Does God exist?

[aTeddy]

3 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

I think you should take a good look at what I posted instead. Cause it seems like you completely misread it.
First off, I never said that it had to be the Christian God. Why are you accusing me of doing so? Maybe because I mentioned stories from the Bible. But the reason I mentioned them is because another person asked questions about them. 
Second, I even said:

This makes all of your comlaints about Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Ark completely irrelevant.
 
Finally, you're saying that there are no objective moral values because there is nothing that all societies agree on. Dude, objectivivity means that they are true independent of what people think. So it wouldn't matter if some people disagree with it, it's still wrong. I've had to explain that so many times.
Anyways, you're saying that there is no objective good and evil, but I'm sure your moral experience tells you otherwise.

If I did misread I apologise, but your argument rested on this premise - i.e "If objective moral values exist, so does a God." I didn't see any logical chain where you made the connection between a deity and the Christian God (i.e why Christian God over the multitude of others). I think my arguments about Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Ark still stand - that your yardstick for judging moral goods and evils is biased.
 
What evidence have you, beyond your continued assertion, that objectivity exists? Why, if all human society has never arrived at even one moral consensus, do you think that some actions are inherently morally wrong/right? I think that your argument is hugely influenced by your reflexivity [i.e current society, Christian God believer] - i.e that you think, the set of morals which are agreed upon by Western society are the most obviously true. However, there is no evidence for such a claim?

Your final statement misses the point. I, as a member of current society, elect to base my morality around it. I believe morals are a function of the material conditions of a society, and not inherent, which evolution supports. Therefore, obviously morals which are congruent with my material conditions seem/function as the most correct for me in my life. I still place moral valency on acts, however, don't think that this appraisal is inherently correct.

[ILoveJesus]

41 minutes ago, aTeddy said:

If I did misread I apologise, but your argument rested on this premise - i.e "If objective moral values exist, so does a God." I didn't see any logical chain where you made the connection between a deity and the Christian God (i.e why Christian God over the multitude of others). I think my arguments about Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Ark still stand - that your yardstick for judging moral goods and evils is biased.
 

I didn't say it had to be the Christian God. The argument was if God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists. It would be false to say that it has to be a Christian God, and that's why I haven't said that.
Also, I said that the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant for Christianity to be true, and that's why objections to Noah's Ark and other biblical stories are irrelevant.

1 hour ago, aTeddy said:

What evidence have you, beyond your continued assertion, that objectivity exists? Why, if all human society has never arrived at even one moral consensus, do you think that some actions are inherently morally wrong/right? I think that your argument is hugely influenced by your reflexivity [i.e current society, Christian God believer] - i.e that you think, the set of morals which are agreed upon by Western society are the most obviously true. However, there is no evidence for such a claim?

The evidence for the existence objective moral values is our moral experience. Our moral experience tells us that some things really are wrong, e.g. the holocaust really was wrong. It's not just a matter of opinion. Does this:  seem like a matter of opinion, or is it actually wrong?

You once again implied that since all of humanity hasn't reached a consensus on anything, objective moral values don't exist. However, whether everybody agrees with them or not does not say anything about whether there are moral values that exist independent of what people think. Torturing an innocent person is wrong. Just because some maniacs think it's fine, doesn't change the fact that it's wrong. 

[aTeddy]

1 minute ago, ILoveJesus said:

I didn't say it had to be the Christian God. The argument was if God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God exists. It would be false to say that it has to be a Christian God, and that's why I haven't said that.
Also, I said that the Bible doesn't have to be inerrant for Christianity to be true, and that's why objections to Noah's Ark and other biblical stories are irrelevant.

The evidence for the existence objective moral values is our moral experience. Our moral experience tells us that some things really are wrong, e.g. the holocaust really was wrong. It's not just a matter of opinion. Does this:  seem like a matter of opinion, or is it actually wrong?

You once again implied that since all of humanity hasn't reached a consensus on anything, objective moral values don't exist. However, whether everybody agrees with them or not does not say anything about whether there are moral values that exist independent of what people think. Torturing an innocent person is wrong. Just because some maniacs think it's fine, doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.

Maybe the Holocaust and ISIS was/are wrong by the judgment of a third party observer in modern Western society... but who is to say it really is inherently wrong? What evidence do you have, save for your assertions and the limits of modern moral experiences? You assert these moral values as axiomatic, though you provide no evidence as to why they are. 

