Why Must Morals Come From God And Not Anywhere Else?

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1642459' date='Aug 30 2008, 02:20 PM']Why is God "The Good?"[/quote]
God is the origin and maintainer of the universe. By definition, this is The Good.

But your original topic is in the title and I answered it. The nature of God is a completely seperate topic. You have allowed yourself to become distracted. I have played partially into this, which is always a mistake with an atheist. Atheists have no reason to argue theology. You're out of your field, and there can be no profit in the discussion.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1642461' date='Aug 30 2008, 12:28 PM']God is the origin and maintainer of the universe. By definition, this is The Good.

But your original topic is in the title and I answered it. The nature of God is a completely seperate topic. You have allowed yourself to become distracted. I have played partially into this, which is always a mistake with an atheist. Atheists have no reason to argue theology. You're out of your field, and there can be no profit in the discussion.[/quote]
You forget, theology WAS my field when I was Catholic. Do you forget that I was here for 3 years, arguing on your side? I know theology, thanks.

You still can't show me that "the good" is not arbitrary and simply based on what God decides. Good for you if that's all the logic you need to form a tight case for God, but for someone who doesn't believe that, just saying God is "the good" doesn't cut it and does not explain why morality must come from God.

[Winchester]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1642462' date='Aug 30 2008, 02:31 PM']You forget, theology WAS my field when I was Catholic. Do you forget that I was here for 3 years, arguing on your side? I know theology, thanks.

You still can't show me that "the good" is not arbitrary and simply based on what God decides. Good for you if that's all the logic you need to form a tight case for God, but for someone who doesn't believe that, just saying God is "the good" doesn't cut it and does not explain why morality must come from God.[/quote]
Knowledge isn't faith. Without faith, it's pointless to discuss the nature of God. And it's not your topic, anyway. Nor did I accuse you of not knowing theology. Your insecurities are not my problem and you will not make them my problem.

Deal with my argument; it's already presented.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1642464' date='Aug 30 2008, 12:36 PM']Knowledge isn't faith. Without faith, it's pointless to discuss the nature of God. And it's not your topic, anyway. Nor did I accuse you of not knowing theology. Your insecurities are not my problem and you will not make them my problem.

Deal with my argument; it's already presented.[/quote]
Why is God "the good"? Why is he not "the evil," or in other words, what determines that his nature is good rather than evil?

Edited August 30, 2008 by fidei defensor

[Winchester]

The real question, forgive me, is why we don't use the terms differently.

But again, this has nothing to do with the topic of why morality must originate with God (I'll even knock out the capital and make it "a" god, if you like. This needn't be a Christian argument). This is more the nature of God, which you already know. So for two reasons, there is no profit to discussing the nature of God. We both know the theology, you through formal training, me from my own studies. There's no point to discussing semantics, which is what you're positing--while straying from the original topic.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1642473' date='Aug 30 2008, 12:47 PM']The real question, forgive me, is why we don't use the terms differently.

But again, this has nothing to do with the topic of why morality must originate with God (I'll even knock out the capital and make it "a" god, if you like. This needn't be a Christian argument). This is more the nature of God, which you already know. So for two reasons, there is no profit to discussing the nature of God. We both know the theology, you through formal training, me from my own studies. There's no point to discussing semantics, which is what you're positing--while straying from the original topic.[/quote]
Oh, I have no formal training. You know much more about theology than I do, I've only done personal study as well.

However, I disagree that this would be a fruitless discussion. The original point of the thread was to discuss why morality must come from God. The only person that can be satisfied with saying that the reason why morality is objective is because God is all good is the believer. However, logicaly, that doesn't follow. As i've asked, what makes God all good? You contend that it's his nature, and I can agree with that as a fact of your theology. But WHY is he all good and what makes what he decides good? Why doesn't he will killing and murder? If you can't logically show me why what God says is necessarily good, then why should I believe that some god arbitrarily deciding what is good is any better than society deciding arbitarily what is good?

[KnightofChrist]

The Creator God being the supreme authority in the universe gives meaning and purpose to life, and defines such things as morality. What I take from this thread is the question 'Can atheist or agnostics have morals?'

The answer to that is yes, in a way they can. However whatever morals they claim to have are only subjective, and relative. Which are subject to change when someone or another group who are stronger do not share the 'morals' of that atheist/agnostic person or group.

