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.

1

Dogbyte

  • **
  • 394 Posts
    • 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?

2

Aaron Massey

  • ****
  • 5483 Posts
  • 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."

3

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • 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 »

4

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • 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.

5

Rostos

  • *****
  • 10415 Posts
    • 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

6

jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2018, 04:46:07 pm »
You appear to be arguing that fiat arising from character would be meaningless. That is to say, if God’s character is good, He’d define good from Himself, and not from mere choice (as it seems to assert in the Bible). This appears to me to be a sound argument, though I’m unsure where you’re getting the idea the Bible says otherwise, perhaps from Genesis? If God’s character is good, He does not need to define “good” or “bad” for Himself. Or as you put it, there is no use for this term “bad,” because everything from God is good.

The point of the moral argument, is what God declares for the creatures, not for Himself. Men do not have good characters, otherwise evil would not erupt from them continually. God can say men are doing evil compared to what He would call good, should He embody as the Christians believe occurred with Jesus. Furthermore He can define this in terms of the long-term good of their own souls, with which their daily actions are often at variance. Having created the soul, God knows what is best for it, but moreover the one who created all the souls, would not want to see them in enmity. Thus where enmity exists one can say the humans are failing the expected standards for the created souls.

The bigger question of the moral argument is whether men can define objective standards of good without reference to God, which is more or less a restatement of your final proposition here. It is clear that men are establishing standards beyond the individual, in the millions of laws on the books across the globe, not to mention the private agreements such as tipping a hat to a lady or leaving a tip at a restaurant. Yet at best such standards are temporally limited, as each man dies and is heard from no more. He contributed to the standard and then leaves, so while he contributed to the objective good of the society, none of that concerns him any more. It only does if there is a God, and his soul immortal.

The still larger question, irrespective of anyone’s belief in God, is that if there is a God, whether He agrees that the standards men decided for their society are meeting the true good of the world that He created. This is not a standard apart from God’s character. God is good, therefore He wants the best for His creation and its creatures. How you would know that, or whether anyone would even care, is still another question…

7

Wretch

  • ***
  • 2494 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2019, 10:39:26 am »
This explanation is simple and easy to understand.

Objective morality being founded in God according to his eternal unchanging nature means that stealing isn't wrong because God says so, or because God apprehends so, but rather that stealing is objectively wrong because God, the omnicient, omnipotent, eternal author of creation is not a thief. 

Nor is God a liar.

Nor is God unjust in any way.

Nor is God unfaithful.

But us?  Most of us are covetous liars, thieves, blasphemers, and adulterers at heart, and more.

We are all guilty of grave evil, crimes against objective goodness.  It's only our own dark hearts that set our own standards for morality that allows us to think ourselves as good, well because we're not as bad as that other guy!  Arrogance.  Contriving our own subjective morality in opposition to the one True logos of true objective morality.

But there is good news, for our Creator is also loving, and has Himself experienced our fallen world in the flesh, yet remained unblemished by sin, choosing on our behalf to pay the penalty for our unrighteousness, so that we may be set free, washed clean of our moral failings and reborn anew in Him.  We need to pray for God to reveal Himself to us so we may sincerely confess our sin and repent of our foolish evil ways.  There is nothing so beautiful as a spirit born anew in Christ.  The world transformed.  Truth in amazing Grace.

I'm a wretch.  I know. 


8

jayceeii

  • **
  • 480 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: It doesn't seem to me that the moral argument can be logically valid
« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2019, 12:21:39 pm »
Objective morality being founded in God according to his eternal unchanging nature means that stealing isn't wrong because God says so, or because God apprehends so, but rather that stealing is objectively wrong because God, the omnicient, omnipotent, eternal author of creation is not a thief. 
You are arguing from a dualistic perspective, presuming that God shares human traits, in particular here an ownership concept. In general all the religions are to be faulted in failing to try to imagine what society is like among angels, although there is belief in Heaven. The angels might not say, “This is mine and that is yours,” and if they don’t, it’s certain that God doesn’t either. A thief only appears once people decide ownership is OK.

In general God’s problem is that having spawned (given rise to) the creatures, they hold one another in ill-regard, even rejoicing when another may be in sorrow. The true guilt in stealing is not from taking something another has called his own, but from creating inconvenience or hardship by the act. It seems inevitable that when the ownership concept leaves the mind, so would this tendency to inconvenience the others by taking something they had been depending on for everyday use. Heaven doesn’t know a “thief.”