I find that it salient that the Bible contains untruths, yet is still claimed to be divinely inspired. Surely the God you claim to be an omnipotent, "objective" moral giver would not place blatantly false statements in their testament? Instead, it is written by people 4000 years ago who didn't know anything scientifically better...

Surely you can't reject ISIS torturing "innocents" as a Christian. Christianity is familiar with decreeing against "false idols":

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"- Matthew 4:10

Therefore, if you apply the decree of the Christian God, then how can you claim torturing infidels is wrong, because based on the judgment of Jesus, they are the ones at fault.

 

 

[tim9800]

Sorry, have been caught up recently in a few shenanigans so this is sort of a late (1 day old) reply to an earlier post @ILoveJesus

[UPDATE 1]: Formatting screwed over ugghhhhh. Updated my point relative to reflect current replies

[UPDATE 2]: Alright I think the formatting mess is over now - phew!

On 1/17/2017 at 9:58 PM, ILoveJesus said:

Good questions! First off, the Bible is not a moral code, like the Categorical Imperative. It's a collection of historical narratives. Also, I never said that the Bible was objective, and I'm not defending that position either because it's not essential to the Christian faith. So I'm not saying that every statement in the Bible about morality has objective value. I don't see any problems here.
 

 

There's a misconception here. I'm saying that objective moral values exist. I'm not saying that every action is either good or evil, I'm just saying that there are objective moral values, and that's all that's necessary for God to exist. Furthermore, this does not mean that an action has to be either good or bad regardless of the situation. In fact, it depends on the situation very often, and this does not disprove objective morality. 
Punching someone can be objectively wrong if the person didn't deserve it, and it can be objectively neutral if it were because you're in a boxing match. This does not in anyway disprove that there are objective moral values. Note that actions can be morally neutral. I'm sure you can find many examples where it depends on the situation, like you did with marriage.

 

 

When I say that objective moral values exist, that meanst that they are true, regardless of what people think. So if some sociopath thinks that the holocaust was morally good, that doesn't change the matter at all.
The reason I believe that things some things are actually wrong is because our conscience clearly tells us these things, not because many agree on it. Also, things aren't wrong for no reason. There is a reason why things are wrong. There might even be several correct reasons. And it's true that some people can come to the same conclusion with the wrong reason. For example, someone could say that the Holocaust was wrong because he believes that Jews should be crucified instead of killed in a gas chamber. He came to the same conclusion but for a wrong reason. Anyways, that was a bit irrelevant.
In conclusion, our conscience clearly tells us that some things really are wrong, and that's why you should believe that some things really are wrong, and some things really are good. Not because other people agree on it.

1.You argue that the Bible is 'not essential to the Christian faith' and concede that it is not objective, yet you argue that objective morals are indicative of the Christian God. Without the Bible, the closest thing you have as evidence towards God, there is no way in which you can associate objective morals with the Christian God. It's wrong to punch someone if they don't deserve it, but so what? Since the Bible is insignificant, and merely a figment of human opinion, then so is God's recorded command that 'Love your neighbour as you do yourself' or 'Curse those who curse you'. Without the Bible, there is no frame of reference for you to associate objective morality, and you are thereby disconnecting objective morality from the 'Word' of the 'moral law giver'.

[UPDATE 1]: My original argument is partially invalidated because you have stated you are not defending the Christian God. I gather that the capitalised 'G' in front of 'od' indicates that you are arguing for the existence of a general monotheistic religion? I apologise for making the assumption, but I've learnt growing up assuming that the capital referred to the Christian God. However, the general disconnection that I mentioned previously still stands:

Objective morals --> Religious text --> Some God

Generally speaking, by refuting (admitting subjective and hence falsifiable) the middle premise, you disconnect any association of objective morals with said God.

 

2.Definitional fallacy acknowledged,

 

3.

On 1/17/2017 at 9:58 PM, ILoveJesus said:

In conclusion, our conscience clearly tells us that some things really are wrong, and that's why you should believe that some things really are wrong, and some things really are good. Not because other people agree on it.

conscience (noun):  a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.

Firstly, if you allow me to substitute a shortened definition of conscience in place of the word conscience, what you essentially said was:

On 1/17/2017 at 9:58 PM, ILoveJesus said:

In conclusion, a person's moral sense of right and wrong clearly tells us that some things really are wrong, and that's why you should believe that some things really are wrong, and some things really are good. Not because other people agree on it.

