I don't think you understand the argument. Yes morality could be based on evolution or whatever else you want to base it off of, but then it won't be objective. I don't see why this is hard to understand. Instead of objective, morality would be subject to how we evolved ie subjective. I have tried to answer the objections with a sense of respect. I don't think your post does this. I don't appreciate you saying that I have some sort of pseudo-philosophy because of my supposed ingrained God belief. It cheapens the argument, and is just insulting. You have no idea what my background is, so I would appreciate it if you didn't pretend that you did. I could be doing a terrible job of explaining these. I am not going to pretend that I have all the answers, or that I perfectly understand every nuance of the arguments. If you want to know more about objective morality, go read something about it from someone who has studied it extensively if I am not doing a good enough job. I think you will find that even many atheists will agree that morality cannot be objective without God, or some transcendent being (With exceptions obviously). They would simply argue that morality is subjective. I don't mind debating these issues, but your post reeks of a condescending tone, and I don't see why that is needed. Thanks.
You've gone on and on post after post in fact preaching a psuedo-philosophy about objective morality. If it sounds condescing that I pointed out the facts of this thread, then so be it. Nothing based on "God" can be objective, because the concept of God is subjective.
When you say "objective morality is rooted in his being" -- to me that's very abstract. If such an entity can exist, why can't objective morality just exist as part of the universe (the "non-physical" part)?
ok... but it's not really an opinion. like durvasa notes, anything that is abstract - God, humanity, morality, etc. - ultimately is definitionally subjective.... or, if something abstract could be "tangible" and just be, without any further rationale behind why it really is, but just that it is, then not only is it no longer abstract, anyone else can pretty much say anything abstract could also just be. which brings us back to the point of the thread originally, right? Did Jesus really exist? Or is he just some abstract notion to help create an abstract concept? which is what I'm curious in. There's been some good potential evidence and potential counter-evidence brought up in this thread. but to your argument, it makes no more sense to say morality is objective simply because it is, then it does to say jesus existed simply because he's mentioned in the bible.
Well, on naturalistic atheism, there is no non-physical part of the universe. I realize you may not be a naturalist, so this may not have any effect on you. My main argument was that naturalistic atheism cannot provide a foundation for objective morality. As to your question, I could give you an answer, but it would be based off of insufficient knowledge of the subject matter. I don't want to misrepresent the argument, and so I will suggest that you read the info at this link: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6879 The entire article deals with abstract objects, but the last 4 or so paragraphs seems to deal with your question. Also, if you look at the Q&A archive, you might find more info on the subject. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Once again, I think you misunderstand the argument, probably because I am doing a poor job of presenting it. I would recommend you read the link I posted in response to durvasa. It might help understand why objective morality cannot exist outside of God. Also, I don't agree that anything that is abstract is subjective. Numbers are abstract, and there is nothing subjective about them. 2+2 is 4, and that is not definitionally subjective IMO. If I misunderstand your argument then I am sorry.
Everything we know and view is ultimately subjective to our cognitive capabilities as humans. but that's not a very useful philosophy... to the point as hand, even admitting that some things are objective and some are subjective, God falls in the second group, to me, so we're at an impasse. The point of the thread, seemingly, is to identify if Jesus was real - to idenfity if Jesus (and maybe God himself) is indeed a purely subjective human creation, or objectively exists. I don't really know the end game of the objective morality question, but if it is a back handed way of saying objective morality exists, objective morality couldn't exist without God, therefor God exists, then it seems like you're skipping a HUGE step - proving God isn't subjective.
I think it is pretty obvious that if God exists, he objectively exists. I don't really understand what you mean by Him being subjective. If people have differing opinions on who or what God is, that doesn't change the fact that if God exists, His attributes are real objectively and don't change with peoples opinions of Him.
If God does exist, he objectively exists. But since nobody can prove whether or not God exists, the idea of God is subjective.
