Dr. William Lane Craig has produced another video illustrating a primary argument for God’s existence: the moral argument. Enjoy!
In case you missed his videos on the kalam cosmological argument and the design argument, see here and here.
January 30, 2015
Visual depiction of the moral argument
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Moral Argument, Theistic Arguments[22] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
January 30, 2015 at 10:41 am
The same question can be made: Can you be evil without God?
We must realize that the objective moral argument that claims to prove God exists is really a subjective argument as all morals, virtues, good and evil are coined through language and all claims made are subjective claims because there is no such thing as objective morality…everything is subjective including the created caricature concept, God, to credit or debit whatever laws man makes or breaks.
One man may say that the bomb explosion at a Shia mosque in Pakistan’s southern Sindh province that killed at least 49 people and left dozens more wounded, is immoral or amoral unless you are a Sunni Taliban ISIS man; then, this is the moral thing to do because Allah(God) wills it to be so.
Can man be Good without God? YES
Can man be Evil without God, YES
But without God; well then, man would have to take the blame or credit, himself, as the case may be; a claim it seems, that is seldom internalized to oneself but externalized to man’s Scapegoat, God.
God is man’s idea of scapegoating. And all Good and Evil are subjective whether it is an subjective individualism, a society, a sports group, a religious group or a country that justifies war and killing as easily as it justifies contravening it’s own commandment “Thou shalt not kill” by imposing the capital death penalty on those who contravene the State’s commandment.
Higher Powers do not make man’s laws, they create Cosmic Laws governed by: Gravity, Electricity, Magnetism; on the other hand when man’s internal Father makes laws those Laws are made by the G-od Wolf or The D-evil Wolf residing within and the One that Enacts the laws is the one you feed. A Churchill or a Hitler? depends on the side you are on.
LikeLike
January 30, 2015 at 10:57 am
SYRIA ‘ADULTRESS’ SURVIVES JIHADIST STONING:
Where is the Objective Morality in this story broadcast
2 hours ago? Any?
Beirut (AFP) – A Syrian woman stoned by the jihadist Islamic State group for alledged adultery and left for dead has miraculously walked away from the brutal punishment, a monitor said Friday.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the jihadist group sentenced the woman to be “stoned for adultery” in the town of Raqa, the IS stronghold in northern Syria.
Militants carried out the punishment and “stoned her until they thought she had died,” said the Britain-based monitor.
But just as they had stopped pelting her with stones, the woman stood up and tried to flee.
“An IS militant was about to open fire at her when an Islamist jurist intervened and stopped him saying it was God’s will that she did not die,” said the Observatory, without specifying when it happened.
The IS jurist told the woman she can walk free but that she must “repent”.
According to the Observatory, at least 15 people, nine of them women, have been executed by jihadists in Syria, including Al-Qaeda-linked militants, since July for alleged adultery and homosexuality.
The IS and the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s Syria branch, hold large swathes of Syria and have imposed a brutal version of Islamic law in territory under their control.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/syria-adultress-survives-jihadist-stoning-monitor-164429118.html
LikeLike
February 1, 2015 at 1:17 pm
I find these types of arguments interesting. However, for the believer it affirms his belief, doesn’t seem to make any difference to the unbeliever. I wonder if it would sway someone to believe who is agnostic? my guess is probably not.
Cats kill mice, cats also play with mice and a cat may run into a burning building to save her kittens. A male cat will attack another male cat to protect his territory. A pride of lions will use violence to protect their territory and lions will use violence to assert dominance and impose their will on other members of their pride. An animal may risk her life to protect her calf from predators even after the calf appears dead, not giving up until realizing it is dead or out numbered. The only real difference between higher functioning animals and human beings is we can over ride our instincts and be empathetic, we are aware. You only need to look at ISIS to see the line between human beings and animals is very thin. IMO, Christianity explains this in the parable of the wheat and tares. Those who try and over come their worldly desires/instincts and have empathy for those inside their tribe as well as outside their tribe are wheat. Those like ISIS are tares whether or not they act out on their beliefs. Some Old Testament stories appear very similar to things we hear about ISIS.
