, and morals are all subjective. Its sort of like saying godandscience.org exists, and godandscience.org does not exist.

The law of non-contradiction
Opposite ideas cannot be true at the same time and same sense (The Earth is round and not round)

Hence my previous ice cream example, even though it is a subjective preference objectivity can, and does exist in other forms. 1+1=2 regardless of whether morality, ice cream preference, or whatever turns out to be subjective.

Again, add content first. You already defeated yourself.

You do realise that logically this makes your point impossible to prove?

No it does not. The shoe fits, or it does not fit. Only way to find out is to try it on, and MAKE THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE YOU WANT FOR PROOF.

Your scenario is just a longer version of "is X really wrong?" I'm asking for something else, and if you cannot give me more then I'll take the argument not "as strong as they come".

What evidence do you want then? I want to give you EMPIRICAL evidence.
Since you don't agree, lets do epistemology. What country, region, culture, providence, etc...is theft not a punishable crime?

Even if I grant you that morality is the only factor in determining laws (it isn't), advertising the fact that perhaps everywhere in the world would judge guilty is simply argumentum ad populum.

Theft is a widely known and solely moral choice. In what culture, providence, country, etc....is theft allowed?
It isn't an ad populum fallacy if EVERYONE AGREES. You get this, right?

I'm not trying to prove "Most people believe theft is wrong"
I'm trying to prove "All people will experience and conclude that theft is wrong independently" cause that makes it objectively true. That is the conclusion. Thats where the goal posts are.

Its the easiest way to do it.

I'll try doing it the greek way.

All persons eventually experience the theft of their private property
Stolen property always invoke emotions of anger and/or sadness from the victim
Anger and/or sadness are clearly emotions of being wronged
Therefore, Theft is objectively wrong

Here's another statement about truth : "What is true remains so regardless of how many people think the opposite"

Is THAT just true only for only people who think the opposite and not for the people who think the affirmative?

You gotta stop thinking backwards, Echoside. You won't learn anything until you start moving forward with ideas.

[jlay]

Stop right here. Truths are factual. Facts are not concepts. They are facts. Do not redefine it.
Concepts are illusions until they materialize.

That is a good point.

Dom, I am very interested in your feedback, and glad to have you here at G&S. I am not a moderator here, but I can speak from experience as I've had several heated discussions and disagreements over the years. Jac used to deal with these issues of epistemology vs. ontology back in the day. And very well I might add. It is a shame if the validity of argument never is received because of how it is presented.

All persons eventually experience the theft of their private property
Stolen property always invoke emotions of anger and/or sadness from the victim
Anger and/or sadness are clearly emotions of being wronged
Therefore, Theft is objectively wrong

I believe in objective morality, hands down. But I don't see how this argument establishes objective morality. It is predicated on the human experience. Or, maybe you can clarify.

[Echoside]

But hey, great! Lets stop wasting time and get right to it. Its no secret to me that you don't believe objective truth exists. You are either in the state of "No" or "I don't know". Lets work from there.

Of course I believe objective truth exists, I disagree that objective truth in regards to MORALITY necessarily exists.

Stop right here. Truths are factual. Facts are not concepts. They are facts. Do not redefine it.
Concepts are illusions until they materialize.

Alright, no redefining needed my mistake

This is a contradiction. Objective truths either exist, or they do not. Existence is all or nothing. There is no such thing as existence in terms of percentage. Otherwise, how do you know what it is? It either exists, and the conclusion is that objective moral values and duties exist OR it does not exist, and morals are all subjective. Its sort of like saying godandscience.org exists, and godandscience.org does not exist.

No, it is not a contradiction. Objective truths exist, does that mean everything has an objective answer? Are you advocating that the best tasting ice cream can only ever be chocolate and not vanilla? That red is the better color over blue? If not, then nothing I have said is a contradiction. How is an objective truth like the law of non contradiction automatically tied to objective moral values? You cannot just affirm it and then tell me I'm wrong, to say that objective moral values and logic are on the same level while offering no justification.

Theft is a widely known and solely moral choice. In what culture, providence, country, etc....is theft allowed?
It isn't an ad populum fallacy if EVERYONE AGREES. You get this, right?

Yes, because objective truths can be overridden by everyone thinking the opposite, right?

I'm not trying to prove "Most people believe theft is wrong"
I'm trying to prove "All people will experience and conclude that theft is wrong independently" cause that makes it objectively true. That is the conclusion. Thats where the goal posts are.

I would love to see the proof you have to offer that the billions of people on the planet all agree that theft is morally wrong. Not just wrong because they don't like being stolen from, or because it's the easiest way to build up a society, but because it is objectively wrong.

And even if you did, that does not make the statement objectively true, it merely says that everyone thinks it is true. Do you not see the contradiction in your previous post about truths and now this?

Here's another statement about truth : "What is true remains so regardless of how many people think the opposite"

Is THAT just true only for only people who think the opposite and not for the people who think the affirmative?

You may have to reword that, but truths don't need people to affirm them; regardless of my stance on objective morality it is either true or it isn't.

[PaulSacramento]

Most people don't believe in an objective or absolute moral, an absolute right and wrong, until they get screwed over.
Pardon my french.