An Argument for the existence of God.

Yeah I agree with you mostly on this. I'm not a theist, but I have a hard time talking about objective moral values having an actual foundation outside of human beings.

But you do bring up a good point about morals changing. It used to be thought immoral for African Americans to be free, for women to work outside the home, and for homosexuals to have the right to get married. But all of those have changed or are in the process thereof. Which makes me think when we talk about morality we are talking about what you said, the best interest of the species survival, plus some emotional feelings. I'm just not sure how that would be good aside from us saying it is so.

 

Battlefield means a place where battles take place.

 

Without touching on the dubious concept of objective morals, I'll ask the same question as others here have asked: Why on earth could objective moral values not exist without your god?

For example, if humans didn't exist, could objective morals then exist? If so then why?*) If not then why start with a god?


*) Have in mind that the next question will be if objective morals could exist if the universe didn't exist.

 

There's no indication that rocks ever do harm on purpose.

 

That is an absolute evasive answer to the question you quoted.

 

I thought there'd be nothing wrong with a little amusement while we wait for Yig to read up on the millenia old argument from morality. I mean, it's always amusing to guess which standard reply you'll employ to a post.

 

AllEvil

It seems that you essentially agree with the first premise. However, there is a difference between objective and absolute moral values and duties. Objective moral values and duties mean independent of our opinion and absolute means moral actions are right or wrong regardless of other contexts. You can accept this view of objective moral values and duties without saying they are absolute.
A particularly intelligent species of cat might have formed a consensus that bathing is immoral. Does this make bathing objectively immoral? No, of course not.

This doesn’t undermine that objective moral values and duties exist. Rather, it agrees with the first premise that if God doesn’t exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist! You are correct in saying that it isn’t immoral for bathing if the cats came up with this; for it would merely be relative. But the question is why makes bathing immoral? Why is bathing immoral? And what basis do they have to say that it is if they are the ones that say it’s wrong to bath?

Rstones199

Animals can tell right from wrong.

And therefore premise one is false?

Animals have no clue to what ‘god’ is, yet species have their own moral code.

Okay, and we also know what causes pain are triggers in various nerves that send signals to the brain. However animals don’t really have any idea about this process either. So should we infer that this doesn’t occur just because animals don’t have an idea about this process?


CassandraBandra

You respond why not to the first premise, so I take that you agree with it.
Moral values and duties are dependent on God’s existence because he would be the standard upon which one can say raping little girls for fun, murdering atheists because they are atheists, and intolerance is wrong. If God doesn’t exist, they are dependent on us which leads to moral relativism. But if moral values and duties are dependent on us, what basis can be given for them?

Consider if person (a) was having a conversation about this issue with person (b). Person (a) thinks raping little girls is permissible because that’s what his view on moral values and duties. But person (b) thinks this is wrong. How can one say to the other that the other is wrong with no objective standard of right and wrong? Who or what imposes these right and wrongs? And why should I have to do what you think is right over what someone else thinks is right?

i) I think there are some excellent examples already as to why it is difficult to argue that objective moral values exist. There has been plenty of research indicating that moral values are related to survival.

The problem with this objection is that it relies on a scientific theory, namely, evolution. But science is morally neutral; you can’t find moral values in a test tube. But say you are willing to go beyond the bounds of science, why think, given an atheistic worldview that humans are morally valuable? Under an atheistic view, we are nothing more than animals and by-products of evolution and social conditioning.

Just as a troop of baboons exhibit corporative and even self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined it to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousins Homo sapiens exhibit similar behavior for the same reason. As a result of sociobiological pressures there has evolved among Homo sapiens a sort of herd morality, which functions well in the perpetuation of our species. But on the atheist view there doesn’t seem to be anything about Homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true. If we were to rewind the film of human evolution back to the beginning and start anew, people with a very different set of moral values might well have evolved.

So if there is no God, any basis for regarding the herd morality evolved by Homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. Take God out of the picture, and all you’re left with is an apelike creature on a speck of solar dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.– Dr. William Lane Craig, On Guard, pg. 132.

Darwin said himself, if… men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. The Decent of Man, pg. 100.

If we are to think humans are special and our morality objectively true would be to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, an unjustified bias toward one’s own species.

ii) This would only be so if the existence of objective moral values could be proven, and that, if they could be proven, there was a link established between this objectivity and the existence of God.