I’m guessing an Atheist would reject this argument (ie. morality is evidence of God) and say our morality is the product of evolution. Over many generations, humans which had these traits survived and thrived, and that is why we are the why we are. That human beings created God in our own image. That humans can use intellect and reason and come up with a moral code to live by (ie. do unto others…).
Who was more moral, the Atheist who denounced what the Nazis did or the Theist (probably Christian) who gassed him in the death camp? Yes Atheists kill people too and Theists other than Christians kill people too and Christians denounced the Nazis too but that murdering Theist was convinced he was doing God’s will. Religions also are like tribes made up of wheat and tares. I think the Atheist was the moral one.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 12:44 am
Paul, the moral argument is very persuasive because it appeals to our basic moral intuitions that morality is objective, and the existence of objective moral values cries out for a transcendent source. I have heard a number of testimonies of people that were converted to theism because of this argument.
Even if they did not persuade the unbeliever, that is not necessarily a mark agains the soundness of the argumen. People are not purely rational beings, so there can be a range of reasons why people reject sounds arguments (emotional, psychological). Think of the number of people who want to reject the most basic metaphysical principle of all (that something cannot come from nothing). Why? Because that principle argues strongly for a Creator, and they don’t want to believe in such a being. So they will make all sorts of silly objections to the argument and are willing to embrace all sorts of absurdities to evade it. It’s not that they are being more rational, but less.
Animals do not have the moral sense that humans have. Even if they did, however, it would only go to further demonstrate the reality of objective moral values (even animals are aware of them to one degree or another).
An atheist can say that morality is the result of evolution, but then he is talking about a different kind of morality. He is talking about subjective morality rather than objective morality. It doesn’t explain what needs to be explained.
In your last paragraph you are confusing obedience to the moral law with the existence of the moral law. Surely theists can disobey it and atheists can obey it. But in both cases there is a moral law that both are subject to. What the moral argument does is show that the existence of a realm of objective moral values requires ontological grounding, and the best explanation is that they are grounded in God.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 4, 2015 at 12:56 am
No, Son of Man, you cannot be evil without the existence of God any more than you can commit adultery as a single person. If God does not exist to ground moral values, then morals are just subjective preferences and mores of humans. There is nothing intrinsically good or evil about any act. It’s all just molecules in motion. No molecule has the property of “good” or “evil.” To say that man can be good without God (which is to say that he can be good even if there is no such thing as objective goodness) is meaningless. Again, it’s like saying a man can be married without a spouse. While someone could still act in ways that we have traditionally defined as good, there would be no moral significance to his acts. One can only BE good if there is a God that exists who grounds objective moral values.
Just because different people identify what is good differently does not mean that morality is subjective any more than the fact that in my calculus class people provided a bunch of different answers to the same math problem (and all thought their answer was right) means that math is subjective. Instead, it means that some people are right and some people are wrong. There is a difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology. It may be the case that for some things, it may be difficult to determine what is right (moral epistemology), but that does not mean there is no right (moral ontology). Confusing the two is an elementary mistake.
Besides, all humans essentially agree on what is good. What they disagree on is the facts. For example, all agree that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being. The reason some support abortion while others do not is because they disagree about the facts, namely is the baby a human being?
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 8:59 am
The molecule argument is used by supporters of abortion and by believers for good and evil and while we would not say a molecule is good or evil we do say it is positive and negative but to claim that anyone would say they were married without a spouse is an argument Theists use to claim they are married to a concept, to Christ, to the Church or another word to describe it is celibate but even in the days of the ancients man had male and female prostitutes in the temple for the clergy: Shrine (Sacred) whores and in the case of the homosexuals, “Dogs and Priest Pimps.
Which begs the question about the morality of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son by taking his life; what? because God made him do it? Until a passerby came upon him and wrestled Abraham out of his delusion with common sense; and I submit, the passage of enough time for Abraham to recover from a drink/drug induced mind that made him delusional to the extent of killing but then bloodletting and the taking of life was the way of the ancients for the remissin of sins.
