Moral Argument for Gods Existence

[KanzulHuda786]

Argument from Morality
Objective morality is when something is absolutely right or wrong without any exceptions e.g. torturing little babies and eating is universally wrong whatever the circumstance.
It is something that is wrong in all places at all times.
Where can we ground these moral value what makes them morally right and wrong where do we turn to? It doesn’t mean you can’t be a good person if you don’t believe in God we are saying they will be literally no right or wrong objectively if there was no god.

� Are they just there- it is like saying when you see a glowing ball floating in the mid air and someone asks you where did that come form and you say it is just there, this is a non explanation. It is not a reasonable world view it would be unbeliveable.
�Does It comes from each Individual(conscius)- Some may say morality is based upon personal preferences you just know it by following your heart? What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!
If it is just to personal choice then we cannot blame a person to choose, to murder, to steal for fun. We could not hold a criminal responsible for whatever horrendous thing he did because if each individual decides what’s morally correct then there is no individual who stands above to say what this criminal has done is right or wrong. The entire criminal and court and prison system would break down.
�Does it come from Society- If it comes from society then one society cannot tell another society that it is wrong, for example Winston Churchill and British society could not have said to Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany that eradicating Jews is morally wrong. If you were part of the Nazi Germany society it would have been Ok to burn Jews alive. But the fact that we condemn it today shows us that social consensus cannot be the foundation or the place we go to get our morality or our sense of right or wrong.
� World Consensus- if the Nazis had successfully taken over the world and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide or if they instituted a policy or law all over the world that it is Ok to put Jews in concenentration camps and burn them in the oven would then become right. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer. It would matter even if the entire world agreed to it is still would be objectively morally wrong. It is also is not practical, can we ever get an accurate world consensus what will happen will everyone have a buzzer and vote for a certain decision. World consensus will never happen.
�It comes form Evolution
oThis makes morality a biological adaptation not less than your hands and feet.
oCan this be the source of morality, first of all is there any scientific evidence that can show this. Have they discovered the moral molecule for atoms. Could they ever no because morality is not a physical thing. Because thoughts, awareness and morality is immaterial. So how can a material thing bring about and immaterial thing like right or wrong.
oMorality cannot be found in a cell or matter because if we are just pieces of matter put together in a particular form, So if someone put a knife through you has he really murdered you or is it just a rearrangement of molecules.
oWe cannot blame anyone for killing for fun because then he would be genetically predetermined to do this, meaning he just evolved like that type of person. None can be judged as morality has just come by chance.
Some may say why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view? Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.
oObjective morality is something that is right or wrong at all places at all times but evolution says that we have changed and evolved. As Darwin himself admitted said if we had evolved like sharks it would have been ok to rape because that is what they do.
oIf we have just evolve like animals then how come we don’t blame a lion of murder for killing a deer. Or if a an ape escaped from the zoo and broke into the shop and stole some banana would he get arrested for shoplifting, Of course not. So if we have evolved what has made us so special that we are the only beings that enforce moral law of right and wrong on each other, it seems like we don’t belong here.
The only way to get objective morality if from a transcendent being who is beyond humans and the universe because the creator is the only beyond human subjectivity or human bias, he is the only one who has higher authority. As objective morality is unchanging and always true no matter what, then it must come from a source that is unchanging and eternal.

To sum up

1) If objective morality exists, the only standard or ground to which to judge this is a transcendnet being outside of human bias and subjectivity (God)
2)Objective morality does exist.
3)Therefore God exist

In order to escape the conclusion 3) you have to find a legitimate reason why 1) and 2) are false.

[Ionian_Tradition]

To sum up

1) If objective morality exists, the only standard or ground to which to judge this is a transcendnet being outside of human bias and subjectivity (God)

I find it interesting that you can so brazenly assert that the subjective moral edicts of God somehow constitute an objective base for morality when the best you could hope to demonstrate (though I'm not sure how you would) is that it is objectively true that God subjectively considers X to be morally wrong. This in no way demonstrates that X is objectively wrong irrespective of God's own subjective preference. Subjective preference/opinion does not an objective truth make (save the objective truth that such preference is subjective in nature and in no way objectively binding).

2)Objective morality does exist.