Indeed, in one sense we cannot prove that objective moral values exist, but don’t jump the gun yet. For, we cannot prove that we aren’t in the Matrix experiencing a virtual reality either. But we are all rational to accept that our experience is correct that we live in a physical reality that is real. So, if we are rational to accept—despite not being able to prove it—that we are in a real physical reality, then I see no reason to not accept objective moral values and duties. For things like, rape, murdering atheists for fun, and intolerance are truly wrong.

iii) It may be that there are generally agreed upon standards that are NOT dependent on the existence of God.

Even if everyone agreed upon standards that are not dependent on the existence of God, this would show that they are not. What if everyone thought these standards weren’t dependent on God, would that mean they weren’t dependent on God’s existence?

Bishadi

You’re claiming god is the foundation of morals is making morality subjective to god.

To say that morality is subjective to God, you unwittingly agree with the arguments conclusion that God is the source of morality!
But let’s agree with this for the sake of the argument, your objection does nothing to undermine that morals are objective. For, if they are subjective to God, they would still be objective to us—meaning they are not dependent upon our opinions or beliefs of what is right or wrong.

Your argument is a failure on the basis that it implies that mankind is incapable of compassion or empathy.

The question is not: must we believe in God in order to live moral lives. Again, the question is not: Can we recognize objective moral values and duties without believing in God? Or again, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without referring to God? But rather, the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values and duties exist?—Dr. William Lane Craig. On Guard, pg. 134. This is not only an issue of the nature of moral values but the necessity of the existence of God for objective morality.

You said, the discussion: is mankind capable of morality? Is every child capable? Did a human being teach you the morals you comprehend?

It seems that you are asking if the discussion at hand is, is mankind capable of morality? If this is the case, then no, we aren’t discussing if man is capable of morality. We are discussing if God doesn’t exist, do objective moral values and duties exist? That is to say, can we be good without God, not can we be good without belief in God? We are asking about the nature of objective moral values and duties.

Kilgram

Regarding you objection when you mentioned species survival, I have answered that in Cassandra’s first post.

You say, I have my own values and [they] didn’t come from god. Then you agree with the first premise then and you are a moral relativist. So then, let me ask you a series of questions:

(I) Would you say it’s okay to murder atheists just because they are atheists?

(II) Would you say that raping little girls for fun is right?

(III) Do you think that people who are intolerant to homosexuals are wrong?

 

The question is not, must one believe in God in order to live a moral life. Rather, the question is, without God, can we be good? That is to say, if God doesn't exist, do objective moral values and duties exist? Asking these questions, we are inquiring the nature of moral values and duties.

 

It seems that you think I have no idea what I am talking about without even giving me a chance. Very interesting.

 

Yes and no. I havent found anything wrong with it, because I havent really given it any though. I simply find the second premise more worthy of attention.

I dunno man, ask the cats. They are exactly as perplexed by our objection to murder as we are by their objection to bathing. By what standard do we know which is right? We can only judge by our subjective human standards.

 

Nah, given that the argument from morality is not exactly a new argument, chances are good that you know what you're talking about. I'm merely suggesting that with the splendid responses so far, it could be that you would want to refresh what people in the past have said about it. Including but not at all limited to people like Kant, Sartre, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell.

 

moral values DO exist. whether they are universal or not is another question.

so then - why has so much evil been done in the name of God?

Because God has nothing to do with right or wrong, or morality. you have no evidence to support this at all, it is only your opinion, based on your belief.

on the other hand, there is clear evidence that "moral" behaviour is a positive adaptation for many species. RStones provided some links, and there are others.

Your posts suggests that you believe normal people would behave like psychopaths without God. In fact - serial killers ARE MORE LIKELY to be brought up with strong religious views: http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/serial_killers.htm

it is possible that faith/belief may make it easier to justify violent crimes against others.

see above

this is not an atheistic view - this is using scientific evidence to explain how we have developed. It doesn't imply that we are only the sum of this development. We have the capacity to use our intelligence to gain understanding and make reasoned choices.

If you wish to discuss a topic such as morality, you really need to take off your religious blinkers and open yourself to a wider range of possibilities.

You can still have God in your equation, but to insist that without God we have no conscience, no moral development etc is really an insult to ALL human beings - including believers.

huh?