It is noted that one must a qualifier when claiming that “….all would agree that it is wrong to take an (“innocent”) human life…..” with the adjective “innocent” and then in the next sentence describe the “facts” about abortion. To make the claim that an unborn baby would be such an “Innocent” human being makes no sense because it implies that that an unborn baby might also then be “guilty” and then theists go on again about the concept argument of “original” sin so all humans carry the burden of guilt for the act of the parent(s).
Of course the woman made Adam eat the delicious apple because that is the design of male and female but even that natural design must be rendered evil so that religion can then make it right by “marriage”.
It was only religion that determined the difference between the “lust” and “love” variants of sexuality.
And of course when you say that ” ‘all’ would agree” what you are really saying is that ‘all’ the (subjective) viewpoints humans would agree that the taking of an innocent human life is wrong; in other words, the group of subjective views agree that the commonality agrees that that makes an objective moral and therefore it follows from the common agreement the premise that morals are grounded in God is proved by the conclusion.
Can you name one single objective moral that “all” cannot agree on? Because the objective moral is right in and of itself without human agreement or acceptance? If you believe you can, and I know you cannot, what is that objective moral? In your world the objective morality map exists whether humans exist or not simply because you start with the God belief.
I submit that the “objective morality” you argue for is an attempt, not at proving objective morality per se but an attempt to link it to a proof of God; and, that your “objective morality” is merely a pseudo-intellectual exercise exactly like, the noise not made in the forest when a tree falls because it is not heard by humans, analogy.
LikeLike
February 4, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Jason,
Isn’t all morality really subjective because God’s message of morality has to be interpreted? Our Lord had to correct misinterpretations regarding the nature of God, Sabbath keeping, Murder, Adultery, dietary restrictions (did I miss any others?). Maybe we (ie. humans) have misinterpreted other moral teachings of God?
LikeLike
February 6, 2015 at 12:07 pm
SonofMan,
Once again you ignore the point and go off on tangents. I would love to see you actually engage the arguments and stick to the point for once. The point is that you can’t get moral values from physical stuff. Good and evil are not physical properties. So if all that exists is the physical, then there is no objective morality. Good and evil are just matters of preference and/or practicality.
And rather than engaging my argument against the notion that there is no objective morality because people differ in what they think is right and wrong, you haggle over the details of my illustration. Either concede the point or argue against it!
As for your rabbit trail about the innocence of the unborn, you say “To make the claim that an unborn baby would be such an “Innocent” human being makes no sense because it implies that that an unborn baby might also then be “guilty” and then theists go on again about the concept argument of “original” sin so all humans carry the burden of guilt for the act of the parent(s).” No, it doesn’t imply that. It implies that humans can be guilty of crimes deserving of death or innocent of such crimes. It doesn’t mean that the unborn can be either or. Clearly all babies are innocent of any moral wrongdoing. And don’t cite original sin to the contrary. Original sin means we all have a proclivity to sin; it doesn’t mean that babies have committed personal sins. Even if they did, none of them are deserving of capital punishment (unless you want to argue that kicking your mother’s uterus too hard is deserving of death).
Yes, all people agree that torturing little children for fun is evil. All people agree that cowardice is not a moral virtue. How’s that for starters?
Objective morality is not something we have to argue for. We know morality is objective. Moral intuitions are as basic to our being as logical intuitions. You could no more convince me that there is nothing morally wrong with torturing a child for fun than you could to convince me that 2+2=5. It’s a truth that we recognize. The difficulty comes in explaining the ontological foundation for things such as moral truths (or mathematical truths for that matter).
Jason
LikeLike
February 6, 2015 at 12:19 pm
Paul,
No. This is a misuse of the word subjective. Subjective and objective tell you what a statement is ABOUT, not where it comes FROM. To say a truth is subjective is to say it is a truth about the subject rather than reality. To say a truth is objective is to say that the truth is about the object itself, wholly independent of what any subject may think about it.
