Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Moral law


Jon

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Why can't we define morality?

 

That would be a good first step, and given the content of many of the posts in this thread, a needed step.

 

Suggestion:  Define it as a simply noun, i.e., not as an adjective (as in "moral law") and not modified with an adjective (as in "universal morality").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, end3 said:

I'm not being dishonest, I'm answering as well as my mind can think it through.  Yes, perhaps our entire moral compass has evolved to where it's at now, but if that's so, there would be no absolute morality.  All I'm saying is the permutations are so great, that if we are left to judge morality, we are sadly unequipped.  Grace would be our only best answer.

 

Edit:  It would mean that humanity has defined it's own purpose....  life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.

 

I accept that the term dishonest can be seen to be an attack. However you still have failed to explain why morality cannot be defined and I still hold that your position that it cannot be defined is not born out of reality, but to hold that some reference to god is needed for morality.

 

Humanity has defined its own purpose. There's no evidence of any deity giving any purpose anywhere. Events happen as one would expect in a world without some divine purpose.

 

Our moral compass might have evolved, but that's not to say we cannot define objective moral values.

 

However the use of the term absolute in regards to morality is an error in my opinion (And in Dr Craigs opinion too) I agree with him when he says there are no absolute moral values. Absolute values would mean that "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that - under any circumstances. However "thou shalt not kill" under an objective frame of reference allows for an objective moral value in the circumstances. And I think it is possible to come to the point where we can say it is objectively wrong to rape, but its objectively right to kill in certain circumstances. And we can do this without needing reference to God or Grace, and in fact are better off not referencing God. According to God its still fine to go pick up stones and stone homosexuals to death with stones that they die. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't express myself well obviously.  If there is no higher absolute morality, then yes, it's all an evolved meandering endeavor.  Otherwise until we have more info, grace is the answer. 

 

Basically pick one.  Neither choice, human defined nor devine defined gives us much to work with

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
Just now, end3 said:

Otherwise until we have more info, grace is the answer.

 

Bald assertion. Justify it. Its a false dichotomy to say we don't have an answer therefore grace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Bald assertion. Justify it. Its a false dichotomy to say we don't have an answer therefore grace.

Let me turn the question around please LF.  Do you think that you may define morality well enough where you may convict my actions as immoral at any given moment based on your humanity derived morality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
4 hours ago, end3 said:

Let me turn the question around please LF.  Do you think that you may define morality well enough where you may convict my actions as immoral at any given moment based on your humanity derived morality?

Only if you're gay and need a wedding cake... Oh wait, that's the "Christian" thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
5 hours ago, end3 said:

Let me turn the question around please LF.  Do you think that you may define morality well enough where you may convict my actions as immoral at any given moment based on your humanity derived morality?

 

Um typical christian question deflection much? You made an assertion that "grace is the answer" Justify that assertion.

 

You justify that assertion and I'll answer your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Um typical christian question deflection much? You made an assertion that "grace is the answer" Justify that assertion.

 

You justify that assertion and I'll answer your question.

I've told you a couple times already.  One, we can't adequately define morality,  and two, because each individuals actions have so many permutations, we may only speak generally as to whether they were acting morally or not.  The only choice we have is to then say, I have faith and act with grace that you were acting morally or otherwise we put people in front of a jury to discern. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, end3 said:

I've told you a couple times already.  One, we can't adequately define morality,  and two, because each individuals actions have so many permutations, we may only speak generally as to whether they were acting morally or not.  The only choice we have is to then say, I have faith and act with grace that you were acting morally or otherwise we put people in front of a jury to discern. 

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how is it possible to define a moral law?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how is it possible to tell if someone is acting morally or not?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a moral absolute exists?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a particular moral standard is universal?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a particular moral standard is unchanging?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how can we tell if it's origin is natural or divine?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how can we tell if it's a subjective or objective standard of behavior?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how do we know if grace (whatever that is) plays any part in it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how is it possible to define a moral law?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how is it possible to tell if someone is acting morally or not?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a moral absolute exists?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a particular moral standard is universal?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, then how can we say that a particular moral standard is unchanging?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how can we tell if it's origin is natural or divine?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how can we tell if it's a subjective or objective standard of behavior?

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how do we know if grace (whatever that is) plays any part in it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To my understanding, he is saying that humanity defines it and that is possible.  I'm waiting.

 

Christians say we can't, hence Grace.  The rest of it is a meandering trail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, end3 said:

To my understanding, he is saying that humanity defines it and that is possible.  I'm waiting.

 

Christians say we can't, hence Grace.  The rest of it is a meandering trail. 

 

That second sentence of yours is what LF takes issue with.

 

He's waiting on you to justify your bald assertion that grace is the answer.

 

So you aren't waiting on him - he's got precedence over you.

 

Once you've justified your assertion, THEN it's over to LF to talk about defining morality.

 

You first, then him.

 

Now it's up to you to say why grace is the answer, End.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

That second sentence of yours is what LF takes issue with.

 

He's waiting on you to justify your bald assertion that grace is the answer.