So according to your conclusion, objective morality, the idea that 'some things really are right' and 'really are wrong', exists because our 'conscience clearly tells us these thing'. By replacing conscience with its definition, you are evidently making a no true Scotsman fallacy, whereupon you justify a claim by appealing to the 'real' or 'true' form of something. This one is a special case because you are doing the opposite, you are justifying the 'true' form of wrong by appealing to its original form i.e.

Some things are really wrong because we think they are wrong.

Just because a form of 'wrong' exists (i.e. in our heads, in our consciences) does not justify the existence of a 'greater' or 'true form of wrong.

At this point, you might retort, 'we don't think they are wrong, we know they are wrong because thinking induces human opinion, thereby disqualifying your argument against objective morality'. But how is it that we know something is wrong without thinking about it? Throughout this thread, your core fallacy is failing to give evidence for this, instead substituting evidence with synonyms e.g.

On 1/19/2017 at 2:25 AM, ILoveJesus said:

moral experience

On 1/17/2017 at 2:12 AM, ILoveJesus said:

standard of morality

On 1/17/2017 at 9:58 PM, ILoveJesus said:

really are good

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you are begging the question (justifying your claim through synonyms and circumlocution) rather than providing direct evidence.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by tim9800

[tim9800]

On 1/19/2017 at 7:30 AM, ILoveJesus said:

The evidence for the existence objective moral values is our moral experience. Our moral experience tells us that some things really are wrong, e.g. the holocaust really was wrong. It's not just a matter of opinion. Does this:  seem like a matter of opinion, or is it actually wrong?

Example Argument of a No true Scotsman fallacy (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)

• Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
• Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
• Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Your objective morality argument

• You: “Everyone’s moral experience tells them the Holocaust is wrong.”
• Others: “But my uncle Angus’ moral experience tells him the Holocaust isn’t wrong.”
• You: “Ah yes, but true moral experience tells us that the Holocaust really is wrong.” 

Edited January 20, 2017 by tim9800

[ILoveJesus]

On 2017-01-18 at 9:47 PM, aTeddy said:

I find that it salient that the Bible contains untruths, yet is still claimed to be divinely inspired. Surely the God you claim to be an omnipotent, "objective" moral giver would not place blatantly false statements in their testament? Instead, it is written by people 4000 years ago who didn't know anything scientifically better..

The bible is a collection of historical documents written from ca 800 BC to 100 AD (not 4000years ago). Maybe some of the documents have errors because humans make errors. I don't see a problem with that.

 

On 2017-01-18 at 9:47 PM, aTeddy said:

Surely you can't reject ISIS torturing "innocents" as a Christian. Christianity is familiar with decreeing against "false idols":

Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"- Matthew 4:10

Therefore, if you apply the decree of the Christian God, then how can you claim torturing infidels is wrong, because based on the judgment of Jesus, they are the ones at fault.

I don't quite understand. Do you really think that Jesus would affirm ISIS' actions? Sorry when did Jesus say that torturing innocent people isn't wrong?

On 2017-01-18 at 9:47 PM, aTeddy said:

Maybe the Holocaust and ISIS was/are wrong by the judgment of a third party observer in modern Western society... but who is to say it really is inherently wrong? What evidence do you have, save for your assertions and the limits of modern moral experiences? You assert these moral values as axiomatic, though you provide no evidence as to why they are. 

If you really believe that e.g. torturing babies for fun is only a matter of opinion, and not really wrong, then I don't know what to say.

[aTeddy]

4 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

The bible is a collection of historical documents written from ca 800 BC to 100 AD (not 4000years ago). Maybe some of the documents have errors because humans make errors. I don't see a problem with that.

 

I don't quite understand. Do you really think that Jesus would affirm ISIS' actions? Sorry when did Jesus say that torturing innocent people isn't wrong?

If you really believe that e.g. torturing babies for fun is only a matter of opinion, and not really wrong, then I don't know what to say.

The thing is, the Bible claims that it is divinely inspired. It proports to be fully accurate [Jesus confirms this] which, evidently it is not. Therefore it raises questions as to its internal consistency and therefore the validity of belief in Christianity.

There is no reason to think that Jesus Christ would not encourage that. Infact, God even explicitly says that "Happy shall he be" in Psalms. 

Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones. -  Psalm 137:9

Your final statement is pure ad hominem, because it simply implies that I am super immoral by your standard, and therefore my argument can't possibly have merit. Human and non-human societies have all done comparatively heinous things to babies. It is only now that the prevailing attitude is that torturing kids is wrong. You've also decided to miss the core of the argument again. I don't disclaim all morals, but I have simply acknowledged how my morals are shaped by my time period and prevailing societal conditions. For the record, I don't think it's great to torture babies, but I don't think it can be said to be correct or incorrect absolutely.