All truths are held by and interpreted by a subject. When I contemplate the truth that 2+2=4, that does not make math subjective. The fact that truths are interpreted by human subjects doesn’t make them subjective either. All truths are interpreted. One would have to claim that no interpretations are right in order to claim that interpretation alone makes something subjective, because only if all interpretations are wrong would our beliefs no correspond to reality, and thus only be “true for us”—the meaning of subjective.
Yes, it is possible to misinterpret a moral teaching, but the source of our moral understanding is not limited to propositional content. We have moral intuitions built into our soul so that we have a direct awareness of what is right and wrong. Granted, the extent of that moral knowledge is limited, but it does supply us with quite a bit of moral knowledge. Other moral knowledge must be revealed to us by God via propositions that we must contemplate and interpret. While our interpretations could be mistaken, the mere possibility is not enough to engender moral skepticism. After all, of all the moral commands in Scripture, which ones are not clear? Where the ambiguity comes in is often related to the application of certain moral principles, or what we do when moral principles conflict with each other in certain circumstances. But what we do then is give our best thinking to the topic, not just claim that it’s all subjective.
Jason
LikeLiked by 1 person
February 6, 2015 at 11:22 pm
Jason,
Thanks for your response. I’ll research the moral argument further, obviously I’m missing something.
LikeLike
February 7, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Jason:
With all due respect I never said, suggested, implied or otherwise indicated that moral values come fom physical stuff alone; you infer what you want from what I clearly mean without having to specify the parts of mass and energy and explain the difference. I have to assume that you understand the concept: energy and matter work conjunctively.
There is no such thing as Objective Morality; it is something made up; something constructed, in this case, to support the God “conclusion”, that’s all. The only thing one can say or define objective moral values to be, is that “objective moral values” is the sum total of the majority subjective parts we might call normal democratic values where the subjective parts of humans having genetic similaries produce the majority of like thoughts about like events.
The first good or lack thereof that a first born experiences outside the womb is what? The coldness of room atmosphere temperature compared to the naturally conditioned warmth of womb temperature; and, the light bright outside the womb compared to the light absence inside the womb. We humans experience both these events in various degrees throughout our lives with the most impactful of the two is when we awake from the absence of light during sleep at night, when the bright light is turned on or the blind is lifted allowing the daylight to intrude. But these are amoral values. Moral values begin with deprivation: hunger, pangs, crying communication, groping clutching suckling, food, ahhh GOOD, and so life develops with experiences and memory, good and absence, light and absence, love and absence; like in a moral sense, evil is the absence of goodness.
You constantly refer to mathematic formulae as an objective truth but that is a non sequitor because math formulae are themselves constructed and defined by man the same as moral values. The only reason that 2+2=4 is because it was not constructed with a rule different than the following rule for example: it could have been a formulated rule that the first 2 in a sequence equals two 1’s but the second 2 in the sequence, when adding the sum, equals only to 1 thereby making the sequence 2+2=3; or, 2+2+2=4 and so on. The point is that the laws of Math are made for man and not man for the laws of math.
And biblically this is exactly the same reasoning Jesus used when he defended his disciples for picking cobs of corn on the sabbath because they were hungry. When the Pharisees complained about doing such things on the sabbath, Mark 2:24 “And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?”Jesus countered: Mark 2:27 “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Why? Because the laws are made by man, for man and are not god constructs or universal constructs. Therefore man is master of the sabbath in the same way as man is master of math and master of moral values.
Now tell me Jason can you say that Jesus was wrong because the sabbath was a decree from God as the bible says in Exodus 31: The Sabbath Law
12 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 13 “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 14 You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.”
It is the same with moral values and a subjective view means that the electrical neurons firing impulses to the brain, each individual brain interprets various electrical messages: subjectivism is not merely talking about the subject it also talks about how the perception of the world as the subject sees it.
