God exists because objective morality exists!

[simulacrum]

Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged.

Plus in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

Since humans have an intuitive sense of what is good or bad. Objective moral values exist
Stated in the qoute:
''But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals..''

Therefore it logically follows an argument for the existence of God.

Again you are making an assertion that there is a being who's morally perfect, however you are not providing a proof of the existence of such a perfectly good deity.

You are saying that in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values. However no theist is able to make a cogent argument that proves objective morality must come from god without having to show:

1) Morality is arbitrarily decided by god

2) Morality exists independently of god

3) Make a circular argument

If you can't do this, then you have no basis to say that objective morality depends on God.

 

[Dhabaal]

Again you are making an assertion that there is a being who's morally perfect, however you are not providing a proof of the existence of such a perfectly good deity.

You are saying that in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values. However no theist is able to make a cogent argument that proves objective morality must come from god without having to show:

1) Morality is arbitrarily decided by god

2) Morality exists independently of god

3) Make a circular argument

If you can't do this, then you have no basis to say that objective morality depends on God.

Ok , now you are just straw-manning it. Yes it is an assumption(Premise) that is what a deductive argument is. Truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.

If you believe that Objective Morality exist independent of God then you have to present a defend able premise for that. And Atheism has no defend able reference point for objective morality.


Please read this to understand the point of the argument.

The Goals of Theistic Arguments
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

''Of course views about this are diverse, but most contemporary proponents of such arguments do not see theistic arguments as attempted “proofs,” in the sense that they are supposed to provide valid arguments with premises that no reasonable person could deny. Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard. More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people? Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? Arguments that met these standards could have value in making belief in God reasonable for some people, or even giving some people knowledge of God's existence, even if it turns out that some of the premises of the arguments can be reasonably denied by other people, and thus that the arguments fail as proofs.''

''It is of course possible that an argument for God's existence could provide some evidence for God's existence, in the sense that the argument increases the probability or plausibility of the claim that God exists, even if the argument does not provide enough support by itself for full-fledged belief that God exists. A proponent of the moral argument who viewed the argument in this way might in that case regard the argument as part of a cumulative case for theism, and hold that the moral argument must be supplemented by other possible arguments, such as the “fine-tuning” argument from the physical constants of the universe, or an argument from religious experience.''

 

[McLovin]

Our moral experiences are objective. This is called Moral Realism

Unfounded and nonsensical statement right off the bat in proper dhabaal fashion. Moving on

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.

First let's get the definitions out of the way

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

And since I'm on my phone and can't be asked I'll let you wrestle with this

A common argument in favor of objective morality is to assert that all societies agree that murder is wrong. However, murder is by definition the unlawful taking of life, so any agreement is merely that people within a society should obey the rules of society. For the argument to have any validity, all societies would have to agree on which types of killing constitute murder, but even a cursory review of human history shows this is not the case. Infanticide, which one might think would be universally reviled, was perfectly acceptable to the Romans and Spartans. Human sacrifice has been practiced by cultures around the world, as have judicial executions. The slaughter of civilians in war was widely accepted until fairly modern times. Some cultures did not consider it murder to kill people from other nations. In the Edo period, samurai had wide latitude to kill peasants over the slightest discourtesy. Unless there is at least one type of killing that is universally considered to be murder, it cannot be argued that all societies agree that murder is wrong in any meaningful sense.

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.

This is true. But what does it have to do with this conversation? Unless you are claiming that without your god one cannot be moral which is quite laughable. In reality there are strong humanistic, cultural, and genetic rationales for the existence of morality and ethical behavior, and many people, not just atheists, recognize this fact.

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

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.

That's where our most important tool comes in. Our brain and our rationality. It's the reason why western countries are generally more just and less oppressive than shariah based societies

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.

For this. I can literally do nothing but laugh

 

[Dhabaal]

Unfounded and nonsensical statement right off the bat in proper dhabaal fashion. Moving on

Personal insults are not going to get you anywhere nor is it going to argue your case for you.

First let's get the definitions out of the way

Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true.

Yup. That is the definition. Now all you have to do is follow that definition.

And since I'm on my phone and can't be asked I'll let you wrestle with this

A common argument in favor of objective morality is to assert that all societies agree that murder is wrong. However, murder is by definition the unlawful taking of life, so any agreement is merely that people within a society should obey the rules of society. For the argument to have any validity, all societies would have to agree on which types of killing constitute murder, but even a cursory review of human history shows this is not the case. Infanticide, which one might think would be universally reviled, was perfectly acceptable to the Romans and Spartans. Human sacrifice has been practiced by cultures around the world, as have judicial executions. The slaughter of civilians in war was widely accepted until fairly modern times. Some cultures did not consider it murder to kill people from other nations. In the Edo period, samurai had wide latitude to kill peasants over the slightest discourtesy. Unless there is at least one type of killing that is universally considered to be murder, it cannot be argued that all societies agree that murder is wrong in any meaningful sense.

