Moral law = Moral law giver

Carl.Gustav

Hi all

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

Why then is the argument so often put forward, am I missing something ?

Any thoughts welcome.

georgieporgy

If you're having such trouble at page 3-4 I fear you are in for a rough ride!

If you really are new to the bible can I suggest you not start at the beginning. Start with one of the 4 Gospels, followed by The Acts of the Apostles.

That should get you up to speed and then you can tackle the beginning. Don't expect to become a theologian overnight. Get a good commentary to read alongside the biblical text. You will find it helpful when you run into questions such as the one you have raised.

Or at least get a bible with copious footnotes like the Navarre Bible.

An Amazing Study Bible, Very Well Written, August 13, 2010
By CynthiaW (Houston) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch (The Navarre Bible: Old Testament) (Hardcover)
I purchased the Navarre Gospels and Acts edition and liked it so much I decided to buy this one too. A lot of Christians stick to the New Testament but I enjoy the Old Testament stories and I think the theology in the OT is very important for context.

This study bible has scripture across the top and explanation and commentary across the bottom. It is typeset in a very nice font, I think it is Times New Roman, about 12 point. The result is large, clear, easy to read and pleasing to the eye. The translation from Spanish to English has been accomplished with very few errors, the grammar is quite good. It is printed on a heavier than usual paper and has a good quality binding and cover.

The preface and introduction are excellent and delve into the issues of the various traditions that source the books. Each separate book has its own preface and I found them very informative.

The commentary is very good. In the places where there may be translation problems it frankly addresses the issue. Where the text is repetitive or confusing the commentary doesn't avoid that and fairly points out what may be the problem. It has the best explanation of typologies I've seen and points out several I had never noticed. The commentary is gentle and instructive. It doesn't put you off - rather it makes you think. As far as I can tell it is scrupulously faithful to magisterial teaching.

The bible has extensive reference to church fathers and magisterial teaching. Somehow they managed to pull that off while keeping the text very easy to read to the point that it is very hard to put down. I have had sessions with this bible where I read it for hours just for the pure enjoyment of a good read.

I wish it were less expensive, but bibles aren't cheap and this is a serious scholarly work. It has opened my eyes to many things I hadn't seen in the raw text. I am very glad I purchased this one and I will be back for more.

philologos

OP: Read C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, it's excellent on morality.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: Read C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, it's excellent on morality.

It's been a while, so I'll dig it out again and give it a second read. But I remember not being impressed with his reasoning.

hivizman

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

Similar arguments, that the existence of moral law implies that there must be a moral law legislator (that is, God), are also found in Judaism and Islam. I think, though, that the argument is fallacious. It relies on the unstated assumption that "moral law" is comparable to ordinary law. Our ordinary laws exist only because of the existence of legislators such as rulers and parliaments - they do not come into existence of their own accord. Hence, if ordinary laws require legislators, and moral laws are "like" ordinary laws, then moral laws require legislators. This does not imply that the legislator need be God, but usually moral laws are assumed implicitly to be objective (in the sense that they exist independently of particular humans or humanity in general) and universal (in the sense that they apply at all times and in all places). Such laws would require a particularly powerful "legislator", and only God would be powerful enough.

The fallacy comes in assuming that moral "laws" are comparable to ordinary human laws - they are clearly different in that ordinary human laws do not claim to be objective and universal (there is, as was pointed out in the Objective Morality thread, a concept in legal theory of "natural law" that would meet these descriptions, but that does not necessarily imply a "natural legislator"). If we reject the analogy, then there is no reason to conclude, even if we accept the concept of "moral laws", that such laws require a legislator or law-giver (and even if they do, there are other possibilities, such as "society", rather than God).

I recall that some theologians (for example, Richard Swinburne in his book Is There a God?) turn the argument around, and claim that, given the existence and nature of God, it is reasonable to believe that God would give humans an objective, universal moral law. If this is so, then there is danger of arguing in a circle to use the existence of such a moral law as evidence for the existence of God.

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

An interesting idea, but remember that a "gift" need not be something one wants (and indeed the word "gift" in German means poison) - it is simply something given. Perhaps people here are thinking more specifically of the laws handed down to Moses, which Jewish tradition sees as having been given by God, or the moral laws of the Gospels, which Christians believe to be God-given in that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, or the Sharia, which Muslims believe to be derived from the word of God as given to the prophet Muhammad.

