Do you think having a belief and obeying the rules make you less 'human' and ...

astroguy

"Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral."

I know of plenty of people who consider war to be moral and just.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Actually they would survive, provided that they only behaved this way to outsiders, and not towards their own in-group.

The history of the United States, I believe, demonstrates that they have survived very successfully by appying this principle, for example, to the Native Americans.

That's actually a very good point. If morality is objective then it's wrong to harm someone no matter who they are. The argument being put forward here is that objective moral values exist but in the human psyche there is clear distinction made between in-groups and out-groups, even in the bible with the whole "chosen people" thing. the concept of in-group morality does not fit with the idea of a deity imparting objective morals on us but it fits perfectly with an evolved sense that allowed our ancestors to survive in relatively small groups by protecting and looking after each other while still being hostile to outsiders

Sam Vimes

astroguy wrote: »

"Of course it's ridiculous but it's not ridiculous because there are aliens involved, it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would consider massacring someone's family to be moral."

I know of plenty of people who consider war to be moral and just.

Of course that depends on the reasons for doing the killing, which is why I specified later "moral in the same way that helping the poor is moral". Sometimes war can be justified for a variety of reasons but that's different to a situation where stabbing someone in the head is seen as no better or worse than buying them a beer

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

So morality doesn't go beyond what is beneficial for survival?

Originally, that would be my opinion. The human race is unique in the animal kingdom in that we have culturally transcended a simple back-scratching principle. But this is still not a reason to evoke god in our motives.

Jakkass wrote: »

What I love about Christianity is that it motivates me to go beyond scratching another's back, but it actually calls me to serve other people above and beyond how I would serve myself. Morality for me, and ethical living shouldn't stop at just scratching another's back and keeping us out of the way, it should involve genuine compassion.

Anyone can shown compassion. And let's not argue about what constitutes "genuine" compassion.

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

Animals that are "nice" to each other (for whatever reason, selfish genes maybe?) will survive and thrive.
Animals that routinely massacre large numbers of their own species will not survive and thrive.

I'm aware that you were referring to evolution, but I don't think that is a "source" if you will. There are two possibilities here:

1 - Morality exists within ourselves
2 - It comes from an external source

I would hold that we have the tools or the capability of moral living, but that the actual standard of right and wrong comes from an external source.

doctoremma wrote: »

The common source does not have to be divine.

That's okay, but what is the source then?

doctoremma wrote: »

If god said it was right, would you still think it was wrong? Was it right that, according to the bible, thousands of people were killed on god's word?

What is right is right because God determined it to be right. What is wrong, is wrong because God determined it to be wrong. Humans have a fantastic ability to call what is good bad and what is bad good. People who don't believe in God have a concept of right and wrong because God has given them a conscience, but people can choose to deviate from it.

As for the thousands of people killed - I think that God gave us life as a gift, and He alone has the right to take it away. We are told that it is because of our sin that we will eventually die (Romans 6:23)

What context were these people killed in? Was it due to their sin? If so, I believe that this was acceptable, indeed, all sin is deserving of death (Romans 1:32), but we live under the grace of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:21-28)

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree with the priniciples of the second part. I don't need the first part to dictate my opinion on this matter.

It would be my opinion that one cannot truly know what the second part truly entails if one does not know the first.

doctoremma wrote: »

When is someone immoral? When they reject god? Or when they stop living a moral life? Or both?

If one rejects God, anything they do is sin. Whatever does not proceed from faith is immoral. (Romans 14:23)

Morality and immorality are dependant on how well ones actions conform to God's standard.

What is considered sin isn't a list of bad things, it's merely dependant on whether someone conforms to God's standard or not. I fall short of God's standard every day, and I repent in order that I may conform more and more to this standard every day.

Their actions also of course are to be taken into consideration also.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

There are two possibilities here:

1 - Morality exists within ourselves
2 - It comes from an external source

OK, now I'm slightly confused. In your opinion, do we act morally from our own free will (without getting bogged down by free will)? Does god provide guidelines or does he play our hand? We have some kind of inate desire to act morally. We make a conscious decision to do so. There is absolutely no reason why such behaviour cannot be wrapped up with any kind of behavioural trait that aids survival in evolutionary terms.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would hold that we have the tools or the capability of moral living, but that the actual standard of right and wrong comes from an external source.