You seem to want to alter the definition of words to fit your particular argument. Good is decided by the people in a given society whether by logic and reason, superstition, religious belief, utility, or whatever. If a group of people find infanticide righteous and honorable then it's good to them. That's the definition of good. That in the 21st century I don't believe infanticide is good has no bearing on it. Morals are constantly changing and that's why this position that they eminate from God makes no sense. Also, this idea that there is one definition of ominpotence for non-believers and a totally different definition of it for believers is again trying to alter the definition of a word to fit your faith. Your position that an omnipotent being is constrained by logic and the rules or laws of nature he's created in the universe completely violates the meaning of the word omnipotent. Furthermore, if God is in fact constrained by logic and the rules of nature then the virgin birth of Jesus is a complete fabrication since we all know it is biologically impossible for a woman to give birth without being physically impregnated. You can't have it both ways.
You are just defining good to be subjective. And that means that if a society has a different meaning of good than your good, and their good infringes upon your good, then you have no right to call them wrong. For example, if another society wants to enslave you, and they have the power to do it, then on your view they are actually doing a good thing, from their perspective. The fact that it is wrong to you doesn't matter at all, because good is decided by society. So the society that you are now in, as a slave, says slavery is good. So apparently slavery is now good? That sounds ridiculous to me. Maybe you think that by objective morality I mean that everyone knows and believes the same things about morals? This is not what I am talking about. I am arguing that some things are good and some things are bad regardless of what a specific society thinks about it. And you are misrepresenting my view. I never said anything about the laws of nature, and I said that good was part of God's nature. I believe I also said that logic is apart of His nature. You can say that logic is a description of how God thinks. This means that the logic and good that we know are a natural outflow of His character, not that God is constrained by something that He created. Since I never said God was constrained to the laws of nature, your virgin birth scenario is meaningless. Here is a quote from CS Lewis in the Problem of Pain that may help to explain omnipotence as I understand it: "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God." I hope this helps.
You can say the exact same thing about (objective) morality then. If it exists, then it is objective, by virtue of the fact that it exists - ie the argument are making about god. Which makes it a circular argument.
I think God would be very angry if someone said His existance is objective. Is this a commonly held view? I haven't come across this ideology among Muslims, is it a Christianity thing?
Well, if there actually is something called morality, and it is not just an illusion created by conscious beings that change and can help society survive, then it is objective. I do not believe it is a circular argument. 1) If morality actually exists and is not an illusion, it is objective 2) Morality actually exists 3) Therefore, morality is objective That is not circular. I will not try to defend that argument however as I just made it up to show that what you are saying that I am saying is not circular. I really have no idea what people are talking about when they say God is subjective. If they are referring to how people view God, then yes that is subjective. But if there really is a God, are you implying that He changes with regard to how people view Him?
I said He, as in who or what He is, would be objective if He actually exists. How can anyone seriously argue this? If God exists, does He change with our perception of Him? I don't think so.
Also, I think it might be time for this thread to die. We are no longer remotely close to the question of the topic. And the question that we are discussing is not getting us anywhere. So I'm going to try to stop posting, although I can't promise anything
Objectivity implies the ability to define something. Can you define God? Yes of course God doesn't change with our perception of Him, but we can't perceive Him in a reasonable way anyway. Are you saying you can actually define God? If the Muslims are 'right', then isn't your definition of God suddenly wrong - meaning God exists AND you were wrong? Even in that case, do you think Muslims can DEFINE GOD? There is nothing objective about God. The standard of objectivity you are applying here is not reasonable. By your definition of objectivity, every person's opinion is objective because they believe it is the truth that exists?
Ok, looks like I couldn't stay away. Even if everyone disagreed about who God is, that doesn't change the fact that if He exists, He has objective properties and objectively exists. It is kind of like people wondering what the sun was before modern technology told us. Some thought it was a god, and some thought it was something else. At that point in history, no one could have known that it was actually a huge ball of gas. Now by your logic, since no one could have known for sure what the sun was, then the sun had no objective properties. This is false. Just because nobody recognizes truth, that doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. If God exists, there is truth about who or what He is, and it is truth regardless of if anyone can even perceive the truth. I never said I 100% knew the objective truth about God. I know what I believe and that's what I was defending. That doesn't change the fact that if God exists, there are objective truths about Him, and once again I don't honestly know how anyone could argue this. I hope this helps explain my position.
