Moral Argument

[JesusFreakMartyr]

I've been doing some research on the moral argument, Do YOU believe that objective moral values exist?


I would like to hear your thoughts and arguments against this argument. For those that do not know the premise of this argument, i have listed it below.


Premise 1: If God does not exist, Objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist
Premise 3: Therefore, God exists.

 

[aspen]

What happens if objective moral values are based on membership in a social dependent primate culture rather than God?

 

[JesusFreakMartyr]

Can you please clarify on what you mean by "membership in a social dependent primate culture"?

What happens if objective moral values are based on membership in a social dependent primate culture rather than God?

 

[Prentis]

I say yes! There is, so to speak, an 'objective moral'. I would say it is resumed in "love your neighbor as yourself".

It's the Good Samaritan, helping those in need. A modern version of the good Samaritan parable would replace the good Samaritan by... The muslim ditch-digger (I've seen this done on another forum, very smart!), or something like that...

I don't know if this answers the OP well, tell me if I misunderstood.

Also, I don't quite get what you mean Aspen, but would like to!

For me it's the "based on membership" part... Do you mean if the objective moral value is what keeps you in the community and breaking it gets you kicked out? What exactly are you asking?

 

[aspen]

Can you please clarify on what you mean by "membership in a social dependent primate culture"?

Sure. What if our universal moral code is a natural outcome of humanities need to live in groups? Early man had to live in groups in order to survive and we developed a complex system of relating to one another in order to manage conflicts between members and communicate common needs, wants, and desires.

This is an alternative source for the common moral code that appears objective.

 

[JesusFreakMartyr]

aspen, when the moral law was created is irrelevant to the question. As long as by the end of everything, you can agree that objective moral values exist or provide reasoning that they do not exist.

Sure. What if our universal moral code is a natural outcome of humanities need to live in groups? Early man had to live in groups in order to survive and we developed a complex system of relating to one another in order to manage conflicts between members and communicate common needs, wants, and desires.

This is an alternative source for the common moral code that appears objective.

 

[aspen]

aspen, when the moral law was created is irrelevant to the question. As long as by the end of everything, you can agree that objective moral values exist or provide reasoning that they do not exist.

Um...actually it does matter. The existence of an objective moral code is a classic argument for the existence of God - C.S. Lewis uses this argument as the basis for the existence of God in 'Mere Christianity'. Now, this argument may have been satisfying in the age of modernism - before most Westernize, English speaking people had a clear understanding of different cultures, but today we have the internet and access to a wide variety of different cultures and different forms of morality. In any case, all I am suggesting is that an objective moral code or the appearance of an objective moral code can exist apart from God because it can be based on the common needs of tribal humans. Humans in a tribal situation all have to deal with stealing, murder, infidelity, fornication, etc in order for the tribe to remain cohesive - regardless of the existence of God.

 

[Prentis]

LOL I guess I didn't understand the question right :lol:

 

[aspen]

LOL I guess I didn't understand the question right :lol:

All I am saying is.......humans could have made up an objective law. We did not need God in order to establish objective law.

 

[Prentis]

All I am saying is.......humans could have made up an objective law. We did not need God in order to establish objective law.

Ok, I understand what you're saying.

So what's your take on that? Good, bad? Just wondering how you see the objective law...

 

[veteran]

Rom 2:12-15
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
(KJV)

 

[aspen]

Ok, I understand what you're saying.

So what's your take on that? Good, bad? Just wondering how you see the objective law...

I believe if we were able to love like we were created to do, we would naturally follow God's law - it would be written on our hearts - it would be nature.

Because of the Fall, we forgot how to love AND we became dualistic - instead of being good, loving, or having the law written on our hearts; we became critics of everything - assigning arbitrary good and bad labels on everything, while at the same time, being unable to follow the warped morality we preached.

First, God had to reintroduce an eternal law, then He had to become an example of the internal law and forgive us by paying the price for our sin. Afterwards, the Holy Spirit descended and we were once again about to live meta-cognitively/meta-emotionally - we could think about our thought and emotions - we could know God and know ourselves again. We could love and learn to love perfectly. The Law was written on our hearts and the Kingdom of God was once again in our hearts.

So, yes - I believe God created the Law, but love is the key to the Law.

 

[Prentis]

I believe if we were able to love like we were created to do, we would naturally follow God's law - it would be written on our hearts - it would be nature.

