Thread: Morality and God.
05-02-2005, 10:14 PM #1
Morality and God.
Hear is a easy to understand essay of relativistic truth.
All truth is relative
If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
There are no absolute truths
The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
What is true for you is not true for me
If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
If you say yes, then relativism is false.
If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid and by not being, at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
No one can know anything for sure
If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating.
That is your reality, not mine
Is my reality really real?
If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?
We all perceive what we want
How do you know that statement is true?
If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?
Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
You may not use logic to refute relativism
Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.
If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
Is truth self contradictory?
If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self refuting. If something is self refuting, then it isn't true.
If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.
If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.
On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?
Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position?
If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.
05-02-2005, 10:29 PM #2
-Hear is more in depth answer concerning morality apart from God. It is written by the noted philosopher William Lane Craig. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc.../meta-eth.html
-Hear are parts of the article in case you do not want to read the entire article.
-It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?
-On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.
-On the atheistic view there is no divine lawgiver. But then what source is there for moral obligation? Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.
Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.
Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.2
Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.3
05-03-2005, 07:14 AM #3
Concept of MORALITY has no meaning without the existence of GOD , doesnt matter how a thesaurus explains the word or a dictionary , other men who wrote those meaning cannot explain meaning of the word for everyone ............
having said that (although i agree with u books555 about God and morality linked together ) there is no way u can propose for ppl who dont beleive in God to accept morality being linked to the divine ............. in my opinion this argument is although interesting but , there is no common grounds to this on both sides .............
heres my 2 cents ..........
naturalism –the natural world known to us through physics (and disciplines building on physics, e.g. chemistry, biology, psychology, economics, history, etc.) is all there is, and we shouldn’t postulate the existence of anything else.
What are moral truths? How do they fit into this picture of naturalism? The naturalist’s goal is to find some set of truths in the natural realm that moral truths are about...........
Compare ......... heat is something in the natural world. It was once thought to be a substance that would make things hotter when it was present in larger quantities. Now we know it’s just the average kinetic energy of participles. That’s all heat realty is. All the truths about heat are explained by all the truths about the kinetic energy of particles. Naturalists want to do the same thing with morality. They want all truths about morality to be based in truths about the natural world. Here is a common answer:
1. Moral beliefs = those that give survival advantage by natural selection (Nietzsche)
This might explain where our beliefs about morality came from, but if this is all there is to morality, then it’s just an illusion. Most people won’t really believe there’s nothing wrong with torturing a three-year-old just for the fun of it. If
people have trouble with this, ask them if they think it’s wrong to hate gay people or for a priest to molest an altar boy. Most people don’t really deny morality when it comes down to the things they care about. They just want to say what they and people they like do is ok.
this above view is what atheists argue as a base for morality , and we use the same base to connect this with GOD , i.e only God fearing ppl will be moral !
Last edited by ZOAIB; 05-03-2005 at 07:18 AM.
05-03-2005, 07:40 AM #4
if god is the cause of all morality then how come he can sentance someone to eternal punishment just for not beliving. That isnt moraly or ethicaly right in anyway shape or form.
If a god is the cause of all morality then it isnt the warmonger that is the christian god. that is just my oppinion and not meant as a offence
05-03-2005, 07:46 AM #5God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured.
05-03-2005, 10:31 AM #6Originally Posted by johan
05-03-2005, 11:57 AM #7
Yes Zoaib but my point is that god commands people to kill other people for petty reason alot of times. Since he is the source of all moral values then obviously it would be moraly right for me to slay anyone working on a sunday
To me there is nothing moraly wrong with homosexuals. My moral values doesnt care about what sexual preference someone has aslong as it doesnt hurt others(like phedofiles, rapists, animal abusers ect).
I dont rule out the possibility of a divine beeing that morality somehow originates from. BUT I completely rule out the possibility of the christian god. Since he doesnt seem to have any moral values at all.
05-03-2005, 12:05 PM #8
"I create good and create evil.....I the LORD do all these things"
When are you guys gonna get it???
05-03-2005, 12:15 PM #9
Sorry bro, you’re not going to convince anyone of anything. This is strictly a matter of faith, I cannot emphasize that enough.
My point being you believe your argument to be true, and that’s great, but you refuse to accept the possibility of any alternative, or of the possibility of personal choice without intervention from a spiritually inspired deity.
The ability to chose right from wrong is within each person.
The ability to commit crime or good deed is within every person.
You believe God enables these choices, I say man makes them on his own. Nothing more to be said.
05-03-2005, 12:34 PM #10Originally Posted by johan
05-03-2005, 12:35 PM #11Originally Posted by Badgerman
05-03-2005, 12:36 PM #12Originally Posted by singern
05-04-2005, 06:06 AM #13
btw there is no way to rule out the possibility that nothing is true. Everything around me could be the figment of my imagination. This board, my body, the world.
Our minds might interpret things completely differently. How my mind tells me the color red looks might be completely different to how you se it.
Nothing is absolute since everything is relative to how our minds interpret it.
05-04-2005, 06:17 AM #14If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?
