Because my assumption that morality exists is logical if God exists. My assertion a God must exist if the argument from contingency.
Atheists can’t assume morality exists logically and also believe in no metaphysical belief system outside the physical world. They would need to be moral antirealists.
I don’t follow the logic that morality must exist if god exists. Could you walk me through it?
If God exists and has moral laws for us they must exist if he exists. Sorry I need a direct question on how morality functions to answer more specifically, unless you were actually asking generally? In which case of God exists and gives moral laws to humans, those morals laws are true by dent of being given by an all knowing all powerful God who is the sole basis for morality.
I guess the part I’m getting hung up on is that you’re making two assumptions.
One doesn’t seem to follow from the other — they’re just two separate assumptions you’re making.
Why is that better or more likely to be true than making one assumption:
Why bring God into it at all?
I grew up in a non religious household. Well my father was agnostic at best, mother believed in God but never was in organized religion. Around the time I was 9 I told my parents I wanted to be baptized. So that year I was baptized and had my first communion. We (mom, sister and I) went to mass and Sunday school pretty regularly until I hit about 16. Started being a little more rebellious and decided I was too smart for religion. I never stopped believing in God.
Easter day just before my 24th birthday I decided to go to mass, alone. It was great. At that point i reconnected with my faith. I was very observant until I had kids. Sometimes it’s just tough to get a 5 and 4 year old to church and sit still for an hour. Lol. My daughter and I get to mass every other week or so. It might sound weird but other Catholics probably understand, if I don’t receive communion for a couple weeks I feel off.
Anyway, we’re not the most religious family. Both my kids are baptized. I believe in the Catholic faith even if I’m sometimes in disagreement with the church.
No I am saying if God exists
then
He is the source of objective morality.
If God exists, then God is the moral arbiter.
Well, it’d be pretty pointless if that were the ENTIRE premise
And I’d say it’s not engaged in with the absolute absence of evidence, instead it’s engaged in with the absence of absolute evidence.
Choice/faith can override or fill the doubtful gaps in evidence, so to speak
Ah, you’re talking about a specific conception of God. I was just picturing an omnipresent, omnipotent… thing. That makes more sense.
Do you have any way to know what god’s moral laws are? And is there any way for you to determine that your conception of god is right and someone else’s conception is wrong?
Islam is responsible for putting out almost all the philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God.
As a Muslim you should read everything Ghazali ever wrote such a brilliant mind. Also the Quran itself was making these arguments 1400 years ago in very beautiful ways
By the way God grant you a good Ramdan and bless your family.
Id say religious people without the conviction that their religion is actually real or true are worse. Honestly every christian who doesn’t believe in any form of christian law is by far more pathetic than the astheist or an overly zealous religious person.
St.Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas is interesting but he makes a contingency argument then says Jesus was a man and God tus refuting his own theology from his own argument. But he did write some interesting things. He also copied his arguments from Muslims. Also he was heavily influenced by plato and aristotle and reformulated their own positions.
Great thinker though. Its kinda ironic but i love his writing style, reminds me of a christopher hitchens in a way, very polemical in his way.
This is what all Christians (well most) believe. The holy Trinity. Though I’m not really versed in all the different protestant denominations.
Not arguing, but if you aren’t Christian, may not have known that.
The absurdist and nihilist in me doesn’t find pointlessness to be a negative thing
Choice/faith can override or fill the doubtful gaps in evidence, so to speak
What exactly do you mean by this? Can you provide an example?
Why? Causality is more so an illusion of the human mind, because we seek coherence in understanding. Evolutionarily speaking, our very survival depended on it. We see A consistently follow B, so “ah! B must cause A.” This way of explaining the physical world has been long outdated, at least since the dawn of modern physics. You may enjoy reading up on quantum physics and relativity, but be prepared to have your world rocked. Causality is out the window, determinism is out the window, all-knowing observer is out the window, and any physical aspect of the world being measured in any absolute sense…you guessed it…out the window.
I’ve never understood the insistence on connecting the morality debate to the ontological debate. Why are they inherently linked? Why does a higher power guarantee morality? What about a Hitler-esque creator of the universe? That’s not at all inconsistent with argument from “logical causality.” It’s just circular reasoning. “We are moral, because God is moral.” Well, what if he/she/it is amoral and completely devoid of good will? Why are they involved in humanity at all? What if they just created everything and peaced out? That really doesn’t explain morality either.
Binary bias…either or thinking fallacy. This is where moral relativity comes into play. Context matters. Again, read up on relativity if you’re interested. It’s not so far fetched that its principles could carryover into understanding morality or the “rightness” or “wrongness” of individual actions.
That’s because it’s not objective, and never will be. You still can’t give an argument why it’s objectively wrong…even with all the religions of the world.
The better question is, why are you asking this question? If one believes, why argue about it to the point you sound like you are trying to convince yourself?
Besides, theologically the question is nonsensical and shows a lack of knowledge.
Wouldn’t it be His subjective morality?
I don’t know. I mean, does anyone want to get raped? I think something we can all agree that we don’t want to happen to us is wrong. Not even rapists want to get raped.
