<p>I got in a big debate today about morality so I made this thread. I wanted to see the argument written out.</p>
<p>The Christian who is also a moral objectivist will argue that terms such as “good” and “evil” have no meaning and make no sense without an appeal to an independent (objective) standard. The argument goes something like this …</p>
<li>Hitler was Evil but Mother Theresa was good!!</li>
<li>(Theist argument): Calling Hitler evil and Mother Theresa good entails appeal to a higher standard that is independent of Hitler’s Mother Theresa’s and your own.</li>
<li>Therefore God.</li>
</ol>
<p>This is the essence of moral objectivism. The construction of the above reasoning can be summarised as follows.</p>
<li>Person A states that B is better than C.</li>
<li>The theistic moral objectivist points out that saying that B is better than C entails appeal to a higher standard (Z) against which both are measured.</li>
<li>Z = God.</li>
</ol>
<p>However 3 begs the question. The whole argument only works if God is good and we can establish a basis for calling him good. We can only say that rebellion against God is evil by first establishing that he is good. On what basis do we determine this? The issue is, we can’t use moral objectivitsm to do it!!</p>
<li>I (A) state that God (Z) is good but Satan (B) is evil.</li>
<li>Moral objectivism dictates that I cannot say (1) without appealing to a standard that is independent of God’s(Z), Satan’s(B) and my own(A).</li>
<li>Such a standard does not exist.</li>
<li>I cannot use moral objectivism to claim (1).</li>
</ol>
<p>So even the moral objectivist abandons moral objectivism every time they call God good because they are no long appealing to an independent objective standard. So what is the basis for determining that God is good?</p>
<p>This is a classic case of the God concept suffering the very problem that it was postulated to solve.</p>
<p>^^^That does not work actually. It presumes god is the independent standard of goodness, which he is not simply because he exists. Or at least that is what I got from your post. You need to clarify your argument some.</p>
<p>I’m not arguing. I’m just saying that religion doesn’t obey traditional logic, which may or may not matter according to whom you ask.</p>
<p>Things like the First Cause argument, this one, etc. all transcend logic in some way, which is why religion requires “faith.” If you talked to most religious people (and absolutists), the argument would be in reverse. The faulty conclusion, that God exists, would lead to point 2 and then one would reach your hypothesis, that Mother Theresa was good while Hitler was evil. I’m just talking from the perspective of someone who would believe in God.</p>
<p>Of course, your argument is correct. If you simply wanted to make that clear, then this thread will probably be over quickly. However, I don’t think that the discussion will remain on this topic for very long.</p>
<p>P.S.: I am religious, but I am also aware of the danger of trying to prove God logically, in the traditional sense.</p>
<p>Mike: That itself is the fallacy. What Christians forget is that Christianity is just atheism + God. Even if Christianity is true, that just means there’s one more entity in the world. Granted, he has superpowers, but it’s still just one more entity. Hence, if one cannot provide a morality based on the facts of reality, the Christian is in exactly the same pickle as the atheist: both create their ethical systems based on the “is”.</p>
<p>Baelor: The moment you admit your belief is illogical I have no further objections to it. I have won in the only arena that matters as far as I am concerned-that of rational debate.</p>
<p>I was too lazy to read everything, but anyways..mankind will eventually develop the PERFECT equation through extensive studying and what not. It will be the most beautiful and perfect equation anyone will ever see. Even more amazing than e=mc^2.</p>
<p>LOL@ at the special pleading of lethargytm who wishes to excuse religion from being examined logically. If the syllogisms in the OP count as equations can be debated anyway. If you were just making at a joke at the expense of people who do think that way, then I apologize and pat you on the back</p>
<p>elder i was half serious half joking. but seriously, you cant make an equation nor evaluate something that is so vast. and your premise can be either wrong or right, im leaning towards the first.</p>
<p>“Baelor: The moment you admit your belief is illogical I have no further objections to it. I have won in the only arena that matters as far as I am concerned-that of rational debate.”</p>
<p>It’s not illogical in the familiar sense. Rather, it is not logically proven in the traditional sense. I would cut out the arrogance and superiority complex though. I would hardly call some of the most brilliant philosophers in the history of mankind (i.e., St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine) completely irrational and devoid of logic, which you do by saying that religion has no place in rationality. Even Pope John Paul the Second was incredibly intelligent.</p>
<p>But of course, you are well-versed in all aspects Christianity, because you can make such sweeping and derogatory claims toward it?</p>
<p>By the way: It’s obvious you made this thread just so you can appear intelligent and hope to draw in those with whom you can debate. Of course, according to you, they will never be able to “win” because they are Christians and have completely bogus beliefs, right?</p>
<p>Instead of promoting civil and informative discussion, you have just created a medium for self-aggrandizement. In other words, you are a ■■■■■■■■■.</p>
Not what I said. Your post contained an admission that your belief was not logical on the strictest sense. That is it for your argument. I was talking about my discussion with you.</p>
<p>
I did not make derogatory claims. You are reading them into my statements because I am arguing against Christianity. If I appeared derogatory it is because I think religion is illogical. You may correct me and offer arguments against my view if you wish.</p>
<p>Let me quote you again as part of my answer:“religion doesn’t obey traditional logic”</p>
<p>There is no other special logic that exists. Logic is logic is logic. Something must be proven logically in the traditional sense, as no other kind of non traditional proof exists. Even then it can only be established as likely and not proven 100%. Kant, a FAR greater philosopher than the ones you mention (and a Christian incidentally) would agree with me on that.</p>
I did post this to debate people. I enjoy debating. No one forced you to post did they? Though I admit I do think your beliefs are bogus.</p>
<p>
Because when someone attacks a religious view it is automatically self-aggrandizement. I have no desire to make myself look intelligent on a random forum. You do not know me in real life, thus your opinion is meaningless to me.</p>