God exists because objective morality exists!

[The_Cosmos]

Its not a simple case of differing or disagreement. Science only explains facts it cannot explain moral truthts. It doesn't tell you ''oughtness''

''For example Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.''

Science can tell you the facts, but not how things should be.



It's not a claim , it's deductive argument which means if the arguments premises in the opening post is true than its reasonable to suggest that God exists.



If you don't believe in absolute moral or objectivity exists then you are saying that you believe in moral subjectivity. Which is Nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong or right , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to kill a child?

If not then you agree there a moral objectivity exist and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.

God is universally quantified , Meaning God is logically constant. "given any" or "for all". It expresses that a propositional function can be satisfied by every member of a domain of discourse. In other words, it is the prediction of a property or relation to every member of the domain.

Because the nature of God provides a refrence point. “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.

So you use ''Gods Nature'' as a reference for what is right or wrong.

I am literally enamoured by your sense of reasoning. Science does not have to tackle the issue of right and wrong in order for it to present us with a pretext to reason from. Science presents us with the evolutionary advantage of one moral proposition and whether or not it is good or evil is up to our instincts. For example, as you've mentioned, rape has negative connotations on the victim. Now, considering that human beings and all living things are programmed to behave in such a manner that benefits their survival and the survival of their community, rape is wrong because it is detrimental to that. Just from that example I have presented a pretty strong case as to how the scientific method can help us (not instruct us) in determining what is right and what is wrong. Morality as a whole is a by product of natural selection and natural selection only selects what is advantageous to us and not what isn't and thus rape is wrong on that account.

If you don't believe in absolute moral or objectivity exists then you are saying that you believe in moral subjectivity. Which is Nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong or right , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to kill a child?

You've quoted me but you've ignored the point of my propositions. Morality by nature is subjective because it changes and it has to change because society evolves and what was once advantageous no longer is. For example, slavery was once permitted (by the Abrahamic faiths no less but not the point) but now it isn't. Why is that? This is because the social environment that enabled those acts to continue, no longer existed and thus the owning and enslaving of other people was actually detrimental instead of beneficial. Another interesting point I have noticed from this is that the nations used to enslave those whom they conquered which highlights the natural way of the world. Morality, up until recently, was mostly between societies and communities but just recently has it become a universal thing. Morality never actually extended beyond your own community or society.

To clarify the last point. Are you telling me that god is good by nature rendering all his commands good? Meaning if god commands something then that something is good?

 

[McLovin]

Why does it disturb you so much morality is not objective and isn't handed down by an authoritarian skydaddy? Are you afraid you will suddenly turn into a murdering rapist once hell is taken out of the equation?
:siilaanyolaugh:

What a flimsy sense of morality you have

 

[VixR]

You don't get my point. I am not saying that you don't have to believe in subjectivity and Nor am i saying Morality without God doesn't exist.

I am saying if there is no such thing as ''objective'' morality. No standard means it is morally nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong or right , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd or in-group and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to rape a child?

If not then you agree there is a moral objectivity and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.

This isn't about what I believe.

To prove there is a such thing as a universally objective morality, you must present me with an example of one. I see no such example that cuts across time and culture.

Stealing does not fit the bill.

Stealing: You'd have one culture where possessions are coveted and stealing is frowned upon, and another with a keen stealers-keepers approach to possessions, and then one with no concept of the idea of possesing a thing or things at all, wherein everything is shared amongst the larger group.

Murder does not fit the bill.

Murder: You'd have a culture with a warrior mindset where if you killed a man with the might of your own hands, you had a right to his life and the killer was left to roam. Others where killers were killed, others still where monetary or possesion compensations were paid out to grieved as ample action. I can really go on and on and on with this one. The intricacies can get really interesting as to what has been considered "moral" when it comes to murder.

Rape most certainly does not fit the bill. I wont bother getting into this one as it's easily the most laughable to me for you to present as a universally morally objectivist ideal if there ever was one!