I think we're just debating what the external source is, aren't we? I'm not saying that, on a day to day basis, we make conscious judgments about whether to perform a moral act or not. I think it's a behavioural trait, one refined by evolution. This is my "external source".

Jakkass wrote: »

That's okay, but what is the source then?

^^

Jakkass wrote: »

What is right is right because God determined it to be right. What is wrong, is wrong because God determined it to be wrong.

I find this viewpoint pretty horrifying. I'm not trying to wind you up or be overly confrontational but I don't see how you can subjugate yourself to this type of divine command. Do you unquestioningly accept every little thing that god (apparently) did?

Jakkass wrote: »

Humans have a fantastic ability to call what is good bad and what is bad good.

Only if you take your previous premise to be true, which I don't.

Jakkass wrote: »

People who don't believe in God have a concept of right and wrong because God has given them a conscience, but people can choose to deviate from it.

I don't get your point. Do people who believe in god not act according to their conscience?

Jakkass wrote: »

What context were these people killed in? Was it due to their sin? If so, I believe that this was acceptable, indeed, all sin is deserving of death (Romans 1:32), but we live under the grace of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:21-28)

My little brain cannot possibly process such inhumanity. Babies were "sinful" and deserved to die?

Jakkass wrote: »

If one rejects God, anything they do is sin. Whatever does not proceed from faith is immoral. (Romans 14:23)

I have rejected god. So I am immoral? In everything I do?

Jakkass wrote: »

Their actions also of course are to be taken into consideration also.

Of course. So even if I have rejected god and am apparently immoral, you would actually consider me a moral being because I behave like one.

So god doesn't provide me with my moral status?

philologos

doctoremma wrote: »

OK, now I'm slightly confused. In your opinion, do we act morally from our own free will (without getting bogged down by free will)? Does god provide guidelines or does he play our hand? We have some kind of inate desire to act morally. We make a conscious decision to do so. There is absolutely no reason why such behaviour cannot be wrapped up with any kind of behavioural trait that aids survival in evolutionary terms.

We act morally based on our freedom. Without freedom there would be no such thing as morality. We'd just all be good and perfect. Humans aren't perfect, humans are inherently sinful and in need of a Saviour. We are justified through faith in Jesus, not in our actions, but as a consequence of being forgiven by Jesus, we have to live in accordance to the Gospel.

We make conscious decisions, but ultimately the litmus test of good and evil lies outside of ourselves, but lies with God.

The innate desire that you are talking about is our conscience. The Bible even says that God would write his laws in our hearts, but we can choose to reject them (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8, Romans 1:20-32, Romans 2:12-16).

doctoremma wrote: »

I think we're just debating what the external source is, aren't we? I'm not saying that, on a day to day basis, we make conscious judgments about whether to perform a moral act or not. I think it's a behavioural trait, one refined by evolution. This is my "external source".

For the most part yes. There are other differences in our positions. Evolution is a process, it isn't a source. Evolution gives us the capability to be moral, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the source of right and wrong. If we derived what was right and wrong from evolution, we'd be living in a grim and heartless world.

There's a difference between saying that natural selection and mutation gave us the ability to be moral (something I'm very much open to), and saying that evolution tells us what is right and wrong (something I'm very much opposed to given such understandings have justified eugenics and Social Darwinism).

A process doesn't give us the answer to what is right and what is wrong. I cannot open a science textbook and find advice as to how I should lead my life.

doctoremma wrote: »

I find this viewpoint pretty horrifying. I'm not trying to wind you up or be overly confrontational but I don't see how you can subjugate yourself to this type of divine command. Do you unquestioningly accept every little thing that god (apparently) did?

No, I don't accept anything without question.

If everything is God's creation, the standard for how one should regard something as good and evil is also His creation, including the innate desire you speak of.

doctoremma wrote: »

Only if you take your previous premise to be true, which I don't.

Are you seriously telling me that human beings have never tried to justify evil acts as good, and good acts as evil?

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't get your point. Do people who believe in god not act according to their conscience?