I was interested to compare the Genesis story with the similar (but subtly different) narration in the Qur'an. In Genesis, the man is told ". . . of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" (NRSV, Gen. 2:17). Quite frankly, if I were told that there was something called "knowledge of good and evil", which was being kept from me, I'd be curious as to what it was. So, psychologically, it's not surprising that, when the serpent says: "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5), that the woman ate the fruit and persuaded the man to do likewise.

In the Qur'an, the story is told three times, in Surat al-Baqarah 2:35-39, Surat al-A'raf 7:19-25, and Surah Ta Ha 20:115-124. In al-Baqarah and al-A'raf, God's command is: "do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers (al-zalimin)." This implies some sort of awareness of right and wrong, in particular that it is wrong to act against the explicit command of God - eating from the tree would be wrong precisely because God had commanded not to eat from the tree, rather than because it would open up the floodgates to a knowledge of good and evil. Incidentally, Islam denies the concept of original sin, and the story finishes with Adam repenting and God accepting this repentance.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It's been a while, so I'll dig it out again and give it a second read. But I remember not being impressed with his reasoning.

It is terrible. But apparently saying that around here is heretical

Nemi

hivizman wrote: »

I think, though, that the argument is fallacious.

I suspect that I agree, but for slightly different reasons. I don't see how moral laws can exist without some kind of a god. Hence, rather than moral laws proving there is a lawgiver, a consequence of unbelief is that morality has no objective basis.

antiskeptic

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

The argument would probably include the word "absolute" or "transcendent" in front of "moral law". There is no problem with a relativistic moral law + no God. But if someone states that such and such an action is forever and irrevocably wrong - irrespective of influences from culture, era, fashion, opinion, social law at that time, etc ... then they need to include a transcendent lawgiver. For example: if someone says that child molestation is forever and a day wrong then they need to say how, without a God, that should be the case.

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

The aquiring of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't a sin, it was something man was equipped with in response to his sinning. Given that this knowledge of good and evil is a central tool utilised by God in the salvation (or damnation) of man, one can see that God responded immediately to mans fall with his mechanism of restitution.

Man pinned down under the moral law (his knowledge of good and evil .. or his conscience if you prefer) is what will result in his salvation ("..the law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ") or his damnation (in the case that he wills it not to be so led)

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

Who do you think planted the garden. Who do you think placed man in that garden. It was God: providing in advance for the restitution of man in the case that he would fall. We can't be sure what would have been the case had Adam chosen otherwise - the Bible majors on the case that actually occurred. Little doubt though that God would have had that scenario covered too - there was only two choices to deal with afterall

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: if someone says that child molestation is forever and a day wrong then they need to say how, without a God, that should be the case.

And is it fair to point out that, so far, no-one has produced any objective reason why that should be the case.

On the other hand, some have pointed out that a mindset that expects some things to be absolutely wrong is one created by Christianity, that ceases to make sense once a deity is removed from the equation.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

And is it fair to point out that, so far, no-one has produced any objective reason why that should be the case.

What should be the case?

On the other hand, some have pointed out that a mindset that expects some things to be absolutely wrong is one created by Christianity, that ceases to make sense once a deity is removed from the equation.

Which was my point. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. Utterly subjective in other words.

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

What should be the case?

Same as you go on to say. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. In other words, Hannibal Lector isn't evil. Just scary.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

"Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit."

The objective reason why this is so is self-evident. If all views on what constitutes good and evil are personally decided upon then you cannot have an objective moral standard. I'm sure some find Hannibal good.

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm sure some find Hannibal good.

Oh, absolutely. Something like the attitude of Ash in the film 'Alien' I admire its purity. A survivor. Unclouded by conscious, remorse, or delusions of morality. Alternatively, there's that quote from Genghis Khan (borrowed by Conan the Barbarian) The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms.

In what we believe to be wrong, we are absolutely just creatures of our time.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

In what we believe to be wrong, we are absolutely just creatures of our time.

Subjectively just...

For I disagree.

ISAW

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Hi all

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

Thread replication.

Already answered here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68413879&postcount=3

You are wrong to assume only Christians say this. Jews and Muslims and others also say it.

Also the idea of a moral law extends to non believers. Go look at the other thread.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which was my point. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. Utterly subjective in other words.

