Moral Argument for God

quote:

---

Are you saying that, without the threat of Hell or even promise of Heaven that Christians would rape, steal, and kill? Perhaps some of them would - they would be called "phsychopaths."

---

Gee, I wonder how it is that many millions of Buddhists aren't the worst murdering bastards in the world, since none of them believe in hell or heaven?

Well... great... you're like the fourth or fifth person here to totally miss what I am saying.Everyone is so concerned about showing me that atheists can be moral people, and I'M NOT even arguing that they can't be. I'm arguing the nature of right and wrong! I think it's futile.

...You have no idea what i'm saying either...

It seems you missed my point as well. Im not arguing that Athiests can be moral, I think that has been well established. I am arguing that right and wrong do exist without god. Not only that, but that there are certain objective right and wrongs existing WITHOUT god.

No morality has a ground, since we can always ask "Why should I care?" to any given moral principle. If one says, you should not do this or that because in the long run it is bad for you, I can say, why should I care about the long run? Perhaps I like chaos and killing and such. I find it romantic.It doesn't help to introduce a God, however, if we mean a super-human type of being, since in that case God's opinions would also be subjective; and it's not possible to imagine a being that is not just a greater version of a human.As regards the punishment-in-hell concept, that does not strike me as a moral reason for not doing something. A moral reason would to be to do something because we think such an action is right in and of itself, apart from any consequences to ourselves. So to do something out of fear of punishment says nothing about the moral status of what is done.

And that is simply impossible. I've not heard one good logical argument yet to prove this. Everyone's argument boils down to appeal to emotion and majority.

Finally! Someone who understands. I do not believe in this kind of God. I am more of a Panentheist. What is real is real because God knows it exists and it exists in Him. So if God believes in right and wrong, then right and wrong are as real as gravity.

Right, and if this were the case you would be called a "psychopath" as someone already said.You would be the exception, not the rule. It still dosn't mean morality dosn't exist. Especially when you define it in terms of:a) Minimizing harm
b) Benifiting the whole

Calling the person that disagrees with you about moral principles a "psychopath" is an ad hominem attack. Why should principles a and b be absolutes?Suppose I define human behavior in aesthetic terms. I might say, what we should aim for is maximum excitement--that's my absolute. Now what produces the most excitement? Danger. Therefore, war is good.Any reason why your rules are better than mine? Not without begging the question.

No, that's a fact. A person who wants to harm others, harm himself, and harm society is a psychopath. Perhapse "sociopath" would be more accurate. However you slice it, you are not going to be accepted into civilized society, because either you are insane or moraly bankrupt. Because these principles are necissary for survival. It's our nature. Do you define excitement as an absolute? I don't think you do, nor do I think most people do. And in fact that's what we are talking about here, the desires of the majority. Yes, because that is our nature. No one wants to suffer, no one wants to be unhappy. Because if we did desire these things, we wouldn't survive long as a species, at least not in the highly advanced state we currently enjoy.Further, I know you could say something like "Geoffry Dahmer was happy eating people!" or something, again, if everyone behaved like him we woudn't last long. Further, I would venture to say that people like him are very ill, and not very happy. I didn't get the impression Dahmer was a happy man.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-27-2005 10:30 AM

Who cares about the majority? The majority of people in the US are religious. That doesn't mean I have to be. In point of fact, I think an argument can be made that the desire for excitement is a very common human trait, the desire of the "majority,"
if you want to argue in those terms. I can also present an argument from nature. Nature is amoral; therefore, we should act natural and be amoral ourselves. Be like the lions and the tigers and the bears--enemies of other species. We should adopt a tribal mentality and kill off all other tribes.

The desire, the human needs of the majority (Im talking about life needs, food, shelter, yada yada), are better served by a society that works to minimize harm and a society that seeks to benifit the many. Yes, but your example included fullfilment thrugh warfare (harm). You could fullfill the same need thrugh bungie jumping. If you caused harm to others and compromised social order fullfiling your need, you are being imoral. Wrong. I have already said morality is a human concept, dealing with human needs, society, logic, and reason. Internal human morality has absolutes. Just as mathmatics, another human construct, has it's own absolutes that aren't necisseraly reflected in nature. One problem, we aren't lions tigres or bears. Further, we are talking about highly inteligent social animals of the Genus Homo. Infact many ancient peoples did that, and humanity langushied for many generations as a small global population bearly eeking by in a hostile environment. Then a marvelous invention came along, agriculture!This allowd us to settle down and make societies, and even though we were still warlike, we began to establish rules and behaviors more conducive to advancing those societies.Thousands of years have passed and with each generation people live longer, happier, and more fullfiling lives. Now, we still ain't perfect, but we are getting better. Because, for the most part anyway, as societies we try to work tword the minimization of harm and the benifite of the many.

Yaro, you are begging the question all the way through with these principles you've set up about the beliefs of the majority and the survival of the species and people being happy and so forth. There's no reason why anyone should accept those principles other than personal taste. Why should I care if the species survives or not? But if I don't, you label me as immoral. That's what "sociopath" means in your scheme.Human morality has no ground. It is a hodgepodge of traditions. How it got started, nobody knows although there are all sorts of speculative ideas.

Whether or not there is a supernatural Being is a separate question from the God/moral question. After all, God=good is a modern notion, the Greeks and Romans and to a certain extent, the Hebrews didn't always equate goodness and morality with God/gods/Yahweh. The concept of God is something we (modern humans) have constructed according to our understanding of what is good/moral. Does no one notice that God and good are the same word, after all? I don't know Hebrew, but I would be quite surprised if "Yahweh" means "good" in Hebrew. In Genesis God proclaims the creation to be good, but much of the rest of the OT doesn't exactly portray God as good - unless you think jealousy, spite ("God hardened his heart")vengefulness, demanding human sacrifice (to "test" Abraham)and killing of innocents in battle, etc. are good.

"How it got started (human morality), nobody knows although there are all sorts of speculative ideas."It evolved (from pre-human characters) like everything else, as did our concept of God. Do you have any explanation that fits the evidence better? Do you think that animals don't have morality (If think this, you either have never owned a dog or aren't a very good observer).