Moral Argument for God

Ok, let's lay out my proposition, because as someone pointed out I think we all agree on some level and it's getting muddled in the back and fourth.I am saying that objective morality exists within human culture without the necessity of god. The premises are as follows:1)Morality is a human construct, it has no relevance outside of the human experience.
2)Morality has certain objective premises that allow us to deem an action 'good' or 'bad'.
3)These premises classify 'good' as: a) The minimization of harm b) that which benefits the many over the fewNow, what I have presented as argument for this case is not fallacious as I will demonstrate.Naturalistic Fallacy:There are two uses of this fallacy, the first illustrated in the article is Moor's which states that certain terms such as 'pleasure', 'good', etc. Are irreducibly simple and therefore indefinable. I believe this usage deals more with semantics and therefore not as usefull for our argument since we have already defined our terms, (above point 3. I define 'good').The second usage, which is more relevant to our discussion, deals with making a claim about what things should be based on how they currently are. i.e. My argument is not saying this. Remember, morality is a human construct, It is not defined by nature. It is defined by human need. It just so happens that this coincides with our natural social instincts. I am not saying that those social instincts define morality (though they do lend clues as to how morality potentially evolved in our species).My argument establishes a definition of 'good' as that which minimizes harm and benefits the many. Now, is this 'good' on a cosmic scale? No. It is only good in so far as humans go. Remember, I am not talking about Moor's indefinable 'good', I am establishing a definition of 'good' based on human needs, drives, and social progress. That which conflicts with those goals are 'bad'.So, I am not saying This behavior hurts our species, thus it is bad (using Moors indefinable 'bad'), I am saying that it is 'bad' based on the suffering it causes. I define suffering as 'bad', it has nothing to do with some sort of moral ideal in this case.Begging The Question:(an example from the wiki): I am not begging the question because I have provided support for my premises and defined my terms, as stated at the beginning of this post. I don't believe morality exists outside of human beings. I believe morality is a human construct used to improve our lives.I have supported this by showing that those societies that do less harm to their citizens have happier/healthier citizens. I cite history and progress as the example, ancient man was savage, brutal, and warlike. The average age was thirty and you were lucky to get to twenty with all your teeth. As time went on our societies have grown more stable and peaceful and thus the quality of life for all has improved. We are not perfect, there is still much suffering in the world, but in a lot of ways we are better off than we once were.Ad Hominem: I said that behavior which seeks to harm others and/or destroy society is 'sociopthic' and 'psychopathic'. I don't see how this is Ad Hominem. The definition of those words fit the behavior the poster was describing. Further, I qualified my statements by illustrating the result of such behavior.Appeal to the Majority: This is outright wrong. I am not appealing to the majority because my claims aren't dependent on what the majority thinks. If the majority thinks eating babies is 'good', by my definition of 'good' eating babies is still bad because it is a maximization of harm.Bandwagon Fallacy I am saying that which benefits the many is 'good'. I am not saying that which the many THINK benefits them is 'good'.Appeal To Emotion: It is not an appeal to emotion when the argument does not rest on an emotionally based premises. I don't give a rats ass ( well I do, but not for this discussion )what people feel about 'good' and 'bad', the fact is if people aren't good working toward the minimization of harm and the benefit of the many, we will likely not be around for much longer.Is this 'good' and 'bad' in a Cosmic sense? Of course not. But on a human scale, as I have already defined the terms, OF COURSE IT IS.I think thats all of em. How'd I do?This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-27-2005 07:53 PM