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion. Most people I know who are not believers in God have an internal locus of control, and are just as capable as any believer of striving to achieve something more, pushing themselves to becoming better people, capable of getting great joy from not only connecting with others, but through acting in ways to benefit other people (often more so than believers). there is no moral grandeur involved - or are you thinking that if I do something that benefits others, it is me expressing moral grandeur, but if a christian does - its shows that their God given morality is superior to mine?

Only very sad people with no understanding of human behaviour think of us as sad, lonely apes on a speck of dust in the solar system

precisely the same conditions ....

its interesting ... if we farmed humans as we do cattle - would it be OK to eat our fellow humans? you would think not .. and yet during the holocaust human products were used in manufacturing (effectively - although cannibalism was not part of the equation - human fat being used to make soap is pretty much on the same level) - but many of those who engaged in this were brought up as christians (prior to 1933, over 90% of germans were either protestant or catholic).

homosociability.

you identify and empathise with those who are most like you - or those you perceive a connection with on some level (we don't eat cats and dogs, because we keep them as pets; a lot of people will not eat horse meat - but how are they really that different from other large herbivores like cows?). even within our species we empathise more with those like ourselves - racists, nationalists and religious fanatics all exploit this tendency.

lols - try philosophy, not Hollywood.

and engaging in rape and murder would push you beyond the pale in any society - for good reasons not associated with a handed down morality from God. We only have to look at wartime atrocities or the Rwanda massacre (Rwanda was a predominantly christian nation in 1994) to know that even in our highly civilised world, there are people who go beyond this when dealing with people they see as "other".

it isn't relevant.

 

very conclusive but grossly shallow.

simply because objective moral values and duties exist "god"
follows that "God" is in existence. sounds very elementary to me.

polscie

 

Now consider that person A adheres to god A and person B adheres to god B. Why should you have to follow the moral values deviced by god A over the values deviced by god B, or vice versa?

As far as morality is concerned, there is no difference between saying that moral values comes from the person himself, from vitamin A or from a god. The ONLY difference concerns responsibility: If an individual can refer to a god for his moral values then he won't have to account for them himself.

What problem? You know, science is also neutral to the feelings between two distant cousins but this doesn't mean science can't provide methods to figure out how they're related.

That we have methods to trace moral development with doesn't mean that those methods are somehow entangled with moral concerns.

Well, regardless of what everyone may think or not think, you still have to make the case that any standard is dependent on the existence of your god.

 

I apologize for my delay in response everyone.

Cassandra

Moral values DO exist.

You agree with the first and second premise of this argument. It necessarily follows by the logic inference of deduction that God exists. And if you are an atheist, I now welcome you to theism.

FreeWare

Now consider that person A adheres to god A and person B adheres to god B. Why should you have to follow the moral values devised by god A over the values devised by god B, or vice versa?

As far as morality is concerned, there is no difference between saying that moral values comes from the person himself, from vitamin A or from a god. The ONLY difference concerns responsibility: If an individual can refer to a god for his moral values then he won't have to account for them himself.

This is an excellent objection, Free! I presented this argument in hopes of better understanding it. This argument should be posited in a cumulative case for the Christian God which would adequately answer this objection. For, if Jesus rose from the dead, the Christian God is real, if he is real, he is the one true God, and therefore you should follow the one true God’s morals.

I’m not presenting this to you as an answer, just postulating that I cannot answer this question without a cumulative case of which I am inadequate at presenting at this time. However, here is a link that you can follow to see this case laid out:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8"]Debate - William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens - Does God Exist? - YouTube[/ame]

What problem? You know, science is also neutral to the feelings between two distant cousins but this doesn't mean science can't provide methods to figure out how they're related.

The problem is if science is morally neutral, why would they have anything to say on moral values and duties? Moreover, you cannot find moral values and duties in a test tube.

That we have methods to trace moral development with doesn't mean that those methods are somehow entangled with moral concerns.

Well, regardless of what everyone may think or not think, you still have to make the case that any standard is dependent on the existence of your god.
You’re correct, Free but I’ve covered this previously in this post.

 

you are indicating that you have a comprehension problem.

it is a leap of faith to assume that because there are moral values, there is a God.

not everyone regards that leap of faith as a given

it is certainly not based on logic.

what makes you presume that you (more than anyone else) would be in a position to welcome me to theism?

 

If Gabriel descented from Heaven to bring Allah's word to Muhammed then Allah is real, he is the one true god and therefore you should follow Allah's morals.

