Do these two points defeat the "moral argument" for God's existence

[Tom_in_CA]

The idea that is flawed on a number of levels starting with the idea that moral absolutes exist at all.

To oversimplify morals I'd reduce the concept to these aspects: Coexistence within a class of peers. Rules for acceptable conduct within a society falls under coexistence while who and what class gets to be considered as having societal rights (e.i. a peer) falls under classification. There are of course additional nuances that have various qualities that involve concepts ranging from personal well-being to utilitarian ideals at play as well, but again, I'm trying to keep things simple.

Truth-OT, perhaps I'm not understanding you. Are you saying that objective moral absolutes don't exist ? Such that morals are relative and subjective to societies ? Ok, then on that view: Were the Nazis just subjectively wrong, on your view (Ie.: you don't "prefer" that), or were they objectively wrong ? Or how about this : On your view is it always wrong (objectively) to murder innocent people ? Ie.: even if a society thinks it's ok, yet on your view, that society would simply be wrong for their views. Eh ?

I think we can all agree that the Nazis were objectively wrong EVEN THOUGH THEY CONSTRUCTED A SOCIETAL RIGHTS SYSTEM which was anti-semitic. And perhaps even voted on it as "acceptable". Therefore I don't think that you believe that there aren't moral absolutes. Eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Thanks for starting a thought provoking thread. I happen to fall into the camp that asserts that morals are wholly subjective. To go a step further, I'd point out that both right and wrong are terms humans derived to describe concepts that are either socially acceptable and in accordance to the social values or conduct that is adverse to the socially accepted behavior.

Aaahhh, I see you answered my question in the very next post. HHhhhmmm, interesting. Ok then let's take this for a test drive: On your view, those deep south states that had Jim Crow laws , that they deemed "socially acceptable " and were of "social value", were therefore morally ok. Right ? Ie.: you can't look back on this recent history and say "that was wrong" . On your view, it was ok for them. And therefore, on your view, Martin Luther King was the "immoral" one, for going against the "socially accepted behavior". Right ? These are drawn from your view, not mine. So do you care to start over ?

My dad grew up in the deep south in the late 1930s and through the 1950s. It wasn't till he moved to CA that he realized how different things were. Ie.: there weren't separate waiting rooms and drinking fountains. He wasn't racist, but .... it was just the "way things were". He'd never even given it thought before.

The minute anyone says "morals are social contracts" and relative and subjective, is the minute they start to "bump into reality" when they call something "wrong". So for example: If you say that the racism practiced in the deep south and during pre-civil war slavery was "wrong", you do NOT mean that subjectively. You mean that they were ABSOLUTELY & OBJECTIVELY wrong. [ Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you don't believe they were objectively wrong ? ]

 

[Truth OT]

Are you saying that objective moral absolutes don't exist ?

The moral arbiters, be it a collective group, or those with influence within a group, construct the group's moral framework. Whatever they develop becomes the moral law for their group and time. Morals are virtually always subject to some POV which makes them entirely subjective.

 

[bbyrd009]

Haha, Really ? No, this is not made up This is a metal detecting hobbyist buddy of mine. And the subject of God came up awhile back, and we began talking. I chose the "moral argument" route to discuss the existence of God, and these are indeed his pushbacks. So why would that ring as bulls*** ?

what def of "existence" are you using? Bc there is no "objective evidence" of Yah right

 

[Nancy]

Yeshua : Thanx for chiming in. This doesn't address his objection that by trying to use Germany/Nazis, for that 10-ish year period of world history, is not gauging ALL of mankind. It's only looking at an "outlier ". Thus he'd say (and is no doubt correct), that if you polled ALL OF EUROPE (and not just Germany) in the late 1930s, that the vote would have gone AGAINST antisemitism . Thus he'd say it's a mistake to toss out WWII Germany as an example of evolution giving people their morals. Since that's studying the outlier flukes, and not all of civilization .

Hi Tom, and not sure if I welcomed you here...so, welcome!
Does it not seem that we as a people have not evolved but the culture has Satan's talons in everything and our young are eating it right up. So, in the last 40 or so years as the culture became more open to any and all things debauched...and thinking it normal, what I see is an evolved culture causing a Godless society. Or, all of civilization...I wonder about all those "outliers" that we are ignorant of?
Morals, and even common courtesy has gone by the wayside...thank you, excuse me, holding open a door for someone behind you about to enter a building. These are such simple things but, I no longer expect that kind of courtesy. But I will still extend it to others..."the love of MANY shall grow cold..." And, that is so easily seen today with other Christians.
God Bless Brother!
nancy

 

[Truth OT]

Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you don't believe they were objectively wrong ?

