Objective Morality > God Exists

[authenticity]

Well, human nature hasn’t changed, so neither has morality.

We might say that we are more moral today, but I’m not sure that is even true. I think we are wearing some rose colored glasses. Like we may formally abolish slavery, but there are millions of people in the world who are essentially slaves without the name. Or that we don’t torture and kill people over what they believe. Looking at the several military conflicts in the last century, I think we’ve just become more efficient.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the Golden Rule and how it is the basis for all morality. Behind the statement that I should treat others how I want to be treated is that I do treat others on how I treat myself regardless. If I am angry with myself, I project that anger onto other people. If I think I am a wretched human being, I assume everyone else is, too. However I see myself defines how I act and perceive the world.

The problem is that how I treat myself varies in accordance with circumstances. Relying on my own perception, my behavior is contradictory and whimsical. This is where I think the objectivity of morality comes in. In the Gospel of St. John, Jesus gives a new commandment: to love others as he has loved us. So, now my actions aren’t based on how I see myself, but how God sees me. And this changes how I act.

I’m not sure if I am answering the question in the OP, but this is how I see that objective morality leads to God’s existence.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The supernatural is that which is outside the universe. The universe is by definition all of that which exists. Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

It will often then be disputed that those definitions are appropriate, but without defining those terms like that, I fail to see how one could hope to claim that divine revelation is outside of the banner of science. And if it isn’t, then we are either left with a phenomenon that is better explained by delusion then a god, or something that simply needs to be studied by science.

I don’t mean to offend Mers, but that sounds like circular reasoning. Your premise is the same as your conclusion. You are in effect reasoning this way:

The supernatural is that which is outside the realm of existence, therefore, the supernatural does not exist.

It would be like me trying to argue

Humans are those who are outside the animal kingdom, therefore, humans are not animals.

It might be true that humans are not animals, but the statement would not be proof of such. However, if i were to say,

Humans are those who have higher reasoning skills than animals, therefore, humans are outside the animal kingdom and are not animals.

Then i would not be using circular reasoning. My premise would be distinct from my conclusion.

Maybe you inadvertently left out a key premise that, once you add it to your logical argument, will better support the conclusion? If so, please let me know.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You know what’s not helpful to the debate? Religion. I’ll admit that religion was an early primitive attempt at morality, but religion is to morality what Alchemy is to Chemistry. It was an early attempt to understand reality through mysticism and revelation, it gets a few things right with time and with guess and check, but it carries with it a lot of unnecessary baggage, and in the long haul it’s just not a sustainable way to navigate reality.

Interesting. I will agree that, when you are pursuing knowledge, you have to first cast off all assumptions about the world. But, in order to get any useful knowledge, you have to pick at least one or two assumptions that seem most obviously true, and derive from there. By no means should we assume dogmas, although we may have sufficient cause to believe things that we do not assume. (The processes of knowledge and belief, in other words, are dynamically separate.)

If a religion is true, then one can entirely discard it, and yet he will find no knowledge in the world that conflicts with it. When I try to derive morality from the barest of assumptions (based on my fundamental intuitions about the world), I find that natural law is the most logical system – and natural law is compatible with my religion.

The supernatural is that which is outside the universe. The universe is by definition all of that which exists. Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

If you define nature as “everything that is”, then obviously the supernatural isn’t. But that is a straw man. I prefer to set aside the unhelpful term “supernatural”, and say that: there are things which are not normally perceived nor inferred by our senses. It is as if there is a fourth dimension to our reality, one that we do not know how we interact with.

It will often then be disputed that those definitions are appropriate, but without defining those terms like that, I fail to see how one could hope to claim that divine revalation is outside of the banner of science. And if it isn’t, then we are either left with a phenomenon that is better explained by delusion then a god, or something that simply needs to be studied by science.

Divine revelation isn’t outside the banner of science, at all. Scientists can seek to understand and explain the religious experience, but they should realize that there are more potential causes for phenomena than they know. Should it be scientific dogma that everything that is can be known?

 

[SonofMonica]

Should it be scientific dogma that everything that is can be known?

Very interesting point. It seems like one could call this a “delusion” since there is no evidence to support the idea. The evidence says there are things we do not currently know, and we have not known them for a long time. It’s just as likely, if not more likely, that we can never know them as it is that we can at some point know them. And using Richard Dawkins’ favorite argument, we have to start with the negative, until they prove the positive with evidence. So the idea that everything can be known is a delusion, merely because it is assumption has not been proven with science. I say it’s just a cop-out, a gap-filler, and I’ll believe it when it’s proven with science. In fact, I’ll go so far to say that I’m a 6 out of 7 on the we-can’t-know-everything scale.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

The supernatural is that which is outside the universe. The universe is by definition all of that which exists. Therefore the supernatural does not exist.