You infer that I am saying that morals come from physical stuff. No! But energy, electrical impulses generated, travels along physical paths and is also associated with chemicals and while chemicals and neurons are physical the chemical reactions and electrical impulses are energy otherwise the equation E = mc 2 would not make sense. Whether we talk about physical(matter) or energy(spiritual) they are simply separate parts of the same entity.
WHAT ARE THOUGHTS MADE OF?
They’re really just electro-chemical reactions—but the number and complexity of these reactions make them hard to fully understand…
The human brain is composed of about 100 billion nerve cells (neurons) interconnected by trillions of connections, called synapses. On average, each connection transmits about one signal per second. Some specialized connections send up to 1,000 signals per second. “Somehow… that’s producing thought,” says Charles Jennings, director of neurotechnology at the MIT McGovern Institute for Brain Research.
Given the physical complexity of what’s happening inside your head, it’s not easy to trace a thought from beginning to end. “That’s a little like asking where the forest begins. Is it with the first leaf, or the tip of the first root?” says Jennings. Simpler, then to start by considering perceptions—“thoughts” that are directly triggered by external stimuli—a feather brushes your skin, you see these words on the computer screen, you hear a phone ring. Each of these events triggers a series of signals in the brain.
When you read these words, for example, the photons associated with the patterns of the letters hit your retina, and their energy triggers an electrical signal in the light-detecting cells there. That electrical signal propagates like a wave along the long threads called axons that are part of the connections between neurons. When the signal reaches the end of an axon, it causes the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the synapse, a chemical junction between the axon tip and target neurons. A target neuron responds with its own electrical signal, which, in turn, spreads to other neurons. Within a few hundred milliseconds, the signal has spread to billions of neurons in several dozen interconnected areas of your brain and you have perceived these words. (All that and you probably didn’t even break a sweat.)
The fact that you are then able to convert the perception of these shapes into symbols, language, and meaning is a whole other story—and a good indication of the complexity of neuroscience. Trying to imagine how trillions of connections and billions of simultaneous transmissions coalesce inside your brain to form a thought is a little like trying to look at the leaves, roots, snakes, birds, ticks, deer—and everything else in a forest—at the same moment.
LikeLike
February 8, 2015 at 6:45 pm
Entitled “Who says Science has nothing to say about Morality”, Jason, you may find this enlightening and
Paul V
you may find this interesting research material
LikeLike
February 8, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Jason:
In the history of human sacrifice, it’s astonishing that almost any culture you can name had a tradition of human sacrifice and I actually don’t doubt that people went willingly and eagerly to their deaths because if you have the requisite beliefs, it makes sense. It was believed that you could engage this one way dialogue with the ancestors by just going to meet them; you could cure the King of his venereal disease and save all the people you love from the wrath of God by being sacrificed.
Now of course other people were sacrificed involuntarily as well but one of the embarrassing things about Christianity is, it actually stands astride this truly contemptible history, not as any kind of departure from it; Christianity is not a religion that rejects human sacrifice; it’s a religion that celebrates a single human sacrifice as though it were fully effective. And people tend to condone this bizarre commitment. Unless you have an argument against these clear cases it seems to me you don’t have an argument at all for moral relevance. All you have is a position, like a noose around the neck, trying in vain to square the circle.
LikeLike
February 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Son of Man,
That’s for the link, I found the discussion about what science has to say about morality interesting.
Seems to me the Moral Argument has a Theist bias and it doesn’t compute to me like it does to others. However, my research continues.
LikeLike
February 12, 2015 at 12:03 am
SonofMan,
Where did I say that you believe moral values come from physical stuff? I know you don’t even hold to objective morality. My point was not about what you believe. My point was that objective morality cannot come from physical stuff, so if God does not exist, there can be no morality: no evil, no good. All we are left with is subjective preferences and cultural mores. No actions have real moral significance.
No, objective morality is not the same as majority opinion. To say morals are objective is to say that moral properties are mind-independent realities just like physical properties.
