@sonship
It is ambiguous sometimes what the scope of that "community" is. It is not definite what constitutes the boundaries of the "community". Is is defined by the limits of the town? is it described as the limits of the state? Does the community always end at the shore line or the national boundary?
The "community" I am referring to would be members satisfying at least all the following: (a) they actually exist (b) they merit moral consideration based on the type of entities they are (c) their circumstances are within the influence of your moral dealings and activities. Yes, you are correct that there exists contention over the delimitation of such a community; one need to look no further than the subject of abortion or animal rights, as examples, to see that. I'm not sure how pointing out such contrariety of opinion is relevant.
Secondly the effect of one's doing as to consequences requires knowledge which is finite. Only God could know the ultimate ripples of effect my decisions would make in the largest sense. What impact my action may have on the fabric of the whole world and whole history would only be known by one transcendent over all the world and over history.
One does not need perfect and comprehensive knowledge of the consequences of one's moral activity in order to be able to reasonably identify those to whom one owes moral duties or obligations. And, surely, one does not need such perfect knowledge in order to provide counterexamples to your claim that all such duties are owed to God.
So the moral duties you relate, I agree, have practical application. We could live by such realizations in society. But with these limitations some justice will not be meted out. And if you want to admit that some people will just get away with some things and others will not be rewarded for some things. I suppose that system works somewhat….But I think that leads to a limited moral obligations in which many actions will escape the justice due them because they slipped through the cracks of human limited awareness. Society will miss many things. Society will make mistakes because of human error. And how wide is the scope of "society" anyway?
Yes, news flash: social systems of justice in the real world are imperfect. By and large, we do the best we can under limited resources and knowledge. But there are some who intentionally subvert the system; and there are other instances where things fall through the cracks despite good intentions, as well as other systemic failings. The imperfection of human social systems is a rather trivial observation. Nothing of interest with respect to the moral argument for God follows from it. It lends precisely zero weight toward either substantive premise. When you try to imply otherwise, you are inferentially challenged.
If you know of some definite rebuttals after the fact towards quotations of Moreland or Craig, I'll look at them.
I'd rather do it that way because I don't recall precise details of my quoting either one of them.
You could revisit the later stages of our exchange here:
Thread 158249.
It may not have to do with one's belief in God.
But it does have to do with HOW did this sense get into the person?
No, this is another mistake on your part. The etiological particulars of our moral faculty are not relevant to the legitimacy of those reasons that we evaluate when we employ it. Regardless of how our moral faculties came about, it is a further question regarding the legitimacy of the types of considerations we process through them. (FYI, irrelevant though it is, our moral faculties came about through evolutionary processes under various selection pressures – the same as every other one of our faculties).
That grounding morality in God is "garbage" does nothing for me to establish your view as more legitimate.
And if you have a system of VALUE so that some concepts are morally worthless - garbage, I think it presupposes human dignity. But what basis is there for that exalted view of human worth if a cockroach is just as good as a human being in your atheistic scheme?
I don't have an "atheistic scheme" according to which "a cockroach is just as good as a human being". So your question is predicated on a false antecedent. You might want to actually study some secular ethics; it would help dissolve your caricature-laden understanding of atheistic morality. This is a complete, utter failure of other-perspective-taking on your part. You are so entrenched in your provincial theistic understanding that you cannot take up an honest view of atheism even under hypothetical posit. A self-sustaining milieu and inculcation of theism has thoroughly trashed your ability to be honest and genuine on this point. If you were honest in this respect, you would know that we all characteristically share human concerns irrespective of theism/atheism dividing lines.
My comment about "post-hoc garbage" was in reference to KJ’s theoretical commitments regarding human value. It is something I have already discussed in some detail with the "schizophrenia" that occurs between present-moment practice and post-hoc theory:
Thread 173001.
I said human dignity is derived from the fact that we are made in the image of God. That's who you are trying to deny yet stealing from a God acknowledgment world view to hold on to human dignity.
You have presented no actual argument for the idea that one can consistently hold to human dignity only if he holds to a God acknowledgement. That relates to one of the substantive premises of the moral argument that no one has actually bothered to demonstrate.
Your caricature of God is coming across. I see nothing more than your sense of ungrateful resentment of God being an authority.
No, your caricature of atheism is coming across. I do not have a "sense of ungrateful resentment of God being an authority" because I do not even think the concept 'God' has an actual referent! That is simply definitional to atheism.
But the presence of a conscience is what I deal with at the moment, and HOW it arrived to exist in men whether they be thiests or not.
I'm not sure why you continually belabor this point. It has nothing to do with the moral argument for God's existence! At any rate, we already discussed this several times in past threads. The hypothesis that God exists is completely unnecessary (and, frankly, ontologically profligate) to explain something like the origins of human moral faculty, conscience, etc.
Interesting. The feverish passion seemed to be coming from your side to announce to the world that it is "garbage" to believe in a Creator as a source of dignity, who in turn bestowed it upon man.
I thought the feverish passion was displayed by your retorts of "childishness" and "garbage" in the presence of an inadequate grounding for ultimate moral goodness.
Obviously, you are having some trouble reading, since that is an atrocious redescription of what I wrote. Feel free to go back and re-read.
Well let's ask you this. If great maturity and final utmost development of morality was ever expressed in a person who lived on this earth, to whom would you say most clearly manifested that kind of unchildish HIGH moral sense ?
Any names as you review the contributions of the life and words of those who have lived on earth since man existed ?
I think to that person we should consider his or her views on the matter of ultimate standards of goodness and accountability.
So what person in history do you think is most authoritative and mature in that arena ?
All utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I don’t have to appeal to any historic authority figures in order to orient my ethical commitments. Luckily, I have cleansed my thinking of such nonsense. That’s a deep notional misunderstanding that affects your position, not mine.
27 Nov '18 05:10
The Moral Argument for God's Existence
Back to Top