Does morality require God?

[CDN_Merlin]

Interesting topic.

When I was growing up, I was raised Catholic. In my teens I decided I did not believe. My morals are a combination what I learned from my parents (religion) and what I find I would not like done to me.

I don't harm others because I don't want to be harmed. I don't steal because I don't want things stolen from me, etc.

I think Cuda said it on page 1 where our morals are based on our society (cannibals have no issue eating people, etc). I believe this.

As a world, we are very far apart on what different societies think is morally right and wrong. I also think we will never be on the same page.

There are to many differences and to many religions for this to happen.

[snoopy]

It's fair for you to say that God's moral nature isn't based on anything, because I don't have a good answer for what my moral nature is based on either. But all I ask then is that you will not find people in general who do not have a good answer for what they base their moral nature on as somehow deficient.

I think that ultimately (as said by Foil early on in the discussion) it comes down to a discussion over the standard by which "morality" is applied. You can have a moral code in any environment, with any presence (or lack of) deities, standards, etc. The moral code defines how people should ascribe to live... and it can change from person to person, though some unified code certainly seems to make for a better society. Now, that being said, we also generally want to pass judgement upon other moral codes (such as vision's) - so the real question is: can we judge other's morality without God?

I'll argue that morality that's based on the Bible is superior to any other that you can find because it has three attributes that can't all be found in any other moral code: (Note, my justification is also based on the Bible.... you're going to either have to take all of the Bible or none of it... if you take none of it, then we can't talk about God.)
1. It is based on a never-changing foundation - Biblical morality is based on God's nature, and that never changes.
2. It is perfectly self-consistent - While God doesn't have any external basis for His nature, the internal basis (His nature) does not contain any inconsistencies.
3. It has a legitimate claim over all of humanity - Since God is creator of all of the universe, He has a claim over every human being & His morality applies to every human being.


I'd like to hear argument for other bases for morality, and what attributes they have that make them superior. If the argument is that we shouldn't have a solid basis, then how do we justify making laws and enforcing them?

[Will Robinson]

...
I'd like to hear argument for other bases for morality, and what attributes they have that make them superior. If the argument is that we shouldn't have a solid basis, then how do we justify making laws and enforcing them?

Isn't the justification for our laws simply result oriented? We don't want people to be murdered so we outlaw murder etc.
Some laws may coincide with religious or other belief systems code of morality but those codes aren't the modern day justification for he law.

[Spidey]

Yea, the test would be outcome, but the problem with God’s morality is…you don’t know the ultimate outcome until after you are dead.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Yea, the test would be outcome, but the problem with God’s morality is…you don’t know the ultimate outcome until after you are dead.

Really? You're saying that morality which comes from the God of the Bible has no clear basis other than the whims of God. If not for the Bible you might be right, but the scriptural test for any command of God or message from God, outside of the guidelines and judgments publicly laid out in the Bible is that they must be perfectly consistent with guidelines and judgments of the Bible. So your problem doesn't actually exist, because the Bible's morality is there for all to know.

How do I test whether God's moral nature is good if God's moral nature isn't based on anything?

The most important, and indeed the only right judgment that can be made by us of God, is whether his claims to be God are true. Because of the account of the nature of God set forth in the Bible, this is a relatively straight-forward task. God is unchanging, God is just, God is love, God is merciful, God is truth, God dwells in eternity, ... All that must be determined is whether God is consistent with his own claims on these points. Ultimately, if God is God, any attempt to judge his "morality" beyond a confirmation of consistency is futile--how can imperfect knowledge stand in judgment of perfect knowledge based on anything but a confirmation of consistency? If God is God, then choosing to stand in judgment based on anything else is simply destructive. That's why I recommended you look at the book of Job. That is the conclusion of the matter in the end.

