Morality=Proof Of God

[Polsky215]

I do not believe one can find more than evidence of the existence of morality, but nonetheless most people believe in it. Here I show that if morality exists, then so to must God. Please read my whole proof (dont make assumptions about what im saying)

Morality Requires God: It is doubtful whether a morality can truly be proven. However, most people believe in morality. If there is moral obligation, then there is God. This can be deduced by eliminating all other possible origins of morality, but first, one must clarify what one means by morality. Morality must be obligatory. If morality is not obligatory (pick and choose), then it is an arbitrary term. Morality must also be an end. If morality is merely a means, then it is advisability not morality.
All things must be either subjective or objective. If morality is subjective, then it must be either the same for all humans or differing for all humans. If it is the same for all humans and subjective, then there must be something keeping it the same for all humans. In other words, there must be an external force maintaining the similarity. If there is an external force, then morality is no longer subjective, but objective. If morality is subjective and differing for all humans, then it is not obligatory because one has no reason to obey the mandates of one's own mind, for three reasons. (1) The mind orders one to do conflicting actions. Instinct may order one to not jump in front of a train to save a baby, while morality instructs one to do the opposite. (2) There is no repercussion for not fulfilling a subjective mandate. In order for something to be obligatory, there must be repercussions for not following that which is obligatory. The argument of psychological repercussions being those necessary repercussions is not sufficient because psychological repercussions are, in nearly all cases, easily suppressed. (3) If moral law is held subjectively, then it may also be revised subjectively. If one is the author of what one ought to do, then one is not obliged to do that which one "ought" to do because one may change what one ought to do as soon as what one ought to do comes in conflict with what one wants to do. Thus, morality cannot be subjective.
If moral obligation is objective, then it is the same for everyone and is either physical or metaphysical. If morality is physical, then either humans are the keepers of moral law or nature is the keeper of moral law. If humans are the keepers, then they are not obliged to follow what they keep for one reason: That which binds must transcend that which is bound. In other words, for the same reason one cannot be obliged to oneself, one cannot be bound to humanity, for humanity can simply refuse to obey those laws which it keeps, or even revise them. If physical nature is the keeper of moral law, then moral law does not exist because nature (in a physical since) does not actually exist. Unless when we say "nature," we are referring to some Platonic Idea, nature does not exist.
Thus, one is left with the metaphysical realm as the only possible keeper of moral law. The metaphysical realm is the only means of transcending humankind as a whole, but how did moral law get into the metaphysical realm, and how is it that we could know or be bound to such a realm? The only answer to this is that an intelligent force created moral law. Something intelligible like moral law cannot exist without intelligent creation. Furthermore, one can only be bound by or know the metaphysical law, if one is partly metaphysical. If nothing else, there must be a connection between the physical and metaphysical world in order for the one to bind the other. On top of this discovery, one will see that, because moral law must be an end rather than a means, the only known supposed law that fits the full criterion of moral law (ends, obligatory, metaphysical) is that of the Judeo-Christian moral law. "For I am the Lord your God: be holy because I am holy" (Lv 11:44). One is not obliged to be holy to avoid the repercussion of Hell that makes moral law obligatory, but rather, one ought to follow the will of God (moral law) simply as an end in itself, i.e. following the will of God. Once again, God happens to be the only candidate for the creator and keeper of moral law, should it exist.
Morality having a unique origin in God, has severe implications. Fyodor Dostoyevsky says, "if there were no God, he would have to be invented." And so it is that without God, mankind is helpless against itself. This fact is further proof of God's existence because what sort of evolutionary adaption would it be, to need a delusion, in order to survive as a species.

[sixpence]

I will think about this and tell you what is wrong with it sometime later... too sleepy now

[dells_of_bittersweet]

Hey, very good post. I'd like to add my .02. I haven't worked it to the level of precision that you have, but I'd like to make a comment about Morality and Evolution.

Morality compels us to do things that act against the evolutionary advantage of our species, and the evolutionary advantage of ourselves. I'll list a number of examples of this then I'll get to my conclusion:

