Hughes wrote:.... Well... We understand and can observe that the laws of physics are universal, from gravity to magnetism, etc. etc... so it makes logical sense that moral laws would also be universal.
How does it make sense? Because you have the word "law" in each sentence?
Hughes wrote:.... Well... We understand and can observe that the laws of physics are universal, from gravity to magnetism, etc. etc... so it makes logical sense that moral laws would also be universal.
How does it make sense? Because you have the word "law" in each sentence?
Use what ever word you'd like. "Law' describes an universal truth, and I'm using it in that vain.
If you disagree, that's fine. Maybe I should have said it makes logical sense to me.
NorthboundZax wrote:Hughes, if two gods give you different moral standards (let's call them Jehovah and Lucifer just for fun) , how would you discriminate between which should be adhered to? If you view one as intrinsically more moral than the other, you must be supplying some secular standard to evaluate.
So, if I were to answer your question (just for fun), I would say that my search initially would be to discover which was the true creator god and follow him.
So, your position is that a creator that tortures his creations or encourages them to torture each other is perfectly moral by definition? What if Lucifer created a planet populated with sentient beings? It should follow from your reasoning that it is more moral for the people to follow Lucifer than to resist him.
So, if I were to answer your question (just for fun), I would say that my search initially would be to discover which was the true creator god and follow him.
So, your position is that a creator that tortures his creations or encourages them to torture each other is perfectly moral by definition? What if Lucifer created a planet populated with sentient beings? It should follow from your reasoning that it is more moral for the people to follow Lucifer than to resist him.
Using your analogy, Lucifer doesn't appear to be the creator of all, if he created only one planet. Not sure your point?
Hughes wrote:Using your analogy, Lucifer doesn't appear to be the creator of all, if he created only one planet. Not sure your point?
Fine, think about him creating a universe rather than a planet. Should the inhabitants of that universe follow and worship him if he encourages them to slaughter and eat each other tribes' children?
The point is that divine command is a crappy way to determine a moral framework. It defines good as whatever the creator says it is, no matter how repulsive. Even LDS scripture doesn't take that tack. The Book of Mormon states that god will cease to be god if he violates certain moral guidelines. Since those guidelines must be outside god - or the scripture is completely meaningless - they must be accessible with or without the existence of god.
Hughes wrote: I didn't say everyone follows the same moral laws. My point was that as an Atheist, your moral laws are arbitrarily made up by you, and you alone. But, for the Theist, they are made up by another outside source. IF all Theists don't follow the laws, that doesn't negate their existence.
So where do these laws exist?
It's fine if you want to claim your morals are not your own, but effectively, that's the way everyone lives. That's all I'm getting at. I'm talking about practical application. Unless you can show me where these universal laws are written (putting aside their actual authenticity), then we're left to conclude that the laws exist only in the minds of those who hold them.
Hughes wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:I'm justified on the basis that we have empirical evidence that certain things (like murder, theft, deceit, etc) cause suffering.
Justification implies a moral law. What empirical moral law are you justified by?
Justification implies a moral law? How do you figure?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Hughes wrote:Using your analogy, Lucifer doesn't appear to be the creator of all, if he created only one planet. Not sure your point?
Fine, think about him creating a universe rather than a planet. Should the inhabitants of that universe follow and worship him if he encourages them to slaughter and eat each other tribes' children?
The point is that divine command is a crappy way to determine a moral framework. It defines good as whatever the creator says it is, no matter how repulsive. Even LDS scripture doesn't take that tack. The Book of Mormon states that god will cease to be god if he violates certain moral guidelines. Since those guidelines must be outside god - or the scripture is completely meaningless - they must be accessible with or without the existence of god.
The Bible describes morality as coming from God's very nature. He cannot violate his own nature, nor could he ever cease to be god.
And even if you think it's a crappy way to determine a moral framework, if a person lived in a house with a father they disagreed with, they still have to obey his rules. However, the reality is that there is nothing God requires of us that is repulsive.
Hughes wrote: I didn't say everyone follows the same moral laws. My point was that as an Atheist, your moral laws are arbitrarily made up by you, and you alone. But, for the Theist, they are made up by another outside source. IF all Theists don't follow the laws, that doesn't negate their existence.
So where do these laws exist?
It's fine if you want to claim your morals are not your own, but effectively, that's the way everyone lives. That's all I'm getting at. I'm talking about practical application. Unless you can show me where these universal laws are written (putting aside their actual authenticity), then we're left to conclude that the laws exist only in the minds of those who hold them.
In the Mind of God, and moral beings which are his creation.
Some Schmo wrote:
Hughes wrote:Justification implies a moral law. What empirical moral law are you justified by?
Justification implies a moral law? How do you figure?
You state that, "certain things cause suffering" and your previous statement is that Harm or suffering wrong or bad, and I'm thinking you are implying it is universally wrong? Yes?
Once you call something wrong or bad, that is a moral judgement. A moral judgement cannot be made without reference to a moral code/law that is violated, which then gives you justification to claim it's wrong or bad. Without such a moral code or law, you cannot judge anything wrong or bad. The best you can do is describe how you feel.