Group A may believe murder is immoral, group B may believe murder is not immoral, Group B murders all the members of Group A, so murder would no longer be immoral, but good. And there would be nothing 'wrong' with that without the supreme authority of God, because we would be mere animals, and which ever animal is strongest defines what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' Without God there would be no right or wrong, only what some animal defines right or wrong, and whenever he or she is replaced, so too could their morality.

This goes back to the topic I posted some time ago, that without God, [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/lofiversion/index.php/t55131.html"]Was Hitler Right?[/url] Without God the thought that what Hitler did was wrong or even evil, would be simple subjective, and relative opinion, not fact.

Edited August 30, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Winchester]

I doubt that I know more than you, but let's drop that. I'm sure we have our own strengths and weaknesses in the area. I myself haven't been in the game for a good numebr of years. As I said, applicable to us both, knowledge is not faith.

If we can withdraw from the typical argument, which is improperly forumalated in the first place, we can see that without a god creating it and maintaining it outside the existence of man, morality is not really real.

In practice, the decisions of man and society are arbitrary. This is a function of free will. If there is a god, then there is a standard from which man and society can deviate. If there is no god, then there is no objective moral good. Let us define good as that which moves in the proper direction, to the proper ends. A vehicle, for instance, has a purpose imbued by man. We can agree on this. It has this purpose because we put this purpose upon it. The vehicle could, if it became intelligent, define its own purpose, would have the choice of deviating from its original purpose. It would be violating the purpose for which it was created. In this, the purpose man gave to the vehicle is the good, the end, of the vehicle. Anything deviating from this is the evil.

In the atheist worldview, we are vehicles without a creator. We therefore have no "purpose," and so there is no standard from which we can deviate. There is neither good nor evil but what we define and in the end it comes down to each individual to define morality. He can choose to group togethere and decide upon a common "good," but the term does not mean the same thing as it does when discussing a good as imbued upon man by an outside force--a good which man can choose to violate or obeym but not change. Without a god, there can be agreements, leglislation, authority, and much of it will benefit people and will be functional and pleasant to people.

Yes, one can hop from religion to religion. This is free will, and there is nothing that can stop that, barring violence and coercion. One can, as an atheist, decide to submit to an authority that, to a greater or lesser degree, thwarts one's will. The authority serves the function of a religion. From the atheist viewpoint, there is no difference between the two, and no argument will show you a difference. Therein lays the waste of time. You are arguing from function. You are arguing effect.

All things that are not God are creatures (in a sense. Not an animal or a person, but a thing of creation. A part of creation. In this sense, I here use creature, excluding personhood as a neccesity to be a creature. Time, also, would be a creature). No creature has existence independent of God. So yes, actions would be divided into good and evil by God's fiat. Seeing as they haven't any existence without Him, that's fine. Where that is different from man is that man did not create the universe, did not create himself nor his capacity for actions, which may be right or wrong. Whether atheist or no, we can agree that man did not originate the universe, himself included.

In function, does putting the origin of morality upon a god make things better for society?

Depends on the particular god.

Depends on the society.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1642493' date='Aug 30 2008, 01:20 PM']I doubt that I know more than you, but let's drop that. I'm sure we have our own strengths and weaknesses in the area. I myself haven't been in the game for a good numebr of years. As I said, applicable to us both, knowledge is not faith.

If we can withdraw from the typical argument, which is improperly forumalated in the first place, we can see that without a god creating it and maintaining it outside the existence of man, morality is not really real.

In practice, the decisions of man and society are arbitrary. This is a function of free will. If there is a god, then there is a standard from which man and society can deviate. If there is no god, then there is no objective moral good. Let us define good as that which moves in the proper direction, to the proper ends. A vehicle, for instance, has a purpose imbued by man. We can agree on this. It has this purpose because we put this purpose upon it. The vehicle could, if it became intelligent, define its own purpose, would have the choice of deviating from its original purpose. It would be violating the purpose for which it was created. In this, the purpose man gave to the vehicle is the good, the end, of the vehicle. Anything deviating from this is the evil.

In the atheist worldview, we are vehicles without a creator. We therefore have no "purpose," and so there is no standard from which we can deviate. There is neither good nor evil but what we define and in the end it comes down to each individual to define morality. He can choose to group togethere and decide upon a common "good," but the term does not mean the same thing as it does when discussing a good as imbued upon man by an outside force--a good which man can choose to violate or obeym but not change. Without a god, there can be agreements, leglislation, authority, and much of it will benefit people and will be functional and pleasant to people.

