Can objective moral values exist without God?

Originally posted by Darfius
In other words, is the cannibalism going on in the Congo right now wrong? Why or why not?[/b]

What cannibalism? I don't think they are eating each other at present...


Is it right or wrong? Ask the Congolese? It's certainly not something I wish to entertain in my community, but they may have reasons that I have not thought of that seems rational to them.

Originally posted by Darfius
Discuss

Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

Take some act A that you consider to be morally good. Now, is A morally good because God commands that A be done, or does God command that A be done because A is morally good independently of God's command?

The question here is one of explanatory priority. Do God's commands and prohibitions explain moral goodness and badness, or does independently existing moral goodness and badness explain why God commands and forbids various acts?

Here is an analogy. When I was a child my mother told me not to bite other children (or so I'm told). Now, is biting other children wrong because my mother said so, or did my mother tell me not to bite other children because biting children was wrong independently of her command? Obviously, my mother didn't make it the case that biting other children was wrong. So it must be the case that biting children was wrong independently of what my mother's command. Now, is it similar with God's commands, or does God simply bring it about by fiat that some acts are morally good and others morally bad?

Hopefully you realize that these are all ways of asking the exact same question.

So, whaddya think?

Thanks bbar. I don't have the patience to respond directly to Darfius any longer and have made this public. I wish you better results in your probe for honest debate with this member of the Holier-Than-Thou Alliance than you have often received from his Catholic counterpart.

That said, I would like state for a third time in this thread, "Darfius should read (re-read) Platos' 'Euthyphro.'"

The text is much shorter than The Case for Faith, and its author is far more perspicacious than Lee Strobel.

Originally posted by bbarr
Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

Take some act A that you consider to be morally good. Now, is A morally good because God commands that A be done, or does God command that A be done because A is morally good independently of God's command?

The question here is one of explanatory priority. Do God's comman ...[text shortened]... lly you realize that these are all ways of asking the exact same question.

So, whaddya think?

Did you have a natural tendency to bite children that your mother had to curb, Bennett? Even more worryingly, has she succeeded in eradicating it???

If something is objectively good before God endorses it, then we are still left with Darfius's question of what makes something objectively good, because God would not be making it objectively good.

The trouble is, of course, that declaring something to be objectively good, no matter how powerful or wise you are, doesn't suffice to make it objectively good. At least, I can't see how it does. Declaring that 2+2=5 doesn't make it objectively true; declaring that playing chess is bad doesn't make it objectively bad. (Nor indeed does declaring 2+2=4 is true *make* it objectively true, or declaring that chess is good *make* it objectively good.)

Darfius, if you think otherwise, you will have to elucidate the mysterious mechanism whereby declarations, by virtue of the power and wisdom of the being declaring them, turn initially neutral (or alternatively valenced) things into good or bad things.

Tell me, is there any initially apparently bad thing that God couldn't make good just by declaring it? Rape, murder, pillage, Bennett biting babies -- that sort of thing? Or is there any initially apparently good thing that God couldn't make bad just by declaring it? Charity, fortitude, bravery, intelligence -- that sort of thing?

Originally posted by Maustrauser
What cannibalism? I don't think they are eating each other at present...


Is it right or wrong? Ask the Congolese? It's certainly not something I wish to entertain in my community, but they may have reasons that I have not thought of that seems rational to them.

Yeah, it looks like they are.

Check this out:

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/congo3.html

Originally posted by bbarr
Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

Take some act A that you consider to be morally good. Now, is A morally good because God commands that A be done, or does God command that A be done because A is morally good independently of God's command?

The question here is one of explanatory priority. Do God's comman ...[text shortened]... lly you realize that these are all ways of asking the exact same question.

So, whaddya think?

Christians do not claim there is objective morality because of God's commands, we make the claim that He has set right from wrong in our hearts and we know when we are doing either.

So your question is difficult to answer.

Originally posted by Darfius
Christians do not claim there is objective morality because of God's commands, we make the claim that He has set right from wrong in our hearts and we know when we are doing either.

So your question is difficult to answer.

I don't understand what you mean.

First of all, I thought Eve set right from wrong in our hearts by eating the apple, and that this was a sinful act, according to your worldview.