We do, we just choose to develop it in accordance to God's standards. People can reject these.

doctoremma wrote: »

My little brain cannot possibly process such inhumanity. Babies were "sinful" and deserved to die?

We'd need to start to assess the distinct passages you are discussing further to ensure that strawmans don't start appearing.

If we are to discuss this, we would also need to consider God's foreknowledge, and that only God could truly know what their lives would become.

doctoremma wrote: »

I have rejected god. So I am immoral? In everything I do?

If what is moral is pursuing God's standard, and fulfilling ones teleological purpose, then yes, rejecting God puts you in a state outside of God's standard.

doctoremma wrote: »

Of course. So even if I have rejected god and am apparently immoral, you would actually consider me a moral being because I behave like one.

If you have committed sin, and you reject God's forgiveness you will be ultimately judged for the penalty you have committed. All people have committed sin, therefore all people are liable to punishment unless they accept Christ's grace.

doctoremma wrote: »

So god doesn't provide me with my moral status?

He provides the moral standard, but people can choose to reject it.

Turtwig

One question : How did God know what was moral in the first place?

philologos

God is the source of morality. It isn't external to Him, but external to us.

One of my favourite Bible verses:

Jeremiah 29:11 wrote:

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

For the most part yes. There are other differences in our positions. Evolution is a process, it isn't a source. Evolution gives us the capability to be moral, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the source of right and wrong. If we derived what was right and wrong from evolution, we'd be living in a grim and heartless world.

There's a difference between saying that natural selection and mutation gave us the ability to be moral (something I'm very much open to), and saying that evolution tells us what is right and wrong (something I'm very much opposed to given such understandings have justified eugenics and Social Darwinism).

It's truly depressing that you're still erecting this straw man after I have attempted so many times to knock it down. Truly depressing. You are confusing evolution giving us some moral senses that are useful (such as the fact that not killing each other willy nilly leads to greater survival of the species) with us modelling our morality after the process itself which would of course lead to us murdering anyone but the "fittest" individuals. But you already know that because I've explained it more times than I care to remember.

philologos

It's not a strawman in the case of doctoremma.

She claims that evolution is the source of moral behaviour, good and evil, right and wrong. If I have misquoted her, she can correct me. I prefer to let people speak for themselves.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not a strawman in the case of doctoremma.

Yes, yes it is. It was a straw man the first time you were corrected on it and it remains a straw man the 100th time.

Jakkass wrote: »

She claims that evolution is the source of moral behaviour, good and evil, right and wrong. If I have misquoted her, she can correct me. I prefer to let people speak for themselves.

The process of evolution explains the origin of some of our moral senses. That is not the same as saying that our morality is modelled after the process of evolution. The output of a process is not the process itself.

I can tell you right now that she isn't saying what you think she is because if that is what she was saying then she is not only retarded but dangerously deranged and should be locked up for everyone else's safety.

Note that I am not saying she is any of those things, I am saying you have misunderstood her

philologos

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her I mentioned Social Darwinism more to explain the fallacy of regarding evolution as a moral source, and I asked her to answer it for clarification purposes.

If evolution gives us the capability to apply moral standards to our lives, all well and good, if evolution is the moral source then that's just terrible.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

God is the source of morality. It isn't external to Him, but external to us.

Yeah well I'm thinking the opposite.:p

Anyways, it matters not because you're argument is that Objective moral values cannot exist without some source - how do you know this?
All one has do is look through history and see that morals were relative between societies, even the contrast between the OT and NT shows this. This isn't saying all morals are relative, it is however saying that if absolutes exist then morality itself follows some sort of phylogeny tree that evolve slowly over time and often branch into different societies. Meaning two things :

1) Morals may converge on some absolute ultimate state.
2) Morals can change over time i.e What's good for us might be evil in a few generations time, or sadly, what's bad for us might be considered good in a few generations of time. (The latter has to assume some sort of destruction to modern society.)

If God is the source, one would have wonder why he chose such a crazy path to implant morals into humans and other animals. The only valid argument that I can presently see is that morals are independent of God and that he has no control over how they evolve between societies, only that he can help guide people because he has a higher sense of morals than anyone else that lives on Earth.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her

doctoremma could you just copy and paste my reply please? Or of course you could write your own reply that says exactly the same thing because I, unlike Jakkass, know what you are saying ans know that you are not criminally insane.