I can on and on and so forth, really, but I am on my phone all this while and perhaps not as coherent as I could be.

 

[Dhabaal]

I am literally enamoured by your sense of reasoning. Science does not have to tackle the issue of right and wrong in order for it to present us with a pretext to reason from. Science presents us with the evolutionary advantage of one moral proposition and whether or not it is good or evil is up to our instincts. For example, as you've mentioned, rape has negative connotations on the victim. Now, considering that human beings and all living things are programmed to behave in such a manner that benefits their survival and the survival of their community, rape is wrong because it is detrimental to that. Just from that example I have presented a pretty strong case as to how the scientific method can help us (not instruct us) in determining what is right and what is wrong. Morality as a whole is a by product of natural selection and natural selection only selects what is advantageous to us and not what isn't and thus rape is wrong on that account.

Its is pretty valid reasoning , (look it up). Science can only tells us the facts. not what is right or wrong. Hence science cannot define moral values. only describe facts.

What science can do example is to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.''

If you argue that morality evolved, you may end up saying that one "ought" to be selfish.

http://www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality#.WCN9jPn57IU

Evolution cannot explain objective moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring. Nothing to do with morals.

You've quoted me but you've ignored the point of my propositions. Morality by nature is subjective because it changes and it has to change because society evolves and what was once advantageous no longer is. For example, slavery was once permitted (by the Abrahamic faiths no less but not the point) but now it isn't. Why is that? This is because the social environment that enabled those acts to continue, no longer existed and thus the owning and enslaving of other people was actually detrimental instead of beneficial. Another interesting point I have noticed from this is that the nations used to enslave those whom they conquered which highlights the natural way of the world. Morality, up until recently, was mostly between societies and communities but just recently has it become a universal thing. Morality never actually extended beyond your own community or society.

No i didn't ignore your point of you propositions . I said if you believe that subjective morality does exist. You are indirectly implying there is no distinction between right or wrong. Stating random evolutionary, sociological factors says nothing about something being inherently good or bad, only the fact that people act outside or inside of the herd or in-group. Because it doesn't tell us what we ''ought to be doing'' which is what morality is.

If there is no such thing as ''objective'' morality. It means no standards exists across the board, which is morally nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd or in-group and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to enslave or rape a child?

If not then you agree there is a moral objectivity and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.

To clarify the last point. Are you telling me that good is good by nature rendering all his commands good? Meaning if god commands something then that something is good?

I said nothing about commandments or commandments being good..

Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Now God is an explanation to it where they derive that. You're not supposed to follow God's morality because of His authority, nor because He knows what is good for us, nor because we love God, nor because of His power. (though these are very good reasons). People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.

 

[Dhabaal]

This isn't about what I believe.

To prove there is a such thing as a universally objective morality, you must present me with an example of one.

Morals is a belief.

Ok this is very simple. What reason would we have to believe that objective moral values and duties do exist?. Basically it would be our moral experience.

Just as we believe in a world of sense object around us , physical objects , because we have a sense of them through our senses .So we can believe in the objective moral values and duties on the bases of our moral experience.

 

[Dhabaal]

Why does it disturb you so much morality is not objective and isn't handed down by an authoritarian skydaddy? Are you afraid you will suddenly turn into a murdering rapist once hell is taken out of the equation?
:siilaanyolaugh:

What a flimsy sense of morality you have

I am not disturbed by the existence of subjective morality, it is just irrational and delusional. I believe in moral objectivity simply due to my moral experiences

Secondly ''you're not supposed to follow God's morality because of His authority, nor because He knows what is good for us, nor because we love God, nor because of His power. . People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.''

Things are only good in relation to God goodness , which is distinct from what you postulated.

Now Atheism is irrational because , in order to maintain your non-belief in God, you must reject the existence of objective morality.

Which is equivalent to saying i am moral nihilist ,who believes nothing is wrong or right. Which very self-contradictory.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Its is pretty valid reasoning , (look it up). Science can only tells us the facts. not what is right or wrong. Hence science cannot define moral values. only describe facts.