Simply asserting a thing does not make it so. That you, and other theists, find the notion of a moral system lacking objective validity unpalatable is not good evidence that God/objective morality exists. Unfortunately this seems to be your only line of argumentation in support of your claim. You just don't like the logical implications of a moral system lacking objective validity, therefore morality must have an objective basis in God. Surely you can do better.

3)Therefore God exist

Even if God does exist, your argument fails in that God cannot logically serve as the ground and source of a objective morality. I hate to trot back out the old Euphythro dilemma but fear I must.

Tell me, does God command X because X is objectively moral? Or is X objectively moral because God commands it?

If the former, then we'll have affirmed the existence of an objective standard of morality, external to God, by which the moral quality of X is measured...Rendering God anything but the objective standard of morality. If the latter, then it seems that morality is predicated upon God's subjective opinion. X is "moral" because God says so. If God randomly decided that X were not moral, then X would necessarily become immoral. X is then shown to be provisionally right or wrong depending on God's mood. Therefore we can never say that X is objectively this or that, irrespective of subjective opinion, because it is the subjective opinion of God which lends X its provisional moral quality. Subjective preference does not constitute a moral absolute which exists irrespective of that preference. Thus God is shown not to be the objective source of morality.

One might seek to resolve the dilemma by stating that morality is intrinsic to God's nature and thus is not subject to either horn of the dilemma. But is this the case? If "morality" is the nature of God then "morality" has been reduced to a mere truism ("the nature of God is moral"). As a result, morality become descriptive thus ceasing to be prescriptive. God may well be "moral", but what of it? The descriptive nature of the term reduces statements like "God is good" to the equivalent of "God is God". What objective obligation does man then have to be like God? Can this even be done? How can man hope to be moral when morality is little more than a descriptive attribute woven into the very nature of God? A nature which man does not and cannot possess. One might argue that man can be moral by mimicking God's nature. But imitating God no more lends man God's intrinsic moral nature than imitating a tiger lends him the nature of that animal. If morality is to be reduced to a descriptive label concerning God's nature then it will have been stripped not only of its prescriptive power but also of its attainability...In other words, If morality is God, then to be moral is to be God. Man cannot become God whilst remaining man, thus man cannot be moral. Since this is the case, God cannot be said to be the objective source of human morality per this argument because if its premises are shown true, human morality cannot logically exist.


With that said, I admit there may be very good arguments for the existence of a God of some sort. The moral argument just isn't one of them.

[Divine Insight]

The mere fact that Islamic myths claim that their God is a jealous God who hates those who don't believe in him and proclaims them to be his "enemies" clearly shows that the fictitious God of Islam has no morality at all.

Adolph Hitler proclaimed that people who don't agree with him are his enemies too.

So the Islamic God has about the same level or immorality as Adolf Hitler.

What did Adolf Hitler do to his enemies? He cast them into a fiery furnace.

What does the God of Islam do to his enemies? He casts them into fiery furnace.

I see no morality in Islam.

[razovor]

I agree the argument falls apart at point 2.

There is no such thing as 'Objective Morality'.

[KanzulHuda786]

What does the God of Islam do to his enemies? He casts them into fiery furnace.
.

It is not as simple as you have put it

It is from Imam al Ghazali from a book that he wrote. He categorises non muslims into three categories and places two of them in paradise so you think about that. He said non muslims fall into three categories:


1) Those who live under the justice of Islam and see the beauty and truth of Islam and reject it out of arrogance or because they were just blindly following theri forefathers. He said these people are for hell. The word disbeliever in arabic (kaafir) doesn't simply mean the one who doesn't belive in islam, but it literally means to cover, so the meaning of the word kaafir would be the one who arragontly covers the truth up once it has been made clear to him that Islam is the truth, but if it hasn't then God is the best of Judges and we will leave it up to him.

2) People who live far away from the lands of Islam and have not heard anything about Islam will not be punished. That is the dominant Maturedi and Ashari opinion about those people. As the Qur'an says, "We do not punish until We send a Messenger" (Qur'an 17:15).Ibn Rushid says when you talk about the mercy lah, always try to expand it, do not try to restrict it. . A lot of people do not know what hell is and that is why there are so many people that are so quick to put people in hell because if you knew what it was you would not want your worst enemy to go to hell. But people do not know what it is so they just want to send everybody there, the guy who raised his rent, go to hell.