 

[ILoveJesus]

On 2017-01-19 at 3:51 AM, tim9800 said:

.You argue that the Bible is 'not essential to the Christian faith'

Sorry meant to say that inerrancy is not essential to the Christian faith

 

On 2017-01-19 at 3:51 AM, tim9800 said:

However, the general disconnection that I mentioned previously still stands:

Objective morals --> Religious text --> Some God

Generally speaking, by refuting (admitting subjective and hence falsifiable) the middle premise, you disconnect any association of objective morals with said God.

I believe that our conscience comes from God, and that's how we know what is right and what is wrong. I also believe that the recorded words of Jesus would tell us a bit about what is right and what is wrong, if Jesus actually said the things that the Bible says he said. 

On 2017-01-19 at 3:51 AM, tim9800 said:

So according to your conclusion, objective morality, the idea that 'some things really are right' and 'really are wrong', exists because our 'conscience clearly tells us these thing'. By replacing conscience with its definition, you are evidently making a no true Scotsman fallacy, whereupon you justify a claim by appealing to the 'real' or 'true' form of something. This one is a special case because you are doing the opposite, you are justifying the 'true' form of wrong by appealing to its original form i.e.

Some things are really wrong because we think they are wrong.

Just because a form of 'wrong' exists (i.e. in our heads, in our consciences) does not justify the existence of a 'greater' or 'true form of wrong.

 

I'm just going to leave it like this, like I did with aTeddy. If you believe that torturing a baby for fun is just a matter of opinion, and not really wrong, then I don't know what to say. I think you're just denying your moral experience. But then you might as well deny your physical experience as well, and believe that we're in the matrix.

[ILoveJesus]

8 minutes ago, aTeddy said:

Human and non-human societies have all done comparatively heinous things to babies. It is only now that the prevailing attitude is that torturing kids is wrong. You've also decided to miss the core of the argument again. I don't disclaim all morals, but I have simply acknowledged how my morals are shaped by my time period and prevailing societal conditions. For the record, I don't think it's great to torture babies, but I don't think it can be said to be correct or incorrect absolutely.

Okay. I just disagree with you there. I don't have any objectifiable evidence to disprove it, but I think you're just denying your moral experience. But I definitely don't think that just now the prevailing attitude is that torturing kids is wrong.

10 minutes ago, aTeddy said:

The thing is, the Bible claims that it is divinely inspired. It proports to be fully accurate [Jesus confirms this] which, evidently it is not. Therefore it raises questions as to its internal consistency and therefore the validity of belief in Christianity.

Where does Jesus say that the Bible is completely inerrant?

 

19 minutes ago, aTeddy said:

here is no reason to think that Jesus Christ would not encourage that. Infact, God even explicitly says that "Happy shall he be" in Psalms. 

Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones. -  Psalm 137:9

Thanks for taking a verse completely out of context. First off, it's not God who says that. Second, here's an answer from christianity.stackexchange.com in case you want to know more about it:

"The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it. Verses 7-9 make it explicit:

7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” 8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist. Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.) Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Is this "right?" Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews. I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers. Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)

Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock." Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are "rules" for reading the text."

- http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/how-can-psalm-1379-be-defended

 

[aTeddy]

12 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

Okay. I just disagree with you there. I don't have any objectifiable evidence to disprove it, but I think you're just denying your moral experience. But I definitely don't think that just now the prevailing attitude is that torturing kids is wrong.

Objective evidence, you say? Here is a study which shows child sacrifices occurred. I'd love to see you stop circumlocuting around providing any evidence for your assertions beyond your own feelings.

 Milner, Larry S. (2000). Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide. Lanham/New York/Oxford: University Press of America.

Quote

Where does Jesus say that the Bible is completely inerrant?

 

16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16

I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of argument. Clearly Jesus did say that it is and you are fumbling.

Quote

 

Thanks for taking a verse completely out of context. First off, it's not God who says that. Second, here's an answer from christianity.stackexchange.com in case you want to know more about it:

"The meaning is pretty obvious in context.

Ps 137 is a lament for Jerusalem after the Babylonians have invaded and destroyed it. Verses 7-9 make it explicit:

7 Remember, LORD, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!” 8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

This is sheer gloating on the part of the psalmist. Whoever overthrows Babylon is someone the author wants to buy a beer! (Put another way, that person is someone really popular with the author.) Whoever wrote this really hated the Babylonians, and would love to kill their children.