What science can do example is to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.''


http://www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality#.WCN9jPn57IU

Evolution cannot explain objective moral behavior, especially altruism. Evolutionary fitness is selfish; individuals win only by benefiting themselves and their offspring. Nothing to do with morals.




No i didn't ignore your point of you propositions . I said if you believe that subjective morality does exist. You are indirectly implying there is no distinction between right or wrong. Stating random evolutionary, sociological factors says nothing about something being inherently good or bad, only the fact that people act outside or inside of the herd or in-group. Because it doesn't tell us what we ''ought to be doing'' which is what morality is.

If there is no such thing as ''objective'' morality. It means no standards exists across the board, which is morally nihilistic and equivalent to saying there is no wrong , it just depends. Its just people acting out of the herd or in-group and there is nothing wrong or good about it.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to enslave or rape a child?

If not then you agree there is a moral objectivity and there is a stand moral truth everyone lives by and that naturally suggest the existence of God as reference point.



I said nothing about commandments or commandments being good..

Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Now God is an explanation to it where they derive that. You're not supposed to follow God's morality because of His authority, nor because He knows what is good for us, nor because we love God, nor because of His power. (though these are very good reasons). People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.

You are literally all over the place. Define morality. Define good and bad. Define objective morality. It's easy to prattle about all of these when you haven't actually provided a universally accepted definitions of such concepts.

As far as science is concerned, your views are pretty outdated and are nothing beside theistic attempts to stop science from meddling into the realm of morality. I have provided clear cut examples but you've just repeated the previous point you mad. Repeating something does not make it true.

I have clearly quantified that science doesn't have to instruct anyone on what is 'ought' to be right or wrong but that is left to human evolutionary intuitions. The morals principles we hold are advantageous to the well being of the individual and the community at large. It is highly simplistic to assume that evolution is selfish when in reality it isn't that simple. Human beings live in communities, tribes, societies and nations, all of these serve a specific purpose of survival. You are more likely to survive in a community then you are on your own. Morals come into play when the stability and survival of the communities are in question. Killing, raping, thieving and so on are all a threat to the survival of the community and thus the community establishes moral codes to stop them from happening. No god is required in this. Murder, rape and thievery have been through a long gradual evolution in that the understanding of these things have differed from place to place.

Now, from this scientific understanding, there is no such thing as absolute moral truths. This doesn't mean there will be 'moral nihilism' as you suggest because our biological makeup rejects such an idea. It is not beneficial for the individual and the survival of the community for everyone to do what they want. Society will conduct in the evolutionary manner which I have explained. There is literally zero need for a higher power.

Do you disagree with the fact that its immoral to enslave or rape a child?

Of course I do but you literally have used the worst example without taking into consideration the historical context in which this was perfectly fine. People practiced the act of enslaving children up until the 20th century when Muslim countries finally outlawed slavery. We outlawed slavery because morality evolved to the point that we no longer look at such things with mere no concern.

Do you know that in Saudi Arabia there is no age limit for marriage, making things very flexible. In Yemen, the age limit is 9 and same for Iran. Bangladesh has the highest numbers of child marriage in the world. If you believe this is wrong, then you must present a reason why they don't also think it's wrong if objective morals are inherent from god as you've argued.

As for God's 'goodness', this is delving into the problem of evil and I completely object to that claim. First, the idea that God by nature is good completely contradicts the fact of natural evil (human evil is far more complicated and with the free will argument even more complicated). An Earthquake hits the home of a child and it kills him and his family. Where is the goodness of his nature there? How could an omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Omniscient god allow such a thing to happen? Just saying God is good by nature is meaningless when the reality suggests otherwise.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I am not disturbed by the existence of subjective morality, it is just irrational and delusional. I believe in moral objectivity simply due to my moral experiences

Secondly ''you're not supposed to follow God's morality because of His authority, nor because He knows what is good for us, nor because we love God, nor because of His power. . People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.''