3) People who have been taught since they were little that there was an impostor in the Arabian peninsula named Muhammad ibn Abdullah. He lied and claimed he was a Prophet. They are all terrorists and this and that. That is what they have heard. Imam Ghazali said these people have blocks to the truth because they were already indoctrinated. We know the power of this in modern psychology. The power of what happens when you are a child. When the Prophet emerged in the Arabian peninsula, those people had the opposite, they only had the positive opinions of him. The Quraysh only knew good from him. If you go to a people and all you hear since you are little is that this is a lie like Masonite Christians are taught since they are little children, this is an evil religion, an evil man and many Jewish people grow up with that as well that Islam is bad. So that creates blockages from the truth. Imam Ghazali said that he felt because it was presented to them in a distorted fashion they would not be held accountable for it. He said that in other words that to him seemed most consistent with divine justice.

[razovor]

Mhm. That's still a pretty awful system.

A 'good' god should be rewarding good behaviour, punishing bad behaviour, and using his power to do good works of his own in the world.

When a god starts asking people to worship him, he's treading outside the realms of perfect goodness. It's actually quite arrogant. Punishing impiety is just cruel. He shouldn't care whether he's being worshipped. Goodness should be his only aim.

[Bust Nak]

You bring the best topics, another one of my favorites second only to infinite regression.

Objective morality is when something is absolutely right or wrong without any exceptions e.g. torturing little babies and eating is universally wrong whatever the circumstance.

The same thing can be phrased in a subjective manner too: In my opinion, torturing little babies and eating them is subjectively wrong whatever the circumstance, in all places at all times. i.e. believing certain things are absolutely wrong is not a reason to adopt moral objectivism. In other words, your first point is a red herring.

And what about all the other morality issues that do change with circumstance? Is it always wrong to stick needles in babies? No, it depends on what the needles are for. If absolute moral rules means morality is objective, then do these relative rules means morality is subjective? Is it your view that some morality is objective but others aren't?

Where can we ground these moral value what makes them morally right and wrong where do we turn to? It doesn’t mean you can’t be a good person if you don’t believe in God we are saying they will be literally no right or wrong objectively if there was no god.

There literally could be no right or wrong objectively even if there was a god. You see, God given rules, such as "thou shall not kill" is relative to God's own moral values. The only possibility of an objective right or wrong is if the "god" you are referring to is non-personal.

Does It comes from each Individual(conscius)- Some may say morality is based upon personal preferences you just know it by following your heart?

That would be me, but I want to add that you need to use your brain to work out the best way of achieving what is in "your heart."

What a dippy idea this is! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans! Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste!

That is indeed the implication of subjectivism. But can you point out anything inconsistent with this view? Do you reject subjectivism based on pragmatic reasons? That it just doesn't match up to your personal taste?

If it is just to personal choice then we cannot blame a person to choose, to murder, to steal for fun.

Why not? It's my personal choice to blame a person for murder etc.

We could not hold a criminal responsible for whatever horrendous thing he did because if each individual decides what’s morally correct then there is no individual who stands above to say what this criminal has done is right or wrong.

So what if there is no objective way of rating people's opinion? We do it subjectively.

The entire criminal and court and prison system would break down.

Why would it suddendly break down now when it has been working up to now? The point is objectivism vs subjectivism are not two ways of doing things, but two oppositing philosophical positions. Nothing in the world actually changes except one's perspective.

Does it come from Society?

Rules come from society, which is based on morality but a different thing to morality.

If it comes from society then one society cannot tell another society that it is wrong, for example Winston Churchill and British society could not have said to Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany that eradicating Jews is morally wrong.

Incorrect. The British society could not have said eradicating Jews was objectively wrong. We can say Hitler was morally wrong to eradicate Jews just fine.

If you were part of the Nazi Germany society it would have been Ok to burn Jews alive. But the fact that we condemn it today shows us that social consensus cannot be the foundation or the place we go to get our morality or our sense of right or wrong.

The fact something as seeming fundamental as burning people alive can changes quite fluidly within a couple of lifetimes, shows us that our morality and our sense of right or wrong is indeed ultimately based on our personal taste, heavily influenced by society.