Is this "right?" Remember, this is a psalm - an ancient song of the Hebrews. I suspect many a future scholar will puzzle over, say, the misogynistic lyrics of Eminem or many like-minded rappers. Psalms express the feelings of the writer, NOT THEOLOGICAL RULES FOR YOUR BEHAVIOR. (Although, it is often argued that the feelings reflected in the Psalms should be that of a mature Christian.)

Note also, there is nothing that says "You should bash a baby against a rock." Doesn't fit with the text or the nature of God. It would be a misreading of the text, which actually proves the point there are "rules" for reading the text."

- http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5307/how-can-psalm-1379-be-defended

 

So it is divinely inspired or is it not? The fact that child murder existed in that age, proves my point that morals change over time.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by aTeddy

[ILoveJesus]

19 hours ago, aTeddy said:

 

16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Timothy 3:16

I don't understand why you are pursuing this line of argument. Clearly Jesus did say that it is and you are fumbling.

That wasn't Jesus who said it? It was Paul.

 

19 hours ago, aTeddy said:

The fact that child murder existed in that age, proves my point that morals change over time.

No it doesn't. Just because child murder existed back then, doesn't mean that the "prevailing attitude" was that it was okay (i.e. that it wasn't wrong).

Edited January 21, 2017 by ILoveJesus

[tim9800]

4 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

I'm just going to leave it like this, like I did with aTeddy. If you believe that torturing a baby for fun is just a matter of opinion, and not really wrong, then I don't know what to say. I think you're just denying your moral experience. But then you might as well deny your physical experience as well, and believe that we're in the matrix.

4 hours ago, aTeddy said:

Your final statement is pure ad hominem, because it simply implies that I am super immoral by your standard, and therefore my argument can't possibly have merit.

On top of what @aTeddy has demonstrated, most of the examples that you use in conjuction with your arguments are also appeals to emotion, where you attempt to generate emotion within the reader to substitute any direct evidence. Your most recent one even has its own specific name:

"Think of the children" or "What about all the children?" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Your reference to torturing innocents and the Holocaust are also appeals to emotion, though more specifically appeals to disgust or fear

In addition to this, you are confirming my previous claim that you are begging the question. Once again, you have failed to provide evidence and instead, obfuscate around it by referring to 'moral experience'.

4 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Do you really think that Jesus would affirm ISIS' actions?

As well as another appeal to emotion (possibly an appeal to spite), you again make another fallacy, an appeal to authourity. You reference Jesus as a morally superior guide to justify the objectively wrong nature of ISIS' actions, but the thing is, as of yet, you have provided no evidence to support the original premise. Moreover, you assume that I, or for that matter every other user that you have replied to, by refuting your (fallacious) arguments that these things are wrong, believe that the things raised in those arguments are right. Just because we deny your argument does not mean we are inhuman, or monsters, or exist purely as robots inside your computer. That is what you imply by your appeals to emotion. Which leads me to my next point.

4 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

But then you might as well deny your physical experience as well, and believe that we're in the matrix.

(Ignoring the fact this is irrelevant to your point, which argues for the existence of a God, rather than a race of hyper-intelligent life forms) At this point, solipsism is just as valid an argument to hold as is objective morality. Neither can be proved existent, but cannot be disproved either. So in fact, you might as well deny your physical experience, and believe that we're in the matrix, because at this point, that's what your evidence (or lack thereof) suggests. Until you prove the existence of objective morality, there is nothing you can hold against living inside the matrix.

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by tim9800

[ILoveJesus]

8 hours ago, tim9800 said:

12 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Do you really think that Jesus would affirm ISIS' actions?

As well as another appeal to emotion (possibly an appeal to spite), you again make another fallacy, an appeal to authourity. You reference Jesus as a morally superior guide to justify the objectively wrong nature of ISIS' actions, but the thing is, as of yet, you have provided no evidence to support the original premise.

The reason I said that is because ATeddy said that Christians shouldn't have a problem ISIS' actions. 

 

8 hours ago, tim9800 said:

On top of what @aTeddy has demonstrated, most of the examples that you use in conjuction with your arguments are also appeals to emotion, where you attempt to generate emotion within the reader to substitute any direct evidence. Your most recent one even has its own specific name:

"Think of the children" or "What about all the children?" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

Your reference to torturing innocents and the Holocaust are also appeals to emotion, though more specifically appeals to disgust or fear

Call it appeal to moral experience instead of appeal to emotion. 

