Morals exist, a moral Law Giver is necessary to explain this, this Moral Law Giver is God. Therefore, God exists.
86 comments
I try to be a good person and treat others decently because I want to be treated decently and recognize that it's the only way to live a happy, productive life. I do this without fear of punishment in hell or any hope of a heavenly reward. I am moral without reference to or a belief in any god. Therefore, if any god exists, it is totally irrelevant to morality.
I think it's interesting that these fundies need a sky fairy to keep them in line. They accuse us of having no morality, but it doesn't seem to me that all the crime in the world is committed solely by non-xtians.really the better person here?
-pb
Peanuts exist, a battleship is necessary to explain this, this battleship is Hillary Clinton, therefore the Colts won.
Ah, but morals are abstract, subjective things, with many, many varriations and permutations. Since "God" would never contradict himself on truth and doctrine, then therefore there must be as many "Moral Lae Givers" as there are "Moral Laws."one "Moral Law," the Christian version, won't you? How then do you explain the other "Moral Laws" that you claim require a divine creator? If they are all lies, then you must conceed that a "Moral Law" can be false, and therefore the Christian "Moral Law" carries within it the intrinsic possiblilty of falsehood.
You backed yourself into a logical corner there, didn't you?
I think it's kind of sad that people who think like this think so little of other people. What about all of the civilizations that existed before the rise of Christianity? I've only really studied ancient Ireland, but they certainly weren't immoral people. They fought each other quite a bit, but Christ never stopped that, did he? If they needed your god to be a "moral law giver" how did their civilization make it beforehand? How did they come up with the idea that everyone had a certain value, or that there was something to be said for having a set of laws? That's right, they did that on their own.
No, No, and No.
Non-sequitur award. Listen, moral exist, yes, but the shades of morality have changed over the time and place, and in some aspect quite a lot. A moral law-giver is necessary.........or not, maybe reason is the basis of morality. God, or whatever you want consider, is not necessarily the Law giver. So, we´re still on the same grounds. Do you know who formulated this objection?, St Thomas of Aquinas.
Not particularly fundie -- a rather common argument.
Molars exist, a molar Tooth Taker is necessary to extract this, this Molar Tooth Taker is the Tooth Fairy. Therefore, the Tooth Fairy exists.
Morals have been around much longer than the idea of the Xian God.
Lightning exists, a lightning producer is needed to produce this, the lightning producer is Zeus. Therefore, Zeus exists.
But morals have existed in all cultures, whether or not they followed your God. So obviously your God is not necessary to explain the existence of morals.
Morals don't stem from a supreme being; they stem from common values. For example, in various cultures, people agreed that they wouldn't like it if someone came to their house and took their stuff; thus, they concluded that they shouldn't go to other people's houses and take their stuff. Why do you think so many religions have their own version of the Golden Rule?
Snow flakes exist, a snow flake Maker is necessary to explain this, this snow flake Maker is God. Therefore, God exists.
You're absolutely right, just look at 14th century Japan, no christians in sight and everybody runs around raping and killing eachother. Thank God that today they,ve found Gawd.
Morals exist, a moral Law Giver is necessary to explain this ... ... this Moral Law Giver is God.
Well, no - the society in which a person lives appears to be the source of one's ethics. Proof?
(a) studies have found no significant difference between the ethics and morals of religious people as opposed to non-religious people;
(b) studies have found no positive correlation between how religious a country is and how well its citizens behave. The US, for example, has a high percentage of religious people compared to other western nations, yet it also has one of the highest rates of murder, forcible rape and other serious crimes; and
(c) a higher percentage of people in jail claim that they are religious and believe in God, as compared to the population at large.
So if God is the source of peoples' morals, he's doing a lousy job of it.
"Morals exist, a moral Law Giver is necessary to explain this, this Moral Law Giver is God. Therefore, God exists."
"Morals exist, a moral Law Giver is necessary to explain this, this Moral Law Giver is God. Therefore, God exists."
@ Casey -- nice appeal to authority, dude.
The quoted argument is a great demonstration of how tricky weasel-words can be. "Morals" "exist" for some value of "morals" "exist" and the linguistic relationship between them . To further insist that this implies a universal moral law ("above mankind" or otherwise), that first claim would have to be defended with that definition of "morals" included . In other words, you're using the existence of ethical/moral/doctrinal codes (note the plural, and note the variation among cultures) to claim the existence of "morals" and then proceeding as if a single, objective, metaphysical moral code and its contents have been established. "Moral" has become your first weasel word -- not bad, considering that it's the first word in the argument.
"I went to God just to see, and I was looking at me"
Your argument begs the question in two very fatal ways. First, your claim that morals have an objective existence is a point of great dispute normally, let alone in the context of this argument. Second, You assume in your premises that God exists when you claim He is "'the' moral lawgiver", so you can not use that to then have a conclusion that "God exists".
In short, your argument is a logical failure as well as an empirical one.
The answer is "fish."
Fish created the moral laws. Fish were around before morals, so were in the perfect place to create them, also as fish stocks have fallen, society has undergone moral decline, proving once and for all that fish are the source of all morals.
This is also why a diet rich in fish oil leads to better behaved children.
Because of the piscene origins of our moral code, there is a subconscious undercurrent of fishiness to it. Hence the symbols we use to denote our chosen personification of those ultimate arbiters of right and wrong.
image image image image image image image
So remember, next time you think about doing something bad... the fish are watching you!
Casey,
Ethics was a well developed branch of philosophy among the ancient Greeks. Its purpose was to answer the questions of how to live the best possible life, and how members of society could get along for the long run. Their efforts were very much centered in the real world. Appeals to the supernatural were unnecessary then, and they are unnecessary now.
As for god(s) existing in the minds of men, the same could be said of delusions. Delusions are, by definition, not real. I will let you take the obvious next step in this line of reasoning.
morals exist - YES
however
the first person I remember teaching me proper conduct was my mother. so my mother is God.
fall down and worship me , for I am the son of God.
hmmmm, see what you get ? its not pretty is it ?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