If Jörmungandr confronted Odin then Odin is real, he is the one true god and you should therefore follow Odin's morals.

If Guru Parthasarathy is the bearer of Shrivatsam then he is the reincarnation of Brahma and Brahma is therefore real, the true god and you should therefore follow the morals of Brahma.

If ... need I go on?

Science is an "it", a methodology, not a "they". If "they" say anything about morals then it must be because "they" are human beings. So I don't understand your point.

Yes, we humans concern ourselves with all sorts of moral questions. But we also concern ourselves with alot of other things, some of which have no bearing on the former.
A construction worker, for example, doesn't use his craft to ponder his morals; welding together two steel joists is morally neutral. As is analyzing the peaks in a gamma-spectroscopy for a scientist. None of this means, of course, that neither the construction worker nor the scientist ponder moral issues, they just don't use the methodologies of their respective trades.

I'm afraid the task still remains.

 

Thank you for highlighting this comment from Yig, Freeware:

some of the most moral people I know are scientists. some of these people are on a University ethics committee, and quite clearly "moral" issues do come into the discussion of how science is practised.

Many scientists want to achieve something that will benefit humanity. They are driven by the idea that what they will achieve will have a positive impct on the world.

Of course, it isn't essential for a scientists to think this way, but I think it is important to recognise that what drives a lot of people is the desire to make a contribution to something - and scientists are they same as other people.

I find it interesting that people posit scientists as i fthey are some special set of people who operate in some kind of vacuum.

I can only assume these people have a lot of misconceptions about science (and who scientists are and what they do)

 

In the Moral Argument, it postulates that if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist. But if objective moral values and duties exist, the insinuation is that God exists.

The apologist William Lane Craig has used this arugment over 20 years in debates with professional philosophers and professors all over the country. Not once was the moral argument chared with not being grounded in the logic. Why is it that over the course of twenty years, not one person hasn't mentioned this? If it were so obvious, it would make more sense that at least one person would mention this over 20 years.

But you have two options:

I) Accept the conclusion

II) Deny the conclusion but accept both premises.

Cassandra, it is up to you.

 

The source of objective morality is completely arbitrary. If you need to attribute morality to a god then you can do that. You can't argue it logically but you can certainly do it. If someone else needs to attribute morality to Kim Il Jung then Kim Il Jung is the source of objective morality.

There is no insinuation whatsover. There's preference, that's all.

William Lane Craig has indeed used this argument for over 20 years and he will continue to use it regardless of its logical validity. Why? Because logical validity is not central to his interest. Only his confidence in its worth as apologetics is.

It doesn't matter how obvious the absence of logic is in apologetics, it is still apologetics.

As far as faith is concerned, those are certainly options.

 

your argument doesn't make sense to me, so there isn't much point.

 

There is at least one other option.

You can reject one or both premises and deny the conclusion.

 

I am not convinced at all that either of the premises are 'true', either.
They appear to be rather arbitrary claims informed by an agenda.

Of course, the argument in its logical form is correct, that "if...then", but it doesn't make any more sense than any other randomly chosen set which conforms to the form.

 

Indeed, just insert Easter Bunny instead of God.

 

I'm glad to see someone set some guidelines to try to keep the conversation of track xD

You entire arguement seems to come from the ide that Premise one is true. By assumption Premise one is stating 'god created moral values'. However objective moral values differ between people and society. Even animals have basic moral values which can be observed in populations ( I believe someone mentioned something similar earlier)

I would also like to bring up the fact that there are plenty of people in the world who have never even heard of god. Does that mean they have no grasp of moral values? That they cannot tell what is right from wrong?

From what we can observe in animals it can be said that the basis for any moral value is how it stands up to the society/population.

Back to the topic of Premise one: The flaw here is that this is not a good foundation for an arguement. You are trying to use a supernatural explantion for natural development with society. While the benefit of such an arguement is that your cannot be 'proven' wrong, you also have no evidence to support your claims in turn. This type of arguement simply leads to a never ending debate because quite simply; something that is 'supernatural' is that which CANNOT be either proven or disproven in the natural world.

People used to think that lightning was caused by Zeus throwing a temper tantrum. Science has since then proven what reactions cause lightning. However it is impossible to prove that there isn't an invisable sky god causing this to occur. As such I could state "I believe in zeus and the greek gods" a statement which in today's world may seem ridiculous but you cannot prove they don't exist. See the problem here?