If There Is No God

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi David,

That is certainly one possibility, and I would not object or require further elaboration unless you held that it must be true.

What I am taking exception to, from a purely logical standpoint, is the following statement:

IF there is absolute morality, God MUST exist.

I simply don't think that the second part MUST follow from the first.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you feel better if I said that even with God there was no absolute morality, just his wishes?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is of course a possibility. I am not sure we even have to add "just his wishes". Who knows if He wishes anything?

But if AM then there must be an AM authority is all. Some thing to decree it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
But if AM then there must be an AM authority is all. Some thing to decree it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily so. Just because you cannot conceptualize the notion of something existing without it having been decreed--or created--does not mean that it cannot have happened or be happening, or even that it could not have always existed.

Taking this a step further, if we presume a Big Bang, what was before the Big Bang? Call it a "pre-universe", perhaps. Did the "pre-universe" have to be created, or could it have always existed? The correct answer is, "I don't know."

It is not logical--although it is intuitive--to presume that EVERY thing must have had a starting point or creation. Maybe all things did have an origin, but not necessarily so. It is perhaps possible that some things (or perhaps some abstract frameworks) have simply always existed, as odd as that concept might seem. Maybe not, but we don't know that.

[RJT]

So are you saying if AM can exist outside of a AM authority, that the said AM has yet to be "discovered"? Or do you have suggestions of what that AM is? Also, is there a purpose or some usefullness to this AM. That is, if one or all follows the AM then x happens.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying if AM can exist outside of a AM authority, that the said AM has yet to be "discovered"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly.

[ QUOTE ]
Or do you have suggestions of what that AM is? Also, is there a purpose or some usefullness to this AM. That is, if one or all follows the AM then x happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I posted elsewhere in this thread, it *might* have to do gain versus harm; and with intelligent sentient beings weighing their own potential gains against potential harms to others, and showing some discretion or consideration for others especially when the personal gains would be dwarfed by the harms caused. Conversely, it could be applied in considering harm to one's self when such would help others--if the harm to one's self is relatively slight yet there would be great benefit to another, it could be considered a good or moral action.

This sort of applied thinking could have a beneficial effect on the "organism" of the local community, the world, or even the universe as a whole. And it is just possible that this sort of framework is part of the foundation for a moral framework that exists within any system comprised of individual yet interacting entities.

When interests conflict (instead of interests being cooperative in nature, a different case), then comparative beneficial or ill effects might be considered--and while one naturally weights one's own interest more heavily, if the disparity in effect is beyond a certain guideline then the action should or should not be undetaken.

For instance, an extreme example: it would be clearly wrong to cause 10,000 people to die a cruel death just so you could get an second helping of ice cream after dinner. Conversely, if you gave up a free pizza to save 10,000 people from misery and death, that would clearly be a good thing to do (presuming no complex truly terrible overpopulation scenarios, of course).

If on the other hand you have to cause two people to die in order to save yourself from being eaten by a tiger, that is understandable even though there is a disparity. In that case the disparity is not terribly enormous, nor is your need or desire frivoulous; so you are morally allowed some leeway in the self-interested disparity. If however you caused two people to be tortured to death merely to avoid getting bitten by a mosquito, that would be too great a disparity and your self-interest would not be great enough to justify it morally.

I'm not saying that that *is* the moral framework; just a rough outline of what could possibly be such a framework or part of some such framework.

[RJT]

I am in the process of starting a new thread - I think some of your thoughts are echoed in it. Talk then.

[Piers]

If you define absolute morality as God’s wishes then it makes sense that absolute morality can only exist if God does.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If you define absolute morality as God’s wishes then it makes sense that absolute morality can only exist if God does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes, that follows. Maybe that's what David was trying to say.

I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is you can't have a standard above God if God is defined as absolute, otherwise He isn't absolute and therefore not God. It's the old Euthyphro problem of Plato, is something good because God says so (arbitrary) or does God say it's good because of an independent standard (in which case He's not absolute, not God). This is a false dilemma according to theism because AM is an expression of God's nature or character. He is goodness itself and what He says is good, not because it's arbitrary, but because it comes from His character. God isn't free to make up just any kind of moral imperative because He can't violate His own nature.

Euthyphro is really just a disguised way of saying that it's impossible for an absolute being to exist. I saw Martin attempt to disprove the theistic explanation of Euthyphro by saying that theism is just moving the issue back one step - how do you know God's character is good? You have to use a standard, etc. What I said in another dialogue with you applies here. Martin is presupposing the impossibility of God, as was Plato. The reason the cosmological theistic proof doesn't work as stated is because the impossibility of God is presupposed.

And yes, it's an assertion. We don't know God's character is good because of an independent standard. God is Himself the definition of good. Any other approach denies the possibility of God, sets man's reason above God, seeks absolutes in an impersonal and independent standard. A logical starting point is required. There are only two. God and not-God.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think that the following stand-alone statement necessarily has to be true: "IF Absolute Morals, THEN God"

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem is you can't have a standard above God if God is defined as absolute,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a problem for my statement above; there are two ways around it.

The first way around your stated "problem" for my statement would be: that there is no God, but there do exist certain absolute frameworks--such as mathematical laws, for instance. One less likely such framework might be an absolute moral framework. So there could exist no God, and exist an absolute moral framework (perhaps the framework would be regarding how sentient, intelligent, self-aware beings interact with other sentient beings). In this case, your objection that "you can't have a standard above God" would not be applicable.

The second way around your stated "problem" for my statement would be that God created some specific frameworks, not such that they would surpass himself, but so as to also possess certain immutable and eternal characteristics. In this case too, your objection that "you can't have a standard above God" would not apply.