Ok you got this from---> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality . Really? Really? . Of all the sources , you copied and pasted something from an agenda driven right wing psuedo website. .

The argument described in your copied and paste post is called Moral absolutism http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_absolutism.html

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).

Do not conflate Moral Realism(Objectivism) with Moral Absolutism. Because not all forms of Moral objectivity is Absolutism. The form i am speaking of is Moral Realism.

This is true. But what does it have to do with this conversation? Unless you are claiming that without your god one cannot be moral which is quite laughable. In reality there are strong humanistic, cultural, and genetic rationales for the existence of morality and ethical behavior, and many people, not just atheists, recognize this fact.

You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist.

Stating cultural, evolutionary, sociological factors says nothing about something being inherently good or evil, only the fact that people act outside or inside of the herd or in-group.

Because moral truths carry an ''oughtness''

That's where our most important tool comes in. Our brain and our rationality. It's the reason why western countries are generally more just and less oppressive than shariah based societies

Some unrelated irrelevant Rhetorical nonsense .


At least your fellow atheists on this thread tried to raise arguments, even though they failed.:siilaanyolaugh:

For this. I can literally do nothing but laugh

Great that you are conceding to my case

 

[McLovin]

Ok you got this from---> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality . Really? Really? . Of all the sources , you copied and pasted something from an agenda driven right wing psuedo website. .

It's not. And wtf is a pseudo website
In The Social Pollution Prevention Guide, Chester Davis described RationalWiki as "like Wikipedia, but with a focus on science and social issues. They promote logic, critical thinking, and expose scammers and nonsense."

I'd avoid it if I were you.

The argument described in your copied and paste post is called Moral absolutism

Horta do you argue just for the sake of argument or do you go into with the genuine interest of gaining knowledge. The article was a clear example of how even a basic moral principle like murder does not have a consensus thus making it subjective. If the cognitive dissonance proves too harsh try convincing yourself it's not but it's still not gonna change the real definition.

You can have "morality" without God, but you cannot have objective morality without God and that is the position of the theist.

That's because it's not objective. God is not real remember? But just to entertain the thought if he was. Has he send us down a definitive guideline of morals? Inb4 u claim revelation

Stating cultural, evolutionary, sociological factors says nothing about something being inherently good or evil, only the fact that people act outside or inside of the herd or in-group.

Only simple people see the world as good and evil

Some unrelated irrelevant Rhetorical nonsense .


At least your fella atheists on this thread tried to raise arguments, even though they failed.:siilaanyolaugh:

Stay ignorant my nigga

 

[Dhabaal]

It's not. And wtf is a pseudo website
In The Social Pollution Prevention Guide, Chester Davis described RationalWiki as "like Wikipedia, but with a focus on science and social issues. They promote logic, critical thinking, and expose scammers and nonsense."

I'd avoid it if I were you.

Ok, you just copied and pasted the websites bio. So if i make a random website write non-substantiated nonsense and write in the bio description that i promote logic,critical thinking its legit?

If you are going to source something, source academically credited websites like for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

nor you go into with the genuine interest of gaining knowledge. The article was a clear example of how even a basic moral principle like murder does not have full agreement on it and it this subjective. If the cognitive dissonance proves too harsh try convincing yourself it's not but it's still not gonna change the real definition.

I am the only one providing credible information and valid propositions . You are just running around darting meaningless personal insults and rhetoric. Not to mention you haven't even displayed any logically coherent arguments.

You are just arguing for the sake of argument, if you want to debate about The Moral Argument. Please inform yourself about Epistemology (Philosophy)

Going back and forward with you , I's like debating Basketball with someone who doesn't even know the rules of the game.

That's because it's not objective. God is not real remember? But just to entertain the thought if he was. Has he send us down a definitive guideline of morals? Inb4 u claim revelation

Since humans have an intuitive sense of what is good or bad. Objective moral values exist. Since God, being the only morally perfect being ,God becomes the only logical explanation for a standard against which all other things are judged. Therefore the deductive argument logically suggests the existence of God.

This has nothing do with sending down guidelines or commandments. Because God wills something because He is good. Not because something is good. (Key distinction).

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

If you are claiming God does not exist you need to provide evidence. For your claim.

Only simple people see the world as good and evil

Yes because ''Good'' and ''Evil'' are objective moral truths. You are just affirming what is already obvious.

Stay ignorant my nigga

Says the guy who doesn't even understand Philosophy.

 

[Dhabaal]

These people continue to argue for the sake of an argument. They know nothing about epistemology.

Its like debating sports with people who don't even know the rules of the game

 

[McLovin]

Circular talking muufucka you have convinced no one but yourself kkk

 

[Dhabaal]

You keep talking despite actually knowing nothing.