[azara]

The problem is that this is not really a falsifiable question (and has become mostly irrelevant to the main question "does God exist?" at this point).  You believe that morals are objective, though whether they all are, or just some of them are, is still unclear.  We believe that they are subjective.  Both of us have attempted to offer evidence for our side, but it is impossible to draw definite conclusions one way or another because of the nature of the question.  Despite my firm belief that they are not, it is still possible that morals are objective, because I can't conclusively disprove it; likewise, @ILoveJesus' belief that they are could of course also be wrong.  

The logic that if objective morals exist, then God exists, still makes absolutely no sense to me because of the huge number of logical hoops which must be jumped through, the exclusion of all other possibilities, and my personal belief that the God of the Christian Bible is nowhere close to being a moral individual.  Anyway, I think this is a point which is easier to discuss without going in circles.

I have a different question, ILJ.  You have said the Bible contains human error.  I would be interested to know why a perfect and omnipotent God allowed what is essentially His only formal instructions to humanity to be clouded by human misinterpretation, and have caused interminable argument for the last several thousand years.  Why not provide a perfect document which was clearly written? This is an issue which has always confused me.

Edited January 21, 2017 by azara

[talalrulez]

ok, lol. i haven't been online for the past couple of days, and as soon as i open my email, i get like 2 pages of notifications solely related to this discussion. so thanks for that guys... Also, as @ILoveJesus said, it's nice to see the Australian flair currently present in this discussion. Anyway, back to the discussion of objective morality...

To make it simple for you guys, i'll tell you my thoughts on it up front, which is really the exact same thing i said about it before. i believe that God has attempted to enforce upon us the concept of objective morality. objective morality has no room for grays, it is always solely black or white. However, humans will never ever bend to one code of morality, so at the least, God has attempted to guide our codes for morality. this is because, in the end, most morals will be determined by the background, society and beliefs in which we are brought in. 

Now, although i am starting to feel that the discussion is turning serious, what with the mention of ISIS in it and all, i must say i really appreciate it, because it does really provide us an excellent example to look at changing morals. Looking at ISIS, most sane people would say that ISIS is a group of 'Insane' people working together to insert their insane beliefs on others. yet people brought up in countries as demolished as theirs and have been as oppressed by their governments, will see the acts of ISIS incredibly heroic and liberating. That is why ISIS has such a large group, and have been able to obtain such land. as spoiled as we are with roofs over our heads, and a full belly at night, we can never understand the mindset of people who would consider ISIS the 'good guys.' 

God may have attempted to guide our moral code with his idea of Objective morals, yet even that is weak, in that in the end, God leaves us to choose between his moral code and whatever morals we have based on the society, beliefs and context of wherever we are. 

 

now to catch up on all that manga i missed...

Edited January 21, 2017 by talalrulez

[talalrulez]

48 minutes ago, ILoveJesus said:

The reason I said that is because ATeddy said that Christians shouldn't have a problem ISIS' actions. 

 

Call it appeal to moral experience instead of appeal to emotion. 

Sorry bro, but some christian people have actually come up to defend ISIS's and other muslims exexutions of homosexuals and transgender peoples. you've given us so many links, so here are a few down below. 

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/sacramento/sacramento-baptist-pastor-praises-orlando-massacre/243211965

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/06/christian-pastor-calls-orlando-massacre-good-news/

http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by talalrulez

[ILoveJesus]

1 hour ago, azara said:

The problem is that this is not really a falsifiable question (and has become mostly irrelevant to the main question "does God exist?" at this point).  You believe that morals are objective, though whether they all are, or just some of them are, is still unclear.  We believe that they are subjective.  Both of us have attempted to offer evidence for our side, but it is impossible to draw definite conclusions one way or another because of the nature of the question.  Despite my firm belief that they are not, it is still possible that morals are objective, because I can't conclusively disprove it; likewise, @ILoveJesus' belief that they are could of course also be wrong.  

The logic that if objective morals exist, then God exists, still makes absolutely no sense to me because of the huge number of logical hoops which must be jumped through, the exclusion of all other possibilities, and my personal belief that the God of the Christian Bible is nowhere close to being a moral individual.  Anyway, I think this is a point which is easier to discuss without going in circles.

This question is not irrelevant because it's essential to the moral argument for God's existence:
Premise 1: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exist.

I thought you already agreed that Premise 1 was correct. Because if God doesn't exist, then it's all just a matter of human opinion, and that holds no objective value. And objective moral laws don't come out of nowhere.

