I Had A Thought About Miracles And I Want Some Comments

[Ouroboros]

Another problem with the morality argument Clay makes is: (I think this is the one Kuro argues too)

 

1. If good is the same as objective morality, and it only can exist if a higher being created it

2. And God is good (objectively moral)

C. God must have a creator.

 

I remember seeing Clay arguing that God is good because it his nature, and that God never created morality. Then it would instead lead to objective morality and good to just exist, as is. It's innate in nature, or in other words, God is not a requirement for morality to exist, it's just natural, just like how pi relates to circles.

 

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

[Shyone]

 

None of this is really an argument against god though, I just think the topic of ethical philosophy has nothing to do with god at all.

To make it an argument against God, it would go something like this:

 

1. Many moral precepts have changed over time and differ across societies.

2. If God existed and was unchanging and the source of morality, moral precepts would be consistent over time and across societies.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

Well, it would have to be made somewhat more lengthy to be elegant, but that's the basic idea.

[Shyone]

Another problem with the morality argument Clay makes is:

 

1. If good is the same as objective morality, and it only can exist if a higher being created it

2. And God is good (objectively moral)

C. God must have a creator.

 

I remember seeing Clay arguing that God is good because it his nature, and that God never created morality. Then it would instead lead to objective morality and good to just exist, as is. It's innate in nature, or in other words, God is not a requirement for morality to exist, it's just natural like pi in math.

Clay's school of thought would accept the following:

 

1. If God exists, then God exists.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore God exists.

 

Pretty simple(minded), no?

[Ouroboros]

Clay's school of thought would accept the following:

 

1. If God exists, then God exists.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore God exists.

 

Pretty simple(minded), no?

Yes, very.

 

Or: I don't understand, or I can't explain it, therefore God exists.

[Snakefoot]

 

None of this is really an argument against god though, I just think the topic of ethical philosophy has nothing to do with god at all.

To make it an argument against God, it would go something like this:

 

1. Many moral precepts have changed over time and differ across societies.

2. If God existed and was unchanging and the source of morality, moral precepts would be consistent over time and across societies.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

Well, it would have to be made somewhat more lengthy to be elegant, but that's the basic idea.

Hear-hear!

[Snakefoot]

Clay's school of thought would accept the following:

 

1. If God exists, then God exists.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore God exists.

 

Pretty simple(minded), no?

Yes, very.

 

Or: I don't understand, or I can't explain it, therefore God exists.

i.e. Gawd shops at The Gap.

[Kuroikaze]

To make it an argument against God, it would go something like this:

 

1. Many moral precepts have changed over time and differ across societies.

2. If God existed and was unchanging and the source of morality, moral precepts would be consistent over time and across societies.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

Well, it would have to be made somewhat more lengthy to be elegant, but that's the basic idea.

 

To play devil's advocate for a bit.

 

The problem with this argument is that premise 2 only works given certain definitions of god. At the very least god must a being who actually cares about morality. since it is possible an intelligent being created the universe but is not concerned with out moral behavior.

[Shyone]

To make it an argument against God, it would go something like this:

 

1. Many moral precepts have changed over time and differ across societies.

2. If God existed and was unchanging and the source of morality, moral precepts would be consistent over time and across societies.

3. Therefore God does not exist.

 

Well, it would have to be made somewhat more lengthy to be elegant, but that's the basic idea.

 

To play devil's advocate for a bit.

 

The problem with this argument is that premise 2 only works given certain definitions of god. At the very least god must a being who actually cares about morality. since it is possible an intelligent being created the universe but is not concerned with out moral behavior.

Well, premise 2 is conditional, but unless the "devil" is denying any part of #2, the argument holds.

 

There are, of course, different definitions of God, but what Christian would say that God is unconcerned with moral behavior? I suppose I should have specified, "the Christian God."

[Ouroboros]

Or Clay's God.

 

I don't know, I think my pet-rock is better than a clay-god.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I also do not think morality and the existence of god have anything to do with each other. However its is often brought up that god is omni-benevolent. I wondered if there had been much philosophical reasoning behind this concept, or if it is just accepted as a given because a god who wasn't utterly good would be a scary thing.

 

This particular argument is very circular. Trying to prove the existence of god using the idea of objective morality, but the only way to prove objective morality is to have god.