When a person thinks mathematics are subjective, why even argue? Besides, you seem to be confusing mathematical truths with mathematical semantics and mathematical tokens. 2+2 = 4 is an objective mathematical truth, but the tokens “2” and “4” could be entirely different without changing the truth. The same goes for how we express mathematical truths semantically. None of that pertains to the objective nature of mathematical truths.
Really? You are going to trot out a rule that has no objective basis in reality (the Sabbath) to say that no rules have an objective basis in reality? That’s like saying that since the right to drive a car is a man-made right, the right to life is a man-made right as well, and thus there are no inherent rights.
Thoughts are not made of electro-chemical reactions. Electro-chemical reactions are not conscious. Electro-chemical reactions are not about anything, but thoughts are. The mind works in conjunction with the brain to think, but the mind is not reducible to the brain because mental properties have features that are not physical.
As for human sacrifice, even if I accepted your claim that virtually all cultures had human sacrifice, what of it? They also murder. The fact that people universally violate their sense of right and wrong does not negate the existence of right and wrong anymore than the fact that most people speed negates the existence of speeding laws.
As for Christianity, Jesus was not a human sacrifice. Sin requires punishment. Normally, the person responsible for the sin is punished for their own sin. In the case of Jesus, a man that was not responsible for any sin, offered to pay the penalty for those of us who have sinned. This is hardly comparable to the cults.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2015 at 12:03 am
SonofMan and Paul V,
I have not watched the video, but I can say in principle that science cannot say anything about real morality because science trades on the physical, and physical things do not have moral properties. Sure, they can talk about what actions are best suited for desired outcomes, but they are at a loss to justify why their chosen desired outcomes are themselves good other than the fact that they think they are. We’re back to assertions about preferences, or a recognition of what the good is without examining how the good is grounded in reality.
Jason
LikeLike
February 12, 2015 at 11:18 pm
Jason,
Let me try to clarify because obviously I’m missing something.
The argument is not based on we have morals is it? Because as I mentioned in a previous post, it appears to me that some animals exhibit very similar behaviors as human beings. Isn’t the argument based on there is a standard for morality (ie. God’s “objective morality”)? If so, then don’t you agree God’s “objective morality” is made known to us by the Bible?
Now for a live performance, the quality of recording can change over time as new technologies are invented, so what was the standard 50 years ago is not the standard for today and probably 50 years from today we could have a better standard yet. But God’s standard can’t change or it wouldn’t be God’s standard, it would be our standard as we developed. This is why I believe all morality is subjective.
Couple quick examples:
The Old Testament appears to say if someone causes a miscarriage punishment is a fine not a death sentence as some other transgressions of God’s Law. Also when a husband has the priest make his wife drink the “water of separation” it sure sounds to me like it could cause a miscarriage if the wife was pregnant. These are a few of the reasons some do not consider abortion murder, especially if the husband and wife choose to have an abortion.
The Old Testament also appears to say if a man smites his slave and the slave dies it is the man’s loss and he is not punished. I’m assuming the man is Hebrew and the slave isn’t but not 100% sure. Now today some say abortion is murder and for sure it would be murder to kill another human being whether that person was your slave or not. Obviously slave has some problems because of translation but whatever the actual meaning the man was not sentenced to death so it couldn’t be murder to kill his slave.
So am I wrong about what the Bible says or does our standard of morality exceed God’s standard?
I think this is from Aquinas or Augustine not sure but goes something like this: Someone is more moral than me and someone is less moral than me. Therefore, a being (God) has to be 100% good and a being (Satan) has to be 100% evil. It’s like trickery, using logic to prove something supernatural.
LikeLike
February 18, 2015 at 9:42 am
Paul V,
I don’t think animals are moral creatures in the same sense humans are. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they are. This would not detract from the moral argument. In fact, it would strengthen it because it would show that objective morality is even grasped by non-humans, eliminating the claim that it is a human invention. If humans as well as animals are aware of moral values, it strengthens the case that there is a realm of objective moral values that they are discerning.