So if premise 2 (which is what we are debating right now) is correct, then the conclusion that God exists logically follows.

Notice that it says "objective" instead of "absolute" (I feel like you haven't seen the distinction between the two). The two can best be distinguished by looking at their opposites. The opposite of objective is subjective. The opposite of absolute is relative. The argument does not say that there are absolute moral values, i.e. that an action will be wrong in every situation), but it says that there are objective moral values (that actions are wrong regardless of subjective opinion).
If there are no objective moral values, then no action is morally right or morally wrong, not the holocaust, not torturing babies for fun, nor would loving a child be any better than raping it (sorry for these explicit examples).
 

2 hours ago, azara said:

I have a different question, ILJ.  You have said the Bible contains human error.  I would be interested to know why a perfect and omnipotent God allowed what is essentially His only formal instructions to humanity to be clouded by human misinterpretation, and have caused interminable argument for the last several thousand years.  Why not provide a perfect document which was clearly written? This is an issue which has always confused me.

I don't have a problem with the Bible the way it is. I think the main and most important story is still inexplicitly clear: that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead.
By the way, I'm not saying that the Bible does have errors in it. I'm just not claiming that it's error-free. I haven't decided whether I believe it's error-free or not.

[ILoveJesus]

1 hour ago, talalrulez said:

Sorry bro, but some christian people have actually come up to defend ISIS's and other muslims exexutions of homosexuals and transgender peoples. you've given us so many links, so here are a few down below. 

http://www.abc10.com/news/local/sacramento/sacramento-baptist-pastor-praises-orlando-massacre/243211965

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/06/christian-pastor-calls-orlando-massacre-good-news/

http://thoughtcatalog.com/jacob-geers/2016/06/here-are-all-the-people-applauding-the-orlando-gay-club-shooter/

 

Fallacy: Just because some people who call themselves Christians defend ISIS' actions, doesn't mean that Christians should defend ISIS' actions.

[tim9800]

5 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

The reason I said that is because ATeddy said that Christians shouldn't have a problem ISIS' actions.

Well, the fact still remains that you are appealing to authourity without justifying the validity of that authourity (Jesus). Instead of providing evidence for why Christians should and do have a problem with ISIS' actions, you have substituted that with appeal to emotion, and thereby invalidated your argument.

5 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Call it appeal to moral experience instead of appeal to emotion. 

Once again, my point remains - you just keep on substituting evidence with synonyms. Call it circular reasoning, begging the question, tautology - the recurring theme is lack of evidence.

3 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Premise 1: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exist.

Instead of dwelling upon the same fallacies over and over, I've decided to come up with my own premises for the existence/non-existence of God and his relationship with objective morality. This is an attempt of summarizing my view of this debate, and it is in the hope that this may bring about some new discourse. The underlying material conditions of my premises are as follows:

Conditions

1.  A distinct lack of evidence to justify the existence of an objective morality
2.  A tenuous, subjective association between religious text and said God of some general monotheistic religion, and hence, even if we could determine the existence of objective morality,
3.  A lack of evidence to assert that objective morals are dependent on God (i.e. dependence = 'If God exists, then objective morals exist')

Based on these conditions, I propose the following as a much more agreeable, (but admittedly passive), set of premises

Example Syllogism 1

• Premise 1: If objective morals exist, God may or may not exist
• Premise 2: Objective morals exist
• Conclusion: Therefore God may or may not exist

Note that I argued for the existence of objective morals in this particular version of the syllogism, but, as I said in Condition 3, there is nothing to suggest that objective morals are dependent on God. This is why I think it is more appropriate the reverse the terms of the first premise. Hence, I think this syllogism is also valid:

Example Syllogism 2

• Premise 1: If objective morals exist, God may or may not exist
• Premise 2: Objective morals do not exist
• Conclusion: Therefore God may or may not exist

The point is, even if were able to prove the existence of objective morality, we would most likely be unable to associate this with God.

In the end, the existence of objective morality, as the existence of God, remains uncertain.

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by tim9800

[Vioh]

5 hours ago, talalrulez said:

I believe that God has attempted to enforce upon us the concept of objective morality. objective morality has no room for grays, it is always solely black or white. However, humans will never ever bend to one code of morality, so at the least, God has attempted to guide our codes for morality. this is because, in the end, most morals will be determined by the background, society and beliefs in which we are brought in.