 

In general, I am very interested in arguments that start with a very generalized idea of god - such as the discussion on the supernatural thus far or the intelligent design arguments - and see how the rationale progresses to choosing very specifically the Christian God. Basically, how does one start without the idea of the Christian God and rationally build an argument from a Supernatural Creating Agent (or a Deistic God).

 

As seemingly contradictory as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are, I concede that they can be attributes of Supernatural Creating Agent (given this exists at all) as inferred from the definition provided. I know the argument from Morality is approaching this from a different perspective, but I still do not see any reason to include omni-benevolence as a trait of Supernatural Creating Agent unless one has already concluded the specific identity of this being.

 

You see, I tried to do this when I was still a Christian. I had and have friends who worship very different gods than the Christian one and wanted to see if there was a way to conclude that my god was true and theirs were not. Like the threads you have posted, I was able to logically build a God who was the 3 omnis but I couldn't get any further than that. This being was very abstract, just like Supernatural Creating Agent, and very open ended. I could not make it more specific without nullifying what I had built thus far. Any addition puts limits on what has previously been determined to be limitless. And I realized that the God I had built was analogous to simply Everything (Life, Universe etc).

 

As for evidence of the Supernatural (Nature is pretty super), I have yet to see any. I posit however, that even if there was a resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, that does not automatically make Christianity correct. An omni- Supernatural Being could have infinite number of incomprehensible reasons for raising a man from the dead 2000 years ago. The gospels would still have to be proven to be accurate portrayal of Jesus, the writings of Paul would have to be proven to be correctly describing the new religion. Even within these accounts attributes of Jesus nullify his divinity because he does not possess the omnis. From start to finish there is no end to contradictory claims that cannot logically be reconciled and there is no way to conclude with certainty that there even is a Supernatural Creating Agent or that such a being is the Christian God. In fact these two beings are incompatible as far as I can tell.

 

Building a proof for the existence of God is very different from building one for the existence of the God of Christianity/ Bible etc. There is necessarily a leap of logic between the two.

[GiJenn]

Religion, is an absurd thought Period..... All it's about is population control even another form of slavery. A man rising after death, virgin birth, three kings, 12 disciples, the one that turns against the man etc, etc. Has been taught many times over in many religions, not just the only one we are familiar with, Christianity. It actually originated in astronomy long before 0 BC - 0 AD. There is a video documentary that explains it very well, much better and factual then I can. It takes a about 2 hours, which is pure enlightenment. They have an addendum too, they both talk about; religious, political, and monetary, population control in degrees. The movie hits religion, including Christianity very hard, The addendum hits politics, and money very hard.

 

It is called "Zeitgeist" I don't have the web address handy, but here is Google video address for both, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#

 

You will wake up from the "Parasitic Con Game"

[Shyone]

In general, I am very interested in arguments that start with a very generalized idea of god - such as the discussion on the supernatural thus far or the intelligent design arguments - and see how the rationale progresses to choosing very specifically the Christian God. Basically, how does one start without the idea of the Christian God and rationally build an argument from a Supernatural Creating Agent (or a Deistic God).

 

<snip>

 

Building a proof for the existence of God is very different from building one for the existence of the God of Christianity/ Bible etc. There is necessarily a leap of logic between the two.

I laid out the rationale that Christians use to prove the biblegod in another post, but it is invalid because it relies on the presupposition that the Christian God is the only god.

 

And therein lies the problem. Well, one problem. I find that the concept of the supernatural is meaningless because the definitions are negations of reality.

 

If however you go from "unknown" to "supernatural" then you're right you can't automatically reach Christianity without the goal of proving Christianity true in mind.

 

At one time, it all made sense - when Christianity was the only available religion and communications across distances were by ship or caravan.

[Kuroikaze]

It is called "Zeitgeist" I don't have the web address handy, but here is Google video address for both, http://video.google....83847743189197#

 

 

*sigh* Not another one.

 

 

Look, I am a skeptic first and an atheist second. While I agree that Christianity is bunk. The Zeitgeist movie is also bunk, and it makes gratuitously inaccurate claims.

 

It does us no credit in the eyes of Christians to say we reject religion for its lack of solid evidence and then run smack into believing another set, of claims which have a similar lack.