 

So you aren't waiting on him - he's got precedence over you.

 

Once you've justified your assertion, THEN it's over to LF to talk about defining morality.

 

You first, then him.

 

Now it's up to you to say why grace is the answer, End.

 

 

Are we going to write more rules?  Do rules work?  Wouldn't that destroy our freedom?  Wouldn't that destroy our individuality?   And, it would be impossible to apply the rules adequately to individual subjectivity such that everyone was moral per some definition.

 

But hey, let's do the stupid thing and see if we can...... socialism works so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's four more questions and an 'impossible' from you, End.

 

Please just do what LF's asked you.

 

Here... I'm quoting him.

 

"You justify that assertion and I'll answer your question."

 

It's your move.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

That's four more questions and an 'impossible' from you, End.

 

Please just do what LF's asked you.

 

Here... I'm quoting him.

 

"You justify that assertion and I'll answer your question."

 

It's your move.

 

 

I just justified it.  Not doing any more.  I can't help your comprehension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, end3 said:

I just justified it.

...

Perhaps to yourself, but not for anyone else.

 

56 minutes ago, end3 said:

...

Not doing any more.

...

Good.  You can now exit this thread.

 

56 minutes ago, end3 said:

...

I can't help your comprehension.

Yes, your ad hoc ramblings are often incomprehensible.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, end3 said:

I just justified it.  Not doing any more.  I can't help your comprehension.

 

 

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension, End.

 

I comprehend that you have not justified why grace is the answer.

 

I comprehend that since LF asked you to justify it, you've been deflecting, putting up further questions and trying to shift the burden onto him or me, when it's squarely on you.

 

I'm not getting into a pissing contest over this with you.

 

It was LF's request to you and when he comes on line he'll expect you to justify why grace is the answer.

 

Bye!

 

:wave:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Perhaps to yourself, but not for anyone else.

 

Good.  You can now exit this thread.

 

Yes, your ad hoc ramblings are often incomprehensible.

 

I'll try to do better bc it's you.  

 

just saying that with increasing populations and less room for individual freedom that this leads to more rules/laws governing an equilibrium.  More law then stifles individual freedoms and purpose.

 

Certainly we might attempt it but you have my reasoning.  Fewer rules and more grace for our neighbors is warranted given our inability to know their dreams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how do we know God or the bible is providing it? Of course, what's it really matter what morals are or where they come from? Humanity is self-policing and adjusts laws to the times to benefit society. So I can wear polyester to Red Lobster. (Didn't say 'I' adjusted to the times. haha)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

If we can't adequately define morality, how do we know God or the bible is providing it? Of course, what's it really matter what morals are or where they come from? Humanity is self-policing and adjusts laws to the times to benefit society. So I can wear polyester to Red Lobster. (Didn't say 'I' adjusted to the times. haha)

For me I look at the OT and the law that no one could keep and then at the new covenant as an example.  Very similar to what's happening now imo.  For me, it's an affirmation of the Bible.

 

just saying we have an example where exacting law to achieve morality didn't work

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, end3 said:

For me I look at the OT and the law that no one could keep and then at the new covenant as an example.  Very similar to what's happening now imo.  For me, it's an affirmation of the Bible.

 

just saying we have an example where exacting law to achieve morality didn't work

 

Well, if you mean people these days are breaking laws and being assholes, then I can't disagree. lol. But it hasn't turned into Mad Max anarchy in my little town yet, so we're probably good for a while. :) Both Christians and non-Christians often mention how it was better in the good old days and how the world is going to shit in the present. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'll preface this by saying others have responded to Ends post and I largely agree so no point in repeating the same stuff twice.

 

10 hours ago, end3 said:

I've told you a couple times already.  One, we can't adequately define morality,  and two, because each individuals actions have so many permutations, we may only speak generally as to whether they were acting morally or not.  The only choice we have is to then say, I have faith and act with grace that you were acting morally or otherwise we put people in front of a jury to discern. 

 

No, you have not justified why your "grace" must be the answer if morality cannot be absolutely defined. You also need to define grace as I assume you are not referring to a human type of grace where in I might not tell a person off for making a mistake because I apply grace to them.

 

To say the only choice we have is false - you have to justify that. And you'd have to eliminate all other possibilities before saying "the only choice"

 

And I generally disagree with the premise of your comment, but you can justify "grace is the only answer" before we continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'll preface this by saying others have responded to Ends post and I largely agree so no point in repeating the same stuff twice.

 

 

No, you have not justified why your "grace" must be the answer if morality cannot be absolutely defined. You also need to define grace as I assume you are not referring to a human type of grace where in I might not tell a person off for making a mistake because I apply grace to them.

 

To say the only choice we have is false - you have to justify that. And you'd have to eliminate all other possibilities before saying "the only choice"

 

And I generally disagree with the premise of your comment, but you can justify "grace is the only answer" before we continue.