[Jeff250]

I'll argue that morality that's based on the Bible is superior to any other that you can find because it has three attributes that can't all be found in any other moral code: (Note, my justification is also based on the Bible.... you're going to either have to take all of the Bible or none of it... if you take none of it, then we can't talk about God.)
1. It is based on a never-changing foundation - Biblical morality is based on God's nature, and that never changes.
2. It is perfectly self-consistent - While God doesn't have any external basis for His nature, the internal basis (His nature) does not contain any inconsistencies.
3. It has a legitimate claim over all of humanity - Since God is creator of all of the universe, He has a claim over every human being & His morality applies to every human being.

The first two don't seem unique. For instance, if we took up the rule "most happiness for the most people" as our moral absolute, then that rule would 1) never change and 2) be self-consistent. In fact, your first attribute seems to be true whenever you take up anything as a moral absolute.

The third seems to already assume some moral principle like "if you create sentient beings, then you have the moral authority to make whatever moral rules you want for them," but where does that moral principle come from?

The most important, and indeed the only right judgment that can be made by us of God, is whether his claims to be God are true. Because of the account of the nature of God set forth in the Bible, this is a relatively straight-forward task. God is unchanging, God is just, God is love, God is merciful, God is truth, God dwells in eternity, ... All that must be determined is whether God is consistent with his own claims on these points. Ultimately, if God is God, any attempt to judge his "morality" beyond a confirmation of consistency is futile--how can imperfect knowledge stand in judgment of perfect knowledge based on anything but a confirmation of consistency? If God is God, then choosing to stand in judgment based on anything else is simply destructive. That's why I recommended you look at the book of Job. That is the conclusion of the matter in the end.

I don't doubt that God has the power to get me if I have different moral beliefs than him, but that doesn't make his beliefs correct. Why are God's moral beliefs (or character or nature) better than my moral beliefs, especially if his aren't based on anything?

That God's moral beliefs are unchanging--a lot of DBB'rs have unchanging beliefs, but that doesn't lend any credence to them.

That God is omniscient--that sounds very useful for correctly applying his a priori moral beliefs to any given situation, but as to determining whether those a priori moral beliefs are themselves correct, since they weren't even based on anything, I don't see where omniscience can play a role in justifying them.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It seems to me that you are genuinely in over your head. I will just point out that you keep referring to God's morality as being baseless, but you also keep ignoring the fact that God is supposed to be perfectly just, perfect in love, perfect in mercy (which pretty much covers morality). You know, whether it fascinates you to continue on calling it "baseless" more than showing clear inconsistencies with these will ultimately determine where you end up in this debate. I think the fact that you continually insist that an eternal, all-powerful, all-creating God's morality must be based on something external just shows your inability to deal with the concept of God. You're still redefining God based on your position in the argument. It's not like the Biblical definition of God is illogical, it's just not a natural concept for us--it is our experience that everything has a beginning and an end.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I don't doubt that God has the power to get me if I have different moral beliefs than him ...

And how about the right? Are you constructing a reality where the creator has no rights over the created? Some sort of "human right" to be different than our creator intended?

[CUDA]

this is a stupid line of thought. saying why should I trust God's Morals over my own. there must be a standard.
that standard is based in the very laws of our nation. handed down by God thousands of years ago

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy - take the weekends off. and remember who provides for you..boy!!!! dont know it I can handle that rule it's so un-moral

Honor your father and your mother, - ya because a good family is so Un-Moral

You shall not murder. - do I even need to comment?????

You shall not commit adultery. - See Above

You shall not steal. - I'm sensing a pattern

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - I dont know of too many people that think lying is good Morals

You shall not covet - jealousy! now that leads to so many moral decisions

why would anyone want to advocate Anarchy just because they think "I know better than God"

[callmeslick]

could it not be said, CUDA, that those rules(and the others in the Old Testament) were merely created, and imbued with the threat of an unseen God, to have and maintain a civil society, in a time and place where anarchy was the norm? In fact, can't most religious based laws and moral codes be seen as serving the same purpose? Most religions and most civilizations had such moral laws. And, to put the Fear into the public, they had to be presented as the rules from a God, or the Gods as each society worshipped.
This whole thing gets to be a chicken v. egg debate, insofar as the idea of did Moral Codes spring from man, or from God, or is God a man-made notion as well. I can't see ever getting to the bottom of that puzzle, but we can keep on trying, I suppose......