Things are only good in relation to God goodness , which is distinct from what you postulated.

Now Atheism is irrational because , in order to maintain your non-belief in God, you must reject the existence of objective morality.

Which is equivalent to saying i am moral nihilist ,who believes nothing is wrong or right. Which very self-contradictory.

From the Islamic perspective that is wrong.


Allah says:

"Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."

Quran 2:216

I know this is not a theological discussion but I just want to point out that your religion is actually against that stance. You are supposed to follow what Allah says even if it doesn't sound great to you.

 

[McLovin]

I am not disturbed by the existence of subjective morality, it is just irrational and delusional. I believe in moral objectivity simply due to my moral experiences

You experiences are subjective. Your ideas of good and bad are subjective. To a westerner zinah is part of a healthy dating life but to a muslim this is a grave sin

Secondly ''you're not supposed to follow God's morality because of His authority, nor because He knows what is good for us, nor because we love God, nor because of His power. . People will ask, “Is something 'good' because God wills it, or does God will something because it is 'good'?” The answer is that neither of these are true. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.''

More theological mumbo jumbo

Now Atheism is irrational because , in order to maintain your non-belief in God, you must reject the existence of objective morality.

Lmao denying objective morality makes you irrational? Just because you source your morality from a medieval desert god doesn't make it objective. In reality atheist don't have a single de facto position on morality. There are Kantists atheists, utilitarians, humanists, nihilist etc

Which is equivalent to saying i am moral nihilist ,who believes nothing is wrong or right. Which very self-contradictory.

Lmao try again not all atheists are nihilist and your sand god is not the only source of morality as hard as it is for you to believe. This is all scary stuff to you probably. The idea that the morality is not as black and white. In reality there's lot of grey areas and nebulosity

 

[Dhabaal]

You are literally all over the place. Define morality. Define good and bad. Define objective morality. It's easy to prattle about all of these when you haven't actually provided a universally accepted definitions of such concepts.

As far as science is concerned, your views are pretty outdated and are nothing beside theistic attempts to stop science from meddling into the realm of morality. I have provided clear cut examples but you've just repeated the previous point you mad. Repeating something does not make it true.

I have clearly quantified that science doesn't have to instruct anyone on what is 'ought' to be right or wrong but that is left to human evolutionary intuitions. The morals principles we hold are advantageous to the well being of the individual and the community at large. It is highly simplistic to assume that evolution is selfish when in reality it isn't that simple. Human beings live in communities, tribes, societies and nations, all of these serve a specific purpose of survival. You are more likely to survive in a community then you are on your own. Morals come into play when the stability and survival of the communities are in question. Killing, raping, thieving and so on are all a threat to the survival of the community and thus the community establishes moral codes to stop them from happening. No god is required in this. Murder, rape and thievery have been through a long gradual evolution in that the understanding of these things have differed from place to place.

Now, from this scientific understanding, there is no such thing as absolute moral truths. This doesn't mean there will be 'moral nihilism' as you suggest because our biological makeup rejects such an idea. It is not beneficial for the individual and the survival of the community for everyone to do what they want. Society will conduct in the evolutionary manner which I have explained. There is literally zero need for a higher power.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You are conflating Facts with Values. Learn the distinction.


Fact-Value distinction
www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/fact_value.html

The fact-value distinction is a purported distinction between "facts" with specific reference to scientific method and values, i.e., everything that can not be determined by scientific method.

''''Better understood as "what is" (fact) and "what ought to be" (value), the fact/value distinction is the thin line between what is truth and what is right. It is the source of conflict between science and ethics. In its most basic sense, fact can be defined as the inarguable truths of our physical world - the material surroundings which one detects via the senses. By examining our reality through scientific methods, we hope to empirically and logically verify truths and thus to compile a collection of "knowledge". Value, on the other hand, is not accessible via the senses; it can only be derived through one's own subjective reasoning about ethics. Unlike fact, value cannot be proven true or false by any sort of scientific method. Rather, it must be compared against one's own faith or ethical worldview in order to draw personal conclusive result


Hence Science cannot tell you about Moral values and only facts. Because that deals with what you ''ought to be doing''

If you believe that Morals don't exist then there is no distinction between right or wrong and you essential believe in moral nihilism.

