MORALITY DIRECTS US TO GOD (Good Read)

[GildartsTale]

MORALITY DIRECTS US TO GOD

And our understanding and intuitions about morality and ethics confirms that.

Something that all of us experience on a daily basis is morality, or our sense that some things really ARE good and some things really ARE evil; some things really ARE right, and some things really ARE wrong.

Following these moral senses, here is a simple, logically airtight, version of the moral argument demonstrating that IF things really ARE good/evil, right/wrong, then it follows logically that God exists:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

It is important we recognize the difference between a moral VALUE and a moral DUTY. "Moral value refers to the worth of a person or action, whether it is good or evil. Moral duty refers to our obligation to act in a certain way, whether that action is right or wrong." (Craig, Values and Duties, On Guard, p. 171)

We also need to realize the difference between "objective" and "subjective." Objective means "independent of someone, or a group of person's, opinions" while subjective means "dependent on someone's, or a group of person's, opinions." Our premise relates to moral values and duties apart from anyone's opinion.

NOTICE: This argument IS NOT saying that someone must BELIEVE in God in order to do good things. "Belief" in God is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is saying that GOD MUST EXIST in order for objective good/evil, right/wrong to exist, regardless of if someone believes that to be true. Many non-believers do good things (often better things than believers do). But that isn't the argument. The argument is answering why there is even the category of "good" in the first place.

How can we defend this logically airtight argument?

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH OF PREMISE 1
On morality, Charles Darwin once wrote,
"If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering." (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to ***, p. 100)
Indeed, on a worldview that says God does not exist, human beings are nothing more than relatively advanced animals. And we know that in the animal kingdom, there is no such thing as "morality." When a lion hunts and kills a zebra, can that lion be taken to court on murder charges? That's absurd! The lion simply kills the zebra, but it does not MURDER the zebra.

Or how about when male animals forcibly copulate with female animals, as Lalumière et al observe among dozens of animal species in the wild? (Lalumière, "Forced Copulation in the Animal Kingdom"). Can these male animals be taken to court and charged with rape? That would also be absurd!

We rightly judge and punish murder, rape, incest, and various other things that apparently also happen in the animal kingdom, and by which we DO not punish animals for committing.

If we are merely animals, then moral categories would not apply to us.

Second, atheistic moral platonism doesn't work either. Moral values are properties of persons, and moral duties are actions of persons, not abstract objects. Moreover, even if morality were an abstract object, that would provide no obligation for conforming to it. Finally, there is no good reason to think we would be any different than any other animal if God does not exist. Morality would not have just popped into existence.

Without the existence of God, we have no place to ground our objective morality.

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH OF PREMISE 2

And that is the problem, isn't it? We know objective moral values and duties exist. Not only do we intuitively know this, we live our entire lives based on morality. Every society in the world is founded on the basis that moral values and duties ARE objective apart from what we think about them.

Murder really IS evil.
Rape really IS evil.
****philia really IS evil.
Torturing babies for fun really IS evil.
...no matter what anyone thinks, and no matter what anyone feels.

Because moral values and duties are objective, and because they cannot be objective without the existence of God, then it follows logically...

God is the ground of morality, and so God exists.

CTTO

 

[plhbg1]

who says morality is objective?
morality does not direct us to god kasi if it happens then ako mismo ay ma-re-direct to god
it is the god (in which the idea of it is created by men themselves) that influences the moral principles

what is good and what is bad have always been subjective, i can even think that killing you is good
the reason i am not killing you is because i'm just afraid getting punished by the laws of mankind even though i always think killing you is good (my own moral principle)

even abortion is not objective, it always depends on the society, some societies allow it
incest is another one, not all society bans it and morality is therefore not objective at all

 

[Away From Keyboard]

Murder really IS evil.
Rape really IS evil.
****philia really IS evil.

 

[N E G A N]

Good and evil lodi is subjective ata.

Pag si killer napatay nya yung target nya Good yun para sa kanya dahil na accomplished na yung given task.
meanwhile sa mga victims perspective syempre masama. tama ba guys haha

 

[GildartsTale]

who says morality is objective?
morality does not direct us to god kasi if it happens then ako mismo ay ma-re-direct to god
it is the god (in which the idea of it is created by men themselves) that influences the moral principles

what is good and what is bad have always been subjective, i can even think that killing you is good
the reason i am not killing you is because i'm just afraid getting punished by the laws of mankind even though i always think killing you is good (my own moral principle)

even abortion is not objective, it always depends on the society, some societies allow it
incest is another one, not all society bans it and morality is therefore not objective at all

Who says morality is objective?
1. It has always been. Until post modernism and relativism rise in the 18th to 20th century.