 

Do some reading up on the makers of Zeitgeist and the "historian" whose work they based the movie on, Acharya s, Dorothy M. Murdock.

 

They believe some rather bizarre stuff. For one, she argues that ALL religions from every part of the world all came from a common religious belief, which is strange because these earlier cultures had little to no contact with one another. She explains this by positing an ancient super culture that rose and collapsed much earlier than any of our written records, and spanned the entire globe.

 

Basically think of those people who believe Atlantis was real or that those mountain top drawings in south America are landing strips for U.F.O.s and you have the people who made zeitgeist.

Rejecting Christianity or even Theism does not automatically make one rational. Just look at Raelians or scientologists.

 

Don't believe me? Read the last chapter of "the Christ conspiracy"

[OrdinaryClay]

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God. It can take the form of a Syllogism.

 

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2) Objective moral values do exist

3) Therefore, God exists

 

Google "moral argument".

 

I don't think this was what he was talking about. However, this syllogism does not work.

This was what I was talking about, and I'm the one that broached the subject while describing why an argument for specific claims(Resurrection) can be built on a more general argument for a personal God. Arguments can be built on composite evidence, which is what I explained in my post.

 

The problem first problem is with premise 1. God's existence cannot be shown to have any connection to "objective" moral values. By definition, "objective" means mind independent

 

1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objective

 

The problem is that if god is authoring morals then morals are being authored by a mind and therefore not objective, they are merely subject to god instead of society or the individual.

The only requirement with respect to the syllogism is that moral values exist objectively with respect to our minds. If you claim objective moral values do exist if God does not exist(counter to the premise), then in order to invalidate the premise you need to posit a repository of these objective moral values outside God.

 

The other premise is questionable too, indeed I would argue that the notion of morality being independent of a mind, or mental contsruct is inherently meaningless. Morality and ethics are always a matter of choosing behavior as it relates to other individuals and society. Without people or society (I.E. minds) there is no such thing as morality.

 

None of this is really an argument against god though, I just think the topic of ethical philosophy has nothing to do with god at all.

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

[OrdinaryClay]

What is the moral argument? I don't believe I've heard a well defined argument for why God is necessarily moral. If anyone has a link or would like to explain that would be great .

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God. It can take the form of a Syllogism.

 

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2) Objective moral values do exist

3) Therefore, God exists

 

Google "moral argument".

 

I think this would be a good example of how your second premise does not need the first

 

 

But also in general if there was truely objective values as I think you see them as, then why is it that there are different cultural views on things like killing, and thievery

All cultures believe murder is wrong. The only cultural difference is in the rational used to define who is "them". The fact that different cultures define some "other groups" as being justifiable to murder does not invalidate the universal agreement that murder is wrong.

[Vixentrox]

You seem to be saying you believe morals are relative? I find this hard to believe to be honest. What Hitler did was morally wrong whether everyone in the world thought it was right. There are acts that are morally wrong even if all of humanity thought they were right.

And your butchering, jealous, petty bible god committed or ordered plenty of morally wrong things according to his own holy book. If you worship such a being you are a vile and reprehensible person for excusing such barbarity and evil mindedness, nay not only excusing it but praising it.

[OrdinaryClay]

Another problem with the morality argument Clay makes is: (I think this is the one Kuro argues too)

 

1. If good is the same as objective morality, and it only can exist if a higher being created it

2. And God is good (objectively moral)

C. God must have a creator.

 

I remember seeing Clay arguing that God is good because it his nature, and that God never created morality. Then it would instead lead to objective morality and good to just exist, as is. It's innate in nature, or in other words, God is not a requirement for morality to exist, it's just natural, just like how pi relates to circles.

No, if God is Good then if God did not exist then the objectivity of goodness would not exist, unless you can describe where this objective good exists independent of God.

 

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

It does not need to in order to still be objective.

[bdp]

 

All cultures believe murder is wrong.

 

No they don't. Get educated.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Another problem with the morality argument Clay makes is: (I think this is the one Kuro argues too)

 

1. If good is the same as objective morality, and it only can exist if a higher being created it

2. And God is good (objectively moral)

C. God must have a creator.

 

I remember seeing Clay arguing that God is good because it his nature, and that God never created morality. Then it would instead lead to objective morality and good to just exist, as is. It's innate in nature, or in other words, God is not a requirement for morality to exist, it's just natural, just like how pi relates to circles.