It will often then be disputed that those definitions are appropriate, but without defining those terms like that, I fail to see how one could hope to claim that divine revalation is outside of the banner of science. And if it isn’t, then we are either left with a phenomenon that is better explained by delusion then a god, or something that simply needs to be studied by science.

I think perhaps i was wrong and that is the reasoning you intended:

a. The universe is by definition all of that which exists.

b. There is no evidence anything supernatural exists.

c. God is by definition supernatural.

Therefore,

1. God does not exist.

Please let me know if this was the true meaning you were attempting to convey.

 

[SonofMonica]

I think perhaps i was wrong and that is the reasoning you intended:

a. The universe is by definition all of that which exists.

b. There is no evidence anything supernatural exists.

c. God is by definition supernatural.

Therefore,

1. God does not exist.

Please let me know if this was the true meaning you were attempting to convey.

I don’t think it’s the meaning he was trying to convey, because in your scenario, Soc, (a) is not even needed.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t think it’s the meaning he was trying to convey, because in your scenario, Soc, (a) is not even needed.

True. Just trying to figure out what Mers was saying, as atheists fascinate me.

 

[SonofMonica]

True. Just trying to figure out what Mers was saying, as atheists fascinate me.

I’m fascinated by credible atheists, for various reasons, just as I am fascinated by credible theistic theologians. However, in my experience, most who you may meet on both sides are sophomoric. For example, being fair to both sides, I would put Lee Strobel in the same camp as Richard Dawkins.

But my main point would be, the pop-culture, so-called “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al) have spawned a new generation of lil’ atheists, who are running about throwing around long-discredited or misinformed arguments for the non-existence of God–arguments that are the atheistic equivalent of Pascal’s wager being used to promote Christianity. It’s just hard to take these folks seriously.

 

[joe370]

Mersenne, you said to Soc: I’m baffled that you can even deny that this is the case. You deny then that modern morality is better then ancient moralities? You would prefer the random genocide, slavery, rape, and constant war that existed in ancient times?

**There has been and still is, random genocide, slavery, (child trafficking) - rape, and constant war in modern time as well. Modern tyrants such as Hitler, Pol Pot, a leader of Red Khmers in Cambodia, Benito Mussolini, a fascist dictator of Italy, Mao Zedong the father of communist China and Lenin, just to name a few, were responsible for wholesale genocide and unspeakable acts of terror. Modern morality is not better then ancient morality.
**

Or can you agree that we have a better sense of right and wrong as time goes on? That freeing the slaves was a good idea and such?

**This link will answer your question!!! Sadly slavery and oppression still exists in parts of the world today. “Newsweek Magazine (May 4, 1992) reports that slavery is widespread in two African countries, Mauritania and Sudan. In Mauritania, over 100,000 Africans are enslaved. Their families were made slaves by the sword during the 12th century invasions. In the centuries that followed, they accepted it as natural.”

74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:V-_SWvUp87UJ:www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html+wholesale+genocide+in+the+20th+century&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
**

If morality were just this thing floating out there, separate from practical reality or subjectivity, that we knew and could either choose to adhere to or not, then we would expect morals to be more or less the same throughout history and culture. But this is clearly not the case. Morals are different everywhere you go and change every decade.

But this is besides the point. The claim being made was that god must exist, because objective morality definitely does exist. So, okay, prove it.

**Countless acts of sacrifice and selflessness cascading the centuries is proof that objective morality exists! The practical reality is: evil has existed in the most ancient of times, and evil exists in modern times, and will continue to exist until Christ returns, to separate the chaff from the wheat, and people have the choice/free will to embrace evil, or reject it, in this world. Morality is a reality, and is the same everywhere, in every time period, just as immorality is. People longing for absolute power/domination existed in the past, in the present and will exist in the future. But, for every antagonist, you have a protagonist, in every century, attempting to do what is morally right; why is that? **

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’m fascinated by credible atheists, for various reasons, just as I am fascinated by credible theistic theologians. However, in my experience, most who you may meet on both sides are sophomoric. For example, being fair to both sides, I would put Lee Strobel in the same camp as Richard Dawkins.

But my main point would be, the pop-culture, so-called “New Atheists” (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al) have spawned a new generation of lil’ atheists, who are running about throwing around long-discredited or misinformed arguments for the non-existence of God–arguments that are the atheistic equivalent of Pascal’s wager being used to promote Christianity. It’s just hard to take these folks seriously.

I’m thinking Merse is credible. Hopefully s/he will continue to share her/his thoughts so we can learn not just what s/he believes but also why s/he believes what he believes.