Jakkass, the reason we have an unconscious compulsion not to kill each other, the reason we have this conscience that nags at us to do good, is that our ancestors who had these compulsions survived better than the ones who didn't because they were able to live and work together for their mutual benefit where the others were left alone and were more vulnerable. That is not the same as saying that we should model our morality after the process of evolution and kill off anyone but the fittest individuals.

That is what she's saying, that is what I'm saying, that is what everyone on the planet except for believers who like to think that the only way to be moral is to believe in their god is saying.

philologos

They wouldn't be objective if they were only dependant on human opinions, but rather subjective.

However, any reasonable person can recognise the existence of moral absolutes.

I'm not sure if I can really agree with 2. Moral changes over time would be down to morality being based on human opinion.

I don't see how it is crazy to provide guidelines for living to Creation.

Morals cannot be independent of God, because if they were they wouldn't be dependant on Him, He would have no reason to reveal them to us, and we would be following someone or something else. This doesn't seem logical to me at all, and is far more crazy than what I have suggested.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If evolution gives us the capability to apply moral standards to our lives, all well and good, if evolution is the moral source then that's just terrible.

Even it is worst possible thing in the world, you can't use that argument above as a reason to invoke God.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Even it is worst possible thing in the world, you can't use that argument above as a reason to invoke God.

Please follow. I am using that to question doctoremmas position.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll be letting her reply to me for herself rather than having you do it for her I mentioned Social Darwinism more to explain the fallacy of regarding evolution as a moral source, and I asked her to answer it for clarification purposes.

As soon as you mention social Darwinism you show unequivocally that you have missed the point. Please please just heed what I am saying here and try to comprehend why mentioning social Darwinism shows that you have missed the point. It's so frustrating to see you repeat that fallacy over and over again no matter how many times I try to explain your misunderstanding. You are confusing the process, which is survival of the fittest, with the output of the process, which is a set of tools that allow organisms to survive such as an instinct to look after his pack or tribe.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

They wouldn't be objective if they were only dependant on human opinions, but rather subjective.

Jakkass,

Look back through the history of this planet, and look at the current models on how morals evolved. There is nothing to suggest that anyone was aware of an absolute. This doesn't say that morals aren't objective. People weren't aware of Newton's Theory of Gravity. Yet it was still there operating around their lives. Now we are aware of his objective Theory of Gravity. Morals came about slowly, real slow, but it doesn't say anything to prove or disprove an objective moral absolute. They may appear subjective within a society but you cannot deny that there has been a slow forward and backward progression that, I argue, may have the potential to converge on an absolute level.

Morals cannot be independent of God, because if they were they wouldn't be dependant on Him, He would have no reason to reveal them to us, and we would be following someone or something else. This doesn't seem logical to me at all, and is far more crazy than what I have suggested.

You've got to start looking at reality here, it isn't always logical or intuitive, but it is what's real. To use an analogy:

I'm appalled at some of the actions committed in the past by human beings. It is pretty clear to me that my level of morals is more evolved and developed than their's were. If I was alive back in the distant past with the same morals as I do now, I would do everything morally possible to convey my levels of morality onto those people. My argument is that God is the person from the absolute future trying to convey His morals to us through education and scripture. He reveals His moral standard to us, because He, like anyone with a higher evolved sense of empathy, cares.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Please follow. I am using that to question doctoremmas position.

Regardless of your misinterpretation of her position using such an argument is still invalid. At the risk of repeating myself, even if it was the worst possible thing in the whole wide world, it wouldn't change its value of whether or not it is truth or false. You can't use the argument of "something being terrible" to invoke God.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Look back through the history of this planet, and look at the current models on how morals evolved.

What do you mean by "current models"?

Malty_T wrote: »

There is nothing to suggest that anyone was aware of an absolute.

There is plenty. There are commonalities in all legal systems. Generally the concept of not murdering, not raping, not stealing, are considered to be moral absolutes. This is what I mean of moral absolutes. Things that people universally condemn.

Malty_T wrote: »

This doesn't say that morals aren't objective.

Morals have to exist independently of human beings to be objective.

