Question for Christians on Morality

[ydoaPs]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

 

[shnarkle]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Morals are essentially customs. Cicero used the term synonymously with ethics which assumes the existence of the gods or absolutes. Without absolutes, (e.g. truth) nothing makes any sense.

Customs, or mores exist because people assumed absolutes exist. If God is synonymous with transcendence then the one thing that transcends everything that exists must necessarily transcend the one common denominator of everything that is transcended as well; i.e. existence.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Whether God exists or not is irrelevant. Morals are essentially customs. Cicero used the term synonymously with ethics which assumes the existence of the gods or absolutes. Without absolutes, (e.g. truth) nothing makes any sense.

Customs, or mores exist because people assumed absolutes exist. If God is synonymous with transcendence then the one thing that transcends everything that exists must necessarily transcend the one common denominator of everything that is transcended as well; i.e. existence.

You conflate gods and absolutes here - that makes no sense. Nobody is suggesting that there are no absolutes, but nothing about morality or ethics assumes the existence of either gods or absolutes. You provide no evidence at all to support anything in your second paragraph.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

Did you mean to ask

"Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts DON'T exist?"

?

 

[Torin]

Did you mean to ask

"Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts DON'T exist?"

?

I was wondering this as well.

 

[ydoaPs]

Did you mean to ask

"Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts DON'T exist?"

?

I did not. I meant to ask what I asked

 

[Eightcrackers]

I did not. I meant to ask what I asked

Same difference, I suppose.

The "don't... don't" rendition just seems more logical to me.

 

[Furion]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

You would need to provide empirical evidence for morality in a universe that clearly cannot care one way or the other.

If I am to believe atheists, then this christian thinks this about morality in a godless universe. On this far flung planet, among these bags of water creatures, we've conjured laws (morals) that only apply to us, a single creature in a vast universe. Our "morals" don't even apply to any other creature on this tiny planet.

For the atheist to claim objective morals in a godless universe, the level of hubris is god-like.

 

[SteveB]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

In 1999, I belonged to the local community college infinity club.
The professor who oversaw the club was an atheist, whose father and grandfather were Methodist pastors.

He himself was one of our math professors.

He invited a state district judge to talk about the inherent nature of morality and no God.

Turns out that the judge had a great reputation as an excellent judge, which I'm assuming is why he was selected to talk about this issue.

What the professor did not know was that the judge was also a follower of Jesus.

So the professor started off introducing him, stating why he'd invited him and then asked him to argue that morality apart from God was real.

Within seconds the judge had totally destroyed the professor's case.

Apparently, the capacity for human morality is not an inherently sustainable idea. Once God is removed from the equation, there's no point to it.
Live and die as you please.
There'll be no judgment, no justice, no vindication, and no point.
If God doesn't exist, then nobody will be watching over your shoulder to see if you actually invest yourself wisely.

As the ancients said....

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Needless to say, the professor had his entire argument and subsequent attempts laid waste, and literally had no come back to answer the issues presented by the judge.

He tried for another 10 minutes to raise a number of key points but the judge dismantled them with great alacrity.

I had two reactions to the experience...

1- I was ecstatic to see it so well handled.

2- I felt bad for the professor because he had previously been so cock-sure he was right, and seeing him deflated like that was hard to watch....

He died of lung cancer several years later. A hard core smoker.

The rest of the club's meeting that night was spent in generally insignificant chatter, and munchies.

It seems to me that while society is more stable with a moral code.

It's not enough to
Not commit adultery
It's not enough to
Not murder
Not steal
Not bear false witness
Not be greedy/covetous
Not disrespect your parents
Not not work 7 days a week.

There has to be reasons why you should not do these things.

I.e., love.

And love has to be more than simply having sex whenever you want.

Love has to be far more profound than sexual and emotional ties.

Love, the kind of love that validates, and places value on another person, just for the sake of their existence, and makes them worth fighting for has to exist.

And that kind of love.... requires YHVH to make possible.

Humans have demonstrated for millennia that left to their own devices, they do not possess the will to love in a manner that makes a stable life.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You would need to provide empirical evidence for morality in a universe that clearly cannot care one way or the other.