No, if God is Good then if God did not exist then the objectivity of goodness would not exist, unless you can describe where this objective good exists independent of God.

 

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

It does not need to in order to still be objective.

Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

What is the moral argument? I don't believe I've heard a well defined argument for why God is necessarily moral. If anyone has a link or would like to explain that would be great .

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God. It can take the form of a Syllogism.

 

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2) Objective moral values do exist

3) Therefore, God exists

 

Google "moral argument".

 

I think this would be a good example of how your second premise does not need the first

 

 

But also in general if there was truely objective values as I think you see them as, then why is it that there are different cultural views on things like killing, and thievery

All cultures believe murder is wrong. The only cultural difference is in the rational used to define who is "them". The fact that different cultures define some "other groups" as being justifiable to murder does not invalidate the universal agreement that murder is wrong.

I think we are in agreement that all culture have some concept where taking of anothers life is not allowed. But I think I needed to refine my point some for effectiveness.

Lets take a moral construct as a example

Say the judeochristian idea of morality.

Why is it that if there are objective moral values in the sense that I think your trying for that is more then the basics like don't like or murder (which videos like the one I recommended prove to be in us already), then cultures vary on what is moral. If what was objective in that sense then wouldnt we all model judeochristian morality

[OrdinaryClay]

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

It does not need to in order to still be objective.

Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is not a moral dilemma. It is a dilemma with regard to the source of morality. It is also not a true dilemma, since a third non-conflicting choice exists. I talked about it earlier on here.

[OrdinaryClay]

What is the moral argument? I don't believe I've heard a well defined argument for why God is necessarily moral. If anyone has a link or would like to explain that would be great .

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God. It can take the form of a Syllogism.

 

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist

2) Objective moral values do exist

3) Therefore, God exists

 

Google "moral argument".

 

I think this would be a good example of how your second premise does not need the first

 

 

But also in general if there was truely objective values as I think you see them as, then why is it that there are different cultural views on things like killing, and thievery

All cultures believe murder is wrong. The only cultural difference is in the rational used to define who is "them". The fact that different cultures define some "other groups" as being justifiable to murder does not invalidate the universal agreement that murder is wrong.

I think we are in agreement that all culture have some concept where taking of anothers life is not allowed. But I think I needed to refine my point some for effectiveness.

Lets take a moral construct as a example

Say the judeochristian idea of morality.

Why is it that if there are objective moral values in the sense that I think your trying for that is more then the basics like don't like or murder (which videos like the one I recommended prove to be in us already), then cultures vary on what is moral. If what was objective in that sense then wouldnt we all model judeochristian morality

We can talk about specific moral values, but first I want to understand if you think objective moral values exist. IOW, do you believe that there are some moral truths which are objectively true?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

All cultures believe murder is wrong.

 

No they don't. Get educated.

Your suggestion I get educated seems to imply you know of one that doesn't. Can you give an example?

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

And thirdly, objective morality does not solve moral dilemmas.

It does not need to in order to still be objective.

Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is not a moral dilemma. It is a dilemma with regard to the source of morality. It is also not a true dilemma, since a third non-conflicting choice exists. I talked about it earlier on here.

I know, its is a nock on the idea of objective morality needs a god. Though back to the creator, anything that is a product of a creator, including morality, is subject to God, so therefore the dilemma is intact.

[OrdinaryClay]

Ever heard of the Euthyphro dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is not a moral dilemma. It is a dilemma with regard to the source of morality. It is also not a true dilemma, since a third non-conflicting choice exists. I talked about it earlier on here.

I know, its is a nock on the idea of objective morality needs a god. Though back to the creator, anything that is a product of a creator, including morality, is subject to God, so therefore the dilemma is intact.

Yes, it does attack the source of morality. The dilemma claims morality is either independent of God(God is not needed) or an arbitrary whim of God's. These two choices are called the horns of the dilemma. The dilemma is broken by offering a third choice, which is that morality is part of God's nature. Gos is good. God is love. If God is good then it is not arbitrary or independent. Hence the dilemma is broken.