Moral Argument for God

Hangdawg,I pause at the word "absolutely". Are you meaning this in the sense that an action can be isolated from a context? Are you meaning that the nature of the act itself? the intention itself? What is absolute right? or wrong?It's possible I think to hold a theist belief in a deity and not believe in "absolute" good or evil, right or wrong? The teaching of the Buddha are an example of a moral system that is not theistically based that comes very close to absolute right and wrong at least in the sense that certain acts result in certain consequences i.e. karma serves as a correction to right and wrong actions.Let's say that the atheist position is factually correct. Then believers in theism have attributed a concept of absolute to their relativistically derived morals. Keeping in mind that you've said that a subjective sense is real also. In that case are the theists morals absolute or relative?lfen

Hangdawg,It seems to me we need to consider context. Right and wrong are meaningful only in context that is to say in relationship.I think your theistic basis of morality makes your concept of God the context in which you determine the good and bad, right or wrong of a particular action.I'd ask you to consider that a non theist, even atheist would also have a highest concept that gives a context to their morality. The context I find most repugnant would be men like Hitler, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Rev. Jim Jones, or David Koresh whose personal needs and animosities are the highest context of their morality. I do not accept that their morality is the logical conclusion of atheism.I am thinking along the lines of the Buddhist concept of Dharma as impersonal, universal, and observable "law" vs. the Abramamic relgion's concept of revealed law of a personal nature.lfen

Well, my dog (again, I know - sorry) certainly sleeps. Dreams also. And this proves he is conscious when he is awake? How does this relate to the question of morality and instinct?

That is exactly correct. Well, if this were the ONLY thing I had to go on, then I probably would just be forced to put up with it and be an agnostic. But what I have found in Christianity and recently Buddhism has brought everything together. So because of this and because I trust in some other things, I can have faith in these mysterious absolutes and there is no disconnect between what I feel and what I think.

I'm not sure I can agree that the actions of Hitler and others are just a matter of their context. The 'problem' with such people is that they can not emphatize with other people. Hence I think they can not fully understand the actual consequences of their actions.If you can not understand or even accept the consequences your actions have, your moral system is flawed.I think context would just mean that it's not always obvious or simple what actions lead to constructive results and which don't. You can't apply the same rules to all circumstances because if you do so you fail to take into considerations that all circumstances aren't equal.

Gotta go to work... will reply to everyone else's comments later tonight.

It doesn't prove it. I just thought it was a plausible idea. It relates to the topic in the sense that if a creature is not conscious, it cannot make a moral choice. Assuming that spiders are unconscious, we can say that if they bite you on no provocation, they have not committed an immoral act. They are incapable of either moral or immoral actions. So in order to decide if an animal is capable of moral choices, you would first have to determine if they are conscious.

That sounds like a very vague criteria. I don't think that 'conciousness' has been defined very well. Nor, do I think that the link between 'conciousness' and 'morality' has been made except in a metaphysical sort of way.If non-human species can be demonstrated to act morally, how does that affect the 'moral arguement for god'. If a non-human species can not be determined to act morally, how does that affect that arguement?If a naturalistic method can be shown to be able to produce morality, how would that be evidence for a god one way or another?It looks to me like the whole arguement is taking a bunch of what ifs,
then saying 'Those assumptions demonstrate god'. There are too many assumptions that are unprovable to have that as a valid arguement, IMO. I don't see how you can demonstrate that there IS an objective morality. Before you can have morality be an arguement for a deity, you ahve to first demonstrate that objective morality exists, then you have to provide a way to show that the specific morality is object, but it could not have developed naturally.

That's an understatement. What "consciousness" is is a total mystery.I was just making the obvious point that if an action is robotic and totally unconscious, it could not be moral or immoral. The action would be merely a response to a stimulus, like a bush leaning toward the sunlight.

"The action would be merely a response to a stimulus, like a bush leaning toward the sunlight."Well a guy named Cleve Backster thinks plants have consciouness, for what it is worth."The research by Cleve Backster documented in his book "Primary Perception" (Primaryperception.com Is For Sale) describes how cells in plants as well in humans respond to stimuli from the environment. He has measured the cellular memory of plants with plant electrodes. He proves that if for example a violent act happens in the presence of a plant, the plant will remember the person who did the violent act and will "react to the person whenever the person enters the room."
Sacredtransformation.com

I thought you had to have a brain to be conscious.

Are you saying there is a better moral system than my system of harm and destruction?

I have actually thought a lot about this. I'm inclined to believe that there is something eternal about animals in the same way that there is something eternal about the nature of people.I'm inclined to believe that animals have emotions, but not a sense of morality as we know it, which would presumably mean that in the next world they will continue to have a different nature than we do.I like dogs so maybe it's just wishful thinking but it does seem to fit as far as I'm concerned.This message has been edited by GDR, 07-29-2005 02:55 PM

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Yes, the one based on our inborn social/survival instincts. Your system of harm and destruction is not compatible with that and would ultimately be to the detriment of society and the species.The majority of people would not tolerate your system, and thus it is not likely to find a foothold in socitey (at least not very long). Most people like to be happy, and they recoil from pain. Your system dosn't apeal to this and therefore will largely be regarded as unacceptable.Remember, 'bad' is like 'cyanide is bad for my health'. 'good' is like 'oil is good for my car'.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-29-2005 04:06 PM

True, my system would be hard to follow since most of our instincts would be against it. But one must do ones best to do what is right, even if our instincts are against it. Oh yes, it would be to the detriment of society and the species. And that would be a good thing! Remember - 'good' is what harms the species, 'bad' is what helps it. This is irrelevant to the issue of which moral system is better. Logical fallacy - appealing to the majority. Only according to your moral system. In MY moral system something that hurts your health is good, and something that helps my car run is bad.The question remains, why is your system better than mine?