Malty_T wrote: »

Morals came about slowly, real slow, but it doesn't say anything to prove or disprove an objective moral absolute.

Any subjective moral system is problematic.

Malty_T wrote: »

They may appear subjective within a society but you cannot deny that there has been a slow forward and backward progression that, I argue, may have the potential to converge on an absolute level.

I don't think I can agree on this. Morals "progressing" implies that humans create the rules themselves, I don't agree with this notion. Humans legislate many things that could be considered to be wrong, and I don't think humans provide a consistent moral standard.

Malty_T wrote: »

You've got to start looking at reality here, it isn't always logical or intuitive, but it is what's real. To use an analogy:

I am looking at reality. I just don't accept your viewpoint.

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm appalled at some of the actions committed in the past by human beings. It is pretty clear to me that my level of morals is more evolved and developed than their's was. If I was alive back in the distant past with the same morals as I do now, I would do everything morally possible to convey my levels of morality onto those people. My argument is that God is the person from the absolute future trying to convey His morals to us through education and scripture. He reveals His moral standard to us, because He, like anyone with a higher evolved sense of empathy, cares.

I'm appalled at the past actions of human beings, it's precisely because I am appalled that I can trust God.

The key point is that He reveals His moral standard to us. Not any moral standard that exists elsewhere. God defines what is good and what is evil, because He knows what dangers there are in a fallen world.

doctoremma

Jakkass wrote: »

Without freedom there would be no such thing as morality.

OK.

Jakkass wrote: »

We'd just all be good and perfect.

Would we? Why would we be "good"?

Jakkass wrote: »

Humans aren't perfect, humans are inherently sinful and in need of a Saviour. We are justified through faith in Jesus, not in our actions, but as a consequence of being forgiven by Jesus, we have to live in accordance to the Gospel.

This statement relies on the premise that what you consider "sinful" is what god says. As this is the premise under dispute, this creates a circular argument on your part.

Jakkass wrote: »

We make conscious decisions, but ultimately the litmus test of good and evil lies outside of ourselves, but lies with God.

What is the litmus test? I think we have very different ideas of what the "purpose" of good and evil is. And with differing purposes, our "litmus tests" are likely to be very different.

Emma's litmus test: fitness to survive
Jackass' litmus test: pleasing god

Jakkass wrote: »

The innate desire that you are talking about is our conscience.

Fine. I just don't think we need a god to create our conscience.

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution is a process, it isn't a source.

Hence the quotation marks around "external source". We are dealing with different types of externality.

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution gives us the capability to be moral

Evolution doesn't "give" us anything. Natural selection would favour moral agents.

Jakkass wrote: »

but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the source of right and wrong

I'm now at the stage where I'm wondering if we need to define any source.

Jakkass wrote: »

There's a difference between saying that natural selection and mutation gave us the ability to be moral (something I'm very much open to)

I think this language is confusing. Your are speaking as if morality is a quality one is granted. I am arguing that it is a behavioural trait and wasn't endowed at any point. It was simply a behaviour that was selected for.

Jakkass wrote: »

If everything is God's creation, the standard for how one should regard something as good and evil is also His creation, including the innate desire you speak of.

The first premise on which you base your statement is under dispute. Therefore, anything leading from it cannot be considered.

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me that human beings have never tried to justify evil acts as good, and good acts as evil?

I never said that. We are debating how we decide what is good and evil.

Jakkass wrote: »

If what is moral is pursuing God's standard, and fulfilling ones teleological purpose, then yes, rejecting God puts you in a state outside of God's standard.

Ahh, but does it make me "immoral"?

NB: all else that you have posted re: eugenics is indeed a strawman.

NBB (that's not right): And thanks Sam for your kind words in support of my mental and social faculties

doctoremma

Malty_T wrote: »

One question : How did God know what was moral in the first place?

Apparently irrelevant. What he says is morally good is good. How's that for objectivity?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

doctoremma could you just copy and paste my reply please? Or of course you could write your own reply that says exactly the same thing because I, unlike Jakkass, know what you are saying ans know that you are not criminally insane.

Vimes, you get a public warning this time because you normally stay off the radar. Cut it out!

Turtwig

I'm keeping this one brief.

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you mean by "current models"?

Scientific models on morality : it's a complicated subject but they are pealing back the layers.