If I am to believe atheists, then this christian thinks this about morality in a godless universe. On this far flung planet, among these bags of water creatures, we've conjured laws (morals) that only apply to us, a single creature in a vast universe. Our "morals" don't even apply to any other creature on this tiny planet.

For the atheist to claim objective morals in a godless universe, the level of hubris is god-like.

You should take that up with the (small minority of, in my experience) atheists who claim objective morality exists. Most do not.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

In 1999, I belonged to the local community college infinity club.
The professor who oversaw the club was an atheist, whose father and grandfather were Methodist pastors.

He himself was one of our math professors.

He invited a state district judge to talk about the inherent nature of morality and no God.

Turns out that the judge had a great reputation as an excellent judge, which I'm assuming is why he was selected to talk about this issue.

What the professor did not know was that the judge was also a follower of Jesus.

So the professor started off introducing him, stating why he'd invited him and then asked him to argue that morality apart from God was real.

Within seconds the judge had totally destroyed the professor's case.

Apparently, the capacity for human morality is not an inherently sustainable idea. Once God is removed from the equation, there's no point to it.
Live and die as you please.
There'll be no judgment, no justice, no vindication, and no point.
If God doesn't exist, then nobody will be watching over your shoulder to see if you actually invest yourself wisely.

As the ancients said....

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Needless to say, the professor had his entire argument and subsequent attempts laid waste, and literally had no come back to answer the issues presented by the judge.

He tried for another 10 minutes to raise a number of key points but the judge dismantled them with great alacrity.

I had two reactions to the experience...

1- I was ecstatic to see it so well handled.

2- I felt bad for the professor because he had previously been so cock-sure he was right, and seeing him deflated like that was hard to watch....

He died of lung cancer several years later. A hard core smoker.

The rest of the club's meeting that night was spent in generally insignificant chatter, and munchies.

The rather biased claims that the judge "totally destroyed the professor's case and that "the professor had his entire argument and subsequent attempts laid waste" are amusing but not substantial. I doubt very much that either is true, because a reasonable case for the lack of objective morality cannot be 'totally destroyed' - if it could, it would have been centuries (millennia?) ago; it hasn't been.

It seems to me that while society is more stable with a moral code.

It is; this is why it has evolved.

It's not enough to
Not commit adultery
It's not enough to
Not murder
Not steal
Not bear false witness
Not be greedy/covetous
Not disrespect your parents
Not not work 7 days a week.

There has to be reasons why you should not do these things.

What you think 'has to be' is not an argument for it being the case.

I.e., love.

And love has to be more than simply having sex whenever you want.

Love has to be far more profound than sexual and emotional ties.

Love, the kind of love that validates, and places value on another person, just for the sake of their existence, and makes them worth fighting for has to exist.

And that kind of love.... requires YHVH to make possible.

All of this is completely unsupported.

Humans have demonstrated for millennia that left to their own devices, they do not possess the will to love in a manner that makes a stable life.

That is simply false. There is insufficient evidence that humans have ever been not "left to their own devices" and, obviously, millions of them have indeed "love[d] in a manner that makes a stable life."

 

[Howie]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

No. Without God human morality is subjective.

 

[The Pixie]

...So the professor started off introducing him, stating why he'd invited him and then asked him to argue that morality apart from God was real.

Within seconds the judge had totally destroyed the professor's case.

Apparently, the capacity for human morality is not an inherently sustainable idea. Once God is removed from the equation, there's no point to it....

So you cannot present his argument,. All you have to offer is the claim that this guy had a good argument.

Weak, even by your standards, Steve.

Live and die as you please.
There'll be no judgment, no justice, no vindication, and no point.
If God doesn't exist, then nobody will be watching over your shoulder to see if you actually invest yourself wisely.

But that is no reason to suppose absolutely morality does not exist - only that there is no one enforcing it.

And let us be honest, there is precious little evidence of anyone enforcing it. People get away with doing evil all the time and it is let to man to try to punish them.

