Moral Argument for God

If God decides standards of morality then they aren't objective.So the answer to this particular argument is to invoke the Euthyphro dilemma:Is an act good becauseGod commands it, or does God command it because it is good ?Typically either horn of the dilemma is unacceptable (the first because it denies objective morality, the second because it denies the necessity of God for morality).

Yaro's answered one point - I'll take on another.If evil is merely the absence of good then the only evil act would be a failure to perform a good act. There would be no act that could be labelled actively evil. But it is generally agreed that that is not the case. Murder, for instance, is labelled as evil - yet it is an act, not a failure to act.

There's another reference that seems significant.Genesis 3:22 (NASB) Clearly this suggests that God has knowledge of an independant moral standard, rather than simply proclaiming his own will good.

quote:

---

If there is no supreme being or grand design then the concept of good and evil make no sense. Hitler was no different than Mother Theresa. Both consumed food and water, converted it to energy, and stayed in motion via what their own accidental dna coding dictated to them.

---

Now ths makes no sense to me at all. Fundamenally you seem to be denying both the ecistence of morality as it is commonly understood and human will in favour of a view as humans as machines. Machines that either operate in accord with a "grand design" or the will of a "supreme being" or contrary to it. I have to say that such a view point would need to be argued - it certainly cannot be assumed.

I think that it does express the idea that human knowledge of morality is the same as God's. Yhus while it doesn't necessarily imply an objective moral standard it does imply that Divine Command Theory is wrong.

So essentially your argument is about egotisml not morality. You want to assume that there is a God or a grand design because it gives you an excuse to pretend that you are important on the universal scale.If you were really concerned with morality you would consider the human scale instead of scornfully rejecting it as inadequate. If being human isn't good enough for your ego then I am afraid that that is your problem.

quote:

---

You say that this passage:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;...

​

does express the idea that human knowledge of morality is the same as God's

I don't think it does. It say that we have become like god in that we know good and evil but we are not the same as god, especially if he is omnscient. Its like a square(god) is like a rectangle(us) but a rectangle is not like a square, totally. make sense

---

Trying to parse this it seems that you are saying "I don't think that it says what it says because it says what it says not something else".I didn't say that it said anything about omniscience, only "knowledge of good and evil".

I think what the argument actually shows is that Christians are opposed to morality. Every time the argument comes up, all Christians try to do is to knock down any possible basis for morality. They don't actually offer a viable alternative. Worse we often have the egotistic and anti-human arguments of the sort proposed by Lizard Breath which actively rule out any real morality.As for Hitler, I need hardly remind you that the Bible endorses an example of ethnic genocide. It is easier for an atheist to condemn Hitler than it is for a Christian who seeks to follow the Bible as a moral guide.

quote:

---

If we ask "why" about everything we do, we will eventually come down to either two answers: "because that's what God wants, or becausethat's what we want"

​

Asking why does God want it is silly because what is, is simply what is. It's like asking why must red be red or the sky blue. Asking why we want it will most likely lead us back to some explanation of evolutionary origin, which carries no intention, and therefore no reason.

---

Here's an example. There is no room for morality left. So there's no logical basis for anybody condemning anything. If Hitler genuinely beleived he was doing what God wanted then he was a highly moral individual (if sadly mistaken). Genocide is good if God happens to want it. Racist vigilante murder is good if God happens to want it (e.g. Numbers 25:6-8). This argument rules out morality.

No, you were wrong.But then anyone who can't see a relationship between ethnic genocide and Hitler is hardly equipped to judge.

OK, so where is the room for morality in your argument ?

This discussion isn't atheism versus morality. It's Christianity versus morality.If the Christians stopped trying to knock down ideas of morality and actually produced a concept of morality worth following they might have a case.Until they do, all they are doing is arguing against morality.

I didn't claim that Christians were morally bankrupt. What I claim is that the Christians in this thread by focussing solely on negative arguments against other concepts of morality are arguing against morality. (i.e. I am speaking solely of their arguments in this thread).To make the argument work it is necessary to present a concept of morality that:a) is clearly validandb) requires the existence of God.For some reason the Christians here seem reluctant to attempt that, even though it is precisely what they should be doing. So long as they prefer to attack rival views instead they have no argument FROM morality, only arguments AGAINST morality.

Well I see somethinh approaching an attempt to describe ideas of morality. Even if it is intended mainly as another negative argument.

quote:

---

To have a moral standard, you need a moral law.

---

Why ? Shouldn't it be the other way around ? How can you make a moral law without a moral standard ? And the rest of it is about enforcing laws. Are you saying that morality is nothing but following laws which themselves have no moral basis ? How does that make sense ?

Since you are chiming can can I ask if you have a valid version of the argument this thread is supposedly about ? I say supposedly because if there was an argument worth anything we ought to have seen it by now.Or are you just another Christian against morality, who seeks only to knock down other concepts of morality without having anything better to offer ?

Your system is in conflict with almost every idea of morality around. As I am sure you know. Of course if you think that God commanded your "system" you would be in sync with the Christian ideas we have seen here.The real question is whether you have a system of morality that is not subject to the sorts of arguments we have been seeing. Becausewithout that there is either no morality or the arguments are missing something important. Either way the attempts to present a moral argument for God fail.