2. Are you absolutely sure that truth (good and evil) is relative?

3. Can we really condemn those who commit atrocities in human history example (Hitler or Mao)? If by them they are doing the good/right thing?

Here's your dilemma. What would you think if our judicial system is relative in nature. What will happened to our world?

 

[plhbg1]

What would you think if our judicial system is relative in nature. What will happened to our world?

lol judicial system only implements the laws of mankind, it is not judging who/what is good/bad

as long as i can set my own moral principle (killing you is good) there is no objectivity on morality

and dagdag ko na din, mas effective yung laws of mankind to maintain peace and order kaysa dun sa god idea

 

[GildartsTale]

lol judicial system only implements the laws of mankind, it is not judging who/what is good/bad

as long as i can set my own moral principle (killing you is good) there is no objectivity on morality

and dagdag ko na din, mas effective yung laws of mankind to maintain peace and order kaysa dun sa god idea

Lol. Are you absolutely sure that the judicial system of mankind is only implementing laws, not judging what is good/bad?

You did not even answer the questions above.

 

[plhbg1]

Lol. Are you absolutely sure that the judicial system of mankind is only implementing laws, not judging what is good/bad?

edi nakulong na sana si rappler but buti na lang it turned out na di na siya pwede kasuhan sabi ng batas
kung patayin nga kita hindi mo na ako pwede kasuhan after 20 years sabi din ng batas hehe

You did not even answer the questions above.

did not answer it but i invalidated it instead hehe

 

[GildartsTale]

edi nakulong na sana si rappler but buti na lang it turned out na di na siya pwede kasuhan sabi ng batas
kung patayin nga kita hindi mo na ako pwede kasuhan after 20 years sabi din ng batas hehe


did not answer it but i invalidated it instead hehe

Unfortunately your not answering the simple questions. Did not even see any invalidation.

Here's another, are you absolutely sure that good/bad is relative?

And then if di na pwde kasuhan after 20 years? Would we still justify killing?

 

[plhbg1]

Unfortunately your not answering the simple questions. Did not even see any invalidation.

ah poor analysis, ok let's go spoon feeding:
yung question mo only applies to judicial system that judges who is good or bad but sad to say they only judge who is following the law or not, that is why it is an invalid question

Here's another, are you absolutely sure that good/bad is relative?

di lang basta basta relative kundi highly subjective talaga iyan, things are not bad to all, some allows it, nag sample na nga ako e abortion at incest, poor analysis kasi e

And then if di na pwde kasuhan after 20 years? Would we still justify killing?

i can say it is justified and i can also say it is not justified depending on what i set as my own moral standards, diba magka iba tayo ng standards, i can obviously set my own

 

[GildartsTale]

ah poor analysis, ok let's go spoon feeding:
yung question mo only applies to judicial system that judges who is good or bad but sad to say they only judge who is following the law or not, that is why it is an invalid question

No need for spoon feeding kasi until now. You did not answer the question. Your answer is hollow.

They only judge by who's following the law. And the law is to define what?

di lang basta basta relative kundi highly subjective talaga iyan, things are not bad to all, some allows it, nag sample na nga ako e abortion at incest, poor analysis kasi e

Then we are going circle. Sabi mo subjective ang good/evil, but you are absolutely sure about that? That's inconsistent.

i can say it is justified and i can also say it is not justified depending on what i set as my own moral standards, diba magka iba tayo ng standards, i can obviously set my own

Yan yung resulta ng relativism. Obviously, the world will crumble if we follow those kinds of ideology. Do you really thing that killing is not evil by any standards? Do you think that rape can be good? Do you think bullying can be good? Do you think that what Hitler did murdering innocent million lives can be good?

In your ideology there is no true justice.

 

[dummy01]

who says morality is objective?
morality does not direct us to god kasi if it happens then ako mismo ay ma-re-direct to god
it is the god (in which the idea of it is created by men themselves) that influences the moral principles

what is good and what is bad have always been subjective, i can even think that killing you is good
the reason i am not killing you is because i'm just afraid getting punished by the laws of mankind even though i always think killing you is good (my own moral principle)

even abortion is not objective, it always depends on the society, some societies allow it
incest is another one, not all society bans it and morality is therefore not objective at all

It is true that the atheistic view of morality is subjective. However, you have to admit the danger of moral relativistic world view. The human atrocities of the 20th century is the result of that dangerous world view. Hitler's view of the Jews as evil is justified if the people he ruled agrees to it. Stalin's marxist's policies based on compassion to the proletariats are justified to create gulag concentration camps. The death of millions of chinese under Mao is justified as long as he can please the soviet and his country has equal footing with the superpower. Pol Pot's genocide of his own people is justified as long as the country is ruled under communism, which he believed is good for his country. In a subjective moral stand point, you cannot condemn them due to the rational idea of 'for the greater good' in which the 'good' part there is begging for question.