[Sergeant Thorne]

"we"? "trying"? There is only one person in this second page who obviously isn't trying, and he just chimed in because he apparently didn't like what CUDA was saying. That's what is called "muddying the waters", in my book.

[woodchip]

Comrade slick wants the state to be your god and thus be able to tell you what is moral or not. Kinda like saying the murder of the unborn is ok.

[callmeslick]

Comrade slick wants the state to be your god and thus be able to tell you what is moral or not. Kinda like saying the murder of the unborn is ok.

and Woodchip clearly wants to make lies up and blow smoke out of his own ass. My point was merely that it is an exercise in unprovable futility to attempt to make the distinction between divine origin of morals and human origin, since the divine is, by definition, a matter of faith.

[Foil]

...I think the fact that you continually insist that an eternal, all-powerful, all-creating God's morality must be based on something external just shows your inability to deal with the concept of God.

I think you misunderstand Jeff250's point here. He is not making claims about God's morality, he's asking for a moral basis that doesn't involve self-referencing (e.g. circular claims like "God is moral, because God is God").

Personally, I take exception to the idea that simply citing God's power / position is sufficient. The argument that says "God is perfectly moral, by virtue of omniscience / omnipotence / creatorship" is really just another form of "might makes right" or "because I said so, and I'm your parent".

[CUDA]

you're still missing the point. DOES IT MATTER our laws are based on the 10 commandments. that is undeniable. there is even a carving of Moses carrying them carved onto the facade of the supreme court. so our "cultural" morality is Biblically based. I cannot help it if you want to not believe in God, or if you choose to question his judgement. that is your decision. regardless you live by his rules daily. playing stupid Paradoxical games is just.. well.... STUPID

[CUDA]

Personally, I take exception to the idea that simply citing God's power / position is sufficient. The argument that says "God is perfectly moral, by virtue of [ creating us / knowing everything / being all-powerful ]" is really just another form of "might makes right", which, as you know, runs counter to Biblical ethics.

God's judgement is Moral because it has stood the test of time and proven it self.

[Foil]

Personally, I take exception to the idea that simply citing God's power / position is sufficient. The argument that says "God is perfectly moral, by virtue of [ creating us / knowing everything / being all-powerful ]" is really just another form of "might makes right", which, as you know, runs counter to Biblical ethics.

God's judgement is Moral because it has stood the test of time and proven it self.

Ah, there we go. That's a much better basis, and it's something that can actually be debated.

[callmeslick]

you're still missing the point. DOES IT MATTER our laws are based on the 10 commandments. that is undeniable. there is even a carving of Moses carrying them carved onto the facade of the supreme court. so our "cultural" morality is Biblically based. I cannot help it if you want to not believe in God, or if you choose to question his judgement. that is your decision. regardless you live by his rules daily. playing stupid Paradoxical games is just.. well.... STUPID

aren't those same rules, in some shape or form, common to most civilized societies? That our forefathers were versed in the Judeo-Christian ethics is a product of where they came from. I'm not playing games, but commenting on the fact that proving where morality originates is difficult, if not impossible to do....and, I thought that was the original question in the thread, NOT the sourcing of the American legal system. You puzzle me, CUDA....

[CUDA]

aren't those same rules, in some shape or form, common to most civilized societies?

and could there possibly be a reason for that????? say Maybe, God really did create them and they have been ingrained in the fabric of who we are since the beginning of our existence??

[CUDA]

and, I thought that was the original question in the thread,

the question is Does Morality require God?

I still say No it doesn't. Morality just requires obedience and conscience. my retort question was what do you base your Morality on.


Edit:
I point out another fact. in many Asian Cultures primarily Cambodia. it is Morally acceptable to sell girls as young as 3 years old into the sex slave trade. but those same morals would be an outrage in most of the rest of the world. what do you base your morals on?? this Nations bases them on the Judeo-Christian Bible.