If God exists and objective morality exists, doesn't God simply know what the objective morality is, as purely objective morality is simply a fact of existence, like "God exists" is a fact of existence (God in a state of non-existence didn't decide to exist)?

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

It becomes then a question of authority rather than objectivity.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

If "laws of physics" or "laws of nature" exist are they subject to the laws of nature? Including all the ones that say they aren't?

see what happens when we stitch up the concept of subjectivity?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If "laws of physics" or "laws of nature" exist are they subject to the laws of nature? Including all the ones that say they aren't?

If the laws of nature were decided by something (like God) then they are subjective to that decision and the existence of that deity. If they just are, then they are objective.

Objective means just being the way it is, not dependent on anyone deciding it will be this way or that way.

For example, if God exists that is an objective fact or reality (by definition) since nothing decided God would exist, he just does.

I suppose one could argue that once God creates something it exists in an objective state, like the Mona Lisa just is the Mona Lisa objectively, where as the act of deciding what it would be was subjective. So what are moral laws is a subjective notion but once God has created them their existence is an objective fact.

But that still get to the issue that God decided what they are.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

If the laws of nature were decided by something (like God) then they are subjective to that decision and the existence of that deity. If they just are, then they are objective.
...
So what are moral laws is a subjective notion but once God has created them their existence is an objective fact.

But that still get to the issue that God decided what they are.

Whether or not made by God, their existence is according to you an objective fact.

The idea of a first cause does away with the "turtles all the way down" issue of subjectivity.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Whether or not made by God, their existence is according to you an objective fact.

Saying whether or not made by God is a bit pointless since the whole nature of existence changes if God exists.

For example, if God exists can something exist completely independent to God? Or is it God's notion that keeps things existing?

The answer to that question will determine if somethings existence is objective or subjective.

ISAW wrote: »

The idea of a first cause does away with the "turtles all the way down" issue of subjectivity.

I've no idea what that refers to. That has never been the issue.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying whether or not made by God is a bit pointless since the whole nature of existence changes if God exists.

Depends on what you mean by "God". It seems you are referring to the first cause or creator concept of God whih determines the whole universe.

For example, if God exists can something exist completely independent to God? Or is it God's notion that keeps things existing?

If it is the "first cause" God then it couldn't come into being without God but one could posit that things could exist independently of God after they become real.

I've no idea what that refers to. That has never been the issue.

If the concept is of a first cause then the cause of that isn't at issue. If the concept is a Zeus or other type of god then we can get into turtles.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If it is the "first cause" God then it couldn't come into being without God but one could posit that things could exist independently of God after they become real.

True, you could say that God is something that exists and creates but when something is created it exists in the set of things that exist, along with God but independently. So if theoretically God ceased to exist that thing would continue to exist. Then its existence would be considered objective, as in it is merely a fact of existence.

The issue would be if God's creations require God to exist, that existence is itself some sort of continuous "thought" of God.

For example does God change something that exists (in that he interacts with something that he has completely control of but that is still independent and requires interaction with) or does the thing simply be what God says it is.

A bit like imagining that reality is a dream of God. When you change something in a dream you don't walk over to it and change it. It just changes. And when you wake up the dream is gone.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

If God exists and objective morality exists, doesn't God simply know what the objective morality is, as purely objective morality is simply a fact of existence, like "God exists" is a fact of existence (God in a state of non-existence didn't decide to exist)?

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

It becomes then a question of authority rather than objectivity.

If you are talking to a Christian about existence then it doesn't make much sense to discuss existence with and without God. To the Christian, God and existence are not mutually exclusive. God simply is and everything exists because of him. This means that God, the uncaused cause, is not a sub-set or any type of set of existence. Likewise, I don't think you can separate God from his nature, which is another way of saying you can't separate God from objective morality.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are talking to a Christian about existence then it doesn't make much sense to discuss existence with and without God. To the Christian, God and existence are not mutually exclusive. God simply is and everything exists because of him.

Everything else exists because of him, as I assume you agree God cannot cause himself to exist as that would require at some point he didn't exist and then willed himself into existence which seem paradoxical since he wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Thus when I discuss existence I mean God + plus everything else. If you want to think of existence as simply a set with God in it, and everything else is then a sub set of God that is fine as well. I'm using existence as the super set of everything that exists, including God.

the existence of God is a property of existence, it is a thing that is true. "God exists" is a true statement, a property of existence. The super-statement of that is that existence exists.