In my current understanding, no moral absolutes exist and the idea of OBJECTIVE righteousness is not a reality.

The minute anyone says "morals are social contracts" and relative and subjective, is the minute they start to "bump into reality" when they call something "wrong". So for example: If you say that the racism practiced in the deep south and during pre-civil war slavery was "wrong", you do NOT mean that subjectively. You mean that they were ABSOLUTELY & OBJECTIVELY wrong.

Right and wrong are subjective, entirely. Your above example of history proves that fact. Practicing racists throughout history (whites to blacks, Jews to Samaritans, Nazis to Jews, etc,) all believe they were on the moral high ground. In every case, what allows a person or group of people to mistreat another is the idea that I am somehow different and 'above' others. People can enslave, oppress, or mistreat a 'lessor' or an 'evil' group, and FEEL okay in doing so because they do not view the other as a peer. Moral 'regulations' are reserved for those we consider as our peers or for those we find value in. In reality, that's how people live and have always behaved. That is why the key to defeating racism, sexism, etc., is to get people to see 'others' as peers.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The moral arbiters, be it a collective group, or those with influence within a group, construct the group's moral framework. Whatever they develop becomes the moral law for their group and time. Morals are virtually always subject to some POV which makes them entirely subjective.

Truth-OT, I am absolutely stunned by this reply. So then *on your view*, you can not look back at 75 yrs. ago, and say "The Nazi's were wrong". Oh sure, you could *say* it, but it would only be a subjective view. Kind of like ice-cream flavors : You happen to *prefer* chocolate. Someone else happens to prefer vanilla. So on your view: It wasn't wrong for the 1930s/40s Germany, since that was their preference. It was the "moral law for their group", so we can't call them to the carpet on it, and tell them : "you were wrong", in any objective sense. Right ?

Let that sink in. If morals are relative and subjective to cultures and societies, then you can't look back in time and say "Nazi Germany was wrong". After all, they socially approved of that. And lest you think "No , it was only a few fanatical Nazi's while the rest of the German populace didn't agree", I can set you up with some historical sources that will correct this notion.

However, on the other hand, if you can say that "It's always wrong to murder innocent people, no matter WHAT a society thinks", then you actually believe in Objective morals, that are NOT dependent on "what people think and vote on socially ".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

what def of "existence" are you using? Bc there is no "objective evidence" of Yah right

Dunno what you are asking. I wasn't aware there were multiple definitions of "existence" . The context of the sentence that I used it in, should be pretty self-evident. So you've lost me bro.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi Tom, and not sure if I welcomed you here...so, welcome!

thanx for the warm welcome Nancy !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

In my current understanding, no moral absolutes exist and the idea of OBJECTIVE righteousness is not a reality.....

Ok, so if I come over to your house and slash the tires on your car, will you say : "That was wrong" ?

. ...Right and wrong are subjective, entirely. Your above example of history proves that fact. Practicing racists throughout history (whites to blacks, Jews to Samaritans, Nazis to Jews, etc,) all believe they were on the moral high ground....

Ok, gotcha. Then to be consistent with your views, it wasn't wrong for those societies to do what they did. That was simply *their* moral code, and who are we to push our morals on them ?

Let that sink in. Or if you choose to say "It was wrong for the Nazi society to do what it did", then you are actually contradicting yourself. You would therefore be saying that there is something OUTSIDE of what the Allies and Axis thought (ie.: their culture, their vote, their society) that can adjudicate between them, in order to allow you to tell them : "That's wrong".

So I don't really believe that you're a moral relativist. If you are, then .... Let it sink in where the test drive of your view leads you. Care to change your view ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Absolute morals do not exist within an atheist philosophy!..

Correct. Because evolution is their "only game in town". Since we are nothing more than "meat all the way down". If an atheist tries to say that absolute moral values exist (like "Don't murder innocent people" and "don't rape"), then they are inherently calling on something outside of ourselves, that is adjudicating. And they don't like to go there, because it hints at God, or something outside and higher than us.

