An Argument for the existence of God.

A few things before I state the argument.

(I) I want you to respond specifically to the premises and tell me why you feel they fail.

(II) If you feel compelled to attack me personally or my beliefs, refer back to (I).

(III) I'll respond to only those that desire to have a discussion.

(VI) Please think about what you are going to say before you posit it.

Having said that, here's the argument:

Premise 1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and dutites do not exist.

Premise 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

Conclusion Therefore, God exists.

 

Premise one is probably flawed, but I dont see any need to address it.

Premise two is absolutely flawed.

Objective morality does not exist.

Humans can't even agree that killing is wrong. Is it ok when its a war? Is it ok in the name of justice? What about self defence? Punishment? Euthenasia? Suicide?

Is stealing wrong? What if you are starving, and in need of food? What if you are reclaiming what is rightfully yours?

If this objective morality does exist, nobody can seem to figure it out.

Even if every human could agree that, for instance, killing is wrong, this consensus would not make it objective. It would only demonstate that humans have formed a consensus on killing. Every human would agree that killing is wrong because every human has a completely human psychology, which makes them find killing objectionable.

A particularly intelligent species of cat might have formed a consensus that bathing is immoral. Does this make bathing objectively immoral? No, of course not.

 

Morality is objective.

Ancient tribes and civilisations found it moral to leave disabled babies to die. Most people today would find that appalling. However, in ancient times there was barely enough food for everyone and only when everyone did their bit. For a disabled person to survive someone else would have to hunt and gather for both of them and it could cause starvation and further death. However, many ancient people cared for those who later became disabled. Why? Because over their lives these now disbaled people had acquired other skills and wisdom that could help the tribe, etc.

See, objective, not absolute.

 

(10Characters)

 

Animals can tell right from wrong

Premise one is false as animals have no clue to what 'god' is, yet species have their own moral code.

 

why not?

I'm not arguing that objective morals DO exist - but I am not sure why their existence/nonexistence has any bearing on th eexistence of God.

I think there are some excellent examples already as to why it is difficult to argue that objective moral values exist. there has been plenty of reseaech indicating that moral values are related to survival.

This would only be so if the existence of objective moral values could be proven, and that, if they could be proven, there was a link established between this objectivity and the existence of God.

it may be that there are generally agreed upon standards that are NOT dependent on the existence of God.

 

I don't understand what leads you to believe these 2 things are connected in the first place. I always thought "Morals" were based on self interest and an understanding of "the strength of many". A sort of recognition and admission of the need to work work with others to get what you want.

Not in everyone.

I still think the 2 are unrelated.

 

The egyptians created the commands before torah and with bunches of gods.

Confucius style of personal responsibility: do unto others as you would have them do unto you............ (

Having said that, here's the argument:

You're claiming god is the foundation of morals, is making morality subjective to god.

Your argument is a failure on the basis that it implies that mankind is incapable of compassion/empathy.

mother nature exists...............

we are born from mother and we created the words to describe what you call god

the discussion: is mankind capable of morality?

Is every child capable?

Did a human being teach you the morals you comprehend?

i posit

you posit next

 

Nonsense. I have my own values. And don't come from any God or anything. People have conscience and intiuition of species survival and from there are born the values.

No god there. Then your premise is wrong from the basis. Other point, please.

 

It wasn't that long ago (maybe a decade or two) a certain mountain tribe in SE Asia would leave one twin out to die at the time of birth.

 

Most morals are taught by your family and to some extent friends later in life.

While most religions do teach to be good people, there are plenty of religious people who would be considered bad, and plenty of Atheists who would be considered good.

You don't need to believe in God to be good.

Salam

 

lol

I just realised that I said objective but meant subjective.

 

dont worry tank, we see you firing blanks quite often

 

i think i love you!

 

Oh yeah? Oh, that's right. You're the guy who thinks he knows more than the experts.

Carry on.

 

an expert will tell you the life of a soldier in a tank is the shortest on the battlefield

 

I see you are an 'expert'

Got any proof of this? GFL on this one, since there isnt any charts to back this claim up.

 

No, that'd be a Uboat or a bomber. Probably a bomber. More likely to die in a Uboat but bomber missions weren't as long as a Uboat mission.

 

Let us start with 2: What are the values that you think are objective ?
I claim that there are none.

Now for 1: If god exist, than there are NO moral values at all. You just needs to do what god instruct you to. You do not have any say about it.

So it is the other way around. Lets us try to see how it goes:

1. If god exists you have to follow her word.
2. If objective moral exist, you have to follow this moral.
3. Since you have to follow both god word and objective moral you can find yourself in 2 cases:
case A: God word and objective moral are the same. This is a contradiction. If god cannot instruct you to do things other than to follow a strict pre-defined moral code, she cannot be god, for she have no free will.
case B: God word differ from objective moral. This is a contradiction, for you cannot follow both.

Unfortunately assumption 2 is known to be false, therefore it cannot be used to disprove assumption 1.

 

Objective morales come from the evolution of human survival. We understood very early on that the only way we could survive as a species is if we had a set of rules to live by. Our survival depends on a collective effort by all. For example, in a group of humans there may be 1 of us that is good at hunting so all of us hwave food, another good at security to protect us from outside threats, another good at making clothing so all of us stay warm during the winter...ect..ect. Any one of those individuals could not do all of those things themselves good enough to survive for very long. As a group, our lives are
Improved and we live longer as well. These are simple rules we created early on, now we have evolved further in to making rules that fit the enviornment we live in.

 

Both of your premises are invalid for the same reason:

In both premises you use the clause "objective moral values".

The two terms "objective" and "moral" are from the opposite end of the spectrum. Objective deals with :
"ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected."

While "moral" deals with:

"mor·al (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty."

Does a 'rock' have morals?

 

what's an A10?

why did iraqis jump out of tanks when they were coming?


in fact, to debate on that claim just showed how little some actually know about war


people die in war and some idiots think it is just a video game

 

there's that reading comprehension problem, again...............


how many uboats on the "battlefield"?

 

This doesn't appear to answer the question. You are saying it is OBJECTIVELY GOOD for the human species to survive? Why? With what basis may I ask are you making such a moral judgment? That's the whole point of this argument.

 

I think it is in almost every species best interest to survive. In my opinion, morality is a great example of social evolution. Morales have always been ever changing based on societal needs.