matthew wrote:You're right, and for one a universe with a personal God is a moral universe, whereas one without a personal God (such as yours) is a completely arbitrary universe.

*sigh*

Don't you like how, even though the "morality comes from God" argument has been shot down again and again on the forum, Matthew still insists on repeating it in a way that implies that it's unquestioned fact?

I know, i know, i know...Matthew thinks it's unquestioned fact, true, but the fact that he insists on going back to premises that no one else has agreed on to make his points makes me wanna bang my head against a wall.

DrAwkward wrote:

matthew wrote:You're right, and for one a universe with a personal God is a moral universe, whereas one without a personal God (such as yours) is a completely arbitrary universe.

*sigh*

Don't you like how, even though the "morality comes from God" argument has been shot down again and again on the forum, Matthew still insists on repeating it in a way that implies that it's unquestioned fact?

Oh dear, I don't see that it's been shot down at all I'm afraid. There is no unquestionable moral law without someone or something telling you what it is. If no one and nothing does then you make up your own rules of behaviour.
That's groovy and in my view, as it should be, but morality in the traditional sense (some kind of objective set of laws dictating what is right and what is wrong) doesn't exist universally (unless you believe some universal force dictates those laws to you).
Nothing I've read on this forum over the last year has shifted that opinion.

Of course I think the idea that Christians have final say on what is right and wrong is utter horse turd but I also think it is horse turd for anyone to ever think they have final say on what's right and what's wrong in this world.


except me.

Earwicker wrote:Oh dear, I don't see that it's been shot down at all I'm afraid. There is no unquestionable moral law without someone or something telling you what it is. If no one and nothing does then you make up your own rules of behaviour.

But Matthew's contention is that it came from God and that it *had* to have come from God and that man couldn't have come up with morality on its own. I'm not saying i didn't have to be pointed in a certain direction regarding how morality works.

I think there have been plenty of arguments made on the forum in favor of man being able to work morality out for itself over the generations that for Matthew to go around saying "a universe without god is one without morals" in a way where he expects us all to just accept that without question is sorta dumb.

Earwicker wrote:Oh dear, I don't see that it's been shot down at all I'm afraid. There is no unquestionable moral law without someone or something telling you what it is. If no one and nothing does then you make up your own rules of behaviour.

Umm, isn't that what a religion does... make up rules of behavior?

Just sayin'

Of course, if we want to be really sneaky, there's no reason a morally-normative universe even requires a creator. If a statement of moral universalism can even be considered coherant, then there's no need for the god to be kicking around, because if it's entirely dependent on the god's fiat and would no longer exist without the presence of the god, then the moral code is not actually fundamental to the structure of the universe. Any absolute moral code has to be bound up in the very stuff of existence, and it can do that just as well without a deity to put it there.

Of course, it's an incoherant idea to begin with.

Edited due to post New Year promise to stop giving a fuck.

DrAwkward wrote:But Matthew's contention is that it came from God and that it *had* to have come from God and that man couldn't have come up with morality on its own.

But Matthew is a clown and nothing he says should be taken seriously on this forum. On the extremely rare occasion when I think he might be on to something on a given subject he's still hardly worth my acknowledging him as anything other than a compulsive liar clown.

Obviously man can come up with the idea of morality all on it's own. It has. We have. But what I remain unconvinced of is that there is some absolute moral law which we all should abide by.
The point is we've come up with the idea of absolute moral laws (just like we've come up with the idea of God) but they differ from person to person, culture to culture (just as Gods do for that matter - for those who subscribe to them)

I don't see how you can believe in an absolute moral law without something absolute (like God) to dictate it or fix it into position.
In that sense I think the Clown is correct. You need to beleive in an absolute (in his case God) in order to believe in an absolute morality.
I don't believe in objective absolutes regarding anything - though I might have strong suspicions about certain things.

However, if you mean 'morals' as in modes of 'correct behaviour' each of us decides for 'ourselves' then we don't have anything to argue about other than what the word 'morality' means.

Antero wrote:Any absolute moral code has to be bound up in the very stuff of existence, and it can do that just as well without a deity to put it there.

But to believe in it would require the same amount of blind faith than belief in a deity, wouldn't it?

Gramsci wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Oh dear, I don't see that it's been shot down at all I'm afraid. There is no unquestionable moral law without someone or something telling you what it is. If no one and nothing does then you make up your own rules of behaviour.

Umm, isn't that what a religion does... make up rules of behavior?

Yes, then dictates them to others, I'm not sure what your point is?

I think people are taking what I'm saying as defenses of Chritianity - I'm not doing that.
I'm not saying you can only have an absolute moral law with some kind of absolute authority to pin it on - therefore we should all believe in said absolute authority.

If anything I'm saying - you can only have an absolute moral law with some kind of absolute authority to pin it on therefore there is no absolute moral law - and that's groovy man!

But you don't give a fuck anyways so it doesn't matter.

Earwicker wrote:

Antero wrote:Any absolute moral code has to be bound up in the very stuff of existence, and it can do that just as well without a deity to put it there.

But to believe in it would require the same amount of blind faith than belief in a deity, wouldn't it?

I think the difference is that I can experience that to abide by some rules (or a moral code) makes my life easier and more comfortable (simplified: I treat people good so people will treat me good too). to me this seems to be a logical pattern of behavior in a collective.

I don't like to compare human to animals, but you will find the same pattern of behavior with all mammals. so I don't think that it takes the same amount of blind faith to believe in morality. it takes rationality.