Because of the Fall, we forgot how to love AND we became dualistic - instead of being good, loving, or having the law written on our hearts; we became critics of everything - assigning arbitrary good and bad labels on everything, while at the same time, being unable to follow the warped morality we preached.

First, God had to reintroduce an eternal law, then He had to become an example of the internal law and forgive us by paying the price for our sin. Afterwards, the Holy Spirit descended and we were once again about to live meta-cognitively/meta-emotionally - we could think about our thought and emotions - we could know God and know ourselves again. We could love and learn to love perfectly. The Law was written on our hearts and the Kingdom of God was once again in our hearts.

So, yes - I believe God created the Law, but love is the key to the Law.

That's interesting.

The thing is WE can't love like Jesus. Only Jesus can. But Jesus THROUGH us can. "It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me." I think he is more than an example of how to follow his law (which is love), but he is the one who paid the price, yes for our sins, but also for the power to overcome it. Christ has died and risen again that we might walk in the same power as he does.

I think an ignorant person who does their best to do right and loves their neighbours, is indeed righteous. That person knows he sins and understands he is not good, and yet loves.

But I think as Christians we are called higher, to the upper room so to speak. We are called to holiness. We can't walk like that, but Christ in us can. What is impossible with men is possible with God.

Blessings

[sup]Luke 14: 31[/sup]Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? [sup]32[/sup]Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. [sup]33[/sup]So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Made me think of this scripture as some brothers were discussing a few weeks ago. The last verse shows that it's about surrender... We CANNOT measure up to the standard of Christ (which is for glory), so we must surrender that he might do it through us. That's why all the glory goes to Christ. It's not just us being humble; it's actually him who did it!

Blessings

 

[aspen]

That's interesting.

The thing is WE can't love like Jesus. Only Jesus can. But Jesus THROUGH us can. "It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me." I think he is more than an example of how to follow his law (which is love), but he is the one who paid the price, yes for our sins, but also for the power to overcome it. Christ has died and risen again that we might walk in the same power as he does.

Yes - I agree. Jesus was only an example for us when He was on Earth. Now, His union with our heart is what allows us to love - we will only love perfectly in Heaven. While we are on Earth we are His instrument of love - He is the musician.

I think an ignorant person who does their best to do right and loves their neighbours, is indeed righteous. That person knows he sins and understands he is not good, and yet loves.

Absolutely - love cuts across intelligence and emotions.

But I think as Christians we are called higher, to the upper room so to speak. We are called to holiness. We can't walk like that, but Christ in us can. What is impossible with men is possible with God.

I love this statement!

Blessings

[sup]Luke 14: 31[/sup]Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? [sup]32[/sup]Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace. [sup]33[/sup]So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Made me think of this scripture as some brothers were discussing a few weeks ago. The last verse shows that it's about surrender... We CANNOT measure up to the standard of Christ (which is for glory), so we must surrender that he might do it through us. That's why all the glory goes to Christ. It's not just us being humble; it's actually him who did it!

Indeed - but someday we will recover our true nature through His justification and sanctification work in our hearts. We simply have to practice loving here on Earth until we are called home to love perfectly.

Blessings

 

[Prentis]

Thanks for the response Aspen

I disagree on one point

I think we can be perfect while on this earth. Then again, not us, but Christ IN us... Through a full surrender and a full filling of the Spirit, I believe we really can walk as he did and be as he was. That's when we walk fully by the Spirit.

That's what I mean when I say we CANNOT measure up to the standard of Christ, but he can through us. Because it IS impossible for us, BUT what is impossible for us is possible with God and I think God can do it.

I admit to you I have not experienced this. But I see this; for the small amount I have surrendered to the Lord, I have received equivalent grace, and were I to give EVERYTHING, he would fill EVERYTHING... with his Spirit. That would leave in a man nothing but Christ, and he would then be perfect. Christ would be walking on this earth through him. I believe it's possible, though very far. The more we give to him, the more he can fill!

Also, I like your analogy that we are the instrument and he is the musician. I would say this, if an instrument is tuned perfectly right and is under the full control of it's master, would the master not, if he is perfect, play it perfectly, without mistake, without blemish? I think so!

Blessings in the Lord!

P.S.

I believe if we were able to love like we were created to do, we would naturally follow God's law - it would be written on our hearts - it would be nature.

What I'm saying is precisely that Christ has made the above possible. He gives us a new nature, and when we walk in our nature it is natural to be as he is... We are then holy, as he is holy. If we surrender, he gives us the grace!

