Spenser

Absolute Morality. This seems to be a concept I am coming across that is being used not only to prove God's existence, but the Christian God's existence.

What basis does anyone have to say that "Absolute" Morality exists?

I can already hear it, "cause the bible says so."

There is just as much evidence for this as there is that God exists. If you can't show absolute morality to exist, how can it be used to prove God? Then, even if it were possible to provide evidence, why couldn't it be used to prove the Muslim God instead, what makes it only prove the Xian God?

Appeals to people's own personal moral standards don't cut it. It is simply playing off of emotions. There is not one shred of evidence that there is Absolute Morality and I challenge anyone to show that there is. If evidence of absolute morality cannot be provided then it cannot be used to prove the existence of God.

theophilus

You are raising a strawman.

No one, that I've seen has talked about "absolute" morality. I have argued that atheistic materialism cannot account for the idea of an objective standard of morality by which most people operate.

I have clarified that I do not mean a uniform standard of morality, as certain cultures clearly have minor variations. The point is, each of these cultures believe their standards are correct.

Nor have I appealed to "personal" moral standards as proof of anything except that the very fact that people have moral standards is proof of the existence of God since a purely material univers cannot account for this.

Your argument is, thus, false as it applies to the argument for God based on the existence of the moral imperative under which most people operate.

Llyricist

Ummm did you say straw man??? This appears to be the very argument the OP was addressing theo. So either you have a strange idea of what a strawman is, or you are diliberately tossing a word salad.

Spenser

Theo

This thread may appear to have originated purely from the discussion I was having with you but much of my reason for posting it was from readings on a theology website. Sorry if it appeared otherwise.

Fine, I'm saying demonstrate that there is an 'objective standard of morality by which most people operate.'

Subjective morality exists with or without God or an absolute morality. I think certain things are right and wrong. You think certain things are right and wrong. They may not match, but we have moral standards by which we operate. This is a fact. There isn't even a need for an objective moral standard for us to continue to operate. Saying that there is an 'objective standard of morality by which most people operate.' is an assertion in which there is no evidence.

Fact, people have moral standards and we live in the world. Where the leap of faith comes to have it as proof of God is what I, and many on this website are missing. A material universe has no problem accounting for subjective morality. Prove Absolute Morality.

Another assertion. Prove "the moral imperative under which most people operate." Show that this isn't just a consensus of subjective or relative moralities.

Howard

I disagree. All morals, theistic and atheistic, come from the same materialistic imperative.

The imperative is the fact that, regardless of our beliefs, we all have to satisfy our needs. Our most fundamental need is to survive, for which we require items such as food, water, shelter and so forth. Our next need is to reproduce, and to be able to feed, educate and protect our families. This is true of everyone, everywhere. After the basics are met, we have a need to improve the quality of our lives in a variety of ways, many of which are a matter of personal preference.

Humans quickly figured out that living in a society in cooperation with others was the best way to satisfy these needs. Once that happened societal codes of behavior were required because our actions affected others. The codes were established as both statutory laws and as the prevailing moral climate. Every society has/had them, including Biblical societies.

So what you see as laws passed down from God are just a bunch of guys sitting down saying, "Y'know, we really need people to behave in certain ways to keep this society functioning properly. So they wrote down what they felt were the necessary rules and told everyone that they were God's rules not man's rules, figuring that would increase the chances of people obeying them.

So your so called objective, God-based morality comes from the same place every society's does - from the social contract, i.e., the need to establish a code of conduct so that the society from which everyone benefits can function. And you know what? Traditions and customs aside, most societies end up with same basic set of rules. Not surprising since humans all have the same basic needs.

Spenser

Be careful opening up an argument of your own in this thread. Theo will gladly contest what you have to say while side stepping the main issue, which is proving that there is 'absolute' morality. I completely agree with you though Howard, I just don't want to see him try and slip away from this one (Since he is the only one arguing against it). He tends to attack rather than defend...

Howard

Sorry Spenser. I didn't intend to derail your thread, but I just get sick and tired of hearing that atheists have no basis for morality.

Llyricist

I feel embarrassed when someone takes the time to spell out the ideas I have and give such short shrift to on these boards.... but thanks howard

Spenser

I completely agree. No need to apologize. I just think that the 'absolute' morality argument has an inherent weakness and rather than deal with it when it is used in support of other arguments, I wanted to stab it at the heart.

The most I see it as is theists claiming there is an absolute morality because they say so. Of course they can't offer up any evidence for this but it is necessary for the existence of Xianity. Without AM (Absolute Morality) sin is a meaningless concept and Xianity is pointless. They are going to have to do more than just tell me that there is an AM, they need to prove it, otherwise it is a meaningless concept...

TiredJim

Have you read this? http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...?threadid=2794

Talk about headache-inducing.