If you argue that morality evolved, you may end up saying that one "ought" to be selfish.

http://www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality#.WCOQxfn57IU

You cannot say morality evolved either. Because evolution do not describe morality.

Of course I do but you literally have used the worst example without taking into consideration the historical context in which this was perfectly fine. People practiced the act of enslaving children up until the 20th century when Muslim countries finally outlawed slavery. We outlawed slavery because morality evolved to the point that we no longer look at such things with mere no concern.

Do you know that in Saudi Arabia there is no age limit for marriage making things very flexible. In Yemen, the age limit is 9 and same for Iran. Bangladesh has the highest numbers of child marriage in the world. If you believe this is wrong, then you must present a reason why they don't also think it's wrong I objective morals are inherent.

As for God's 'goodness', this is delving into the problem of evil and I completely object to that claim. First, the idea that God by nature is good completely contradicts the fact natural evil (human evil is far more complicated with the free will argument even more complicated). An Earthquake hits the home of a child and it kills him and his family. Where is the goodness of his nature there? How could an omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Omniscient god allow such a thing to happen. Just saying God is good by nature is meaningless when the reality suggests otherwise.

WTF are you rambling on about? What the hell does this have do with Muslims or Muslim countries? This not about religion or about religious belief. Has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the existence of God and then existence of objective morality.

Lose the red-herrings.

Secondly what did you not understand. God wills something because he is good. Not because something is Good.. So if something is evil exist has nothing do with him being evil.

The argument follows that things are only Good in relation to him. So you use good as reference point for what is Good or Evil.

 

[Dhabaal]

Anyways i have to go, i will answer the remaining comments later.

You guys should inform yourselves about philosophy instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

You guys are not making any logically coherent arguments

 

[The_Cosmos]

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You are conflating Facts with Values. Learn the distinction.


Fact-Value distinction
www.rit.edu/cla/philosophy/quine/fact_value.html

''''Better understood as "what is" (fact) and "what ought to be" (value), the fact/value distinction is the thin line between what is truth and what is right. It is the source of conflict between science and ethics. In its most basic sense, fact can be defined as the inarguable truths of our physical world - the material surroundings which one detects via the senses. By examining our reality through scientific methods, we hope to empirically and logically verify truths and thus to compile a collection of "knowledge". Value, on the other hand, is not accessible via the senses; it can only be derived through one's own subjective reasoning about ethics. Unlike fact, value cannot be proven true or false by any sort of scientific method. Rather, it must be compared against one's own faith or ethical worldview in order to draw personal conclusive result


Hence Science cannot tell you about Moral values and only facts. Because that deals with what you ''ought to be doing''

If you believe that Morals don't exist then there is no distinction between right or wrong and you essential believe in moral nihilism.


http://www.str.org/articles/evolution-can-t-explain-morality#.WCOQxfn57IU

You cannot say morality evolved either. Because evolution do not describe morality.


WTF are you rambling on about? What the hell does this have do with Muslims or Muslim countries? This not about religion or about religious belief. Has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the existence of God and then existence of objective morality.

Lose the red-herrings.

Secondly what did you not understand. God wills something because he is good. Not because something is Good.. So if something is evil exist has nothing do with him being evil.

The argument follows that things are only Good in relation to him. So you use good as reference point for what is Good or Evil.

I will just link you to a video from Sam Harris who deals in these sorts of questions. Me and you are just going in circles.


For the point about Muslim countries. I beg you to stop being cynical for just one minute. You presented me with a question and I have countered that question with examples of nations and people who conduct in them. You asked me whether I believe enslaving a child is immoral and I said yes but not long ago it wasn't. Tell me why earlier slave societies had a different moral perspective to you or I.

