Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Argument for God
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 271 of 279 (228447)
08-01-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 11:07 AM


Re: No Third Option
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:07 AM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 272 of 279 (228624)
08-01-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 11:04 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:04 AM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 279 (228640)
08-01-2005 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by PaulK
08-01-2005 12:15 PM


Re: No Third Option
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2005 12:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2005 2:35 AM General Nazort has not replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 279 (228641)
08-01-2005 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by crashfrog
08-01-2005 10:33 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 7:09 AM General Nazort has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 275 of 279 (228656)
08-02-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 11:38 PM


Re: No Third Option
quote:
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?
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:
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?
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:
The first horn is avoided because a good God would be definition only command what is good.
That IS the first horn. There is an independant standard of "good", which God (by his nature) follows.
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:38 PM General Nazort has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 276 of 279 (228700)
08-02-2005 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by General Nazort
08-01-2005 11:49 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by General Nazort, posted 08-01-2005 11:49 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by General Nazort, posted 08-17-2005 9:07 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 279 (234266)
08-17-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by crashfrog
08-02-2005 7:09 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by crashfrog, posted 08-02-2005 7:09 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 279 (234320)
08-17-2005 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
07-19-2005 9:48 AM


reply
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:
So, if people assumed that God does not exist, then they would be doomed to a life without fixed moral standards. They would have no reasons to think that lying, stealing, or even murder are wrong. According to this view, nonbelievers contribute to the corruption of themselves and the entire culture. (Cf the famous quote associated with Dostoevsky, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 07-19-2005 9:48 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Asgara, posted 08-18-2005 12:17 AM joshua221 has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 279 of 279 (234330)
08-18-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by joshua221
08-17-2005 11:39 PM


Re: reply
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.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by joshua221, posted 08-17-2005 11:39 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024