So the question is where do these "objective" moral laws fall. Are they a fact of existence something that just is like God's existence (God just exists, nothing decided that he would). Or a product of God?

If they are the former then they can be objective but God wouldn't decide them simply know them.

If they are the latter then God decides them but they are subjective based on what he decides and thus it becomes an issue of authority rather than objectivity.

Of course this depends on how you use objective as well, what exactly are we talking about here. As ISAW and myself are discussing could it be that God decided what these laws were (so what they are is subjective) but once he did their existence is simply a fact of nature, like the existence of the universe itself.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Likewise, I don't think you can separate God from his nature, which is another way of saying you can't separate God from objective morality.

You agree thought that God doesn't decide his own nature, I would hope? So that means these moral laws are his nature but they just are. God exists and is the way he is, no one decided that.

If that is the case then these moral laws are certainly objective, but God simply knows them rather than decides them. they exist independently to God's decisions, as he himself does.

The next question is why then are moral laws one way and not the other. It seems arbitrary. But you could turn that to simply ask why does God exist and is the way he is rather than not exist or be a different way.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Everything else exists because of him, as I assume you agree God cannot cause himself to exist as that would require at some point he didn't exist and then willed himself into existence which seem paradoxical since he wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Perhaps you don't understand what the orthodox Christian position on God is. Talk of God willing himself into existence is not only paradoxical, as you point out, it is also meaningless in a conversation about an atemporal being that is uncreated. There was no moment for God to have willed himself into existence because there was no time. It is a category error akin to talk about married bachelors, sad triangles, and, dare I say, selfish genes.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thus when I discuss existence I mean God + plus everything else. If you want to think of existence as simply a set with God in it, and everything else is then a sub set of God that is fine as well. I'm using existence as the super set of everything that exists, including God.

the existence of God is a property of existence, it is a thing that is true. "God exists" is a true statement, a property of existence. The super-statement of that is that existence exists.

I've modified my position since the last time we discussed this issue, and I now no longer accept that god is a sub-set, set or super-set of anything. God simply is. Meaning he is not a property or a consequence of anything else, including something like existence.

Wicknight wrote: »

So the question is where do these "objective" moral laws fall. Are they a fact of existence something that just is like God's existence (God just exists, nothing decided that he would). Or a product of God?

They exist as God exists and because God exists. To me it is like asking if an elephant is objective or subjective. In other words, it doesn't make sense.

Wicknight wrote: »

If they are the former then they can be objective but God wouldn't decide them simply know them.

If they are the latter then God decides them but they are subjective based on what he decides and thus it becomes an issue of authority rather than objectivity.

It really is a matter of perspective, is it not? If all of reality is founded upon, and sustained by, God, then I really don't know what authority you can appeal to that will serve as a guide to lead you out of this objective/ subject alley you have backed yourself into. The state known as existence is because God is.

Furthermore, if we are looking at the largely orthodox Christian view of God - that is to say, God has a quality, amongst other qualities, of being immutable - then I don't see what is the point in asking if morality is objective or subjective. What was moral yesterday will be moral at the end of time. Like existence, morality simply is because God is. I'm not sure if you understand what a non-issue this analysis of God's objective/ subjective morality is for most Christians.

But, hey, if you are looking for an answer, I think that morality (and I'm talking about God's morality, not what we say about the morality of porn, or abortion or whatever) is objective and it is based upon authority.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course this depends on how you use objective as well, what exactly are we talking about here. As ISAW and myself are discussing could it be that God decided what these laws were (so what they are is subjective) but once he did their existence is simply a fact of nature, like the existence of the universe itself.

Indeed! And perhaps I've clumsily burst into this debate without understanding the intracity of the either position. A point of order, though. I would not say that the universe is a fact of God's nature. To me at least, this implies that God was somehow bound to the act of creating this universe.

Wicknight wrote: »

You agree thought that God doesn't decide his own nature, I would hope? So that means these moral laws are his nature but they just are. God exists and is the way he is, no one decided that.

