Theists - Why does Morality require the existence of God?

by cantleave 122 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  slimboyfat

  Plus the Taliban could come up with lots of other sources of happiness from their actions, using my imagination, perhaps including things like:

  2. Happy that women "know their place" in their culture.

  3. Happy that they don't tolerate idolatrous idols on their land.

  4. Happy that they are better at irradiating drug production than western invaders.

  5. Happy that they have frustrated western attemps to dominate their home country.

  6. Happy that their culture does not allow "sexual immorality" to go unpunished as in the west.

  7. Happy that they are better at eliminating corruption than are western puppet governments in Kabul.

  And on and on, a list only limited by one's knowledge and imagination.
• 

  caliber

  Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy only when it is arbitrary, proving nothing beyond what it assumes.

  However, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Certain standards must be assumed. Dr. Jason Lisle gave this example of a non-arbitrary use of circular reasoning:

  1. Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
  2. We can make an argument.
  3. Therefore, there must be laws of logic.

  "The basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard. Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature."

  Sherlock Holmes...The Science of Deduction
  1. I observe everything.
  2 From what I observe, I deduce everything.
  3. When I've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how mad it might seem,must be the truth.
  Human crime has human limitations however this is not so with God

  1. the basic presupposition—God exists and has revealed Himself in His inerrant, authoritative Word—is the ultimate standard. Presupposing God exists to argue that God exists is a reasonable circular argument because without the God of the Bible, we havno basis for assuming the laws of logic and their properties, let alone absolute morality or the uniformity of nature.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  Morality actually demands that we must reject the Biblical version of God.

  A rich vein of philosophical enquiry on this subject can be found here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/moral.html
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  

  
• 

  Seraphim23

  Slimboyfat although you and I have different world views I think you make valid points and argue logically. In fact I really appreciate that some atheists like you are level headed in terms of how they debate and discuss in terms of intellectual honesty. I wonder sometimes if away from the labels atheists and theists, some lines should be redrawn to that of fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist as being a more accurate picture of what’s going on. Anyhow I digress a little, because I also wanted to say that circular reasoning of some theists is similar to some circular reasoning of some atheists when it comes to morality.

  Some atheists say that morality doesn’t require the existence of God because people, not God are the final authority for what is good or bad. However that is hardly an objective measure of good and bad or even an effective way to prove that good and bad has any objective existence. If it is only people saying that things are good and bad, as is going to be the case without a God, then objective good and bad are entirely impossible to prove. If one tries to link in subjective assessments of good and bad to the objective world, in order to get past this problem, this only works if the objective world doesn’t offer contradictions and if all humans everywhere and at all times agree with such a singular assessment, because if they do not then the idea that man, as opposed to some higher authority decides on what is good and bad, but not all them agree, this doesn’t constitute objective proof. Opinion has never changed reality to suit, not even majority opinion. One has to define good and bad in a way that never changes in order to say it exists and that has to be shown to exist in the objective world, but because nothing in the objective world stays the same, this is impossible.

  The same issue faces the theist as well I should add, even if God could be proved to exist which of course he can’t, for different but similar reasons.
• 

  cofty

  So anybody who disagrees with Seraphim's muddle-headed opinions on morality can be dismissed as a "fundamentalist". Nice example of ad homenem.

  I will try again this evening to explain why objective morality exists without god.
• 

  Seraphim23

  Not anyone, just you in this instance.
• 

  cantleave

  Sorry I haven't been as involved in this discussion as I would have liked, but I am travelling. I have just been catching up whilst sitting in a business lounge in Warsaw airport. This is absolutely fascinating..

  Justitia thank you for your input, your use of Act consequentialism in defining a model for legal definition has added a dimension to this argument that has to some extent escaped my reasoning up to this point.

  Seraphim I can not see how your proposition that some atheists state " that morality doesn’t require the existence of God because people, not God are the final authority for what is good or bad" in anyway reflects any atheist viewpoint that I have come across. Besides such an argument would not be an example of that particular logical fallacy.

  The way I see it is very simple..... morals arose by collective societal agreement in order to create a social structure that provides an environment of protection for the indiviuals in that society. In other words, Human evolution has led to us having a herding instinct, for that herd to work for the benefit of the majority, social rules and protocols evolved, those who did not follow these rules were outcast by the rest of the group and were left in a vulnerable position. No circular reasoning here, just a mechanism for survival, which became more sophisticated as societies grew larger and more complex.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The way I see it is very simple..... morals arose by collective societal agreement in order to create a social structure that provides an environment of protection for the indiviuals in that society. In other words, Human evolution has led to us having a herding instinct, for that herd to work for the benefit of the majority, social rules and protocols evolved, those who did not follow these rules were outcast by the rest of the group and were left in a vulnerable position. No circular reasoning here, just a mechanism for survival, which became more sophisticated as societies grew larger and more complex.

  Well indeed, and morality is therefore relative to its cultural environment.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Morality actually demands that we must reject the Biblical version of God.

  This is why many Christians don't hold that the Bible is God's own penned word with no embellishments from man.

  I heard this song yesterday and it reminded me, that many of the things claimed about God in the Bible, with a God like that, how does he differ from the Biblical Satan in his sadistic thirst for blood and suffering? With the bad things that happen on earth, especially between human beings and other human beings and animals, what do we need with a hell? We suffer enough now.

  Here come the world
  With the look in it's eye
  Future uncertain but certainly slight
  Look at the faces
  Listen to the bells
  It's hard to believe we need a place called hell

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5QCJB3fOc