Why does God have to be good? Why can't be evil? Omnimalevolent? This is literally special pleading because you can make the exact same claim for the opposite.

So... God is good but all the bad is independent of him? How is that not special pleading? Why can't I say the opposite.

 

[Federeeshan]

I will just link you to a video from Sam Harris who deals in these sorts of questions. Me and you are just going in circles.


For the point about Muslim countries. I beg you to stop being cynical for just one minute. You presented me with a question and I have countered that question with examples of nations and people who conduct in them. You asked me whether I believe enslaving a child is immoral and I said yes but not long ago it wasn't. Tell me why earlier slave societies had a different moral perspective to you or I.

Why does God have to be good? Why can't be evil? Omnimalevolent? This is literally special pleading because you can make the exact same claim for the opposite.

So... God is good but all the bad is independent of him? How is that not special pleading? Why can't I say the opposite.

I think you don't understand the theological aspect of Allah when it comes to qadr. The sixth pillar of Iman(faith) states that we believe in the qadr( predetermined destiny) good & bad and that both are from Allah. But like op stated that doesn't make ilaahi necessarily evil. Your problem like many atheists and agnostics is that you try to anthropomorphize God. You can't comprehend the fact that you can't conceptualize God. Humans arrogate to themselves that they are the supreme being, and the Dunya which Allah made subservient to us helps feed that Ego.

Reality is, atheists and agnostics would believe God only if they can see him. And if you were able to see God, you'd then question his omnipotence because, since you see him then he must be created because he's limited by the faculties of the 5 senses, thus he'd cease to be God..just a greater being bound by the same vices of time and space.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I think you don't understand the theological aspect of Allah when it comes to qadr. The sixth pillar of Iman(faith) states that we believe in the qadr( predetermined destiny) good & bad and that both are from Allah. But like op stated that doesn't make ilaahi necessarily evil. Your problem like many atheists and agnostics is that you try to anthropomorphize God. You can't comprehend the fact that you can't conceptualize God. Humans arrogate to themselves that they are the supreme being, and the Dunya which Allah made subservient to us helps feed that Ego.

Reality is, atheists and agnostics would believe God only if they can see him. And if you were able to see God, you'd then question his omnipotence because, since you see him then he must be created because he's limited by the faculties of the 5 senses, thus he'd cease to be God..just a greater being bound by the same vices of time and space.

I think you don't understand the theological aspect of Allah when it comes to qadr. The sixth pillar of Iman(faith) states that we believe in the qadr( predetermined destiny) good & bad and that both are from Allah. But like op stated that doesn't make ilaahi necessarily evil.

And why does it not make him "necessarily evil?" What you are doing here is that you are trying to keep the idea of omniscience in line with omnibenevolence. God cannot permit evil whilst at the same time remain good. The level of evil in the world far exceeds that with which one can justify on the ground of "it's just a test." What you stated is nothing more than theological prattle.

Your problem like many atheists and agnostics is that you try to anthropomorphize God. You can't comprehend the fact that you can't conceptualize God. Humans arrogate to themselves that they are the supreme being, and the Dunya which Allah made subservient to us helps feed that Ego.

This is straw man because I don't think I am a supreme being, don't speak for me. In fact, that would make no sense in the light of science considering that our insignificance far exceeds all the sand grains of Arabia. Forget the universe, our existence is the product of a gradual process of evolution which has taken 3 billion years to give us what we have today. The only thing that even entertains the idea that we are supreme beings is religion when it attempts, falsely, to single us out as being special creations of god. To add to that, Allah is the one who entertains the idea of our supreme beingness in that he takes special interest to our actions. He cares about which foot I walk into the toilet with and which hand I eat with. I'm arguing the opposite. Our lives have as much meaning as the lives of ants. That doesn't mean it's meaningless.