Therefore a lot of atheists will therefore say that morals are subjective and relative to escape this pickle. But then they look mighty silly having to look you in the eye and say that past racism, murder, etc.... done on a societal level scale, weren't really *wrong*.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there's even some predominantly Hindu countries, right now as we speak, that practice gay-bashing even today. And have executed Christians, etc..... I wonder what the atheist would say if you asked him "Is that wrong ?". I bet he would say "yes it's wrong". And he would NOT mean that in a subjective sense. He would mean it in an objective sense. Otherwise, all he could say is "It's not wrong for them. It's only wrong here in the USA where we don't happen to currently practice those things".

 

[Truth OT]

So then *on your view*, you can not look back at 75 yrs. ago, and say "The Nazi's were wrong". Oh sure, you could *say* it, but it would only be a subjective view.

You basically answered your own inquiry. In my opinion, which is influenced by values I structure my subjective morals to it was totally despicable and wrong.

morals are relative and subjective to cultures and societies, then you can't look back in time and say "Nazi Germany was wrong". After all, they socially approved of that.

The fact that history happened as it did backs the claim that morals are subjective. What trumped the 3rd Reich's tyranny was the fact that their power to exercise moral authority was taken away by the allies who along with a world of non-Nazi's determined that the trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good was not something the regime should be allowed to continue having.

Then to be consistent with your views, it wasn't wrong for those societies to do what they did. That was simply *their* moral code, and who are we to push our morals on them ?

Don't conflate the idea of right and wrong being subjective with the idea that they are not real. Right and wrong are real concepts that do exist that humans give definition to that are sometimes malleable.
Moral regulations are things we force on our fellow societal cohabitors. People within societies together determine what behaviors are acceptable and not acceptable for members of the society to engage in. Usually the things that come under the realm of moral prohibitions are behaviors that will negatively impact those considered as peers such as stealing, causing physical harm, vandalizing property, etc.

 

[atpollard]

Whenever you measure evolution's effects on the population, you don't study the "outliers" . You don't study the "flukes". You don't study "the exceptions". You study the accumulated whole. Ie.: not a "vote of a single horrible person" or a "single horrible country". Otherwise you'd be saying you're only studying THAT INDIVIDUAL person or country's "evolution". So when HE is saying "evolution", he's meaning OF ALL OF MANKIND.

Ok, so let us look at all of mankind. When has there ever been a majority of mankind that viewed the world as “us” and not “us and them”. That is the root of all wars and all atrocities, the ability to view other human beings as “them”. When was there peace in the majority of the world? When was the majority of the world free of murder?

“Should everyone have enough to eat?” Everyone will SAY yes. When has the majority, made more moral by evolution, fed everyone? When has the majority attempted to feed everyone? When has the majority really wanted to feed everyone based on ACTIONS rather than WORDS? Never. Where is this evidence of a “moral” majority of the population?

God said: “what credit is it if you love those that love you, even sinners do that.”

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....it was totally despicable and wrong.....

Then don't you see how you just contradicted yourself ? You're saying that it was "wrong". If all that is , is only a subjective opinion to you and your present society, then why should Hitler care what you think ? It's only wrong to YOU. It wasn't wrong for THEM. And perhaps they don't care what you think ? They liked Chocolate, you like Vanilla.

So on your view, Hitler wasn't objectively wrong. They were free to set their own moral code, and no one from the outside , like yourself, can say : "That's objectively always wrong to murder people".

I suspect that when you say the Nazi's were "wrong", you DON'T mean that subjectively. Instead you mean .... that they were TRULY *wrong* and shouldn't have killed those innocent people. Right ? If so, then you DO believe in objective moral absolutes, that transcend what anyone thinks. And thus just contradicted yourself. Are you not seeing it ?

.....The fact that history happened as it did backs the claim that morals are subjective....

Then why are you now contradicting yourself and saying they were "wrong". Because it's only wrong to YOUR flavor and opinion, not their's. To you it might be "evil", but not to them. So who are you to push your morals on them by calling their behavior "wrong" ? Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself ??

....What trumped the 3rd Reich's tyranny was the fact that their power to exercise moral authority was taken away by the allies who along with a world of non-Nazi's determined that the trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good was not something the regime should be allowed to continue having.....

Then on your view, if Hitler had won the war.... Like if his scientists had invented the atom bomb first, and had brought America, Russia, and Britain to our knees. Then, just like he did so well in Germany in the 1930s, the indoctrination starts for all his conquered countries (and the others he chose to conquer, conceivably the entire world he had in mind). And so now, 3 generations later, let's say we all believe (by majority vote) that murder of Jews in gas chambers is good. Therefore , on your view, in that turn of world events : It would be good to murder Jews. Right ? After all, moral values, on your view, are subjective. And there is no "outside scoring card" we can call on to adjudicate. It's strictly what society's majority decides is "good".