Just to reiterate... we are all in agreement that the existence of widespread morality is not proof of God's existence.What we are disagreeing upon is whether such a thing as right and wrong actually exists objectively and absolutely. These premises are not objective if you created them. They are your subjective opinions.A collection of quotes from Yaro and Rahvin where I believe they have committed the listed fallacies:Naturalistic_fallacy: Begging_the_question Begs the question what wrong exists that needs justifying? Still begging the question because you have defined harm as wrong. According to YOUR subjective definition.Ad_hominem (assuming I'm the murderer and you're trying to prove that my actions are objectively wrong) Appeal_to_the_majority and/or bandwagon fallacy: Not only appeal to the majority, but also a false statement. Some people want to suffer, and even some people want to be unhappy.Appeal_to_emotion: Genetic fallacy: Self-contradicting statment: I don't know what kind of fallacy this is: But it defeats your own argument. Obviously there is no absolute objective right and wrong, if humans create right and wrong because the human definitions of it has changed over time. Here you're saying their "right" was "wrong" because they were too dumb to realize the "right" that you have created. And here you're saying that your "right" is absolutely right because it fits the definition that you have just made. This is begging the question as well as an appeal to emotion.I don't know what to call these: Appeal to Practicality? Appeal to Fear? Something that is entirely subjective in nature cannot be compared with something that is objective in nature. I may think war is good while you may think it is bad, but I cannot say, "In a base 10 number system I think 1+1=3" ... this would be a mathematical fallacy. A moral code is not the issue. The question is can a particular action be absolutely objectively completely unequivocally right or wrong. The answer: it cannot be (without God). Without God, objective absolutes such as right and wrong are unnecessary and so Occam's Razor states that right and wrong should be considered irrelevant. If we are going to have a logically self-consistent worldview then this indefinable good is all that matters. If we are going to say screw a self-consistent logical worldview, then the practical morality you are talking about is all that matters. It's up to you... and apparently you are somewhat interested in being logical since it is your supposed powers of logic that has caused you to be an atheist in the first place. The support you give is your own subjective opinion. If you are trying to logically prove that what George Armstrong Custer did was wrong, you cannot win by saying, "it's wrong because you're a psychopath!" You cannot prove anyone to be wrong by calling them a name even if the definition of the name may fit the description of their actions. A for effort.

First, Im not going to justify every statment made in these last 100 posts, since there are too many. I conceed that I dug a few holes for myself here and there , so I would rather just stick to my clarified premisies. Again, I am saying that within human society, these are objective standards that can be used to achive the greatest good. That is, good for human beings, and therfor moral. Yes I did, I also provided examples where harm has been detrimental to society. I call this wrong.This is objective. If everyone shot each other we would kill ourselves off. Those are objective consequences of actions. Why is it bad? Because it's bad for humans. That simple.Another statement: They are not subjective, they are based on observation. Murder is an objective thing, death is objective. It is an objective fact that lots of murder means lots of dead people. It is an objective fact that lots of dead folks isn't too good for a species.That's what those premesies are based on. That's where my definitions of 'good' and 'bad' come from.Now, if you have a better definition of good and bad, I would like to hear it. Again, I would venture that the ideals do not change. Societies generaly attempt to attain the ideal of minimum harm, some are more succesful than others.It's like technology, people knew they wanted to make a plane. There was an ideal of a flying machine. As time went on planes became more sophisticated to fit the ideal. I would say the same is true for morality.The goal does not change simply because the people fail to meet it. Again, if these people are harming themselves, and/or their society, they are doing wrong. This is objective. People who hurt themselves are unhealthy and likely unable to function in their daily lives, if everyone was like this, society would crumble. Thats an objective fact.This is not an apeal to the majority, because the definition includes this: "If you caused harm to others and compromised social order fullfiling your need, you are being imoral."This is objective because it does not depend on the majorities opinion. It is a fact that if everyone was a depressed non-functional person, then society would suffer, and likely the species. This is wrong.Again, I am intrigued, how would you define wrong? Yes, but I can objectively state war will cause lots of death and destruction. I can also objectibely state that war (most of them anyway) are not good for society because of that destruction. Further, continual destruction on that level can objectively be said to be detrimental to the species.How is this wrong? Again, define wrong. I have already provided a definition.

Not ALL apologists seek to irritate anyone. The exclusivist message can irritate some, however.All that I can say is that on behalf of myself and the Christians I know who engage in such discussions, sorry to be irritating. Can you try and stand it long enough to gain immunity?

I don't understand what you mean?

"It's not a scientific argument."(instinct vs morality)There are many ethologists who would disagree with you. They certainly consider the study of animal behavior a science and believe they can separate instinct from learned behavior.