Second, if God had not set right from wrong in our hearts, would it exist at all? Are right and wrong located only in our "hearts" or do they have an existence outside of our "hearts"? What if one person feels differently about the morality of an action than another?

Did God set in our hearts an understanding of morality which he knows about but cannot alter (that is, alter the morality)?

Did God create morality?

What defines morality? Is morality obeying God? If so, why does it feel wrong to so many that Isaac (or whoever it was) would have sacrificed his child when God commanded it? Why do so many (like me) judge God because we feel he does and did wrong things (if he exists as the Christians claim) if we have right and wrong in our "hearts"?

First of all, I thought Eve set right from wrong in our hearts by eating the apple, and that this was a sinful act, according to your worldview.

No, Eve knew it was wrong. She ate the apple out of greed. Sin entered the world through her, not right and wrong.

Second, if God had not set right from wrong in our hearts, would it exist at all?

No, and neither would we, not as we currently do, anyway.

Are right and wrong located only in our "hearts" or do they have an existence outside of our "hearts"?

Not literally in out hearts, but in our soul. We know right from wrong.

What if one person feels differently about the morality of an action than another?

That person has been warped and conditioned by environment to feel that way. Those brought up in a society based on warfare will have conditioned morals that are usually wrong, objectively.

Did God set in our hearts an understanding of morality which he knows about but cannot alter (that is, alter the morality)?

Don't understand the question.

Did God create morality?

No. He created us with the ability to tap into morality existent forever with Him.

What defines morality? Is morality obeying God?

Since God does everything morally right, yes, morality is obeying Him or doing what He would do in a situation.

If so, why does it feel wrong to so many that Isaac (or whoever it was) would have sacrificed his child when God commanded it?

It was Abraham (willing to sacrifice Isaac). It feels wrong because you do not know all of the information. God knows all, so if He had allowed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it would have served a greater purpose than what we could think. Notice, He did not allow it, however. He did it to test Abraham's loyalty to Him. Do you see the parallel? God sent His own son to die for all of us. To us, it seemed barbaric that they killed Jesus, but through Jesus' sacrifice, it opened the doorway for all of us to be forgiven. I'm not saying they set out to be morally right, but in the end, their morally wrong action helped save us all. To the disciples, it 'felt' wrong when Jesus was killed. But I'm sure after He rose again, they realized they just didn't have enough information to make a judgement call.

Why do so many (like me) judge God because we feel he does and did wrong things (if he exists as the Christians claim) if we have right and wrong in our "hearts"?

Because your right and wrong is tainted by environment. I assume you're American, Thousand? Well, in present-day America, society is obsessed with being politically correct. People are actually defending murdering babies because of a "woman's right to choose". Tell me, if I 'choose' to kill someone, why aren't I protected? This warped view of morality is due to a lack of foundation on God. Nowadays, being moral means not negatively affectiing someone else. But the definition of being moral is to make the good and just decision. Sometimes 'good' is best served by doing something that doesn't 'feel' right at first, but in the end serves the greater good.

Originally posted by Maustrauser
What cannibalism? I don't think they are eating each other at present...


Is it right or wrong? Ask the Congolese? It's certainly not something I wish to entertain in my community, but they may have reasons that I have not thought of that seems rational to them.

I'm asking if objective morality can exist without God. Since you told me to ask the Congolese, I assume you're agreeing they cannot, since they would offer me subjective moral values?

Originally posted by Darfius
[b]First of all, I thought Eve set right from wrong in our hearts by eating the apple, and that this was a sinful act, according to your worldview.

No, Eve knew it was wrong. She ate the apple out of greed. Sin entered the world through her, not right and wrong.

Second, if God had not set right from wrong in our hearts, would it exist at all? ...[text shortened]... y doing something that doesn't 'feel' right at first, but in the end serves the greater good.

According to the bible, eve was decieved. Adam "knew" it was wrong.

Please research this.