I think we get that new nature when we are born again... Only now we need to walk in it! (Easier said than done!)

 

[jdbrown]

The moral argument for the existence of God was best proposed by Immanuel Kant. He argued as follows:

1. It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue).
2. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain.
3. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality.
4. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source.

Kant formulated this argument after dismissing all of the other traditional arguments (cosmological, ontological, teleological, etc) for the existence of God.

I believe that Kant's moral argument (as well as all other moral arguments) really falls under the teleological argument.

 

[goodshepard55]

Aspen...I love your post and your way of seeing things outside the box...more to the point I love you....

 

[Groundzero]

What happens if objective moral values are based on membership in a social dependent primate culture rather than God?

Objective moral values are useless unless there is a reason. While there is something inside of man that makes him realise that there is right and wrong, society tends to wind down to total anarchy if the only reason for morals are objective. For morals to be truly effective, there must be an authority. That authority is Jesus.

There is an awesome movie that highlights this truth. It's called Time Changer. The link to it is below [url="http://www.timechangermovie.com/"]http://www.timechangermovie.com/[/url]. It is a really good movie.

 

[[email protected]]

I've been doing some research on the moral argument, Do YOU believe that objective moral values exist?


I would like to hear your thoughts and arguments against this argument. For those that do not know the premise of this argument, i have listed it below.


Premise 1: If God does not exist, Objective moral values do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist
Premise 3: Therefore, God exists.

Every religion on the planet has some sort of behavorial code. Dos and don'ts if you will.

Science tells us that all things adhere to some sort of rule.(*) So does human society.
Because we have to live and work together we have found it necessary to restrict our behavior at some times and to release it at others. "There is a time and place for everything", they say.

Like it or not we have to live together in something resembling peace and cooperation. That's why we have laws and religion.

Human morality, therefore, is an extension of the natural order of things. A dictation of behavior by something higher and greater than the individual. Some call it the natural order of things. Some call it God.

Whether it be science or divine rule, humans as social beings need to have something higher than themselves to obey.
Among those individuals and societies who have historically denied God, the allegiance that humans are hard wired to give falls instead upon the nation state.

While God is pure and cannot be tempted, governments are not and are subject to corruption. That too is a natural law.

Therefore we see that morality is the human behavioral experience of the extension of the natural order of things.
Where human individuals and societies seek to follow the AUTHOR of natural law, the benefit of peace and prosperity follows.
When human individuals and societies deny the AUTHOR of natural law, they inevitably corrupt themselves, the result being war, death and destruction.

You'd think that by the beginning of the twenty first century mankind would have figured out this simple equation and live by it.

Well, we haven't.

Maybe it's about time the AUTHOR dropped in to clarify a few issues, especially among those who "don't get it".


----------footnote-----------
(*) The scientific observance of natural rules and laws is an evidence for the existance of God. The alternative is chaos in which nothing orderly would exist.

 

[X Sinner]

Different people have different ideas of what is moral and what isn't.
Killing is wrong, so why do we kill people that kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
Yet the old adage, 'an eye for an eye '
I know I catch a ton of comments on this but here goes anyways ...
the Bible says turn the other check, BUT, show me where it says to be a human punching bag? Sorry, if someone hits my family or myself, 99% of the time they will get hit back. Granted I've been trained in various martial arts so I usually just push them down or apply a joint-lock on them and politely tell them to stop.
Me going around just knocking the snot outta people that deserve it (Although it may be fun ) isn't morally right to me. To someone else it might be ok.
Three people walking down the street see someone drop their wallet full of cash. Person 1 picks it up and gives it back to the person. Person 2 opens the wallet, takes some (not all) money then hands it back to the person. Person 3 picks it up and keeps it, contents and all.
Person 1s morals said that was the right thing to do.
Person 2s morals differ to where they think they are entitled to a 'finders fee or reward'.
Person 3s morals told them that since people have mistreated or stole from them, it's payback, plus anyways SOMEBODY ELSE would've taken it. So better me than them.
Alot has to do with the way a person was raised. Moral values are usually set in when you are a kid learning the 'what's right and what's wrong ' internal debates. Sure people can change.
Morals should be based on the golden rule "do unto others as you would have done unto you "
NOT do unto others before they do unto you. I was raised up hearing "God is with you wherever you go and whatever you do, don't embarrass him or make him ashamed to be seen with or around you.""

That's more than my two cents … it's more like my $5-$10 so go to Starbucks and enjoy