Yes, one can hop from religion to religion. This is free will, and there is nothing that can stop that, barring violence and coercion. One can, as an atheist, decide to submit to an authority that, to a greater or lesser degree, thwarts one's will. The authority serves the function of a religion. From the atheist viewpoint, there is no difference between the two, and no argument will show you a difference. Therein lays the waste of time. You are arguing from function. You are arguing effect.

All things that are not God are creatures (in a sense. Not an animal or a person, but a thing of creation. A part of creation. In this sense, I here use creature, excluding personhood as a neccesity to be a creature. Time, also, would be a creature). No creature has existence independent of God. So yes, actions would be divided into good and evil by God's fiat. Seeing as they haven't any existence without Him, that's fine. Where that is different from man is that man did not create the universe, did not create himself nor his capacity for actions, which may be right or wrong. Whether atheist or no, we can agree that man did not originate the universe, himself included.

In function, does putting the origin of morality upon a god make things better for society?

Depends on the particular god.

Depends on the society.[/quote]
Thank you. THAT is the kind of response I'm looking for. It appeals to logic, not the fear that the world will become chaos and everyone will kill eachother if God isnt real.

I will take some time to digest this and I will respond when I have more time.

[Winchester]

I'm glad I finally got the question you were asking. Good show.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1642084' date='Aug 30 2008, 02:09 AM']There are proponents who think genetic manipulation of children in the womb to help them in life is a good idea. Others believe, that this is pro culture of death, because basically what we are saying is, God didn't form that child right in the womb, and therefore he's completely wrong, and we need to correct this so the child can be a productive member of society.[/quote]

So what you are saying is that God makes people with genetic disorders. Does that include those babies that die immediately after birth because of it? Or how about those babies that end in miscarriage because of genetic errors? What you're saying is that God kills about one third of all pregnancies right after the conception, before the mother even knows she's pregnant.

There is no order in nature. It is chaos and suffering. Only humans can avoid that.

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1642084' date='Aug 30 2008, 02:09 AM']So, with this as an example, if God created cows to make a certain amount of milk every single day, what right do we, and what dangers are there, if we change what he created![/quote]

There is not a single piece of food on your plate that hasn't been genetically changed by humans unless you eat wild plants. This has been going on for thousands of years. And as a direct benefit from it there isn't billions of dead people but alive ones. All people have a right to live. That's the right you're looking for, maybe you've forgotten.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Semalsia

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1642196' date='Aug 30 2008, 03:44 AM']The problem is precisely what you have stated here: Atheists can be moral, but it becomes nothing more than an opinion, with no ultimate consequence for either being good, or being bad. If there is no God, no Heaven, no Hell, what does it matter if we live moral lives or not? What reward do we get?[/quote]

Being nice is its own reward.

If you're only being good to other people because you expect a reward after it, you're not being a moral person but a greedy and selfish one.

If someone who doesn't believe in God does good deeds, he doesn't do it because he hopes he'll get a good afterlife, he does it because he knows he'll get a good life.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1642358' date='Aug 30 2008, 01:37 PM']So basically, you concede your philosophy has less answers to offer than Christianity?[/quote]

Well speaking for myself, I don't know if I have any absolute answers. However, there is no point in some 'who has the most answers' contest. What matters is what are the right answers.

[abercius24]

The bottom line in this debate is that mankind is biased and short-sighted as a whole on matters of morality. Mankind can make a genuine effort toward attaining the best relationships, but ultimately -- and historically -- we are incapable of doing this on our own. We have a terrible tendancy of making good for some by taking it way from others. Too often societal morality seeks to benefit the many at the cost of the few. But good moral theory must take into account the good of all.

So it makes sense that, if we have access to a being who is impartial and omniscient (can see all things) -- and even better if that being cares for each and every one of us -- then that being would be the best source of guidance for mankind's actions. And by definition we call this being God. Therefore God is the most perfect source of moral authority for mankind.

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1642600' date='Aug 30 2008, 06:23 PM']The bottom line in this debate is that mankind is biased and short-sighted as a whole on matters of morality. Mankind can make a genuine effort toward attaining the best relationships, but ultimately -- and historically -- we are incapable of doing this on our own. We have a terrible tendancy of making good for some by taking it way from others. Too often societal morality seeks to benefit the many at the cost of the few. But good moral theory must take into account the good of all.

So it makes sense that, if we have access to a being who is impartial and omniscient (can see all things) -- and even better if that being cares for each and every one of us -- then that being would be the best source of guidance for mankind's actions. And by definition we call this being God. Therefore God is the most perfect source of moral authority for mankind.[/quote]


I could not have said it any better myself!