At least eight times in the New Testament the Apostle Paul states that one person was responsible for the fall of mankind, and twice he named that person as Adam (Rom 5:14; I Tim 2:14). In Genesis 5:2, God specifically called both man and woman Adam so one could surmise that Paul's attributing the fall of mankind to "Adam" actually meant both Adam and Eve. The right-wing religious conservatives have used this explanation for centuries as an argument to avoid passages that placed "the original sin" squarely on Adam's, not Eve's shoulders. Paul proclaimed in I Timothy 2:14, "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." This passage tells us without question that Eve was tricked by the subtle beast while Adam, having been forewarned of God, knew exactly what he was doing! "Adam was the clear-headed one who could have stopped the affair (the fall). All he had to say was, "Satan! Get out of my garden, and Eve, don't let me ever catch you talking to that snake again!" But he didn't. Who was responsible for sin? The Bible says Adam was!" [1]

In Genesis 3:13, when confronted by God, Eve was honest and straightforward and replied, "the serpent beguiled me and I did eat." Adam, on the other hand, blamed Eve, failed to be responsible for his actions and indirectly pointed an accusing finger directly at God with the statement, "the woman whom 'thou' gavest to be with me" (Gen 3:12). What he really meant was "God, this would not have happened if you had not given that woman to me!" Regardless of who committed the original sin, Eve since the very beginning of time has been a scapegoat and Genesis chapter 3 has been the foundation used by men and organized religion to force women into total submissiveness and domination by males (Gen 3:16).

Links : http://www.freedomsring.org/allgods/

relevant book : Bible

Originally posted by bbarr
Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

Take some act A that you consider to be morally good. Now, is A morally good because God commands that A be done, or does God command that A be done because A is morally good independently of God's command?

The question here is one of explanatory priority. Do God's comman ...[text shortened]... lly you realize that these are all ways of asking the exact same question.

So, whaddya think?

Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

If that's your idea of "fun" you really need to get away from philosophy school more often.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Let's just run through the Euthyphro question, it will be fun for everybody:

If that's your idea of "fun" you really need to get away from philosophy school more often.

I think Euthyphro's Dilemma tailored to the omnimax xtian god is quite fun. I've used it myself in threads back when I first joined here. With the exception of Huntingbear, every xtian who attempted to answer it got so tangled and twisted it reminded me of when my daughter got bubble gum in her hair. I didn't find Huntingbear's response to convincing either, but at least he didn't end up contradicting himself over and over. So far, Darfius is not on the path of Huntingbear.

The Euthyphro Dilemma as amended by Bennett in his post can be seperated as follows:

Choice 1:
"God's commands and prohibitions explain moral goodness and badness"

Choice 2:
"Independently existing moral goodness and badness explain why God commands and forbids various acts"

Darfius Response:

"Christians do not claim there is objective morality because of God's commands"

So not Choice 1; It must be Choice 2.

Darfius Seems to Contradict Himself

"[W]e make the claim that He has set right from wrong in our hearts and we know when we are doing either."

So basically Choice 1.

Unless, he means that God recognizes an independently existing goodness and badness, and God just choice to encode this knowledge onto our "souls," in which case we'd be back to Choice 2. If this is what Darfius meant, then we wouldn't have a contradiction but rather a complete sidestep of the question.

Euthypho's Dilemma is not concerned with what your god did with goodness and badness. It asks, "Where do these concepts originate?"
Have they been dictated by God or has God simply recognized their independent existence?

This is a good subject. I personally believe that there is a universal moral code or laws that are common to mankind. I will not attempt to answer were the morals came from in this post but to me at least there has to be some absolute standard or then everything is relative or subjective. I could kill steal and murder and who could say or judge that wrong?? menace71 (Manny)

Originally posted by Darfius
Christians do not claim there is objective morality because of God's commands, we make the claim that He has set right from wrong in our hearts and we know when we are doing either.

So your question is difficult to answer.

Darfius,

If --"He has set right from wrong in our hearts and we know when we are doing either" --then how do you account for the obvious existence of moral disagreement?

For example, you personally condone God sending of people to an agonizing eternity in hell for not believing what you believe. I don't.

Are you saying that, deep down, I really know that I should be believing what you believe, but am resisting acknowledging it?
Such insight into my mind!

It seems to me that I disagree with you because I genuinely believe--with every fibre of my being--that your metaphysical beliefs are morally perverse and sadistic.