The theist, especially those with judeo-christian views, had learned that it is necessary to have an objective morality so we do not repeat the atrocities demonstrated in human history. I do not deny that there are religious people who commit atrocities in the name of God, but the judeo-christian views had this bedrock foundation of sovereign individual as divine that is deeply rooted in the idea of the existense of God. This is the rationale why you do not just kill a person or abort a baby based on one's feelings or reasoning. Just because it is justified it does not mean it is good. Anyone with intellectual capability can make their own justification when they commit atrocities.

 

[plhbg1]

The theist, especially those with judeo-christian views, had learned that it is necessary to have an objective morality so we do not repeat the atrocities demonstrated in human history. I do not deny that there are religious people who commit atrocities in the name of God, but the judeo-christian views had this bedrock foundation of sovereign individual as divine that is deeply rooted in the idea of the existense of God. This is the rationale why you do not just kill a person or abort a baby based on one's feelings or reasoning. Just because it is justified it does not mean it is good. Anyone with intellectual capability can make their own justification when they commit atrocities.

it is because you were taught that it is not your will be done but thy will be done, your will is the main aspect of subjectivity but if your will is removed from the scene tama lang naman na maging objective since your opinion no longer matter

so, no problem with objective morality for christians since it is thy will be done and not their will

And the law is to define what?

kaya nga sabi ko sa iyo abortion can be good in some laws of the land, they allow it, ang the judicial system must abide on the allowance of abortion by the law

Then we are going circle. Sabi mo subjective ang good/evil, but you are absolutely sure about that? That's inconsistent.

good/evil have always been subjective to the laws of that particular land, some societies make abortion as good in their laws

Do you really thing that killing is not evil by any standards? Do you think that rape can be good? Do you think bullying can be good? Do you think that what Hitler did murdering innocent million lives can be good?

i can say they are good and i can also say they are bad depending on kung anung i-set ko na standard, nagawa na nga ni hitler diba nag set na siya ng standard na magkaiba sa standard mo and obviously kaya ko rin gawin iyon

In your ideology there is no true justice.

ayan justice, pag binato ng bato batuhin ng tinapay, ngayon nag hahanap ng true justice, thou hypocrites

 

[dummy01]

it is because you were taught that it is not your will be done but thy will be done, your will is the main aspect of subjectivity but if your will is removed from the scene tama lang naman na maging objective since your opinion no longer matter

so, no problem with objective morality for christians since it is thy will be done and not their will

Right. Objective is something that is independent to one's opinions/will. Like you pointed out, Christians are taught like that, independent to opinion. Christians may opposed you of your subjective moral grounds, but what the Christians (theists in general) are trying to say and emphasize, just like the laws of physics, logic, and mathematics, there is also divine laws that human beings must adhere.

 

[plhbg1]

what the Christians (theists in general) are trying to say and emphasize, just like the laws of physics, logic, and mathematics, there is also divine laws that human beings must adhere.

when we say must it suggests necessity, but i can't feel that necessity on following divine laws whereas in logic aba di ko ma afford lumihis kasi kailangan ko siya araw araw

 

[GildartsTale]

it is because you were taught that it is not your will be done but thy will be done, your will is the main aspect of subjectivity but if your will is removed from the scene tama lang naman na maging objective since your opinion no longer matter

so, no problem with objective morality for christians since it is thy will be done and not their will


kaya nga sabi ko sa iyo abortion can be good in some laws of the land, they allow it, ang the judicial system must abide on the allowance of abortion by the law


good/evil have always been subjective to the laws of that particular land, some societies make abortion as good in their laws


i can say they are good and i can also say they are bad depending on kung anung i-set ko na standard, nagawa na nga ni hitler diba nag set na siya ng standard na magkaiba sa standard mo and obviously kaya ko rin gawin iyon


ayan justice, pag binato ng bato batuhin ng tinapay, ngayon nag hahanap ng true justice, thou hypocrites

1. The Law is to define what is good and evil.

2. Good/Evil is not subjective. Evil will always be evil and good will always be good. Even that particular land says it is good just like killing babies it will always remain evil.

3. Kaya nga we condemn Hitler for what He has done because killing has always been evil. No one has the right to take someone else lives. Base sa ideology mo, it is okay to kill. That means your ideology teaches rape and homicide can be good.

4. Kaya nga sabi ko there is no justice sa subjectism. For finding true justice is hypocrite? Eh? Thats how morality has fall down in the dust when relativism became mainstream.