Go read a book on Philosophy then we can debate.

 

[McLovin]

You need to stop being obsessed with proving god. Your insecurity reeks

 

[Dhabaal]

You need to stop being obsessed with proving god. Your insecurity reeks

I am just passionately defending the already existing evidence for God. Nothing insecure or obsessive about it.

It is rather you Atheists who are insecure and feel angry about the fact that you have no evidence against God

 

[Dhabaal]

 

[McLovin]

Why did you edit out that junk science link? I was throughly enjoying it. As for me not having evidence against god. I'm not sweating it. It's you who keeps wasting energy making post after post about worn out or weak arguments


If you want to preach do it to your flock. We're not drinking the kool aid on this side

 

[Dhabaal]

Why did you edit out that junk science link? I was throughly enjoying it. As for me not having evidence against god. I'm not sweating it. It's you who keeps wasting energy making post after post about worn out or weak arguments


If you want to preach do it to your flock. We're not drinking the kool aid on this side

It's about philosophy of science. I reposted the video link above you. It explains the difference between deductive evidence (Philosophical) and inductive evidence(Scientific). Since god is unfalsifiable and outside of science you need to deal with the question with deductive methods with the help of philosophy.

The moral argument is a deductive evidence for God.

By just blindly dismissing stuff outright contrary to your pre-conceived beliefs, you just prove how ignorant you are and limit your knowledge in the process.

So you are just hurting yourself not me.

 

[McLovin]

So you are just hurting yourself not me.

That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it? How is abstaining judgment on a matter until evidence proves it hurting oneself? In fact I think the opposite is more harmful. Settling for a false answer negates us from looking for a more fuller, detailed and organised answer for the universe and the human condition itself. Atheism allows me the freedom to explore these thoughts without fear of divine retribution

 

[Dhabaal]

That's a bit hyperbolic isn't it? How is abstaining judgment on a matter until evidence proves it hurting oneself? In fact I think the opposite is more harmful. Settling for a false answer negates us from looking for a more fuller, detailed and organised answer for the universe and the human condition itself. Atheism allows me the freedom to explore the dogma of divine retribution

Going around dismissing stuff without entertaining it is ignorance and you consequently limited yourself knowledge. If you don't even want to consider the evidences available simply because it contradicts your pre-concieved belief then you are ignorant.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

― Aristotle,

Immature people cannot handle disagreement, even if that disagreement was over what shade of black to paint the roof. The mind lacks a way to rationalize disagreement and likewise the response is a base animal like either or reaction.

It's not freedom if you limit yourselves to the confines of secular dogma, unless you are speaking of illusions of freedom.

You can have rational and reasonable faith in religion and search for truths freely. It is a false dichotomy to say otherwise.

 

[McLovin]

Sxb you're acting like I was born atheist :siilaanyolaugh:


Unlike you I am not immune to changing my beliefs if the argument is sound. I proved that by apostating from the most totalitarian religion. You on the other hand decided to be intellectually dishonest and adopt kooky junk science in an effort to reconcile your belief. That's where we differ. You are arguing from a place of emotion and self preservation

 

[Dhabaal]

Sxb you're acting like I was born atheist :siilaanyolaugh:


Unlike you I am not immune to changing my beliefs if the argument is sound. I proved that by apostating from the most totalitarian religion. You on the other hand decided to be intellectually dishonest and adopt kooky junk science in an effort to reconcile your belief. That's where we differ. You are arguing from a place of ego and emotion

What kind of logic is that? So the only way to believe in Islam is if i was born a non-muslim?.... one moment to take in how illogical that sounds. Islam is a way of life, not a totalitarian system.

Blind faith is a myth. In Islam everything has to do with verification and validation.
Adopting junk science? You know how ignorant you sound when you conflate Philosophy with Science? and yet you call me intellectually dishonest, i am not one confusing Science with Philosophy.

There is no controversy between Islam and science. I don't have to reconcile anything.

 

[Dhabaal]

This dude mistakes Philosophy for Science

Saaxiib go to sleep before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[McLovin]

What kind of logic is that? So the only way to believe in Islam is if i was born a non-muslim?.... one moment to take in how absurd this sound. Islam is a verified way of life, not a totalitarian system.

You could really use an outside look which I doubt you've even tried. I mean really ponder the possibility of being wrong even tho its sacrilege. I'll wait. Also sugar coat totalitarianism all you want. It took a lot of chutzpah to question everything I believed to get to where I am today

Blind faith is a myth. In Islam everything has to do with verification and validation.

And as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it (signs of Allah) adds uncleanness to their uncleanness (disease of doubt) and they die while they are unbelievers.

Oh yeah. I can see how islam is a skeptic friendly religion

There is no controversy between Islam and science. I don't have to reconcile anything.

Evolutionary theory will be your biggest undoing. It's already claiming a majority of your youth