What I meant was that what I said was not based on scientific knowledge that I possessed. I am not much of a possessor of scientific knowledge. What I know could go into a heaped-up tablespoon.I did however read an article a while back which put forth an ingenious though unproven idea: The author speculated about the origin of sleep and decided that the likeliest explanation was that sleep was necessary to restore something depleted in the brain due to consciousness. He went on to say that most animals do not sleep (they can measure states of sleep), but some do--mostly the "higher" animals. Form this he deduced that those animals which sleep are those which are conscious when they are awake. Otherwise, there would be no need for them to sleep.Made sense to me.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-28-2005 11:28 AM

Thanks for your reply. Haha... thanks for that. At least I don't feel like I'm arguing in vain when the other person conceeds something. You either have to remove "objective" from that statement or remove "good" from that statement. Objective means that something is not subject to personal biases or emotions. It is self existant apart from anyone's opinion about it. If "you" call it wrong. It is subjective. No, it's not. Look up objective. Sure, but they cannot be inherently wrong. Bad for our surival? Sure. Is it wrong? We cannot say objectively. Is the death of a species wrong? Prove it. (Hint: you cannot prove it is wrong by defining it as wrong. This is begging the question or circular reasoning) Well, let's stick to the moral version of good and bad: right and wrong just to eliminate any confusion.Right and wrong or Good and evil are, like God, undefinable. The moment you start trying to define them is the moment you loose sight of what they acutally are. For this reason and because there is no logical reason for these to exist, most naturalists simply admit there is no such thing as an objective absolute right and wrong.Objective absolutes are something we believe in. If you want to believe that harming others is absolutely objectively wrong, I salute you for that, but you should know that you've blown the door wide open for God.You have adopted the fundy argument in SUPPORT of absolutes, yet you reject the conclusion: God exists. You have rejected the atheist argument that there are no absolutes, and accepted the atheist conclusion: God does not exist.Either come out of the closet and tell us all you're a believer or accept that being an atheist means there is no such thing as absolute objective right and wrong.My definition of right and wrong... Wrong is that which separates us from God, the all-encompassing Oneness. Right is that which draws us to Him. This is not really a definition because God is also undefinable. If we really want to understand we have to forget definitions and concepts.Under this "definition" I might say that by hating someone we cause division and separation between us and them. God is One and unity cannot be divided therefore hate is wrong. Love brings unity rather than separation so love is right. But right is not love and wrong is not hate. Again, this doesn't follow logically. Your conclusion "this is wrong" is drawn from your very own subjective definition of wrong. But you cannot objectively state that death and destruction is wrong. You cannot objectively state that the detriment of a species is wrong.Gotta go to work now. -Later

Eureeka! I now understand your position alot clearer. Now, my question is, can't we make deductions from the concequences of our actions, as to what actions are benificial to us for survival and happiness?If so, we can say objectively, that they are good for us. That is good as in: "good for the species." Like: "oil is good for my cars engine."I think you agree to this, that using these deductions we can establish principals that create societies more conducive to living better lives.And I think you would also agree that these principals in and of themselves are objective. The disagreement lies in wheather we can call these things "good" or not. The naming is subjective.And to be honest, I would have to agree that what we call these principals is subjective. But it does not deny the existance of these principals, nor does it deny the human drive to atain them.I would venture that human ideas about what good is, is derived from these principals. But like you said, the word, its meaning, tho related to objective principals, are subjective.I suppose an analogy would be, music. The stimulus, principals, etc. of music are Objectively real (i.e. sounds in modulated tones). But what the listener decides to call "music" is subjective. i.e.I would say that this is how I view morality then. I am not an athiest who denys god exists, I simply ask "which GOD?". I'm open to a God, if proof could be given to support that god. Further, I don't see how objective morality would have a god as the only conclusion, let alone the christian god.

Your premises are subjective.Harm and benefits are what make them subjective, you cannot objectively define what harms or benefits the global society. What one sees as benifiting society another sees as harming it.With your position, I could define the actions of september eleventh as 'good', based on the terrorists views of their actions. They thought that the United States was harming the global society and that destoying their trade center would benefit the many. They had to do a little harm, in their opinion, in order to prevent a larger amount of harm, thus minimizing harm, and they thought they were benefiting the many by removing that which they thought was harmful.I wish I had more time to post, I'm falling way behind.I don't think that morailty proves the existance of god.I don't think that objective morality can exist without god. It seems that we do have an objective morality though so it seems that there is a god.more when I have time.