If we both look at a painting and I see a duck while you se a woman. What is more real? The woman or the duck? I can never see what you see so I can never verify that your reality is real. I can never verify that my own reality is real since I have nothing to compare it with.
05-04-2005, 06:28 AM #15Originally Posted by johan
05-04-2005, 09:08 AM #16Originally Posted by ZOAIB
No No my astute friend, he really does have orange glasses. I wonder if there is a vitamin-C advantage to that.
05-04-2005, 10:25 AM #17Originally Posted by singern
05-04-2005, 11:10 AM #18
Hypothetically assuming Jesus was a real person, in the past ages. I think if he could go without raping, pillaging and killing others. We could too.
Absolute truth doesnt exist, and the entire rambling of it during your page is designed more to bestrange the reader into questioning himself more than realizing anything.
05-04-2005, 11:14 AM #19
Faith is nothing more than a good ending to people's suffering. How would you go about life daily knowing no matter what you do, you will die and nothing will come of it? I think if more people were to accept that, we could live in harmony. No one would be trying to satisfy a god that demands others to pledge allegance, and other faiths to sucomb to its words.
05-05-2005, 11:00 AM #20Originally Posted by ZOAIB
Those orange glasses is the secret to my incredibly buff and muscular body
Go buy a pair and you will be a pale viking in no time
05-05-2005, 01:40 PM #21Junior Member
Originally Posted by Syndicate
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Knowing that there is an afterlife, however, keeps me from doing these things. What we do here is how we will be judged in the afterlife. If everybody accepted this, THEN this world would be a much better place.
BTW Johan, no offense taken, but God does not demand us to kill anybody. Slaying homos is the act of man and not God.
Look to the 10 Commandments:
Thou shalt not Kill.
Thou shalt not Steal.
Thou shalt not commit Adultery.
Obviously, there are seven more that aren't relevent to my post.
FWIW, I thought those orange glasses were used to mask you superhero status. While wearing them, aren't you just a mild mannered Swede?
05-05-2005, 02:02 PM #22Originally Posted by DanDoola
Well I'm glad you came to terms with yourself, concluding you would act inhuman given the chance without being caught.
05-05-2005, 03:16 PM #23Originally Posted by DanDoola
If I could se into the future I wouldnt engage into debates like this since I would know they never lead anywhere
05-05-2005, 04:00 PM #24
Least its something to talk about, I like to debate.
05-05-2005, 04:37 PM #25
Yeah me to
05-05-2005, 07:33 PM #26Originally Posted by DanDoola
Leviticus 20:9-13 -->
9: For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death
10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife . . . shall surely be put to death.
11: And the man that lieth with his father's wife . . . shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12: And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death:
13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There are more calls for capital punishment elsewhere, but you get the idea . . .
05-05-2005, 07:35 PM #27
you mean baby jesus wants me to kill others?
05-05-2005, 08:27 PM #28Originally Posted by johan
He does not Sentence anyone to Judgement because choice is involved
05-05-2005, 08:30 PM #29Originally Posted by ZOAIB
THis deals with absolute truth Johan. My computer has been shut down for a couple of day. I am finally back on.
05-05-2005, 08:32 PM #30Originally Posted by johan
No, because, God is all good.
05-05-2005, 11:24 PM #31Junior Member
Originally Posted by Tock
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
God only speaks of the consequences of mans actions.
You can come up with all the quotes you like about how man will get what he deserves, but the foundation of morality is found in the 10 commandments which is found in the Old Testament:
Thou shalt not kill.
05-05-2005, 11:25 PM #32Junior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
max, where are you? the believers need your help
05-06-2005, 12:06 AM #33Originally Posted by Tock
You must understand the context behind those scriptures. All those scriptures are justified.
05-06-2005, 12:13 AM #34Originally Posted by Syndicate
this paragraph is NONSENSE.
05-06-2005, 12:17 AM #35Originally Posted by Syndicate
If absolute truth does not exist, is that statment absolutly true. Your statement is self defeating, truth exists.
05-06-2005, 12:21 AM #36Originally Posted by johan
You must understand the premises behind those conclusions befor you can call those verses illogical concerning the christian God.
05-06-2005, 12:34 AM #37Originally Posted by johan
Your statement is false about reality. What is real, and what is true can be known. To say it cant, only proves that it does. Is it absolutly true that absolute truth does not exist.
Your second statement deals with that which is subjective about reality. subjective (personal), objective (Universal).
-Descartes "I think therfore I am. You exist.
05-06-2005, 05:10 AM #38Originally Posted by DanDoola
05-06-2005, 11:31 AM #39Junior Member
Originally Posted by ZOAIB
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
05-06-2005, 11:35 AM #40Junior Member
Originally Posted by Syndicate
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
After all, without morals, how can we have laws. That is, if no one can understand right or wrong, laws would not exist.
If laws don't exist, then punishments cannot exist. This brings me back to my original point. Chaos would ensue without fear of an afterlife.
Last edited by DanDoola; 05-06-2005 at 11:51 AM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)