If God does not exist, then everything is permissible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prodigal_Son

Guest
Now I’m not generally in favor of “proving the existence of God,” but consider the following argument:
  1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
  2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).
Therefore, God exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Now I’m not generally in favor of “proving the existence of God,” but consider the following argument:
  1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
  2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).
Therefore, God exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?
Click to expand...
Both of them. Next?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Now I’m not generally in favor of “proving the existence of God,” but consider the following argument:
  1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible.
  2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).
Therefore, God exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by “permissible,” which requires a contextual code of conduct. Consider what happens when we make that explicit in your premises:
  1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible according to code X.
  2. Not everything is permissible according to code X.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
If you specify your X, then I can tell you which premises are wrong. Until then, your premises are unclear and your argument therefore vacuous.
 
Yeah, I think you would have to have some kind of “God is the only restriction on permissiveness” thing in there… you know… like DETERMINISM.

😃
 
Also… lets say for the sake of argument we grant the premises, then i guess the following must hold true?
  1. If Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit does not exist, then everything is permissible.
  2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).
Therefore, Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?
 
AlbertBall said:
Also… lets say for the sake of argument we grant the premises, then i guess the following must hold true?
  1. If Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit does not exist, then everything is permissible.
  2. Not everything is permissible. (i.e. some things are wrong).
Therefore, Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit exists.

If this is unsound, which premise is wrong?
Click to expand...
Not at all, unless the Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit had the properties of God. In which case, yes, it would be sound.

One of the properties of God is necessity. If God is not a necessary being, then clearly any moral requirements He invokes would be arbitrary. But my argument acts under the assumption that God is a necessary being, and thus morality is objectively meaningful.
 
hatsoff said:
That depends on what you mean by “permissible,” which requires a contextual code of conduct. Consider what happens when we make that explicit in your premises:
  1. If God does not exist, then everything is permissible according to code X.
  2. Not everything is permissible according to code X.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
If you specify your X, then I can tell you which premises are wrong. Until then, your premises are unclear and your argument therefore vacuous.
Click to expand...
Show me why “permissible” requires a contextual code of conduct, and I’ll do as you ask. I am operating under the simple assumption that certain things *just are *right or wrong. If you disagree with that premise, then say so. But the only context that the morality I’m talking about exists in is the context of reality itself.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Not at all, unless the Giant Green Rule Making Rabbit had the properties of God. In which case, yes, it would be sound.

One of the properties of God is necessity. If God is not a necessary being, then clearly any moral requirements He invokes would be arbitrary. But my argument acts under the assumption that God is a necessary being, and thus morality is objectively meaningful.
Click to expand...
Emm… how is it a “proof” if it requires accepting the conclusion as a premise?? :confused:
 
James_S_Saint said:
Yeah, I think you would have to have some kind of “God is the only restriction on permissiveness” thing in there…
Click to expand...
That’s what I would call a plausible assumption. What other ultimate restriction on permissiveness would someone propose?
 
James_S_Saint said:
Emm… how is it a “proof” if it requires accepting the conclusion as a premise?? :confused:
Click to expand...
Ack! 😊

What I meant was this: if God exists, God is a necessary being. That’s simply what, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m defining as God. We don’t know that God exists as an assumption; nor do we know, as an assumption, that there is such a thing as a necessary being.
 
Perhaps I should revise my original question, because people obviously hold commitments against the first premise. My question is this: why should **I **not be persuaded by the argument?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
That’s what I would call a plausible assumption. What other ultimate restriction on permissiveness would someone propose?
Click to expand...
The guy with the bigger stick. 😃
Prodigal_Son said:
Perhaps I should revise my original question, because people obviously hold commitments against the first premise. My question is this: why should **I **not be persuaded by the argument?
Click to expand...
And again, the guy with the bigger stick, God or not. 😉
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Show me why “permissible” requires a contextual code of conduct, and I’ll do as you ask. I am operating under the simple assumption that certain things *just are *right or wrong. If you disagree with that premise, then say so. But the only context that the morality I’m talking about exists in is the context of reality itself.
Click to expand...
If you are not referencing at least one code of conduct, the only other way I know to make sense of the statement “everything is permissible” is to say that there are no codes of conduct meeting some set of criteria Y. Is that what you mean? If so, then we may re-phrase your argument thusly:
  1. If God does not exist, then there are no codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria Y.
  2. There are codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria Y.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
In that case, you would need to specify Y.

If this isn’t what you had in mind, either, then what do you mean when you say that “everything is permissible”?
 
hatsoff said:
If you are not referencing at least one code of conduct, the only other way I know to make sense of the statement “everything is permissible” is to say that there are no codes of conduct meeting some set of criteria Y.
Click to expand...
  1. If God does not exist, then there are no codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria “morally obligatory to all sentient beings”.
  2. There are codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria “morally obligatory to all sentient beings”.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
And again, my question is: why should I not be persuaded by such an argument? Which premise, if any, should I reject?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
A hypothetical imperative? If he didn’t have the bigger stick, it would be permissible?
Click to expand...
That is the idea of “relative morality”. There is always someone with a bigger stick and the idea is that it is the guy that has the bigger stick at the moment who decides what is moral behavior and what is a sin, what is permissible.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
  1. If God does not exist, then there are no codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria “morally obligatory to all sentient beings”.
  2. There are codes of conduct meeting the set of criteria “morally obligatory to all sentient beings”.
  3. Therefore, God exists.
And again, my question is: why should I not be persuaded by such an argument? Which premise, if any, should I reject?
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not God exists, I can construct a code of conduct which includes the instruction that all sentient beings follow it. So, premise (1) is false under that interpretation.

If that is not the interpretation you have in mind, perhaps you can expound on what you mean by “morally obligatory.”
 
hatsoff said:
Regardless of whether or not God exists, I can construct a code of conduct which includes the instruction that all sentient beings follow it. So, premise (1) is false under that interpretation.

If that is not the interpretation you have in mind, perhaps you can expound on what you mean by “morally obligatory.”
Click to expand...
Wrong in and of itself, apart from its existence in any code. “Transcendentally wrong”, if you will. Most people, given the opportunity to analyze their beliefs, are powerfully persuaded that killing innocent people who present no threat to you is wrong. They do not mean “wrong with qualifications”, but rather wrong, simpliciter. Why should I not believe that certain things are wrong (or right) in themselves?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Wrong in and of itself, apart from its existence in any code. “Transcendentally wrong”, if you will. Most people, given the opportunity to analyze their beliefs, are powerfully persuaded that killing innocent people who present no threat to you is wrong. They do not mean “wrong with qualifications”, but rather wrong, simpliciter. Why should I not believe that certain things are wrong (or right) in themselves?
Click to expand...
I do not subscribe to the concept of transcendental wrongness, because I do not find it to be coherent. For example, what do you mean “wrong in and of itself”? What is wrongness in the first place? The way I define wrongness is in reference to codes of conduct. I am unable to make sense of wrongness apart from definite codes of conduct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top