Let me start with Premise 2—the idea that objective morality undeniably exists.
There are those who attempt to deny this truth, but ironically, the denial of objective morality’s existence is, in itself, an attempt at creating an objective moral truth.
Case in point: if there is no objective moral law that divides right from wrong, then everything is in fact justified ... which is effectively equivalent to saying that everything is objectively good, regardless of anyone’s opinions. And that is indeed a form of objective morality. So since even the attempted negation of objective morality ends up espousing objective morality, it is 100% safe to say that objective moral truth exists.
But if objective goodness exists (distinct from inferior, unnecessary evil), there must be some sort of explanatory ultimate that defines goodness, which leads us to the three fundamental worldviews: atheism, pantheism and theism. At this point in the debate, the Euthypro Dilemma is usually invoked, first by the atheist in an attempt to knock down the necessity of God for objective morality, then countered by the theist, then countered by the atheist, and back and forth until it results in infinite regression. Once the Dilemma has run its course, the debaters are forced to turn to other logical tools, since objective morality must have a stopping point. And we are again left with our three basic worldviews:
But before we start looking at the implications of objective morality’s existence for worldviews, it is important to note that the old adage of “there is no good without evil” is totally false. At first it seems ironclad—if there’s an up, there’s a down. If there’s a right, there’s a left. So doesn’t evil somehow help lend good its substance? As a necessary opposite—two sides of the same eternal coin? In a word, no.
To demonstrate why evil is not goodness’s necessary opposite, simply look at good and evil through the same lens as truth and falsehood. Truth stands true on its own, but falsehood only gains its definition by contradicting/perverting truth. The same is true of good and evil. Life can exist just fine without murder, but murder only gains its definition by attacking life. Sex can exist just fine without rape, but rape is a brutal perversion of sex. A similar duality holds for every other good thing and its evil counterpart. The good has substance in itself, whereas the evil is always parasitic on the good. Translation: there is good without evil, but there is no evil without good. Evil is inherently inferior and unnecessary.
Notice that, if God exists then, as the creator of all things and as an omniscient being, nothing is independent of his perception or opinion. No statement can be true without God believing that it is true, and nothing can occur without God perceiving and permitting it to occur.
Quote from: aleph naught on January 03, 2017, 10:11:42 amNotice that, if God exists then, as the creator of all things and as an omniscient being, nothing is independent of his perception or opinion. No statement can be true without God believing that it is true, and nothing can occur without God perceiving and permitting it to occur.You are absolutely correct! Where your flaw in logic occurs is you equate God as a dependent being (or a created one). God isn't dependent on any virtue or other being for anything (including God's existence). If God were dependent on any principals then his authority wouldn't be objective would it? Something greater would have to be the authority. God is the uncaused first cause. He is the truth, the way, and the light. He isn't bound by principals; He is them! He is the personal embodiment of truth. To equate God as a being with mere attitudes, which are fleeting, is immature logic that you haven't qualified with evidence. Attitude: manner, disposition, feeling, position, tendency, orientation. God is not subjective, like the philosophy of atheism, as you so eloquently put for me. The atheist sits on God's lap to slap Him in the face. Feet firmly planted in mid air, as the brilliant WLC puts it. The only duelist mind is yours. You pit your own beliefs against one another. A true belief contains sound logic and is based on true premises. Consistency is included in sound logic, but consistency without true premises leads to broken philosophy.
I didn't say that God is contingent or caused or created, or that he is subjective. But yes, God does have attitudes.
God is a person with beliefs and preferences which motivate his behavior, just like any other person. Sure God is unlike any other person in many respects, but he's still a person and has these basic personal characteristics.
My point was just that, given a dualistic view of morality, morality is both objective and compatible with atheism. And that theists aren't in any position to reject a dualistic view of morality offhand, since they themselves are committed to a form of dualism (i.e., dualism about the mind).
Quote from: aleph naught on January 03, 2017, 01:43:05 pmI didn't say that God is contingent or caused or created, or that he is subjective. But yes, God does have attitudes. Your logic presumes that God is as fallible and fickle minded as a created/caused being, which you then use to disqualify God as a moral law giver. How do you come to this conclusion? What evidence do you offer?
Quote from: aleph naught on January 03, 2017, 01:43:05 pmGod is a person with beliefs and preferences which motivate his behavior, just like any other person. Sure God is unlike any other person in many respects, but he's still a person and has these basic personal characteristics.God is like a person as in God has a person-hood meaning a self-consciousness or rational being. God has personal characteristics, but this doesn't disqualify God as being a moral law giver as I have described in my previous response.
Quote from: aleph naught on January 03, 2017, 01:43:05 pmMy point was just that, given a dualistic view of morality, morality is both objective and compatible with atheism. And that theists aren't in any position to reject a dualistic view of morality offhand, since they themselves are committed to a form of dualism (i.e., dualism about the mind).What do you mean dualistic view of morality? In what sense is objective morality compatible with atheism? How do you ground something to be morally objective (as defined below)? If you disagree with the definition below, please redefine and qualify the changes with evidence. Objective (source: definition.com)- existing independent of perception, individual conception, emotion, or personal bias. (TLDR-true regardless of opinion)
You're not answering my questions. Even worse, you are avoiding them. You aren't explaining you're beliefs; you are simply rejecting mine. You cannot reject a belief as false without explaining the truth.
My first post in this topic contained my definition of theism. I did state that God is not just a moral law giver, but that He alone is the embodiment of the moral law.
I'll make this very simple for you since you seem incapable of answering the most basic question. Make your case of what you believe to be true.
I hear you redefining objective morality as subjective in an attempt to reduce God to mere human fallibility. If that is true, you are saying that morality is subjective in every sense. If that is the case, then I ask, How do you know that the statements you are saying are true? If everything is subjective, then why are you even here on this forum? If you can't define the most basic concepts in this discussion, then there isn't much of a discussion to be had. Explain you thoughts fully or this conversation is done. Stating "No it doesn't, I haven't come to that conclusion" is not only an immature thought, but it doesn't say anything other than "I didn't say that." Give the readers and myself the respect and time it takes to make your case or don't do it at all.
The notion that "God is the embodiment of the moral law" would need some clarification. AFAIK moral law predates the emergence of contemporary versions of anthropomorphic gods, in fact the oldest remains of written moral laws or code of ethics were secular and much older than the Mosaic laws. One would thus have to be careful if one wants to specifically link the Abrahamic God with the origin of human morality.
One vital aspect of the argument seems to lie in the distinction between objective morality and morality, if such a distinction exists..? The term "objective moral values" are defined as qualities like kindness or love which are morally good independent of the belief of human beings (a.k.a. universal morality). Logically that would make a strong case for moral naturalism and could in fact be extended to members of our broader family of animals.
One possible answer to the definition of morality is “a set of principles describing how we ought to behave.” Morality is then defined as a certain set of ought-statements, and God seems to fit the explanation of why those ought-statements exist. That is not necessarily the case though. Our species evolved into highly skilled social animals, something that would probably not have happened if we were not able to fine-tune said behavioural patterns. The prominent school of thought among behavioural scientists today is that behaviour is exclusively driven by the interactions between genes and the environment (nature and nurture). So again, no God needed.
As soon as you reach five approved posts you'll be set free to post at your leisure. Sorry for the inconvenience but this keeps spam and other issues off the forum. Kind regards, Pathos.