A comment on this topic:
There are no doubt difficult moral problems. There are ethical decisions which are difficult to make with a 100% assurance that one has done the morally best thing.
We have the law of Moses. Even with the law of Moses there still remains very difficult situations in which it appears a delimma as to what the morally best thing to do is. It should be evident that the Bible itself brings this out.
In addition we have some moral systems of various societies. Some better probably, some worst. But even with man's best moral codes difficult situations can arise revealing a dilemma as to exactly what is the best response.
In short, every code including the law of God given through Moses, is not totally free from being at times tricky to apply in some paradoxical situation.
While I believe an ultimate and perfect morality exists, I think given it as a lifeless "code" to follow with eventually expose some moral dilemmas that even the best intention-ed are left perplexed.
Am I wrong that critics of the Moral Argument for the existence of God will usually frame their criticism in terms of these dilemmas, contradictions, and difficult ethics situations.
"Where is your absolute moral standard in coded form? What about this situation? What would you're perfect absolute moral code say then to do ? See the problem? So we object to some absolute moral standard."
Am I right that this is often how the debate goes on a Moral argument for the existence of God ?
I think I am right. And I think the objector has a point. It is here that I would briefly point out the profound earliest chapters of the Bible. It portrays the newly created man as neutral between two ways of living:
1.) the knowledge of good and evil as represented in "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"
2.) the life of God Himself imparted represented by "the tree of life".
That should be enough to get me into a little bit of trouble.
Man was between two principles of existence - the knowledge of good and evil and divine and eternal life.
Man can live independently from God but with a knowledge of morality.
Or man can live in an "organic" oneness and unity with the Perfect uncreated Person Who is the ultimate reality of life.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you don't believe the miracles detailed in the bible then?
According to the nature of logic a belief is either logical or it isn't. Logic is not influenced by superstitions. You cannot expect me to accept an illogical argument or belief. If you want to, you are free to do so.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI really do not think that that follows. Your claim is that there are moral absolutes and give the meaning of moral absolute as the moral system applying to all agents. However, you also seem to have the meaning for moral absolute that there is a single canonical system of morality. You then claim that someone not holding to moral absolutes means that one must, of necessity, hold to a moral system which involves privileged agents. This is a non sequitur. Although in your theory of the absolute moral system that it is the canonical moral system entails that it is universal, there is no a priori reason for thinking that because it is canonical it is necessarily universal. Similarly you are neglecting the possibility that a non-canonical moral system can be universal, in the sense of applying to everyone equally. So although Hitler may have thought he was in the right there is no reason for you to apply any system of morality to the facts surrounding him than you would to yourself.
I currently believe in moral absolutes. Which means what is wrong for me is wrong for everyone. So because I believe it is wrong for me to kill millions of people I also believe it is wrong for Hitler to kill millions of people. So that is consistent with my current beliefs.
If on the other hand I were to hold your beliefs that there are no moral abs ...[text shortened]... wouldn't be consistent with my belief that what is wrong for me is not wrong for everyone else.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat compelling reason could I possibly have that a non-canonical moral system can be universal? Also who or what could I possibly posit to be the lawgiver of such a universal moral system? If you feel you can posit a more compelling explanation for the existence of a universal moral system (apart from a canonical one) feel free to lay it before me, I am all ears.
I really do not think that that follows. Your claim is that there are moral absolutes and give the meaning of moral absolute as the moral system applying to all agents. However, you also seem to have the meaning for moral absolute that there is a single canonical system of morality. You then claim that someone not holding to moral absolutes means that ...[text shortened]... for you to apply any system of morality to the facts surrounding him than you would to yourself.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatHave you ever heard of a philosophical presupposition? Is it logical to assume the non-existence of the supernatural?
How can it be logical to assume the existence of the supernatural?
Is the following sentence not logical?
"If the supernatural exists, miracles are possible."
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkPresupposing the existence of the supernatural is illogical.
Have you ever heard of a philosophical presupposition? Is it logical to assume the non-existence of the supernatural?
Is the following sentence not logical?
"If the supernatural exists, miracles are possible."
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWhy do you think so?
Presupposing the existence of the supernatural is illogical.
As far as I can tell, universal, unchanging, and immaterial entities like the laws of logic have a firm foundation in the context of Christian theism. Atheism cannot account for them. Atheism undermines them.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, with respect, you have repeatedly argued that logically, if one rejects the concept of moral absolutes one is obliged to accept that all moral positions are equally valid which is clearly nonsense. I don't think you have a very good handle on logic, so I'm really not inclined to put much effort into discussing this with you. Feel free to explain how not believing in god undermines the laws of logic though, I expect that will prove amusing.
Why do you think so?
As far as I can tell, universal, unchanging, and immaterial entities like the laws of logic have a firm foundation in the context of Christian theism. Atheism cannot account for them. Atheism undermines them.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOk for starters how do you account for the immaterial laws of logic when you only believe in that which is material?
Well, with respect, you have repeatedly argued that logically, if one rejects the concept of moral absolutes one is obliged to accept that all moral positions are equally valid which is clearly nonsense. I don't think you have a very good handle on logic, so I'm really not inclined to put much effort into discussing this with you. Feel free to explai ...[text shortened]... how not believing in god undermines the laws of logic though, I expect that will prove amusing.
Not so amusing now is it my dear feline friend?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat compelling reason do you have that there is such a thing as a canonical moral system?
What compelling reason could I possibly have that a non-canonical moral system can be universal? Also who or what could I possibly posit to be the lawgiver of such a universal moral system? If you feel you can posit a more compelling explanation for the existence of a universal moral system (apart from a canonical one) feel free to lay it before me, I am all ears.
What moral systems do is assign a value (acceptable or unacceptable) to a state of affairs. All the moral system needs to do is assign values to propositions so that no agents have privileges, in other words if something is unacceptable for one person to do it is unacceptable for all others. This is what I meant by universal. If by universal you mean universally applicable then all moral systems automatically are because of what they do. That one agent does not believe a moral system is applicable to them is irrelevant, moral systems are objective in that sense. Whether the agent cares or can be made to care about the unacceptability of whatever the state of affairs that is being judged is another matter and not related to the system of morality itself.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI find the Bible to be a compelling revelation of God. Let us test your theory and use you as an example. Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
What compelling reason do you have that there is such a thing as a canonical moral system?
What moral systems do is assign a value (acceptable or unacceptable) to a state of affairs. All the moral system needs to do is assign values to propositions so that no agents have privileges, in other words if something is unacceptable for one person to do it ...[text shortened]... affairs that is being judged is another matter and not related to the system of morality itself.