I think that you are hung up on the idea that this being we call God is somehow distinguishable from this thing we call God's nature. Accordingly, it seems to me that you are under the impression that God at some point created these entities called "OBJECTIVE LAWS". This is like somebody saying that the processes described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics only exist because Carnot or whoever says so. Objective morality is describing God just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes the reality of the universe.

Wicknight wrote: »

The next question is why then are moral laws one way and not the other. It seems arbitrary. But you could turn that to simply ask why does God exist and is the way he is rather than not exist or be a different way.

You'll have to ask God that. But I live in hope that my above response will have given you some idea of my personal opinion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you don't understand what the orthodox Christian position on God is. Talk of God willing himself into existence is not only paradoxical, as you point out, it is also meaningless in a conversation about an atemporal being that is uncreated. There was no moment for God to have willed himself into existence because there was no time. It is a category error akin to talk about married bachelors, sad triangles, and, dare I say, selfish genes.

Yes, that is my point. God exists and is not responsible for his existence.

Therefore there is at least one thing that just exists, and can sit in the set of things that just exist.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've modified my position since the last time we discussed this issue, and I now no longer accept that god is a sub-set, set or super-set of anything. God simply is.

These are just terms attempting to explain what we mean. "Is" is an English world. The sentence "God simply is" is an English sentence. When attempting to convey meaning there is nothing particularly special about shortening something other than it sounds nice. I prefer mine, though they essentially mean the same thing.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They exist as God exists and because God exists. To me it is like asking if an elephant is objective or subjective. In other words, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't since it isn't a judgement. Do elephants exist would be.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It really is a matter of perspective, is it not?

No, it is a matter or whether something is determined based on opinion or whether it is a factual statement true even if no opinion existed (including Gods)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If all of reality is founded upon, and sustained by, God, then I really don't know what authority you can appeal to that will serve as a guide to lead you out of this objective/ subject alley you have backed yourself into. The state known as existence is because God is.

That is using a definition of existence that is a subset of God (ie existence exists because of God), which is nonsense as it excludes God as something that exists.

God cannot create existence since the existence of God is required. If God just exists then so does existence.

Our existence, our universe, is a different matter. But when I say "existence" I mean all that exists. If God exists then he is included in that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Furthermore, if we are looking at the largely orthodox Christian view of God - that is to say, God has a quality, amongst other qualities, of being immutable - then I don't see what is the point in asking if morality is objective or subjective. What was moral yesterday will be moral at the end of time. Like existence, morality simply is because God is.

That would make morality objective, and thus not determined by God.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understand what a non-issue this analysis of God's objective/ subjective morality is for most Christians.

And yet here we are

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed! And perhaps I've clumsily burst into this debate without understanding the intracity of the either position. A point of order, though. I would not say that the universe is a fact of God's nature. To me at least, this implies that God was somehow bound to the act of creating this universe.

I didn't say the universe, I said existence. If God simply exists then this is a fact of existence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that you are hung up on the idea that this being we call God is somehow distinguishable from this thing we call God's nature. Accordingly, it seems to me that you are under the impression that God at some point created these entities called "OBJECTIVE LAWS". This is like somebody saying that the processes described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics only exist because Carnot or whoever says so. Objective morality is describing God just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes the reality of the universe.

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

As you say if morality is what God is then morality just exists. It is arbitrary, as is God's nature. Nothing decided it would be this way rather than that way. It just is this way.

This can be applied to all of God's moral laws.

Why is homosexual acts wrong? Because God says so. Why does God say so? Because it is his nature. Why is it his nature? It just is.

Who decided this? No one, it just is. Why is it this way rather than that way? There is no reason, it just is. Etc.

I would imagine a lot of people don't like this idea.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

I don't fully go with your definition of 'subjective' here. Subjective, in the context of morality, means to me that there is nothing present in the world to determine whether something is right or wrong, apart from my personal preferences. So, from the point of view of the individual, morality is flexible in the way that, say, the concept of 'up' or the boiling point of water isn't.

Presumably, from our interpretation of a theist perspective, God could devise a different morality for humans just as he could set a different boiling point for water. Its all his gig. He could create humans with three arms and decide its right for them to marry their grannies. Both the possession of three arms and the rightness of marrying your granny would then be objective.

However, I also take Fanny Cradock's point that its really an irrelevant question, or at best a thought experiment, for a theist, as the contention is then simply that there was always a deity, and that deity always 'had' a morality.

