So far as my proving the existence of moral law is concerned, I have one idea that I think points to the likely-hood of good reflecting actual events. It goes like this………………
Under certain circumstances I feel guilt. Now; it is clear to me, that people can have a “false sense of guilt” when false propositions are mixed up with genuine applications. But one cannot deny that most of the time our capacity for guilt has a meaningful objective extension so far as it correlates with free human behavior. There is an objective standard and my guilt appears to reflect that standard. Even more peculiar, my sense of guilt implies that the actual existence of “personal beings” in the universe, given that they have free-will, suggests that there is an objective “responsibility” intimately tied with freewill, which human beings must fulfill at all costs. The fact that our capacity for guilt exists simultaneously with are capacity to reason and act freely, is a power suggestion that human beings are governed by a moral truth. To say that this is a coincidence is failing to see the significance of it at all.
The existence of moral law, implies and infers that we exist for a purpose, and that we exist for the purpose of being good and expressing that good. The existence of Good implies a moral lawgiver, a God. If one cannot see that, I would rather that you did not reply to my posts.
If this standard is just a subjective invention of society, then it is just a fantasy. An honest Atheist rejects God because they feel there is no empirical proof for the objective existence of such a being. But there is a catch. There is also no empirical reason to uphold the objective “truth” and existence of the moral “good” either. So if we are to remain honest atheists, we must reject any false notion of good so far as it labels objective behavior. Otherwise we must be content with being fantasists and liars (forgive this blunt statement of fact). This is because Good has no objective extension in reality. Nihilism is the only way for those who reject fantasy. The difference between belief in God and a godless morality is that belief is about what we lack evidence for; a godless morality is something we “know” to be untrue. So which one is more reasonable?
If there is no God, and if we are so concerned about the “subjective-good” and the potential existential suffering that might inflict future generations…then maybe we should all become sterile and put and end to humanities suffering, so that the potential human does not have to suffer. There’s nothing to say that they ought to exist, and you wanting them to exist is just a selfish notion born out of an evolutionary drive to replicate. Why subject them to the potential cruelty of other creatures, and the inevitable fear and variety death that nature has in store for all us? Isn’t that bad? Existentialism, Superman Philosophies, and Humanism as a means to a better society which provides us an objective truth, morality and value, cannot help us. This is why humanity, seeing nothing in life, has naturally turned their hopes and reasoning elsewhere. We turn to God, while others stubbornly turn hopeless ideals.
An objective truth as apposed to subjective fantasy, as a concept, is such a simple system of logic to grasp and yet people fail to see the error that they are promoting. We take things for granted. An un-conscious Pride and a will to Power can do this, so far as man wishes to be the “measure of all things”.
Trust me; I have been in denial many times, so I know what the roots cause of it is. “Lack of control and identity”
I have not once said that an atheist cannot recognize some aspects of the greater “good” (Which is a blue elephant that posters keep squeezing into the discussion), neither has anyone denied that some behavior is more pleasing to the mind then others. This is obviously true. But morality is not just about what is pleasing; it is about what is objectively true. You are no longer talking about morality (right and wrong) if you are merely expressing you preference in certain circumstances. You are merely arguing that certain behavior promotes your survival, and then you have applied this concept to other people’s circumstances; but you have not once shown any objective truth or reason why people “ought” to promote your survival; since promoting your survival isn’t always beneficial to the individual or the whole. Your appeal is ultimately an expression of self, not love.
However, if you believe or feel that it is “true” that murdering five children is wrong, and that the Murderer ought to feel guilty about what they have done, then the recognition of such a reality as being an expression of fundamental truths about our behavior and how we ought to behave as animated objects, cannot help but infer the existence of other realties beyond the strictly material.
There are consequences that result from acknowledging the truth of “Moral statements”, whether we choose to accept it or not. You cannot have one with out the other and then pretend to be more rational then the theist just because they believe in a moral law giver, or a transcendent and perfect reality. The Theist is rational so far as they accept and trust the objective inference of their senses. And good is evident to all human beings so far as they have senses. Hence the term, “Common-sense”.