Also, positioning your god as being beyond human understanding, does not make him any more infallible. You are creating an unfalsifiable image of your god which serves no meaning for those of us who wish for evidence and not mere belief. The fact that I cannot conceptualise him displays, in my opinion, the shortcomings of your god. Why create beings to worship you but purposely limit their minds to the extent that they cannot conceptualise you and your demands? That is the fault of the creator and not the creation.

Reality is, atheists and agnostics would believe God only if they can see him. And if you were able to see God, you'd then question his omnipotence because, since you see him then he must be created because he's limited by the faculties of the 5 senses, thus he'd cease to be God..just a greater being bound by the same vices of time and space.

The straw man that you've presented sort of demonstrates your level of reasoning. I don't lack belief in your deity because I cannot see him, I lack belief because I have no evidence that requires me to accept such an idea.

Also, I question God's omnipotence because it doesn't make any sense, I don't question it because of the straw man arguments you presented. The problem I have with the idea that "God created everything" proposition, is that it deploys the use of special pleading in order to stop us from going further and asking "who created God?" Saying that such a question is illogical in that it creates infinite regression or that God cannot be created otherwise he ceases to be God, these are all special pleading. It is much simpler to just go where the science goes rather than speculate over things that will create more problems then they solve.

 

[VixR]

Not to mention that the god beings as described in religious texts are inherently anthropomorphic, outfitted with an amplified set of human characteristics, traits and emotions varying everywhere from base anger and jealousy to a desire for praise, and understandly so since they're quite obviously conjured by humans, and are a product of man.

 

[VixR]

Morals is a belief.

Ok this is very simple. What reason would we have to believe that objective moral values and duties do exist?. Basically it would be our moral experience.

Just as we believe in a world of sense object around us , physical objects , because we have a sense of them through our senses .So we can believe in the objective moral values and duties on the bases of our moral experience.

Those experiences are finite, limited, though. They're subject to the ideals of a given society, to it's culture, to time itself. What we think is right or wrong is influenced heavily by our environment, and the rationalities we inherit for the reasons we do things the way we do them. We can individually question ideals, and have gut feelings, and rationalize our reasons for why x, y, z is a moral or immoral act, and on a larger scale, we can change the status quo and implement laws due to an observed or scientifically tested deficit or harm of said acts, but that does not make them univerally objectively accepted and understood morals.

I can't think of a single moral code we can harken to as a universally morally objective act or value that has withstood the test of time and culture.

Morality is ever-changing, it evolves.

This is, of course, a personal stance, not one is quintessentially atheist.

 

[Dhabaal]

I will just link you to a video from Sam Harris who deals in these sorts of questions. Me and you are just going in circles.

Sam Harris is confused .

Many Philosophers & Scientists have reject what he asserts (Look it up). He ignores the Fact-Value distinction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact–value_distinction

He calls Moral values for facts. When in actuality Scientific facts can only describe how the natural world is, they do not tell you how the world ''ought to be be '' and Moral truths carries ''oughtness''

For example, In this piece, http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/197301–.htm Peter Singer distinguishes between “neutralists” and “descriptivists.” Neutralists say that any principle can count as moral if it purports to be overriding (not that we have to all agree that it’s morally good in order for it to count as a moral principle).

Descriptivists, on the other hand, place restraints on what counts as a moral principle (is logically tied to suffering and happiness).

On this scale, Harris is a descriptivist, and as such, must reduce all moral disagreement to a semantic disagreement over what morality actually means, which is an incredibly impoverished way of understanding the diversity of values in the world today, if you ask me.

Intellectuals agree on that Moral truths and Scientific facts are distinct from one another. Therefore Science cannot explain Moral questions.

 

[Dhabaal]

For the point about Muslim countries. I beg you to stop being cynical for just one minute. You presented me with a question and I have countered that question with examples of nations and people who conduct in them.

There is nothing cynical. It is basic philosophy. I am not saying that you cannot have morality without God, is that you cannot have ''Objective'' morality without God.