The moral argument is an effect-to-cause argument. It attempts to explain how objective moral values exist; i.e. the cause and origin of moral values. It seeks to provide an ontological foundation for the moral values we experience every day. It argues that the best explanation for this objective feature of the world is the existence of a personal God whose very nature is good.
Yes, the Bible does provide us with moral knowledge, but it is not necessary for any moral knowledge. Moral knowledge is innate to us. When little Timmy takes a cookie from little Susie, Susie knows this is “not fair.” All of us apprehend at least basic moral truths via our conscience. Others can be discovered based on reflection. Some, however, require divine revelation. That’s where the Bible comes in. But the Bible is not necessary for a robust sense of morality.
As for your questions about the Bible, these are valid questions, but irrelevant to the moral argument for God’s existence. At best they might be tests for determining whether or not these are truly examples of divine revelation or not, or for assessing whether our current positions on what constitutes murder is accurate, but they do not add to or detract from the moral argument.
I’ve never heard that argument before, but it’s definitely not sound. There are reasons for thinking there must be a morally perfect being (see http://bit.ly/1yXPt6k), but this is not one of them!
Jason
LikeLike
February 18, 2015 at 8:38 pm
Jason,
Thanks for your response, it helped me better understand your position.
It’s Aquinas’ “Argument from Degree.” I put that argument in my own words from memory so that may be the reason it’s not familiar to you. I don’t think it’s sound either but I might not be stating it properly. If interested, google “5 arguments for and against the existence of God” and a summary should come up. I would’ve included a link, but that’s presently beyond my computer skills.
LikeLike
February 26, 2015 at 3:59 pm
And , behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL THY MIND; and THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. And He said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28)
And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Yahshua answered him, The first of all the commandments is, HEAR, O ISRAEL; THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD: AND THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY MIND, AND WITH ALL THY STRENGTH: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto Him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but He: And to love Him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Yahshua saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask Him any question. (Mark 12:28-34)
But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law [Torah]? Yahshua said unto him, THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY MIND. [Deuteronomy 6:4-9] This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. [Leviticus 19:18] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:34-40)
Yahshua places great emphasis on the vitality and essential core priority of humanity’s love towards God and his fellow human beings for it proves through this love shall come the guiding direction & motivation for all his/her interactions with both. Likewise, it’s love that serves as the critical motivation for God in dealing with humanity: “For God so LOVED [emphasis added] the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” (John 3:16, 17)
Indeed for Yahshua it’s love for those created by Him in His own image and love for His Father also; expressed through humility & obedience to His Divine Sovereign Will that motivates Him to become God incarnate; the very Provision of human salvation [Philippians 2:1-9]; i.e., God “made in the likeness of men:” to impart righteousness upon us thereby enabling reconciliation to God.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0005277
Now given a Personal God of Love, Graciousness & Mercy how can it be we experience a world of depravity, anguish and disease? Shouldn’t a Good God produce a good world? Well, who’s to say He didn’t? Scripture tells us He did: “And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Genesis 1:31) Humanity exercises free will, liberty of choice at the Will of God, and in so doing has chosen unwisely, transgressed against God’s command and as is said, “The rest is history”. But being loving and merciful God works to secure our redemption. “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” (John 14:18) He has made this empirically tangibly clear through His work on the Cross; entering into His fallen creation to suffer and die as ransom for the sins of many: “Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28) And Yahshua’s work as Redeemer has been validated by the One Who sent Him through Yahshua’s Resurrection from the dead [Isaiah 53:10-12]. “Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.” (Romans 4:25)
In your patience possess ye your souls. (Luke 21:19) Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; And patience, experience; and experience, hope: And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Messiah died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one day die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commandeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Messiah died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5:1-11)
LikeLike
March 1, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Moral Contest:
Every Communist must grasp the truth; “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” [Quotations from Mao Tse Tung; “Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.]
VS.
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:51, 52)
LikeLike
September 5, 2016 at 11:06 pm
[…] https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/visual-depiction-of-the-moral-argument/ […]
LikeLike