Thanks.  It's not the only choice.  We are living with rules that are not grace as the only choice.  Again, my deal is in lieu of creating more rules and laws as the population increases, and more demand is placed on coexisting and cooperating, to choose grace......grace being essentially: we all do things the other does not comprehend and instead of being stickers for justice, just acknowledging, yep, we will do the best to understand each other and give rather than enforce rules. 

 

Again, it makes more sense to me that we cooperate in order to remain free and purpose driven rather that a stifled by regulations/law.   The US is a good example I think.  Seems like the US has always had ample room in the past 100+ years for people to spread out without much demand on cultural and environmental cooperation.   As the population and diversity has increased, this seems more an issue these days and is putting more pressure on people to get along.  I'm just and advocate of less regulation and more grace.  Especially in light of our ability to define such.  

 

Again, what I'm seeing with culture-defined morality is the inability to adequately define morality and also the potential for overregulation.

 

I would really like to know what you think in light of those points.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:33 PM, end3 said:
On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:33 PM, end3 said:

One, there would have to be a unified purpose.  Then laws written to achieve that purpose.  Also, we would have to then understand the subjective interpretation of each individual within the group......and all the associated variables contributing to the subjectivity.

 

For example if you had 300 cats in a pasture.  How do we define morality if our cats have no purpose....how are their actions deemed moral if there is no purpose.  Then, you would have to write laws for the cats to achieve the purpose.  And then finally, if cat 72 ate more than his fair share, is he immoral or ultimately is cat 72 contributing to the morality as it's defined. 

 

The survival of the cats is a prerequisite for them to take a moral action. That's the first universal ethic. How do you account for the subjective interpretation of a god who by definition is behind our comprehension. Humans working on morality is difficult but knowing the mind of god is by definition impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Blamtasticful said:

 

The survival of the cats is a prerequisite for them to take a moral action. That's the first universal ethic. How do you account for the subjective interpretation of a god who by definition is behind our comprehension. Humans working on morality is difficult but knowing the mind of god is by definition impossible. 

I believe because humanity didn't or doesn't understand is specifically why grace was put in place.  Don't know how new your are to this site B, but I'm a believer that years and years of not adhering to what God considers just, i.e. the Law,  has lead humanity to a place of no return with regard to understanding what is truly just......and it's changed us as a whole such that God recognized this and set forth an agreement where despite our shortcomings, we would still be "saved".  And some of us on this site have had discussions about behaviors changing us physically....and our progeny.   So essentially, I'm a believer that our "sins" layered on top of each other for generations have lead us far away from any idea of righteousness that may have been preserved.  But/and I believe this is why God says do not quit meeting together......because if negative influence changes us, then one would think positive influence would change us as well.  For example, we send our children to school and moral places rather than sending them to learn to steal and lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:39 PM, end3 said:

I'm not being dishonest, I'm answering as well as my mind can think it through.  Yes, perhaps our entire moral compass has evolved to where it's at now, but if that's so, there would be no absolute morality.  All I'm saying is the permutations are so great, that if we are left to judge morality, we are sadly unequipped.  Grace would be our only best answer.

 

Edit:  It would mean that humanity has defined it's own purpose....  life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.

 

This to me isn't an argument. It is an admission of defeat. This is often what I call the Theistic Hail Mary Pass! 

Since the believer can't provide evidence for his position he argues AGAINST human ability to know anything at all and against rationality ITSELF.

He does this while using REASON in order to make an argument in the very first place lol.

At that point there is no point in him debating any further because he believes it is futile and so disqualifies himself from participating in an adult rational discussion because he believes humans are unable to do so.

 

You specifically say that the moral permutations are so great that we can't know morality, but by the same logic the permutations for how many possible kinds of universes we could be in would make it impossible to know that god is needed for the universe's existence. This is Sophistry not logic.

 

10 minutes ago, end3 said:

I believe because humanity didn't or doesn't understand is specifically why grace was put in place.  Don't know how new your are to this site B, but I'm a believer that years and years of not adhering to what God considers just, i.e. the Law,  has lead humanity to a place of no return with regard to understanding what is truly just......and it's changed us as a whole such that God recognized this and set forth an agreement where despite our shortcomings, we would still be "saved".  And some of us on this site have had discussions about behaviors changing us physically....and our progeny.   So essentially, I'm a believer that our "sins" layered on top of each other for generations have lead us far away from any idea of righteousness that may have been preserved.  But/and I believe this is why God says do not quit meeting together......because if negative influence changes us, then one would think positive influence would change us as well.  For example, we send our children to school and moral places rather than sending them to learn to steal and lie. 

 

Well all I can really say is where is the evidence that that is true? Even if I grant you that humans have become less moral (which I don't, I believe the opposite) that still wouldn't in any way support the unfounded assertion that this is the result of some sort of "sin-layering." Maybe we could have evolved to be less moral for example. However thankfully we as humans are more compassionate of people continents away then we ever have been in the history of our species. This is all while church power in government has declined. 

 

Finally where in any of this have you demonstrated that a "Moral law" actually exists? I believe Morality exists and it exists independent of God. Regardless God's existence doesn't make morality objective; his existence is morally irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.