Zombrex

Nemi wrote: »

I don't fully go with your definition of 'subjective' here. Subjective, in the context of morality, means to me that there is nothing present in the world to determine whether something is right or wrong, apart from my personal preferences. So, from the point of view of the individual, morality is flexible in the way that, say, the concept of 'up' or the boiling point of water isn't.

Presumably, from our interpretation of a theist perspective, God could devise a different morality for humans just as he could set a different boiling point for water. Its all his gig. He could create humans with three arms and decide its right for them to marry their grannies. Both the possession of three arms and the rightness of marrying your granny would then be objective.

Exactly, that makes morality subjective to God's "personal preferences" as you put it.

This is contrasted with the idea that morality is an objective fact, something that just exists.

Nemi wrote: »

However, I also take Fanny Cradock's point that its really an irrelevant question, or at best a thought experiment, for a theist, as the contention is then simply that there was always a deity, and that deity always 'had' a morality.

Well that may be Fanny's opinion but a lot of the other regular Christian posters here seem to debate this topic as if it was far from irrelevant.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly, that makes morality subjective to God's "personal preferences" as you put it.

Sort of. But I think the pertinent point is that the boiling point of water is then also subjective.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

These are just terms attempting to explain what we mean. "Is" is an English world. The sentence "God simply is" is an English sentence. When attempting to convey meaning there is nothing particularly special about shortening something other than it sounds nice. I prefer mine, though they essentially mean the same thing.

Considering the word existence is already taken up by the discussion, I sought another suitable word. I eventually settled on an alternative because it had not been burdened with prior association. I would have liked to think that you would have seen my intention for what it was and spared me the lecture me on my choice of "special" words.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it is a matter or whether something is determined based on opinion or whether it is a factual statement true even if no opinion existed (including Gods)

And what is truth in relation to God? And how can anything exist without God? Remembering, of course, that you are replying to a theist.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is using a definition of existence that is a subset of God (ie existence exists because of God), which is nonsense as it excludes God as something that exists.

You seem determined to break God down into component parts, which I guess isn't surprising considering you are a reductionist. Again, I don't accept that God is part of a set - however large. Even if you combine all possible sets together to create some super-set that entity isn't itself a set. If it were a set then it would self-referentially include itself, which is a problem if you consider Russell's Paradox. See Paul Davies for reference. Interestingly, some time in the 5th Century, in the book The City of God, Augustine argued that God was beyond even infinity. Make of that what you will.

"all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to His knowledge..."

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

Well, if by subjective you mean "relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself", the whole discussion becomes a nonsense if you are framing it in relation to God, the uncaused cause. Why? Because if everything that existed/exists/and will exist is due in some root way to God, then everything - from morality to material existence - is subjective in relation to him and his "mind". (Amusing that God has such a thing called a mind.) Ultimately, I don't see how words like subjective or objective would have any meaning to God.

Wicknight wrote: »

As you say if morality is what God is then morality just exists. It is arbitrary, as is God's nature. Nothing decided it would be this way rather than that way. It just is this way.

But God's nature isn't arbitrary. He didn't at one point have no nature and then at some other point settle on one. You are confusing arbitrary with necessary. God is necessary, meaning his nature is necessary. As a naturalist I assume you don't believe that lava arbitrarily decides to be hot, just like a giraffe doesn't arbitrarily decide to have a long neck or Pluto one time took the decision to go with an atmosphere of methane and nitrogen and shuffle around the back of the solar system. Please note that explaining how lava gets hot is not the same as explaining why (the metaphysical "why") it gets hot.

Wicknight wrote: »

This can be applied to all of God's moral laws.

Says you! Of course, other than dismissing whatever shoddy ontological and theological arguments I've put forward, you also have completely ignored the whole orthodox doctrine of God's immutability.

Wicknight wrote: »

Who decided this? No one, it just is. Why is it this way rather than that way? There is no reason, it just is. Etc.

I would imagine a lot of people don't like this idea.

So I assume there are not operating on double standards and you aren't willing to accept that the universe is simply the way it is because that's the way it is? Besides, when did popular taste equate to correctness?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that may be Fanny's opinion but a lot of the other regular Christian posters here seem to debate this topic as if it was far from irrelevant.

Perhaps you mistake interest with relevance.