The debate "Objective morality can only be explained by the existence of God" was started by
July 30, 2016, 2:35 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 6 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
wdz posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
dalton7532, jack_tim_45, Muluken and 4 visitors agree.
historybuff, Pablerasdh and 4 visitors disagree.
its not that the quran does not include the text of the OT and NT, but that Quran affirms what is correct from the OT and NT, in addition to correcting the corrupted text from the OT and NT. As Muslims, we believe the revelation given to Jesus which was inspired through angel Gabriel, was known as the Injeel (Gospel in English), and this was what Jesus was preaching at his time, to the Jews, the disciples and so on. What is contained in the NT and OT is a huge mixture of jesus's sayings, his actions, accounts of witness, accounts of non-witnesses, and even accounts from people not even from the time of Jesus (e.g. Paul). So as Muslims, we do not believe the NT/OT are reliable sources, let alone the word of God.
You will need to be specific with the points you want me to answer, and where you are referencing them from before i can discuss them
The objective morals from God do not change, only the laws to specific people at specific times may change for reasons, which we may or may have not been told.
For instance, justice is an objective moral which is unchanging, or being good to another person.
Regarding Quran and violence - The Quran does not directly promote violence, in fact, all verses where fighting is discussed, it firstly encourages reconciliation and mutual understanding before enjoining in fighting. Even then, when fighting is discussed, it is only in the context of wars in the past in which those who were causing corruption, being aggressive oppressors, or wanted to wage war against the Muslims at the time, was it only permissible to fight in self defence, and not pro-actively fight against others. Islam is not believe in complete pacifism, but it totally rejects aggressive oppression, and it totally rejects violent behaviour. So therefore i would deny that the Quran promotes violence
this is off topic, but I wanted to direct this at you as you are a Muslim. I did not read the quran so this is not my claim, but many feel it directly promotes violence. would you, as one who is familiar with the text, please confirm or deny that claim?
does the quran not include the previous texts of old and new testament? including the denial of knowledge and limited freedom of the garden, the removal of free will from the pharaoh and the destruction and regret of the flood? (he promised never to wipe the earth again)
God still changes his morals and ideals, unless I am mistaken, even the divine morals are subjective.
I did not state that I believe all ancient texts are not the exact word of God. As stated earlier, I am a Muslim (follower of Islam), and as such, my reference for the original message of God is the Quran. This is not the only source of guidance for my beliefs (as there is the hadith, and also the general consensus among the major schools of thought), but it is where I get my guidance on Gods original message, which started from Adam and Eve, all the way down to Muhammed.
Obviously, you may completely disagree with me in this which is fine, but if you do disagree, I would like to at least know your reasoning
if ancient texts are not the exact word of God (which I agree with) where do you get your idea of God's original message from?
ok calm down. i understand god exists.
if there is a god, then yes, god would have created this world. and yes, would want us to appreciate its wonder while also loving and respecting one another, but all that would be done for ourselves to please God. God does not require our worship, but we do; we need to worship God and be righteous in equal measure to be able to attain eternal peace away from this world. But again, all this becomes futile if you reject or not believe in God in the first place
Regarding your other post, why is god considered vain? Vanity requires pride, but you assume God has pride. However, that is a false premise as if you believe in the existence of an all-powerful, all knowledgeable, self-existing god who has no needs, then there is no circumstance in which God will need to be proud of anything, or even want to be proud, as his omniscience would by default eliminate the possibility of being proud.
Also, if you are looking at this argument from the viewpoint of rejecting or not believing in the existence of a God, then this argument becomes futile as any statement or argument made becomes irrelevant to you. So explaining that God is the ultimate level of existence and knowledge, and that what he wills with regards to changing of the laws, cannot be discredited from us as humans who have limited knowledge, becomes an argument irrelevant for you
Therefore, before moving onto the existence of God, we must establish the existence/non-existence of objective morality
I do not take the Bible as a reference for gods morality as it's no longer the full, unaltered word of God. Nevertheless, the laws God states can be changed if god wills for the specific circumstances, while the morals which we obtain from god as a reference do not change for us you.
God claimed to be perfect and lack human weaknesses yet according to any book of any religion, he is the most vain being in existence demanding his inferior creations constantly praise his name on a daily basis
I'm sure he is beyond our understanding, but vanity is a form of pride, one of the hand picked deadly sins on Christianity.
if there is a god, he created this world and would simply want us to appreciate it's splendor while love and respecting each other. not sing his praises in some building.
God has changed his morality several times in the bible. he denied free will to the pharaoh in order to further punish him for actions he did not choose.
he changed laws from the torah to the Bible to the quran.
he killed all humans and then swore never to kill all humans again (the flood)
he even tried to deny free will and knowledge from Adam and eve desiring to keep humans as ignorant pets in his garden.
does he want us to be free or lap dogs?
what is your reference point for what is good and evil? to judge what is good and evil, there must be a standard you are referring to. For example, to say something is a square, you are referring to one possible characteristic that it has 4 equal sides. If there was no square to reference, how would you identify something else as being a square?
you give the example of terrorism - you think that is evil, and i think that is also evil, many people believe it is evil, but that is our own subejctive viewpoint. But where do we ground our subjective viewpoint on? For me, the existence of universal objective morals allows me to decide what is evil. If this did not exist, you would not be able to make the claim for or against terrorism, as there is no universal reference
i say - universally objectively wrong to kill an innocent child.
