- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:29 am to GeauxTigerTM
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:29 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:Something isn't moral because God commands it. God commands it because it is moral, and it is moral because it is in alignment with God's perfect and holy moral character.
Precisely. This is the problem with divine command theory in the way William Lane Craig has espoused it. once you declare that anything stated by god is "good" then all bets are off.
1
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:30 am to Flats
quote:
Not if you recognize God as an authority. We do that all the time with children, who can't understand why sometimes things are ok and sometimes they're not. If their brains can't process it we end up with "because I said so". If there's a God, the gap between that God and us is infinite orders of magnitude greater than the gap between us and a child.
Respectfully, this is excuse making for actions we know are wrong. Declaring that they must be good because god said so is just a way to look past what we understand is a bad act. Likewise, this exact same argument could be made from ANY religion and from their point of view it would be correct. We're then back to having to provide some sort of evidence for which one is correct, etc.
quote:
I don't really care for the way Craig explains that particular point
I've seen him declare that child murder would be fine if god commanded it. For some reason, many religious folks seem to think he's a great debater.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:30 am to Lima Whiskey
I'm honored
I'm a fan of yours
I'm a fan of yours
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:30 am to bfniii
quote:
in philosophy, this is what's known as a category mistake. what would be a "fact" to you of god's existence? spoiler alert: you will lose this contest.
Fact, truth, whatever. Can you Prove to me God’s existence?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:32 am to omarlittle
quote:Anyone can have morals. Anyone can have their own subjective moral standard.
So, I have to be on board with a magic man in the sky before I can have morals. Got it.
The issue at play is whether or not objective morality can exist if an objective (from the human perspective) moral law-giver doesn't exist. I propose that an objective moral standard cannot exist without God and therefore if God did not exist, there would be no objective morality to speak of, just an infinite number of subjective moral opinions, none of which being objectively better or worse than any other.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:32 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
atheist here. Pro life and for law and order. I can have morals and not be religious
Just to play devils advocate...
I’d bet dollars to donuts that you were raised in a religious family, went to church when young, and attended a religious school.
You grow up and turn atheist and have these beliefs that you think are just innate to your being. That’s not really how it works. This society was built on judeo-Christian values. You were raised in it. You can’t just extract yourself from that situation.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 10:34 am
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:i don't know what this means or what this has to do with morals
our true nature isn't very optimal with respect to society
quote:no you're referring to ethics, not morals.
society has forged morals upon us
quote:given your prior statement, this statement is being misused. it's true in an ethical sense for obvious reasons. it's also true in a moral sense but not for the reason you are implying
that's why you see similar religious rules among similar regions/epochs
quote:wrong. again, you're conflating ethics and morals and you are wholly wrong about morals. i get that you are aiming for evolutionary ethics but that doesn't help your case
we learned morality via trial and error to advance society
quote:at this point, just stop. you're going off the rails
"conscience" was created through society, not God
slow, this post was an aggiehank level of bad
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:33 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:WLC is great a providing an evidentialist perspective towards apologetics but he's got some bad theology that gets in his way.
I've seen him declare that child murder would be fine if god commanded it. For some reason, many religious folks seem to think he's a great debater.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:35 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Something isn't moral because God commands it. God commands it because it is moral, and it is moral because it is in alignment with God's perfect and holy moral character.
Keep in mind, you're arguing for the literal drowning of innocent children in the flood with this. Not adults who had lost their way, but babies who were too young to know anything. Toddlers. Young kids who had not yet reached an age at which they could possibly understand any form of right or wrong. All drowned, clutching onto their parents for safety screaming for help which would obviously not come.
So...that was a moral act, because god only does moral actions, right?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:36 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I propose that an objective moral standard cannot exist without God and therefore if God did not exist, there would be no objective morality to speak of, just an infinite number of subjective moral opinions, none of which being objectively better or worse than any other.
That would be fine if there was one unifying idea of God, with one set of definitive morals, but the variations of God are potentially as infinite as the number of moral opinions you speak of.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Hitler is a bad example, especially since a lot of his support was religious and the poster victim group is a religious group.
So? It was still pragmatic. I could easily make the argument that killing babies with Down Syndrome is pragmatic. To most people, pragmatism and morality aren't one and the same.
quote:
explains how/with what?