World Consensus- if the Nazis had successfully taken over the world and brainwashed us to believe that it was ok to commit genocide or if they instituted a policy or law all over the world that it is Ok to put Jews in concenentration camps and burn them in the oven would then become right. At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise!

Agreed, but see my very first point on how something being wrong whatever the circumstance (including the rest of the world saying otherwise) can be phrased as a subjective statement.

Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer. It would matter even if the entire world agreed to it is still would be objectively morally wrong.

Not necessarily, this would only be the case if moral objectivism is correct - i.e. you are using circular reasoning.

It is also is not practical, can we ever get an accurate world consensus what will happen will everyone have a buzzer and vote for a certain decision. World consensus will never happen.

Sure.

It comes form Evolution - This makes morality a biological adaptation not less than your hands and feet.

Well this is the same thing as morality coming from each Individual, plus a biological explanation of why certain personal preferences are common in human.

Can this be the source of morality, first of all is there any scientific evidence that can show this. Have they discovered the moral molecule for atoms.

Would it surprise to learn there is no single gene but the interactions of many genes that control body height? And yet height is one of the easier trait to be shown to be inheritable. Not having a height "molecule for atoms" doesn't mean it isn't the result of evolution.

To answer your main question. Yes there is indeed scientific evidence that shows morality is an evolved trait. Including but not limited to studies of other social animals, and studies on child development.

Could they ever no because morality is not a physical thing. Because thoughts, awareness and morality is immaterial. So how can a material thing bring about and immaterial thing like right or wrong.

Easily. Have you ever interacted with materialists before? This kind of things are trivial: The immaterial mind is the result of the material brain. Just as immaterial software running on material hardware.

Morality cannot be found in a cell or matter because if we are just pieces of matter put together in a particular form, So if someone put a knife through you has he really murdered you or is it just a rearrangement of molecules.

Does ice really melt at room temperature or is it just a rearrangement of molecules? What could possible lead you to think being knifed can only be desribed as rearrangement of molecules or "really" being knifed? You have commited the false dichotomy fallacy.

We cannot blame anyone for killing for fun because then he would be genetically predetermined to do this, meaning he just evolved like that type of person. None can be judged as morality has just come by chance.

Genetically predetermined? People have no control over their desires? But I do accept that mitigating circumstances is an important factor in deciding blame (if any.)

Some may say why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival? What difference does it all make? Why is life valuable? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view?

Simple. Person perference is subjective and as a matter of opinion I like myself, I value my life, I sympathise with other human, and hence I put great value on human survival. Note that there is no mention of any gods i.e. atheistic.

Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable. Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit.

That's why we don't based ethic on survival, nor on evolution for that matter. It's is merely an explaination of morality. Does descriptive and not prescriptive mean anything to you?

Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia.

Cherry picking fallacy - those are but some possible outcome. More importantly, it is also a red herring. So what if people decide to eat what I consider to be disgusting food? It doesn't make taste any less subjective. The same applies here, so what if people decide to act in way that I consider to be morally wrong? It doesn't make morality any less subjective.

Would you be convinced objectivism is false had I argued that "Mankind, when they appeal to objective morality, commits systemized murder and oppression. Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia."

This reinforces my point above how objectivism vs subjectivism are not two ways of doing things: Nothing actually changes when you change perspective.

Objective morality is something that is right or wrong at all places at all times but evolution says that we have changed and evolved. As Darwin himself admitted said if we had evolved like sharks it would have been ok to rape because that is what they do.

Quite right, if we had evolved like sharks, you would be saying feeding frenzy is right at all places at all time. So what?

If we have just evolve like animals then how come we don’t blame a lion of murder for killing a deer. Or if a an ape escaped from the zoo and broke into the shop and stole some banana would he get arrested for shoplifting, Of course not.

Right, because they aren't moral agents.

So if we have evolved what has made us so special that we are the only beings that enforce moral law of right and wrong on each other, it seems like we don’t belong here.

Our big brains is what makes us so special. I don't see that could lead to to think we don't belong here when intellectual prowess is only a question of degree.

The only way to get objective morality if from a transcendent being who is beyond humans and the universe because the creator is the only beyond human subjectivity or human bias, he is the only one who has higher authority. As objective morality is unchanging and always true no matter what, then it must come from a source that is unchanging and eternal.

