Moral Argument for God

In this case its not. Im not saying it's intrinsicaly better, just that it wouldnt work. i.e. your system is impractical and unhealthy. I have already explained in previous posts that I don't subscribe to an idea of a transcendent 'undefinable' good. Its not trancendantly bad, but it is bad for humans and generaly disagreable to them. Cyanide will never make a good breakfast.My system is only better in the sense that it is conducive to the continuation of the species and yours is not.This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-29-2005 04:54 PM

Well my dog certainly has a sense of morality as reflected by my morality - I think it is wrong for him to plant his hairy butt on people furniture and he knows it so he doesn't do it as long as I am around but when I leave all bets are off.

I agree. Fair enough. I agree, as long as it is bad in a survival sense and not in a moral sense. Sort of. The way you use the word 'better' makes me think that you are saying that it is 'better' for the species to survive than for the species to die out, which you cannot justify at all according to your beliefs. However I think what you meant was that your system is better only at creating conditions which lead to survival, and not in the moral sense.I say that you cannot justify that it is better for the species to survive according to your beliefs, because I think that, according to my beliefs, your system is better, both in a survival and in a moral sense.How can I claim your system is better in the moral sense? By comparing it to a third system. This third system is the absolute morality that is the very nature of God, the transcendent and eternal Good in which you do not believe. Your system comes closer to the absolute morality than my hypothetical system, and thus your system is better than mine. In this way I can claim that your system is morally better, but you cannot make the same claim unless you believe in a transcendent, objective Good as well.

---

The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.-C.S. Lewis

Well, objectively I can say its better for survivle, subjectively I can say it's good in a moral sense. Morals relate to my personal emotional reactions to the system. What's better for me and my family, makes me 'feel' (in a broad sense) good and thus makes me want to continue those conditions. So in a subjective sense, I can say it's moral. You could do that, but you would also be applying a subjective reason for declaring the system moral.I'll paste a quote:

I think we are on the same page. I was just trying to open up the question of how do we define an "absolute" when actions are always contextual. I then saw the possibility that Hangdawg could take his concept of God as his context and then I saw that others could use their own highest context for moral decisions though some of those contexts are very degraded.One other aspect of context has to do with intention. The Tibetans have a teaching story about one of their saints who came up on a badly wounded dog that had maggots crawling in it's open wound. Out of compassion to save the dog he removed the maggots from the wound and then so as to not cause the death of the maggots he cut himself and placed the maggots in his own flesh. His actions were ignorant though and could have caused the death of the dog and most likely the death of the maggots. Maggots only eat dead flesh and act to clean a wound and prevent gangrene and were used during WWI for just that purpose.The idea of absolute morality needs to be carefully analyzed. I think it's more difficult to arrive at then merely attempting to live according to the Ten Commandments.lfen

I don't quite understand this question. No. It does not provide a justification for the moral code I come up with. It means that the sense I have of right and wrong is actually pointing towards a reality of right and wrong that has true significance rather than an empty arbitrary illusion of right and wrong.And also, this is not the ONLY reason. These statements are not equal. God is an entirely different thing than any of the other things you mention. God is the very core and source of reality, life, truth. I am choosing a way that my emotions can agree with my logical thoughts.

Please see my reply to Robinrohan's reply to your message. Why would this happen? This doesn't change the fact that they were still raised with moral values and still feel empathy and are still smart enough to realize what is best for them in the long run.All it means is that if I were an atheist and I were so inclined to be a murdering raping monster, I would feel no need to justify myself because there is no absolute wrong there to justify. That is ridiculous.It is more like jumping off a cliff. I know that by doing wrong I'm running towards a cliff of separation between myself and God. If I keep running eventually I'll fall off and die. "Dying you shall surely die." "A Branch cannot live apart from the vine..." "The hand cannot say to the foot 'Screw you'"... or something to that effect. And on the other hand, "anyone who does this [good] to the least of these does so to Me."

Nope. I just mean that if one particular thing: action, intent, context, etc.. the whole thing all together... If it's wrong. It is absolutely wrong. Wrong is a quality that this thing has like color or something only on the spiritual level. It causes division or separation from the Oneness... from God.I hope this helps clear up the confusion and helps you understand what I mean by absolute.

It's not about big men telling you to behave: It's about a knowledge that you must do or not do this and that. It's called "conscience."Conscience is a very problematical phenomenom, but to dismiss it out of hand seems unwise.

Right. We must consider everything. I am not so much interested as far as this debate goes in discovering what actually falls into the categories "right" and "wrong", just in determining whether these categories or qualities exist objectively and absolutely and what implications this has. The Abrahamic covenant and the mosaic law was not intended to be the "absolute" perfect all-encompassing law. It served to reveal the wrong in people's actions as well as to teach the people prophetic concepts that pointed to Christ as well as other things.Jesus said that, the law is no longer for us. We have the Spirit of God which searches out right and wrong much like the Dharma that you speak of.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-30-2005 12:52 AM

Well, I don't think they are empty arbitrary illusions. After all they do matter to us, and they do have implications for our lives. Let me put it to you this way, pain is not an empty arbitray illusion, as such I like to avoid it I think what I'm getting at, is that simply because the world dosn't have a god, does not necisseraly make things empty and arbitrary. As living concious beings we are capable of giving the world and our lives purpose. In a sense it's the same attribute you give to the god you belive in. Zeus is the source of all reality, life, and truth. Vishnu is the source of all reality, life, and truth.Really, I don't see a difference. Do you have proof that your god is the source of reality, life, and truth? Why isn't it that I could say: "Your emotions move you to choose god in a desire not to view the world as ultimately arbitrary?"This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-30-2005 01:12 AM

I agree - it is moral subject to your arbitrary definition of morality. No, I am applying the most objective thing in or out of the universe. I see what you mean but the logic doesn't work.
First of all, we are dicussing not why people are moral but what morality is.God's nature IS the source of morality. His nature is the ultimate Good of the universe. As Hangdawg said, "God is the very core and source of reality, life, truth." He is the only constant, unchanging, eternal thing that has ever existed and thus is the ultimate standard to which we compare everything else. It is not subjective to base morality on God - it is the only thing to base it upon that is not subjective.

---

The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.-C.S. Lewis

We have evidence but I'd rather not get into it right now - getting late. So ignoring the question of whether such a God exists, do you at least see how such a God would provides the only objective standard for morality?

---

The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.-C.S. Lewis

I suppose. But then wouldn't those standards be just as arbitrary/subjective as mine? After all, God is just pulling them out of a hat like everything else. There dosn't have to be any reason he chooses one rule over another.It would be like a mideival kingdom where in a sense the kings view of morality was final. The king could declare "right" whatever he wanted and impose it on everyone else. Same thing with god.It seems to me that it's just as arbitrary as anything else. At least my system, as far as I can tell, will lead to happier lives even if it has no trancendentaly 'good' value.PaulK said this earlier in the thread:"Is an act good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good ?"This message has been edited by Yaro, 07-30-2005 09:55 AM

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.