Can't you see the folly of your view ?

....Don't conflate the idea of right and wrong being subjective with the idea that they are not real. Right and wrong are real concepts that do exist that humans give definition to that are sometimes malleable.....

Wait, you're contradicting yourself again. On the one hand, you say they're subjective and relative. Right ? BUT NOW look closely at what you've written. You are NOW saying that "Right and wrong are real" (which I take to mean "objectively" real).

And as for "malleable", let's take that for a test drive : Truth-OT : Would you include the following moral values to be "malleable", or "absolute" 1) murder of innocent people. 2) Rape. If you say that these two things are always wrong and not malleable, then you DO BELIEVE IN [some] OBJECTIVE MORAL ABSOLUTES and have thus contradicted yourself. Care to try to pull yourself out of this pickle ? Unless of course you say that murder and rape are sometimes cool, if a society votes that it is.

.... People within societies together determine what behaviors are acceptable and not acceptable for members of the society to engage in...

Correct. And that exactly what the Nazi's did. So on your view, that was ok for them . They did indeed "determine what behaviors were acceptable", didn't they ? And now your saying it was "wrong", is really only saying "I don't prefer it" (like ice cream flavors). Yet Nazi's thought otherwise, so for them, it wasn't "wrong". ok ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Ok, so let us look at all of mankind. When has there ever been a majority of mankind that viewed the world as “us” and not “us and them”. That is the root of all wars and all atrocities, the ability to view other human beings as “them”. When was there peace in the majority of the world? When was the majority of the world free of murder?....

Yes, atpollard : You are right : If "majority of opinion" controlled what is morally "right" and "wrong " , then why do we have wars all through history ? PRECISELY BECAUSE "not everyone agrees". And why does the "entire world need to be polled " ? Why can't an island set their own moral codes, back in a pre-Columbus ocean exploration, where they had no contact outside of their island ? There's an example of how, a "single country" or "single island" or "single continent" was separated from the views of others.

But to be fair to my friend, he would say that the fact of a world that is not free of murder and rape DOESN'T mean it's not still a majority vote. It would only be proof of our hypocrisy, and not proof of our views. And that these are just outliers and flukes. It did seem to "ring true" though (and appear to give my argument problems), when I had to admit to my friend that , in all probability, murder and rape would get a "thumbs down" vote, if it were possible to "poll the world". So I had to give credit to my friend for pulling this rabbit out of a hat

 

[bbyrd009]

Dunno what you are asking. I wasn't aware there were multiple definitions of "existence" . The context of the sentence that I used it in, should be pretty self-evident. So you've lost me bro.

one popular def of existence involves "objective evidence," and ya i was surprised to find more than one myself

anyway i think seeking "existence" for Yah is a false flag or whatever, I AM maybe supercedes "existence?" The Bible uses the argument for "wind" although we know what the wind is made of now, point being an uncomfortable truth may be that Yah does not "exist" at all!
ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

1. so does something have to exist to be real?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

one popular def of existence involves "objective evidence," and ya i was surprised to find more than one myself

anyway i think seeking "existence" for Yah is a false flag or whatever, I AM maybe supercedes "existence?" The Bible uses the argument for "wind" although we know what the wind is made of now, point being an uncomfortable truth may be that Yah does not "exist" at all!
ex·ist
/iɡˈzist/
verb
1. have objective reality or being.

1. so does something have to exist to be real?

Wow, you've still lost me. Let me ask you this : When 2 persons debate the "existence" of God, I don't recall EVER hearing either side start a debate-of-semantics on the word "exist". They both seem to understand that the word "exist" would be the difference between a "fairy tale" (which is made up in our minds, and doesn't "exist"), versus a true personal being which DOES "exist" (ie.: is not a fairy tale).

Does that answer your question of what I mean when I use the word "exist" ? Otherwise, you still lost me. If there is any merit to your distinctions which aid-an-atheist, I certainly have never seen it brought up. Instead, both sides seem to know what they are discussing.

 

[bbyrd009]

Wow, you've still lost me. Let me ask you this : When 2 persons debate the "existence" of God, I don't recall EVER hearing either side start a debate-of-semantics on the word "exist". They both seem to understand that the word "exist" would be the difference between a "fairy tale" (which is made up in our minds, and doesn't "exist"), versus a true personal being which DOES "exist" (ie.: is not a fairy tale).