That is incoherent - if morality is relative to a personal being (human or otherwise,) it would by definition be subjective. Only if it is not relative to any personal being would it be objective.

1) If objective morality exists, the only standard or ground to which to judge this is a transcendnet being outside of human bias and subjectivity (God)
2)Objective morality does exist.
3)Therefore God exist

In order to escape the conclusion 3) you have to find a legitimate reason why 1) and 2) are false.

Both 1 and 2 are false for the reasons above. Also consider this:

1) If objective morality does exist, then all beings are constrained by it,
2) God is said to be a being constrained by nothing. Re:omnipotence.
3) Objective morality does exist.
4) Therefore either God (as described in 2) doesn't exist or objective morality doesn't.

[mood2]

�It comes form Evolution
oThis makes morality a biological adaptation not less than your hands and feet.
oCan this be the source of morality, first of all is there any scientific evidence that can show this. Have they discovered the moral molecule for atoms. Could they ever no because morality is not a physical thing. Because thoughts, awareness and morality is immaterial. So how can a material thing bring about and immaterial thing like right or wrong.

Actually neuroethicists and others are developing a compelling explanation for the 'evolution of morality'. I recommend Patricia Churchland's book Braintrust if you're interested.


In summary, complex social mammals such as humans have adapted existing brain circuitry which maintains homeostasis (ie self care - the urge to eat when hungry, find shelter when cold etc) to extend to caring for others. Initially by caring for offspring, because mammalian young can require extended care and protection before they're able to ensure their own survival. For example, a mother rat will feel distress when separated from her young, and feel good when they're reunited, because she'll get a blast of a hormone called oxytocin.

Once you have the evolutionarily valuable neuro building blocks of hormones like oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine in place, along with other adaptations like mirror neurons (which enable you to 'feel' another's distress), and theory of mind (the ability to see another as an agent with thoughts, feelings and intentions like yourself), care for offspring will extend to care for mates, kin and others in your social group, even strangers.

Alongside these evolutionary adaptations there was an expansion of brain mass and function which made us smarter, better at impulse control, able to predict and run possible scenarios through in our minds, and improved memory.

We now have social critters with an urge to care and cooperate, the ability to identify motives and intentions in others, to forsee consequences, and remember who can be trusted to reciprocate altruistic behaviour and who is likely to cheat.

There are huge evolutionary benefits to cooperation, from joining together to hunt or fight off predators/other groups, build a bridge, have group members specialise in tasks, pool food and shelter, etc. These will drive the desire to create and enforce rules which protect those benefits. Some rules will be specific to the local environment, but some will be universal, such as prohibitions on murder, stealing and lying. Valuing reputation and shaming/shunning/punishing cheaters will help maintain stability and the trust required for cooperative behaviour. Hence the value of developing and inculcating rules of behaviour which will benefit the group as a whole, sometimes at the expense of individuals. Ie a moral framework.



This is a very rough description of an incredibly complex process, but it shows that the under-pinnings of morality can be accounted for by evolutionary processes, fine-tuned by local environmental and cultural factors. No external rule giver/enforcer is required, and therefore the existence of morality is not an argument for the existence of god.

[Artie]

This is a very rough description of an incredibly complex process, but it shows that the under-pinnings of morality can be accounted for by evolutionary processes, fine-tuned by local environmental and cultural factors. No external rule giver/enforcer is required, and therefore the existence of morality is not an argument for the existence of god.

True.

1. Organisms that cooperated had a better chance of survival.
2. Cooperation evolved a common set of codes for everybody to follow called morals.
3. As organisms evolved these codes were formulated into laws as in a judicial system or commandments in a religion.
4. No deities needed.

[mood2]

Yeah.

The argument requires an external source of moral values in order to characterise morality as 'objective' from a human pov. It argues that if morality is objective in that sense such an external source/god must exist.

This is supported by pointing to the fact that there is large consensus that some things are wrong in any circumstances, and personal incredulity about 'moral molecules' and other naturalistic explanations for morality.

But if the existence of morality and why such consensus arises can be explained in naturalistic terms, which it now can, then the premises behind the argument are seen to be faulty because they're based on ignorance of relevant info.

Gods are no longer required to explain morality and therefore morality isn't evidence of gods.