In terms of Morality acting against the evolutionary advantage of our species:
[list=1][*]We put immense resources towards taking care of the weakest members of our species, in particular, the elderly. The best way to advance the human species would be to spend the time, money, and effort used to care for the elderly for the advancement of the members of our species most likely to reproduce healthy offspring, and just let the elderly die. But we don't-Morality compels to take care of the elderly.[*]We care for very weak children (ones with birth defects, psychological disorders, etc.), and so well that they survive to adulthood. Even though they may never be anywhere nearly as healthy as other adults, we allow them to marry and have children. For example, I've met a person with down syndrome that is married and has a teenage son. He's very happy. But the people that helped him get to where he is today were working directly against evolution-they spent valuable medical resources on him as a child, and as an adult, he married and passed on his genes. Morality once again compelled people to act against evolution.[/list]In terms of morality working against our own evolutionary advantage:
[list=1][*]You see a child with autism drowning in a lake. You jump in to save him, knowing that there is a high probability that you may die in the attempt. If you do in fact die, but save the autistic child in the process, it's essentially survival of the weakest. (I understand the problems with this hypothetical scenario-i.e., both would probably die or both would probably live, but I think you will all get the idea.)[*]Your child that was born without their right arm is about to die from machine gun fire. You know that if you step in front of him, you will die, and the child will live. You step in front of him. Again, survival of the weakest.[/list]So here's the problem: if our species has come into existence in a Godless universe directed only by atheistic evolution, evolution would have removed the people whose morality didn't help them pass along their genes. People who jumped into lakes to save drowning children wouldn't pass on their genes, and eventually, there wouldn't be any more people left with a "jump to save drowning children" gene. I know that's an oversimplification, but over a very long time, genes that promoted morality opposed to ones survival would eventually be eliminated.

However, we have exactly the opposite situation in our world. Nearly every person in the world is guided by the same basic moral principals. This morality, which on the whole works against evolution and thus can not be a product of it, is present in almost every single human being. This morality must either be written into our bodies, or else written onto our souls. Either way, this morality must result from a higher force than nature itself, which is clearly incapable of producing it.

[sixpence]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1310955561' post='2269092']
Hey, very good post. I'd like to add my .02. I haven't worked it to the level of precision that you have, but I'd like to make a comment about Morality and Evolution.

Morality compels us to do things that act against the evolutionary advantage of our species, and the evolutionary advantage of ourselves. I'll list a number of examples of this then I'll get to my conclusion:

In terms of Morality acting against the evolutionary advantage of our species:
[list=1][*]We put immense resources towards taking care of the weakest members of our species, in particular, the elderly. The best way to advance the human species would be to spend the time, money, and effort used to care for the elderly for the advancement of the members of our species most likely to reproduce healthy offspring, and just let the elderly die. But we don't-Morality compels to take care of the elderly.[*]We care for very weak children (ones with birth defects, psychological disorders, etc.), and so well that they survive to adulthood. Even though they may never be anywhere nearly as healthy as other adults, we allow them to marry and have children. For example, I've met a person with down syndrome that is married and has a teenage son. He's very happy. But the people that helped him get to where he is today were working directly against evolution-they spent valuable medical resources on him as a child, and as an adult, he married and passed on his genes. Morality once again compelled people to act against evolution.[/list]In terms of morality working against our own evolutionary advantage:
[list=1][*]You see a child with autism drowning in a lake. You jump in to save him, knowing that there is a high probability that you may die in the attempt. If you do in fact die, but save the autistic child in the process, it's essentially survival of the weakest. (I understand the problems with this hypothetical scenario-i.e., both would probably die or both would probably live, but I think you will all get the idea.)[*]Your child that was born without their right arm is about to die from machine gun fire. You know that if you step in front of him, you will die, and the child will live. You step in front of him. Again, survival of the weakest.[/list]So here's the problem: if our species has come into existence in a Godless universe directed only by atheistic evolution, evolution would have removed the people whose morality didn't help them pass along their genes. People who jumped into lakes to save drowning children wouldn't pass on their genes, and eventually, there wouldn't be any more people left with a "jump to save drowning children" gene. I know that's an oversimplification, but over a very long time, genes that promoted morality opposed to ones survival would eventually be eliminated.

However, we have exactly the opposite situation in our world. Nearly every person in the world is guided by the same basic moral principals. This morality, which on the whole works against evolution and thus can not be a product of it, is present in almost every single human being. This morality must either be written into our bodies, or else written onto our souls. Either way, this morality must result from a higher force than nature itself, which is clearly incapable of producing it.
[/quote]

I see where you are trying to go, but under this argument other species show morality... for instance, adoption occurs in other species... this is not a good strategy to improve one's fitness AT ALL, but you still see it.... why? the animals must have "morality" ...
Also, your advantage of the species point is irrelevant... nothing ever happens "for the benefit of the species".... these things occur to benefit an individual's fitness.. humans are "K" species ..meaning that they produce smaller numbers of offspring and invest heavily in the success of each one (the opposite would be an insect who lays hundred of eggs, investing hardly any effort into each one, expecting a few to survive). Because we are K (at least in the richer countries) we take good care of the kids we have..even if they might have problems. it is in our best interest to take care of all our offspring because we have relatively few. It follows that it is in our interest to live in family units that ensure care for the offspring; this often includes old members that no longer produce their own children, but can be very helpful and experienced in rearing grandchildren etc...