Does that answer your question of what I mean when I use the word "exist" ? Otherwise, you still lost me. If there is any merit to your distinctions which aid-an-atheist, I certainly have never seen it brought up. Instead, both sides seem to know what they are discussing.

well, by "exist" do you mean "can furnish objective evidence" or no? And at "personal being" i have issues as well, as there are no persons in Yah? Anyway i understand it is maybe a rather unusual pov, yes; i would argue that Yah does not "exist" bc I AM, although i guess the def of Exist you are using might change that

i would ask if the wind existed, and if so how might you prove that, see, but we have discovered what the wind is made of in the interim, so i guess the argument has lost its punch

 

[Truth OT]

Wait, you're contradicting yourself again. On the one hand, you say they're subjective and relative. Right ? BUT NOW look closely at what you've written. You are NOW saying that "Right and wrong are real" (which I take to mean "objectively" real).

Your "take" is the problem here, not what I said. It's a fact that as concepts, right and wrong exist. It's also a fact that many things that are considered as either right or as wrong depends on who is answering the question of whether a thing is right or wrong. That proves the subjectivity! Your preconceptions and bias is making this harder than it needs be here.

Then don't you see how you just contradicted yourself ? You're saying that it was "wrong". If all that is , is only a subjective opinion to you and your present society, then why should Hitler care what you think ? It's only wrong to YOU. It wasn't wrong for THEM. And perhaps they don't care what you think ? They liked Chocolate, you like Vanilla.

So on your view, Hitler wasn't objectively wrong. They were free to set their own moral code, and no one from the outside , like yourself, can say : "That's objectively always wrong to murder people".

I suspect

No need to suspect, just read what I said. There is no contradiction. As for why someone should care what I and the society I am a part of care about how they behave within the society, the answer is relatively obvious. It's because we share a space in time within a world were we have to coexist (hopefully as human peers). Due to that being the case we will inevitably develop rules that outline how we can acceptably behave with and towards our fellow human cohabitors.

Problems invariably arise when dogmas are adapted by those in power or by a society in general that separates people into groups and begins to value some groups more than others.
When a "them" class of people is created, for some reason morally it becomes okay to justify treating "them" differently. "They" shouldn't be allowed to vote (women). "They" should keep quiet in worship services and ask any questions they have to their husbands (women again). "They" should not be allowed to be placed in positions of authority over men (women again). All exemplify how discrimination can and has been considered morally justifiable.
"They" which includes women, children, and even babies, don't deserve any pity and should be killed and slaughtered (Amalekites). Well I'll be, GENOCIDE here is morally justifiable it appears! Speaking of rape, if the "They" group were virgin women from the daughters of Shiloh, it was okay to ambush, kidnap, and force them to marry you if you were of the tribe of Benjamin.
I could go on, but I digress.

"That's objectively always wrong to murder people".

Well is it? I'd venture to say that even to you, IT DEPENDS, and if it depends, that means you believe and admit that the rightness or wrongness is subject to the circumstances.

Would it be wrong to murder someone because they did not want to be ruled by your rules?
Is it wrong to purposely murder babies?
Is it wrong to ambush, kidnap, and rape young girls?

So it is with irony I turn your question back to you and ask, "Can't you see the folly of your view?"

They were free to set their own moral code, and no one from the outside , like yourself, can say....

If you live in a isolated setting with no others to answer to, then yes. However, for those of us that live among others, the answer is no. We are not free to set and live by whatever codes we determine because we are compelled by the nature of having to coexist with others to comply and adhere to the behaviors society dictates are good for the society.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

well, by "exist" do you mean "can furnish objective evidence" or no? ...

Then in that sense, I'm meaning a true state of existence WHETHER OR NOT someone can furnish evidence (of any kind) to-prove-to-your-satisfaction, or not, whether or not it/he exists. In other words, something or someone that truly "exists", but people can dispute whether or not the evidence is convincing or not.

... And at "personal being" i have issues as well, as there are no persons in Yah? ...

Not sure I understand your "issues" here. Are you asking if God ("yah") is a personal being ? Ie.: a "who" not an "it", right ? Or are you making allusions to the triune nature of God ? Lost ya bro.

....i would ask if the wind existed, and if so how might you prove that,...

There are many things that truly "exist", that can not be put into a test tube. Yet we know they exist because we see their effects.