The question i asked was rhetorical. It was meant to highlight that the minute you make Moral judgments and make distinctions between right or wrong , you confirm your belief for Moral Objectivity. This is of course independent of subjective opinions.

What you are doing now is affirming the existence of objective morality by passing on moral judgments and distinction on Muslims.

Why does God have to be good? Why can't be evil? Omnimalevolent? This is literally special pleading because you can make the exact same claim for the opposite.So... God is good but all the bad is independent of him? How is that not special pleading? Why can't I say the opposite.

He is Omnibenevolent because that is the nature of God. God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. (Key distinction). It doesn't matter if there is evil in the world as this has no relation to God.

Things can only be good in relation to God's goodness.''

 

[Dhabaal]

You experiences are subjective. Your ideas of good and bad are subjective. To a westerner zinah is part of a healthy dating life but to a muslim this is a grave sin

Our moral experiences are objective. This is called Moral Realism

You are trying to push the view that the diversity of moral opinions across cultures means that they can't be in any way objective. Diversity of moral opinions has nothing to say for if Moral objectivity exist or not it only applies to Absolutism.

You have to learn the distinction between Moral Absolutism and Moral Objectivity, they are not the same.

Moral Realism (the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of subjective human opinion),

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

Most of us are Moral realist by default as we believe in Moral objectivity independent of subjective opinion, through our experiences.

More theological mumbo jumbo

It is philosophy. You don't understand how ignorant it is to conflate theism with religion.

Lmao denying objective morality makes you irrational? Just because you source your morality from a medieval desert god doesn't make it objective. In reality atheist don't have a single de facto position on morality. There are Kantists atheists, utilitarians, humanists, nihilist etc

It makes Atheism irrational. Since God, being the only morally perfect being, is the standard against which all other things are judged. Moreover, in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

If you are a moral nihilist and have no position on morality. Therefore you cannot make judgments of what is right or wrong. Because morality according to nihilism is ultimately meaningless.

The minute you make Moral judgements and make distinctions between right or wrong , you confirm your belief for Moral Objectivity.

Lmao try again not all atheists are nihilist and your sand god is not the only source of morality as hard as it is for you to believe. This is all scary stuff to you probably. The idea that the morality is not as black and white. In reality there's lot of grey areas and nebulosity

I never stated all atheists are nihilistic. But if they reject the existence of moral objectivity they become morally nihilistic. Because there is no objective standard to weight morality against.

For the Atheists to keep his non-belief he must either reject moral objectivity, or give defensible foundation for moral values which he hasn't been able to.

 

[Dhabaal]

Those experiences are finite, limited, though. They're subject to the ideals of a given society, to it's culture, to time itself. What we think is right or wrong is influenced heavily by our environment, and the rationalities we inherit for the reasons we do things the way we do them. We can individually question ideals, and have gut feelings, and rationalize our reasons for why x, y, z is a moral or immoral act, and on a larger scale, we can change the status quo and implement laws due to an observed or scientifically tested deficit or harm of said acts, but that does not make them univerally objectively accepted and understood morals.

I can't think of a single moral code we can harken to as a universally morally objective act or value that has withstood the test of time and culture.

Morality is ever-changing, it evolves.

This is, of course, a personal stance, not one is quintessentially atheist.

Read what i explained to @McLovin About the distinction between Moral absoulutism and Moral objectivity(Realism).

Moral Realism (the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of subjective human opinion),

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

Of course moral opinions differ from from a given society to another , but they are still objective independent of this subjective human opinion.

Our moral opinions are different but our reference point is objectively the same, which is God.

Our moral experiences are objective. This is called Moral Realism

You are trying to push the view that the diversity of moral opinions across cultures means that they can't be in any way objective. Diversity of moral opinions has nothing to say for if Moral objectivity exist or not it only applies to Absolutism.

You have to learn the distinction between Moral Absolutism and Moral Objectivity, they are not the same.


http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_realism.html

Most of us are Moral realist by default as we believe in Moral objectivity independent of subjective opinion, through our experiences.
.