[Will Robinson]

I suppose that if you know God...actually hear him in your head or however that works... then you can attribute standards of morality to a divine source/judge/teacher. And it seems like it would make good sense to hold those standards above all else unless you want to challenge God.

But if you don't have him 'in your head' somehow then any thing "from God" really comes from the same source as a government or parental or philosophical source of moral standards. Man.

You can tell me to read the bible to 'know' gods standard of morality but all I really know is the bible was written by men and I have to take it on faith that they delivered the standards of god into the book. I don't have that much faith in men.

[CUDA]

I don't have that much faith in men.

and that my friend is wisdom.

[Sergeant Thorne]

...I think the fact that you continually insist that an eternal, all-powerful, all-creating God's morality must be based on something external just shows your inability to deal with the concept of God.

I think you misunderstand Jeff250's point here. He is not making claims about God's morality, he's asking for a moral basis that doesn't involve self-referencing (e.g. circular claims like "God is moral, because God is God").

I understood his point.

Personally, I take exception to the idea that simply citing God's power / position is sufficient. The argument that says "God is perfectly moral, by virtue of omniscience / omnipotence / creatorship" is really just another form of "might makes right" or "because I said so, and I'm your parent".

That is an ignorant position. You like to feel as if your morality can be used to confirm God's goodness, but the truth is that you can only maintain this illusion because God is good. You all seem to believe that if there were a God that were not good, we would have the ability to know good, and to hold God in contrast to this. Doesn't that seem kind of incredible?

I would tie all of that back into what I was trying to convey earlier--that the only valid judgment of God is whether God is God as he claims.

[Foil]

Personally, I take exception to the idea that simply citing God's power / position is sufficient. The argument that says "God is perfectly moral, by virtue of omniscience / omnipotence / creatorship" is really just another form of "might makes right" or "because I said so, and I'm your parent".

That is an ignorant position. You like to feel as if your morality can be used to confirm God's goodness...

No. I am not making any claims whatsoever about my own morality. I am simply objecting to the "( God == God ) => ( God == good )" argument, because it's self-referencing, and doesn't get us anywhere.

You all seem to believe that if there were a God that were not good, we would have the ability to know good, and to hold God in contrast to this. Doesn't that seem kind of incredible?

It only seems odd if one takes "goodness == God" as an axiom.

As Cuda suggested, there are historical / cultural / personal reasons to claim God is good, but taking it as one's starting definition is poor, as it assumes the answer before even considering the question.

...the only valid judgment of God is whether God is God as he claims.

So consistency implies goodness? I still don't follow.

[Top Gun]

aren't those same rules, in some shape or form, common to most civilized societies?

and could there possibly be a reason for that????? say Maybe, God really did create them and they have been ingrained in the fabric of who we are since the beginning of our existence??

One could just as easily argue (and indeed some have done so) that the reason those same rule-sets have been enacted by most historical civilizations is because they represent basic tenets necessary for an organized society to exist and thrive, and the basic cognitive processes that all humans share were able to independently determine this. To repeat an over-used phrase, correlation does not imply causation.

[callmeslick]

my whole point, TG, and I am sort of surprised that CUDA didn't grasp it at first try......

[Flatlander]

Where are the commandents to not rape, not own slaves, not abuse children? Surely those are more heinous crimes than bearing false witness or coveting? Why aren't they part of the 10 commandments?

Surely they are clearly pointed out and condemned somewhere else in the Bible, right?

[CUDA]

my whole point, TG, and I am sort of surprised that CUDA didn't grasp it at first try......

I got it. but you'd have rejected it anyways, as what if I don't believe in God. so what was the point. the fact of the matter still exists that like it or not you live by Judeo-Christian Morals. the paradoxical chicken or the egg BS that your trying to spew is just a waste of time.

[CUDA]

Where are the commandents to not rape, not own slaves, not abuse children? Surely those are more heinous crimes than bearing false witness or coveting? Why aren't they part of the 10 commandments?