 

[SteveB]

The rather biased claims that the judge "totally destroyed the professor's case and that "the professor had his entire argument and subsequent attempts laid waste" are amusing but not substantial. I doubt very much that either is true, because a reasonable case for the lack of objective morality cannot be 'totally destroyed' - if it could, it would have been centuries (millennia?) ago; it hasn't been.

You can indeed believe they were biased. Unless you were actually there.... EDITED RULE 12. A great job of doing so by the way.

EDITED RULE 22, in spite of your complete lack of awareness of the event and circumstances.

It is; this is why it has evolved.

So, if you're living in a society where murder is acceptable by law, because the governing body has decided that humans are not in fact "persons", how does that work?

After all, in 1800's America, blacks were not "persons", until 650,000 American citizens fought and died to make them so.

In nazi Germany leading up to and during world war 2, Jews were not classified as"persons" by the government of Germany.
6 million were slaughtered.

Now, we're experiencing a period in human history where unborn children are not classified as "persons" and have been being slaughtered to the order of 40 to 50 million per year, worldwide.

In China, Uygur muslims have been declassified by the Chinese government as persons, and are either being imprisoned or slaughtered.
I read yesterday that they're also being used as Guinea pigs for a new technology which is being purported to do mind control.

What you think 'has to be' is not an argument for it being the case.

That's the great thing about reality. It doesn't require your permission or approval to be what it is.

All of this is completely unsupported.

Of course not. It's an historical event that occurred 22 years ago, at a local eclectic restaurant in the town where I live.

Sorry you missed it. I'm guessing it's because nobody was ever informed of your existence at the time.

EDITED RULE 22 as you've been in describing your contempt and disgust with anything you don't agree, I highly doubt you would have survived it.
Based entirely on your previously established views, I'm quite confident that you would have jumped up, and began berating the judge for your own disgust.
Ironically, I think that the professor would have grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and thrown you out for being so rude, and disrespectful of a sitting state district court judge.

That is simply false. There is insufficient evidence that humans have ever been not "left to their own devices" and, obviously, millions of them have indeed "love[d] in a manner that makes a stable life."

You clearly missed the point.

It's because YHVH actually exists and wrote his law on our hearts, and minds. Exactly as he described.

Rom 2:12-16 WEB 12 For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it isn’t the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

 

[ydoaPs]

No. Without God human morality is subjective.

Then God does not exist. Here's the proof; it has one premise, the rest follows via logic:

1) It is not true that if God doesn't exist, then objective moral facts exist. [Premise]
2) It is not true that either God exists or objective moral facts exist. [Material Implication: 1]
3) God doesn't exist and objective moral facts don't exist. [De Morgans Theorem: 2]
4) Therefore, God does not exist. [Simplification: 3]

 

[SteveB]

So you cannot present his argument,. All you have to offer is the claim that this guy had a good argument.

Irritating! Isn't it!!!
That's what happens when you are not johnny on the ball, and present for such events.
Sorry I didn't think to record it for you. Not like I was aware of your existence back then.

Sorry too for having 4 more cancer surgeries after that, and having other, far more important and life-threatening issues face me following that event.

Next time I'll make sure that you are invited.
Will that help you?

Weak, even by your standards, Steve.

It's a good thing that I wasn't looking for your approval or permission to live my life.

But that is no reason to suppose absolutely morality does not exist - only that there is no one enforcing it.

Oh, I don't know.
Looking at north Korea, communist China, Islamic governments, and other tyrannical governments on planet earth, it's pretty clear to me that morality is like a breeze.

Without any outside accountability, it changes with the changing winds.

And let us be honest, there is precious little evidence of anyone enforcing it. People get away with doing evil all the time and it is let to man to try to punish them.

Yep.

Which means that the fact you are aware that morality exists and the violation of a moral code is a problem means that YHVH wrote it on your heart.

Rom 2:12-16 WEB 12 For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it isn’t the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

So, congratulations!
You have definitively demonstrated that YHVH is real and he did exactly what he said he would.

Which is pretty much what the Judge argued in his discussion.

Man! You guys always end up providing corroboration to YHVH's reality.


Kudos!

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Is it true that if God doesn't exist, that objective moral facts exist?