@talalrulez, I understand your viewpoint here, knowing that you're a religious person. But would you agree that this idea – that god tries to enforce an objective morality upon us – is based entirely on faith? I mean even if there is such a thing as an objective morality, how can you definitively prove with evidence and logical arguments that it's god who gave us these moral rules. We can't just say "objectivity requires an objectivity giver" without falling into some sort of logical fallacies such as the god-of-the-gaps or the argument from ignorance.

I know that I'm joining the discussion a little bit late, and much of what I'm gonna say in this post has already been mentioned by other posters, but I just want to shout out what I have in my mind anyway.

3 hours ago, ILoveJesus said:

Premise 1: If God doesn't exist, objective moral values don't exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exist.

@ILoveJesus, I think most people would reject your 1st premise and have a serious problem with your 2nd one. For premise 1, you said that "if god doesn't exist, then it's all just a matter of human opinion that holds no objective values". But isn't that an argument from ignorance/incredulity? Just because you can't think of any other reasons for objective morality doesn't mean such reasons don't exist. How can humans have objective morality (if such a thing exists) is a difficult question and arguably have no definitive answers. One might approach this from different perspectives: from philosophy as in Kant's categorical imperative, from biology through Richard Dawkins' selfish genes idea, or from the human rights perspective which may argue that our conscience came from the experience with the atrocities that happened during WWII. Still, whatever the ultimate reasons are, it's just not convincing to simply state that objectivity is an evidence for god without giving more thoughts to endless of other possibilities. Moreover, saying that "without god, all we have is human opinion" is completely unfair. If you take any moral philosophy class in university, you'll notice that most discussions there are based on reasons, logic, and facts, rather than just "human opinion".

One way that you can prove your 1st premise is to show us how God communicates these objective moral values to humans. Of course, the obvious way might be through the religious books (Bible, Quran, …). But the problem with these books is that they contain so many moral contradictions, and none of their moral claims can be qualified as objective morality. "You shall not steal", well guess what, if your family is starving to death, stealing might actually be the right thing to do. "Homosexuality is morally wrong", needless to say, this is just a wrong statement, especially nowadays when many countries have accepted gay marriages. "Killing an innocent is wrong" might sound objective at first, but only if the world would be this simple. In reality, it's very difficult to judge who is the innocent one (here, I'm thinking about the US drone strikes, which targeted the terrorists, but also have killed many innocent civilians during the process). Let me also use the famous trolley problem as an example here. Say one side of the track is your family, and the other side of the track is an innocent stranger. Would you deflect the train so that it kills your family instead of the innocent stranger? a deontologist might think otherwise because to him, saving one's family is a moral obligation. All of these examples are to show that religious books don't have any set of objective morality, not to mention some of the immorality encouraged by the books, like stoning people to death because of adultery, etc

Another way that you can prove your 1st premise is to say that god is an incredibly powerful being and thus can magically put objective morality into our head without us knowing. Fair enough. But then why didn't god do this sooner? so that humanity can avoid having to experience so much killings in the past, so that the Holocaust wouldn't have taken place, and Jesus wouldn't have to sacrifice himself for the sins of people. Here, you might argue that god gives us objective morality, but does not force it upon us because god also wants humans to have free-will. Fine, fair enough. But doesn't that require a huge amount of faith in order to believe that to be true? How can you prove that god gave us objective morality without taking a leap of faith? Since your argument is formulated as a logical syllogism, you cannot use faith as a tool to validate the argument.

Now, much of the discussions in the previous posts have been about the 2nd premise – a debate about whether morality is objective or subjective. On this issue, I have to say that I'm completely neutral. But that doesn't matter because, as @azara and @tim9800 have rightly pointed out, whether objective morality exists or not, the 1st premise is still wrong since there is no connection between the existence of objective morality and the existence of god.

@ILoveJesus, the thing that troubles me most about your argument is that you're claiming as if you've definitively proven that some moral values are objective in nature. When the other posters asked you for proof, you simply stated that "human's conscience and moral experience tell us why the Holocaust is objectively wrong". But isn't that a contradiction? because human's conscience and moral experience are influenced by our subjective self. If you disagree, then you must be claiming that human's conscience is objective. But here lies another problem. Earlier you said that some (if not most) moral issues are subjective in nature. But then how can our objective conscience lead us to a subjective conclusion for these moral issues? In other words, if our moral experience and conscience are objective and absolute, then from your point of view, it follows that all moral issues must be objective in nature. This is to show that using human conscience as a proof for an objective morality is incorrect and totally not convincing.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Vioh