 

[plhbg1]

1. The Law is to define what is good and evil.

if law is to define good then abortion is good since law allows it hehe law only sets limits or the extent of what we can do, it does not say if a thing is good/bad, it only sets how far can we go before breaking it, more on regulation lang

Even that particular land says it is good just like killing babies it will always remain evil.

it will only remain evil for you but not to them that allows it hehe

3. Kaya nga we condemn Hitler for what He has done because killing has always been evil. No one has the right to take someone else lives. Base sa ideology mo, it is okay to kill. That means your ideology teaches rape and homicide can be good.

i can do that just like hitler making good kills, anyone can just make anything good in his own opinion, that's what hitler have proven that we have different standards of morality instead of locking our standard on what the god idea teaches

4. Kaya nga sabi ko there is no justice sa subjectism.

dito walang death penalty doon meron pero both lands are happy sa kani kanilang laws, walang death penalty pero meron justice, sa kabila meron death penalty justice pa din, akala ko ba walang justice sa subjectivity hehe

For finding true justice is hypocrite?

binigyan na nga kita ng example e, binato mo ako ng bato at binato kita ng tinapay, if true justice hanap binato na kita ng mas malaking bato niyan, kaya hypocrites ang tawag sa taong nagpa as if na kayang bumato ng tinapay kapag binato ng bato

 

[GildartsTale]

if law is to define good then abortion is good since law allows it hehe law only sets limits or the extent of what we can do, it does not say if a thing is good/bad, it only sets how far can we go before breaking it, more on regulation lang

I am talking about the moral law. it will always define what is evil and good.

it will only remain evil for you but not to them that allows it hehe

Nah, not for me only. Evil will remain evil even everyone in the world will say it is good.

i can do that just like hitler making good kills, anyone can just make anything good in his own opinion, that's what hitler have proven that we have different standards of morality instead of locking our standard on what the god idea teaches

Good kills? are you insane for saying that killing can be good? Specially for what Hitler did. Did you now know according to Phycologist that those who kill with joy has mental illness?

dito walang death penalty doon meron pero both lands are happy sa kani kanilang laws, walang death penalty pero meron justice, sa kabila meron death penalty justice pa din, akala ko ba walang justice sa subjectivity hehe

Your barking at the wrong tree. Ikaw na nag sabi na pwde killing is good. Then how can we have justice to a system that says killing can be good? As on your standard we can't convict the killer right?

binigyan na nga kita ng example e, binato mo ako ng bato at binato kita ng tinapay, if true justice hanap binato na kita ng mas malaking bato niyan, kaya hypocrites ang tawag sa taong nagpa as if na kayang bumato ng tinapay kapag binato ng bato

Anong pinagsasabi mo. Search mo nga ang meaning ng hypocrite before accusing someone.

 

[plhbg1]

I am talking about the moral law. it will always define what is evil and good.

oo tama nga naman since meron ako sariling moral law and killing is good doon kaya i agree that it sets what is good

Nah, not for me only. Evil will remain evil even everyone in the world will say it is good.

wow good luck on that push hehe

Good kills? are you insane for saying that killing can be good? Specially for what Hitler did. Did you now know according to Phycologist that those who kill with joy has mental illness?

mental illness? no problem as long as nakakapasok pa din ako sa trabaho and able to pass the psychological requirements hehe

Your barking at the wrong tree. Ikaw na nag sabi na pwde killing is good. Then how can we have justice to a system that says killing can be good? As on your standard we can't convict the killer right?

making a law that allow killing of child is a judicial system that allows the killer to kill without being punished by law, that's how justice works on other places

Anong pinagsasabi mo. Search mo nga ang meaning ng hypocrite before accusing someone.

nag search na ako at same pa din ang meaning, someone pretending na bumato ng tinapay pag binato ng bato hehe

 

[GildartsTale]

oo tama nga naman since meron ako sariling moral law and killing is good doon kaya i agree that it sets what is good


wow good luck on that push hehe


mental illness? no problem as long as nakakapasok pa din ako sa trabaho and able to pass the psychological requirements hehe


making a law that allow killing of child is a judicial system that allows the killer to kill without being punished by law, that's how justice works on other places


nag search na ako at same pa din ang meaning, someone pretending na bumato ng tinapay pag binato ng bato hehe

Enough said.

Here's how ironic your reasoning is. You're a relativist that's why you said it can be both good and evil to kill. And yet you shove your ideology to others as if yours is the only truth. A relativist who does not believe in absolute yet believe their ideology is absolute. A relativist who holds the values "that it matters on own personal interpretation" yet prying to others opinion. How inconsistent isn't it?