|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Moral Argument for God | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
You're confusing ontology and epistemology.
The question is not how we know what is moral (epistemology) but what is the foundation of morality (ontology). (And of course we have other questions - for instance if my moral intuition says that an act attributed to God in the Bible is morally wrong should I question the Bible or my moral intuition ? Either answer raises problems for your stated view).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, its NOT good because God commands it. If God had not commanded us to do good, good would still be good. Right. It's an objective standard that exists outside of God. Second option.
God is not arbitrary. Right, and thus, we know the standard is external to him. If God can't change his mind about what is good and what is not, then the standard isn't something that's internal to him. So we're at the second option.
Nothing would exist. Er, well, we don't know that to be true, in the least. Nonetheless you appear to have retreated to the second option, now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
You're confusing ontology and epistemology. The question is not how we know what is moral (epistemology) but what is the foundation of morality (ontology). You are right - I am going beyond the basic scope of what I am trying to prove. For the sake of my argument, let us assume that God is in fact good. With this assumption do you see how the two horns of the dilemma can be avoided? The first horn is avoided because a good God would be definition only command what is good. The second horn is avoided because there is no "higher" goodness by which we judge God to be good - we simply assume that God's nature is already good, and thus there is nothing "higher" than God to conflict with the view that God is the highest power in existence. The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Right. It's an objective standard that exists outside of God. Second option. No, it does not exist outside of God, it is not the second option. That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. Let me try again. *Option 1: Good is whatever God says it is.*Option 1 Problem: The problem with this is that good is subject to the whims of however god defines it. *Option 2: The source of good is some "higher power" to which God is subject.*Option 2 Problem: The problem with this is that God is supposed to be the highest power in existence. If there is some higher power, perhaps THAT should be called God instead. *Option 3: The source of good is the nature of God himself.*Option 3 resolution of Option 1 Problem: Since God cannot change his nature, and his nature is good, by definition he will always declare a constant, good, moral system. It will not be subject to whims and change. *Option 3 resolution of Option 2 Problem: There is no "higher power" that is over God, and God remains the highest power in existence. The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, because it can't be. Either you arbitrarily call God "good" (second horn) or there is a moral standard by which God is judged good (first horn).
quote: If God is IN FACT good this is the first horn. If you are simply assumning that God is good it is the second horn. So, no you don't avouid the dilemma.
quote:That IS the first horn. There is an independant standard of "good", which God (by his nature) follows. quote:So IN FACT you are choosing the second horn but pretending to take the first. If you simply decree that God's nature is "good" whatever it is it is meaningless to say that God is "in fact good". What you have actually done is to redefine "good" to mean "according to God's nature" - which is the second horn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, it does not exist outside of God, it is not the second option. That is what I have been trying to say the whole time. You misunderstand. I know exactly what you're trying to say. Your problem is that your arguments logically neccessitate a completely different conclusion than the one you arrive at, which is what I'm trying to show you. Of course, if we're going to do this, then we need to first agree that words actually have meanings. Do you agree?
*Option 3 resolution of Option 2 Problem: There is no "higher power" that is over God But there is - his own nature, which apparently he cannot change. That nature is apparently a higher power over God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
General Nazort Inactive Member |
Hey, I'm back from vacation.
Your problem is that your arguments logically neccessitate a completely different conclusion than the one you arrive at, which is what I'm trying to show you. Of course, if we're going to do this, then we need to first agree that words actually have meanings. Do you agree? Yes...
But there is - his own nature, which apparently he cannot change. That nature is apparently a higher power over God. I would venture to say that that nature IS God, not a higher power. God remains the highest power in existence. The LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
joshua221  Inactive Member |
Most humans use a moral imperative when acting in life.
To say that this "morality" is of God, is not wrong. To say that this "morality" is not inside the human spirit is flawed.
quote: Human beings, I believe, were created with a conscience. Although in our crazy history of ignorance, and atrocities it may seem that Humans are for their survival, are for noone else, this isn't true. But to assume that Humans need God as a guide for them to act "morally", "kindly", "humanely", is absolutely wrong. This man speaks low of mankind, he must outright believes that humans are inherantly evil. Although this is cliche, a young woman under terrible human rights violations that this man has never experienced or will ever experiance, once said: "I believe people are good at heart." -Anne Frank She in that one line shows all of us that there is hope for mankind, and that we cannot be disillusioned by indecent acts of unkindness on this earth, we must be of God. We must see through acts of desperation, the killing of millions for greed, the deaths of those who are us. We must see it like Jesus would, these people, these Hutus of Rwanda, these German Nazis, these are US. THEY ARE US. We are the Hutus... Yet we can change, we don't need to be shut down by the evil that surrounds us. We must remember that we are those that do these things, and that if we were in that same situation, we could be the ones with machetes in hand stained with human blood. For this, we can't see us in the world as unique, or special, and "incapable of that". I know athiests, non-believers, who are great people, who their human spirit prevails in. God is the originator of Morality, but by saying that non-believers corrupts my earth is a falacy. Non-believers are human, they seek. God set the standards of humane living, we can all, if we deny his presence or not, live each day with these moral standards. porteus@gmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
Welcome back Charlie, I'm glad to see both the Porteus brothers back on EvC.
Asgara "I was so much older then, I'm younger then that now" select * from USERS where CLUE > 0 http://asgarasworld.bravepages.comhttp://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024