Romans - kill an innocent child
You - believe it is wrong
If Obj M did not exist - you could not claim it is wrong, as you claim would be as meaningful as every other persons own opinion, & so killing the innocent child would mean nothing, no one could complain or viceversa
of course things can be bad or evil. they are just judged from my point of view.
look at terrorism. I think that is evil. if you asked a certain people they would tell you it is the struggle of the weak against the strong and is completely justified.
evil is subjective. there is no objective evil.
even if you could establish objective morals that still wouldn't necessitate a God. and I would argue that there are no objective morals to begin with.
So you claim there are no objective moral truths? we are not talking about subjective, human derived moralities. yes, people around the world, christian or not, have different subjective morals. but we are not looking at that, and it's not about who's beliefs of morality are true, it's about if objective morality as a universal concept "exists".
if you do believe there is no universal standard for morality, which is objective, not from us, which us subjective, then you can never claim to something being good or bad/evil, and you can never claim something to be any better or worse to what someone else does
we don't need to understand if god exists to establish if universal objective moralities exist. after this is concluded, the existence of a God is then necessitated, but we can come to that later
"by telling everyone that your morality is the objective morality you're just being a closed minded dick" - I'm not saying ?my" morals are objective as every humans own beliefs of what is good or bad are subjective, so no, I'm not being a closed minded dick ??
there is no evidence your God, and I say that not knowing which God you believe in, exists. and even if he did exist there is no evidence that there is an objective morality.
there are endless different versions of subjective morality. and many groups would tell you that their morality is the correct one. but in the end, we as a society will continue to change our morality to suit our needs.
there is no such thing as objective morality. there are dozens of sects of Christians who all have slightly different versions of morality. not to mention the other 2/3rd of the world that gave really different morality.
you believe your God gave you the right morality. they believe their God gave them the right morality. you have no more evidence than they do that yours is the right one.
by telling everyone that your morality is the objective morality you're just being a closed minded dick.
we have digressed, but I will answer your points
we only know what is right to god through what he has revealed to us, unaltered, unchanged. not what has created by man or altered by man. the Bible has changed, thus all of it cannot be considered Gods word. Thus, it then becomes important to consider what is revealed by god only, and what has been altered by man. So in that respect, the views of Christianity have changed, as the Bible has changed.
What tools/methods/scripture had god used to communicate with us? E.g. other fsiths
Based on the NT, when Jesus came, he commanded his followers not to go to the gentiles, as he was only sent for the Lost sheep of Israel, and that someone else would come for everyone, including the gentiles. That had nothing to do with morality, that was to do with Jesus's mission (based in the Bible)
Objective morality is unchanging
how would you know what is right to God? the Bible has changed. the views of religions change. even if there was a god, short of him talking to you personally there is no way to know what he things is moral.
when Christianity started it you were not allowed to try to convert gentiles. you could only convert Jews because Christianity is a Jewish cult. that view changed and Christianity spread to the gentiles. morality is a fluid thing, even in religion.
- Firstly, that was because of the Popes own subjective beliefs and those who supported it. Did god will it? When and how did god will this to the Pope? What is right according to God does not change, while what is right according to the churches can change, due to the subjective nature of human beings
"about 2000 years ago Christians could only be converted from Jews. trying to convert anyone else was immoral" - you will need to expand in this for me. And who judged that it was immoral?
what is right according to religion changes too. 1000 years ago the Pope comanded good Christians to kill Muslims because God willed it. this was moral.
about 2000 years ago Christians could only be converted from Jews. trying to convert anyone else was immoral.
religious morality changes alot slower than other kinds of morality but it definitely does change. so your argument about societal morality is moot.
Why do we all know murdering an innocent child is wrong? if you say subj societal agreement is the cause of this, then this can change, as societies ideas on what is right and wrong also change. Thus, societal agreement cannot be used to explain objective morality.
I agree to your 2nd statement - so yes, God would have to be proved
your statement about Hitler is illogical as it is based on hindsight; knowing what he has done provides plausible justification for killing him, this looking from hindsight, it would not be murder, as you already know his is not innocent. We cannot compare examples like that to examples of the murder of an innocent child in present time.
if a person denies the existence of a god, then they have no foundation which to support their beliefs of what is objectively wrong. For instance, that person would have no reason to believe why murdering an innocent child is wrong. However, murdering an innocent child is objectively wrong (unless you argue otherwise), and the existence of God is the only faculty to support this objectivity. if you reject this, please provide another example
could you explain that? before I tell you that is complete bullshit I'd like to make sure I understand your argument.