Don't be silly!!! If there's no GOD, then we're all nothing but animals, and there is no ABSOLUTE "Right", or "Wrong" except as we socially manufacture our own concepts of them.

God has provided a written categorization of what - according to HIS ABSOLUTE STANDARDS - classifies RIGHTEOUSNESS, and SIN. (Rom 3:20)

Man, however has invented his OWN SUBJECTIVE Standards which he calls "Morals", "Ethics", and "Civil laws" - which change with the phases of the Moon, and are based on nothing other that the whims of society.

In some cases they will MATCH God's standards, and in some cases they will not.

 

[Howie]

Then God does not exist. Here's the proof; it has one premise, the rest follows via logic:

1) It is not true that if God doesn't exist, then objective moral facts exist. [Premise]
2) It is not true that either God exists or objective moral facts exist. [Material Implication: 1]
3) God doesn't exist and objective moral facts don't exist. [De Morgans Theorem: 2]
4) Therefore, God does not exist. [Simplification: 3]

Sigh.

Fact: Without God, human is subjective.

A Proof: The changng morality on display today.

My guess: you see no changing morality on display today.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You can indeed believe they were biased. Unless you were actually there.... you only demonstrate your ignorance. A great job of doing so by the way.

Not interested in your ad hominem and insult.

I think that you need to feel important, in spite of your complete lack of awareness of the event and circumstances.

Not interested in your ad hominem and insult.

So, if you're living in a society where murder is acceptable by law, because the governing body has decided that humans are not in fact "persons", how does that work?

It doesn't.

After all, in 1800's America, blacks were not "persons", until 650,000 American citizens fought and died to make them so.

And?

In nazi Germany leading up to and during world war 2, Jews were not classified as"persons" by the government of Germany.
6 million were slaughtered.

And?

Now, we're experiencing a period in human history where unborn children are not classified as "persons" and have been being slaughtered to the order of 40 to 50 million per year, worldwide.

And?

In China, Uygur muslims have been declassified by the Chinese government as persons, and are either being imprisoned or slaughtered.
I read yesterday that they're also being used as Guinea pigs for a new technology which is being purported to do mind control.

And?

That's the great thing about reality. It doesn't require your permission or approval to be what it is.

I'm not the one claiming that reality is what "seems" to me.

Of course not. It's an historical event that occurred 22 years ago, at a local eclectic restaurant in the town where I live.

Yes, it is and no, it's not an event - it's a bunch of unsupported claims by you.

Sorry you missed it. I'm guessing it's because nobody was ever informed of your existence at the time.

Not interested.

Although, as arrogantly as you've been in describing your contempt and disgust with anything you don't agree, I highly doubt you would have survived it.
Based entirely on your previously established views, I'm quite confident that you would have jumped up, and began berating the judge for your own disgust.
Ironically, I think that the professor would have grabbed you by the scruff of your neck and thrown you out for being so rude, and disrespectful of a sitting state district court judge.

Not interested in your ad hominem.

You clearly missed the point.

The point is your unsupported religious beliefs.

t's because YHVH actually exists and wrote his law on our hearts, and minds. Exactly as he described.

Rom 2:12-16 WEB 12 For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it isn’t the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

Pointless biblical quotes - not interested.

Can you actually make argument outside of insults, ad hominem and "God said so"?

 

[Eightcrackers]

Then God does not exist. Here's the proof; it has one premise, the rest follows via logic:

1) It is not true that if God doesn't exist, then objective moral facts exist. [Premise]
2) It is not true that either God exists or objective moral facts exist. [Material Implication: 1]
3) God doesn't exist and objective moral facts don't exist. [De Morgans Theorem: 2]
4) Therefore, God does not exist. [Simplification: 3]

Let G = "god exists" and O = "objective moral facts exist", and re-render the above:

1. ¬(¬G -> O)
2. ¬(G OR O)
3. ¬G AND ¬O
4. ¬G.

The problem lies with #2 - while you are correct that the premise entails "not one OR the other", the OR here is really an XOR, not an inclusive OR, and De Morgans law only applies to the latter.

The possibility remains that BOTH G and O are true.