[Polsky215]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1310997706' post='2269376']<br />I see where you are trying to go, but under this argument other species show morality... for instance, adoption occurs in other species... this is not a good strategy to improve one's fitness AT ALL, but you still see it.... why? the animals must have &quot;morality&quot; ... <br />Also, your advantage of the species point is irrelevant... nothing ever happens &quot;for the benefit of the species&quot;.... these things occur to benefit an individual's fitness.. humans are &quot;K&quot; species ..meaning that they produce smaller numbers of offspring and invest heavily in the success of each one (the opposite would be an insect who lays hundred of eggs, investing hardly any effort into each one, expecting a few to survive). Because we are K (at least in the richer countries) we take good care of the kids we have..even if they might have problems.  it is in our best interest to take care of all our offspring because we have relatively few.  It follows that it is in our interest to live in family units that ensure care for the offspring; this often includes old members that no longer produce their own children, but can be very helpful and experienced in rearing grandchildren etc...<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Keep in mind, first off, Ive already shown that "morality" can only be metaphysical. Secondly, it takes serious sophistry to say that a fit fireman is benefiting the species' survival chances by jumping in front of a train to save a child with downsyndrome.

[sixpence]

[quote name='Polsky215' timestamp='1311001098' post='2269404']
<br /><br /><br />

Keep in mind, first off, Ive already shown that "morality" can only be metaphysical. Secondly, it takes serious sophistry to say that a fit fireman is benefiting the species' survival chances by jumping in front of a train to save a child with downsyndrome.
[/quote]

of course it isn't benefiting the species!!!! ... the more important question is... how does this effect that guys own fitness? it is obviously very bad.. he is now dead.. therefore, he cannot have more offspring or care/provide for any he already has... (of course I PERSONALLY think that this was a moral decision and morality originates from God etc and it was a choice totally disconnected with the idea that success in life = making copies of oneself)... that being said, I don't believe that humans exhibiting "unselfish" behaviors that have a negative impact on their fitness can be given as proof of "morality" since other species exhibit these same counter-intuitive behaviors...

I have not had time to sit down and look at your argument that morality is inherently a metaphysical thing... I promise to do this in the next few days

[Polsky215]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1311001868' post='2269413']<br />of course it isn't benefiting the species!!!! ...  the more important question is... how does this effect that guys own fitness?  it is obviously very bad.. he is now dead.. therefore, he cannot have more offspring or care/provide for any he already has... (of course I PERSONALLY think that this was a moral decision and morality originates from God etc and it was a choice totally disconnected with the idea that success in life = making copies of oneself)... that being said, I don't believe that humans exhibiting &quot;unselfish&quot; behaviors that have a negative impact on their fitness can be given as proof of &quot;morality&quot; since other species exhibit these same counter-intuitive behaviors...<br /><br />I have not had time to sit down and look at your argument that morality is inherently a metaphysical thing... I promise to do this in the next few days <img src='http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Ok I see what your saying, but youll have to give evidence of animals doing it. Bees might sacrifice themselves, but thats only for the community, not for the deformed bee that was born without wings, that one is left to die. Despite all this, however, my argument has nothing to do with how morality plays out, only with its origin. Youll understand once youve read it.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1310997706' post='2269376']
I see where you are trying to go, but under this argument other species show morality... for instance, adoption occurs in other species... this is not a good strategy to improve one's fitness AT ALL, but you still see it.... why? the animals must have "morality" ...
Also, your advantage of the species point is irrelevant... nothing ever happens "for the benefit of the species".... these things occur to benefit an individual's fitness.. humans are "K" species ..meaning that they produce smaller numbers of offspring and invest heavily in the success of each one (the opposite would be an insect who lays hundred of eggs, investing hardly any effort into each one, expecting a few to survive). Because we are K (at least in the richer countries) we take good care of the kids we have..even if they might have problems. it is in our best interest to take care of all our offspring because we have relatively few. It follows that it is in our interest to live in family units that ensure care for the offspring; this often includes old members that no longer produce their own children, but can be very helpful and experienced in rearing grandchildren etc...
[/quote]

There's a qualitative difference between the occasional appearance of morality in animals and the actual presence of morality in humans. All the moral actions you've listed do in the long run benefit the species, so evolution would not "root them out" over time. Usually when another species adopts an animal, that animal is made to be a slave...that's how it works in ant colonies. The adopted animal benefits the species that adopted it. With a very few exceptions, animals show no morality at all. True, objective morality is exhibited only in the human species.

Which raises the question, where did it come from? If our morality evolved along with our bodies, we would expect to see primitive forms of morality in other species in the same way that we see primitive forms of the body parts that we have in other species. But we don't. And for your claims of animal morality, they amount to nothing more than isolated, inconsistent behaviors that also happen to help the species.