There is plenty. There are commonalities in all legal systems. Generally the concept of not murdering, not raping, not stealing, are considered to be moral absolutes. This is what I mean of moral absolutes. Things that people universally condemn.

Do you really believe that such commonalities were always present. Iirc it was ok was Japanese Samurai to rape women. The definition of "murder" has been refined by societies over time.


Morals have to exist independently of human beings to be objective.

Indeed they do. I'm not sure how what I'm saying says morals aren't objective.


Any subjective moral system is problematic.
You might need to re-read what I said.


I don't think I can agree on this. Morals "progressing" implies that humans create the rules themselves, I don't agree with this notion. Humans legislate many things that could be considered to be wrong, and I don't think humans provide a consistent moral standard.

Who said they have to be consistent? Honestly Jakkass, you're making up a pseudo moral system here. I'll repeat this point as you don't seem to be getting it : morals can fluctuate. One animal society may realise that rape is wrong only to be eliminated by an aggressive one that delves in rape.


I am looking at reality. I just don't accept your viewpoint.
No you're not. You're looking at some image you've conjured of reality.


I'm appalled at the past actions of human beings, it's precisely because I am appalled that I can trust God.
Ok, this has nothing to do with if morals come from God or not.

The key point is that He reveals His moral standard to us. Not any moral standard that exists elsewhere. God defines what is good and what is evil, because He knows what dangers there are in a fallen world.

Yeah, but did you even acknowledge my analogy here, could you least at explain why it is wrong?

P.s Jakkass, it would be really constructive if you actually read up on the evolution of morality.

philologos

Malty T - You need to distinguish between biological evolution, and Moral Zeitgeist.

I'm sure moral consensus has changed between time, but the question is how well does this consensus fit with the moral standard that God gave us which is unchanging.

All this is to me is a differentiation between, morality at the human level, and morality at God's level. I'm more concerned with the latter than the former.

The mere existence of moral absolutes, points to a God if we are to take C.S Lewis' argument to it's logical conclusion.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T - You need to distinguish between biological evolution, and Moral Zeitgeist. .

One is a by product of the other.
Biological evolution explains how animals evolved empathy and the like.
Moral Zeitgeist (which isn't really exactly what I'm saying) explains how societies shift their moral understandings from one generation to the next - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

I'm sure moral consensus has changed between time, but the question is how well does this consensus fit with the moral standard that God gave us which is unchanging.

This isn't my arguement, can you please address my point on how God may not be source of morals, but only a guide for us?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

One is a by product of the other.
Biological evolution explains how animals evolved empathy and the like.
Moral Zeitgeist (which isn't really exactly what I'm saying) explains how societies shift their moral understandings from one generation to the next - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

Right, perhaps referring to biological evolution, as evolution, and Moral Zeitgeist as Moral Zeitgeist will help.

When I refer to evolution, I mean biological evolution.

Separate the two of them and we might be able to have a more efficient discussion. I've already explained my views concerning how evolution works in this. I don't agree that a Moral Zeitgeist really tells us about what is universally right or wrong, infact all it can do is tell us that what we consider to be right and wrong. It presumes a relativist view to morality that I do not accept. People can consider things to be immoral or moral and be entirely wrong on it.

This is what I meant when I said to doctoremma that humans have a great way of justifying immoral behaviour. Ultimately if we call what is good bad and what is bad good, we have it upside down. People seem to have a knack at it.

Malty_T wrote: »

This isn't my arguement, can you please address my point on how God may not be source of morals, but only a guide for us?

You're no longer discussing the Judeo-Christian God if we go on this tangent.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The mere existence of moral absolutes, points to a God if we are to take C.S Lewis' argument to it's logical conclusion.

There are some things that are fundamentally beneficial to every sane human being such as we all have a common desire not to die. A rule that prevents people from killing each other allows each one of us to fulfil that desire, it says that if you don't try to kill me, I won't try to kill you and everybody's happy.

I honestly cannot fathom why you feel it necessary to invoke a divine being to explain how human beings all arrived at a consensus based on a desire that each and every one of us shares.

Do you think the fact that all sane humans have a desire to live points to a god or is it just any conclusions that we draw based on that desire?