Author Topic: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid  (Read 668 times)

honesttruthseeker

  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Here is why. Any defender of this argument must say why "good" and "bad" are objective. If you are going to say "good" and "bad" are objective because of God's fiat, then you must realize that in the end there is no difference between right and wrong for God, because God's character alone determines he will always behave well, and this contradicts the Bible. If you say that "good" and "bad" exist independently as objective categories apart from God, then you must admit that what is "good" and "bad" are features of the world independent of God's commands, and that makes the argument nugatory.

Dogbyte

  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2017, 11:40:37 AM »
Here is why. Any defender of this argument must say why "good" and "bad" are objective. If you are going to say "good" and "bad" are objective because of God's fiat, then you must realize that in the end there is no difference between right and wrong for God, because God's character alone determines he will always behave well, and this contradicts the Bible. If you say that "good" and "bad" exist independently as objective categories apart from God, then you must admit that what is "good" and "bad" are features of the world independent of God's commands, and that makes the argument nugatory.

I am interested to know if you have read any material on, or heard any objections to the Euthyphro Dilemma? If so, what is your view as to why they fail and instead the dilemma remains?

Aaron Massey

  • Posts: 4988
  • absit iniuria verbis
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2017, 09:05:57 PM »
Here is why. Any defender of this argument must say why "good" and "bad" are objective. If you are going to say "good" and "bad" are objective because of God's fiat, then you must realize that in the end there is no difference between right and wrong for God, because God's character alone determines he will always behave well, and this contradicts the Bible. If you say that "good" and "bad" exist independently as objective categories apart from God, then you must admit that what is "good" and "bad" are features of the world independent of God's commands, and that makes the argument nugatory.

Well the argument is not wether God thinks things are good or bad.   The argument is, if Morality is Objective (independant of Man, nature etc..) Then they must have a source.  That source is best explained by having a God.

But, you do highlight the problem of who decides the epistemology of this objective morality, what is moral, and what isnt.

IMO, Im of the "Might makes Right" view, which is makes it alot easier. 
  God is supreme and what he says Goes, even if he allows otherwise for a time.
Either you share Gods will or you dont.   Your choice.

1: God exists because he is the best explanation for the existence of objective Morality.
2: God is the powerful and there fore the most fitting to decide how moral laws ought be.
3: The bible represents the Law God wants us to follow.
Proverbs 8:30 "then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

aleph naught

  • Posts: 7328
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2017, 10:16:56 AM »
Here is why. Any defender of this argument must say why "good" and "bad" are objective. If you are going to say "good" and "bad" are objective because of God's fiat, then you must realize that in the end there is no difference between right and wrong for God, because God's character alone determines he will always behave well, and this contradicts the Bible. If you say that "good" and "bad" exist independently as objective categories apart from God, then you must admit that what is "good" and "bad" are features of the world independent of God's commands, and that makes the argument nugatory.

Sounds like you're trying to get at the Euthyphro dilemma, which fails against modern theistic accounts of morality (which take the relationship between God and morality as being metaphysical identity rather than grounding).

Edit: you can say does goodness ground God's nature or does God's nature ground goodness? It cannot be both. But notice this dichotomy fails when you frame it in terms of identity. Is a likeness to God's nature identical to goodness, or is goodness identical to a likeness to God's nature? If it's either then it is both.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 10:29:01 AM by aleph naught »

aleph naught

  • Posts: 7328
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2017, 10:26:21 AM »
Actually Craig would agree that God does not have moral obligations, but that's different from saying that he is not good or that he does not do good things. Good and evil are distinct from right and wrong.

On Craig's view, to do right or wrong is to obey or disobey God's commands. And then to be good or evil is to be like or unlike God's "moral character". Clearly Craig needs to spell this out more, I think he would say that to be good or evil is to be like or unlike God in how one treats others. Both these views, I think, have problems. But the problems do not invalidate the moral argument. The moral argument is definately valid, it's an instance of modus tollens.

Rostos

  • Posts: 10234
    • View Profile
Here is why. Any defender of this argument must say why "good" and "bad" are objective. If you are going to say "good" and "bad" are objective because of God's fiat, then you must realize that in the end there is no difference between right and wrong for God, because God's character alone determines he will always behave well, and this contradicts the Bible. If you say that "good" and "bad" exist independently as objective categories apart from God, then you must admit that what is "good" and "bad" are features of the world independent of God's commands, and that makes the argument nugatory.

If objective morality doessnt exist, then how can you say Gods character of good contradicts the bible?

If OM doesnt exist, then by what standard is the bible not good?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2017, 02:55:48 AM by Rostos »
"My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
Isiah 55:8

"For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." - Mathew 23-12