Websters: Harm is physical or psychological injury. Also, note that the premiss does not say NO harm, it says MINIMIZING harm. That which does less "Physical or psychological injury or damage." is better for humans, and therefore benifits the whole. This is a fact.People can't eat syanide for breakfast, no matter how much they belived it was good for you. There are things/actions/beliefs in this world which cause "Physical or psychological injury or damage.". No, because they caused more harm in the name of an ideology that seeks to maximize harm.Again, when I say 'good' I mean it as in "oil is good for my cars engine." 'harm' as in "Physical or psychological injury or damage." You could make this argument, but it makes no difference who THINKS they are right. In the end, the group that does/promotes less harm "Physical or psychological injury or damage." is closer to being 'good'. Again, "Oil is good for my cars engine."This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 07:28 PMThis message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 07:30 PM

I didn't say you couldn't objectively define harm, I said that you couldn't objectively define what harms society. Its all a matter of opinion if something is bad for everyone or not. One problem with this analogy is that too much oil is bad for you car. I don't think too much good is bad for society. In your opinion, and mine too BTW, but we could be wrong. It is possible that their actions prevented more harm that they caused.

I disagree, it's pretty clear that everyone deciding to eat syanide, no matter how good the intention, would never be good for society. There are clearly things wich cause "Physical or psychological injury or damage."I can see where you get this however, at times it may seem subjective due to the extream difficulty of forseeing all the ramifications of a given/action choice. I am not saying that it is allways easy to decide which cource of action will lead to less harm, I am only saying that cources of actions that are 'good' do exist. LOL, ya I kinda saw that defficiency. Any analogy stretched too far is bound to break. Perhapse it would be better to phrase it as "The proper amount of oil for my car (that amount which the oil tank can hold), is good for my car." Or something along those lines.Probably still has flaws, but I think you understand my meaning. In your example, "too much good" would no longer be good I agree. And as I said before, history will bear witness as to who infact caused less harm The point was that it's irrelevant what the doers of the deed think of their actions, the actions which ultimately cause less harm are the 'good' ones.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 08:15 PM

ok, you got me on that one. The mass suicide of the entire population is harmul to society. extreme difficulty?, how about impossibilityeven in your syanide example, some people might survive the cyanide and some people might just screw it up and fail to kill themself, and in that situation where we have some survivors, you cannot objectively say that the course would be bad for society. Maybe we are way too overpopulated and thinning out the herd would be good for us. its an opinion, we can't know and we can't objectively define it. So how do you relate that back to good and society? the proper amount of good is good for society? But it does matter what the doers think, because society is what determines what is right and wrong, in your argument, it what the majority thinks and all that.When you start saying that the actions themselves have some ultimate 'good' or 'bad' to them outside of what the people think, is when you start supporting the idea that there is a god.

Agreed, sometimes impossible. But hopefully people are making the best guesses they can I mean, it may be impossible to predict every road situation that may come up. I can't guarantee I will never have an accident, however this doesn't make it wise for me to drive wrecklessly. I still have a chance of minimizing my odds.Likewise, ya, it's impossible to know all the outcomes. But I think you can make a good, thoughtfull, decision based on experience. Hmmm... well, assuming enugh survived to salvage society They would have to learn from their mistake. They would have to say "gee, cyanide was not a good idea. I won't eat that any more", then they persue a more benifical cource of action. In this case, to learn from their mistakes would be doing a 'good', persuing their detrimental ways would be 'bad'/harmfull.This does bring up an issue I haven't thought about tho. Imediatly after the survivers wake up, there is alot of harm. Society has been badly damaged. In a sense it's almost like karma, they have to work off those 'harm' points to get back to their 'good' status again Given enugh time, assuming they continue to make better decisions, their good choices will outweight the bad choices. Then, you could say, if that bad choice wasn't made, then the good that is manifest in the present wouldn't have ever happend. At this point you could say that the cyanide incident was indeed good Again tho, if the inciden't never happend, and the society continued to make benificial choices, then there would be no need to pay off those harm ponts. No, there is no such thing as the 'proper amount of good'. The oil is not what is inherantly good for the car, the lubrication of the engine is what is good for the car. Getting the engine lubricated is the good thing. Not to let it dry out and also not to satturate it. Well, it matters in as far as their thoughts determin actions. The results of the actions is what bears out as good or bad not the thoughts behind them. This is not what I am saying. Actions have an ultimate 'good' or 'bad' with relation to a species'/societies survival. Obviously our survival is only going to be important to one creature, US.It dosn't need a god. Fish need water to live, if you take away all the water they will die. Same concept for humans, just a bit more complex.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-28-2005 08:57 PM