Christianity/the Bible says that God implants a conscience into all of us, so we all have the same basic moral rudder. We have free will so we can ignore it, but it's no surprise that a lot of civilizations end up with a similar moral code. As a data point it's explained by herd morality and Christianity.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:38 am to bfniii
the Ye Old tadpoles popped into existence from nothing argument, and then morals popped into existence from tadpoles I guess
then the morally grounded tadpoles became monkeys and then monkeys became us! Bam!
It's tiring to argue against lazy "thinkers"
then the morally grounded tadpoles became monkeys and then monkeys became us! Bam!
It's tiring to argue against lazy "thinkers"
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:38 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Keep in mind, you're arguing for the literal drowning of innocent children in the flood with this. Not adults who had lost their way, but babies who were too young to know anything. Toddlers. Young kids who had not yet reached an age at which they could possibly understand any form of right or wrong. All drowned, clutching onto their parents for safety screaming for help which would obviously not come.
Crazy to think this was only 4,000 years ago
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:39 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:No, I'm not. I take exception to your use of the word "innocent" as no one is innocent before God. God is perfectly holy and all people are conceived in iniquity, born in sin, and live lives as enemies of God until He regenerates them and brings them into His family through adoption through faith in Jesus Christ.
Keep in mind, you're arguing for the literal drowning of innocent children in the flood with this.
quote:We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners. We are all fallen creatures, tainted by a sinful nature, with a natural predispostion to rebel against God. There is no one innocent.
Not adults who had lost their way, but babies who were too young to know anything. Toddlers. Young kids who had not yet reached an age at which they could possibly understand any form of right or wrong. All drowned, clutching onto their parents for safety screaming for help which would obviously not come.
But let's take your worldview as a reality for a moment and reject the existence of a tyrannical God (in your view) that is giddy at the thought of killing "innocent" kids: why would that be objectively wrong/immoral in your estimation?
quote:Yes. God is a just God and He is free to punish the sins of those who have rebelled against Him as He chooses. He owes no one anything, even their own mortal lives.
So...that was a moral act, because god only does moral actions, right?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:appealing to semiotics or derrida's differance or wittgenstein's language games or postmodern deconstruction does not change the fact that there is an ineffable principle grounding any articulation of morals. kant mediately described this in the synthetic a priori and the categorical imperative. there is no way to explicate any moral premise without adding "based on x." and of course, x makes all the difference in the world
the WORDS are constructed
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:41 am to omarlittle
quote:Again, reality isn't defined by subjective views of it. There is one God, one truth, and one moral law. Our twisting of truth due to our sinful natures doesn't mean there are infinite gods, infinite truths, or infinite moral laws. It just means humans naturally distort the truth.
That would be fine if there was one unifying idea of God, with one set of definitive morals, but the variations of God are potentially as infinite as the number of moral opinions you speak of
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:you're referring to institutional religion, not philosophy of religion. 2 different things
using "social construction" as an argument applies to religions as well, in the actual practice of it on earth
quote:ok but that's not the point of the op or the discussion
i'm talking about the day-to-day practice of that word
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:44 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:this is misleading. you can eschew institutional religion but still recognize that morals have to be grounded on a transcendent moral anchor. but that would still make you a theist, perhaps even a monotheist. no atheist can truly be moral. you can accidentally do something moral or you can imitate theistic morality but it would be purely facsimile
I can have morals and not be religious
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:44 am to omarlittle
quote:
Fact, truth, whatever. Can you Prove to me God’s existence?
Yes
Was there ever a time that nothing existed? If your answer is yes, then nothing would exist now.
Was there ever a time that life did not exist? If you say yes, then life would not exist now.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:45 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I take exception to your use of the word "innocent" as no one is innocent before God. God is perfectly holy and all people are conceived in iniquity, born in sin, and live lives as enemies of God until He regenerates them and brings them into His family through adoption through faith in Jesus Christ.
quote:
But let's take your worldview as a reality for a moment and reject the existence of a tyrannical God (in your view) that is giddy at the thought of killing "innocent" kids: why would that be objectively wrong/immoral in your estimation?
The irony is that you don't see the evil in these statements.
Page 7 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News