That's a good point about the human race being a K species...but that doesn't say as much as you might think. The K species argument would only work with morality traits that directly benefit the survival of our young. And for taking care of a grandparent because they are still useful...that applies only when the grandparents actually are still useful, and not in such poor mental health as to no longer be capable of providing assistance.

All these explanations combined fail to give an atheistic reason for the actions of people where there is nothing to be gained in terms of personal gratification, personal survival, or the advancement of the species. Basically, why would anyone do anything out of pure love? Evolution requires actions to either benefit the individual performing them, or else benefit the survival and reproduction of the other members of the species.

[Cru Jones]

This is essentially a rough summation of the first couple of chapters of Mere Christianity, isn't it? I've always found this argument to be especially persuasive. You might want to check out Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism; it's a good supplement to this argument.

[Polsky215]

[quote name='Cru Jones' timestamp='1311006468' post='2269462']<br />This is essentially a rough summation of the first couple of chapters of Mere Christianity, isn't it? I've always found this argument to be especially persuasive. You might want to check out Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism; it's a good supplement to this argument.<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />

Not exactly. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis tries to prove morality. And I have yet to be convinced that he was successful. In my current opinion, morality can only be proved indirectly by proving a Christian God. This proof I give is merely showing that IF morality exists, then it must be God made. I do not claim to prove morality here.

[sixpence]

how about this:

People like to have mates that are kind, unselfish, loving, generous, ETC ... people NOT like this don't get a mate (of course this is presuming a society where people are free to choose there mates, but this is a big assumption) anyway, this selects for people with these desirable qualities Sexual selection is very powerful and cannot be left out of the discussion.

If you were looking for a husband, who it be the kind of guy who would risk his life for a stranger, or the kind of guy who would be more selfish?


Another note: This discussion is functioning under the false assumption that darwinian evolution = the survival of the fittest ; a better understanding would be the survival of everyone but the least fit. You only really need to be mediocre to survive.

[sixpence]

Polsky, I read your argument (sorry it took so long). I guess you stated the problem yourself... it is not a proof of morality...after that assumption, I would say everything made sense to me. I'm just not sure that as many people as you suppose believe in morality as You define it: objective and defined by outside humanity/nature and that is the very starting point of your argument...

here is a paper on adoption in animals; http://www.jstor.org/pss/2826887

[Polsky215]

The problem with proving morality itself is that without begging the question as i believe cs lewis did, most pieces of evidence can be rationalized as taught morality or instinct. If people believe its right to jump in front of a train to save a baby, they will reguardless of morality being real or not.

[Polsky215]

I read the article and it does explain that there are survival benefits associated with animal adoption, including returned favors from other families and experience with rearing youth. This cannot be said for human families adopting say a downsyndrome child from india to make up for their infertility. Thanks for the article

[Polsky215]

Here is a wonderful proof of morality. It is very technical and took me over an hour to read, but its worth your while to know whether or not there is morality... For obvious reasons.

The argument goes somewhat like this.

1. Moral rightness rests in actions being right or wrong, not consequences or intention (He gives proofs similar to mine above)
2. When in a situation of, for example holding a gun to someone's head we think it is wrong to kill them. (Anyone not like this would be considered disordered suggesting that ordered people wouldnt shoot the man)
3. Later we doubt whether morality exists, i.e. we doubt whether we knew it was wrong to shoot the dude
4. One cannot know whether one knows anything. To know whether one knows requires to know whether one knows one know... ad infinitum. Its an infinite regression of knowledge that is impossible.
5. Thus, doubting knowledge of morality is for the most part an illigitimate question
6. Doubting knowledge is an illigitimate question ("did i know it was wrong to kill him?")
7. However, supposing the doubt is more than an obvious insecurity procured from belief in an observed immaterial fact (moral obligation in the mind), one need only put themselves in the same moral situation and see what they know for a second time. Will they feel morally right in shooting the guy a second time round?

*All this supports the idea of morality being written in the souls of man

Objection 1: "Morality" is just instinct. People dont like seeing other people die because they dont want to die
Reply: If so the stronger instinct (actually not wanting to die) would prevail over the lesser. Thus, jumping in front of the bullet would not be compatible with "morality" as an instinct.

Objection 2: "Morality" is a social construct that is taught. A man grown up on an island would not have morality.
Reply: A man on an island would likely lack the capability to do math. yet, math is true. We may learn morality, but that doesnt make it any less true. Once we have learned morality it takes for one to illogically call something like utilitarinism morality (this is clearly demonstrated in the paper) in order to not follow morality. Similarily it takes for one to be illogical to deny math. Likewise, someone CAN deny the existence of math, but they will be going as much against their mind as if they denied that shooting the man was wrong.

I encourage you to read this. I promise it will be worth your while.
http://bonevac.info/325/Pritchard.pdf