Surely they are clearly pointed out and condemned somewhere else in the Bible, right?

honestly I didnt even put down all 10. so sue me. if you want me to start quoting scripture to you about those things I'd be more than happy to I'd be more then happy to. but we'd be right back to the same old crap that I just pointed out to slick. please try to contribute to the conversation.

[callmeslick]

my whole point, TG, and I am sort of surprised that CUDA didn't grasp it at first try......

I got it. but you'd have rejected it anyways, as what if I don't believe in God. so what was the point. the fact of the matter still exists that like it or not you live by Judeo-Christian Morals. the paradoxical chicken or the egg BS that your trying to spew is just a waste of time.

as pointed out above, we live by far more than mere Judeo-Christian(ten commandment) morals, and, in fact, several of the commandments have utterly no legal effect whatsoever(not illegal to covet anything, nor disrespect parents, worship idols, etc)

[callmeslick]

the paradoxical chicken or the egg BS that your trying to spew is just a waste of time.

why so? It is central to any such discussion. One side(the notion that God establishes morality) can, like the very existence of God, never be proven. Why? Because God is, by definition, a matter of FAITH. So trying to establish the need for God to have morality depends on proof of God in the first place, and is thus unprovable. Now,the fact that other cultures outside of the Judeo Christian influence have both morals and strong, consistent morals at that might prove, at the very least, that morals are inherent in a civilized society. But, they prove nothing regarding God or his/her involvement.

[CUDA]

my whole point, TG, and I am sort of surprised that CUDA didn't grasp it at first try......

I got it. but you'd have rejected it anyways, as what if I don't believe in God. so what was the point. the fact of the matter still exists that like it or not you live by Judeo-Christian Morals. the paradoxical chicken or the egg BS that your trying to spew is just a waste of time.

as pointed out above, we live by far more than mere Judeo-Christian(ten commandment) morals, and, in fact, several of the commandments have utterly no legal effect whatsoever(not illegal to covet anything, nor disrespect parents, worship idols, etc)

did you not read what I posted to Flatlander? in fact have you read ANY of the posts that I've made??? are you intentionally trying to be obtuse?

[CUDA]

One side(the notion that God establishes morality) can, like the very existence of God, never be proven

and cannot be dis-proven. another Paradox isn't it

[callmeslick]

One side(the notion that God establishes morality) can, like the very existence of God, never be proven

and cannot be dis-proven. another Paradox isn't it

that would be so obvious that I didn't feel it necessary to add.....and, yes, I've been reading your posts, but unclear on how you feel you're proving anything.

[CUDA]

One side(the notion that God establishes morality) can, like the very existence of God, never be proven

and cannot be dis-proven. another Paradox isn't it

that would be so obvious that I didn't feel it necessary to add.....and, yes, I've been reading your posts, but unclear on how you feel you're proving anything.

your OBVIOUSLY not paying attention. I'm not trying to and do not "NEED" to prove anything. the question was presented.

"Does Morality require God?"

my answer was No.... a fact which you clearly and continually ignore.
I pointed out several instances where things that are Morally correct for one culture is not morally correct for another. Another fact which you clearly and continually ignore.
I asked what in a blanket question "it's a matter of what do you base your Morals on". and stated a FACT that this nations morals are based on the Judeao-Christian values. that is an undeniable FACT then you start with the Paradoxical was God first or did man make up his own rules. it does not matter. because the men that founded this nation based their values on a Judeao-Christian belief system. Not Hindu, Not buddist, Not Muslim. so stop playing word games.

[vision]

I love when people talk about the ten commandments, but ignore all the other ridiculous, immoral commandments in that book. Also, the bible is evil.

[callmeslick]

geezus, CUDA, I really am not disagreeing with you, but merely putting my two cents into it, as without proof of God the whole debate is moot, anyway.

[Spidey]

geezus, CUDA, I really am not disagreeing with you, but merely putting my two cents into it, as without proof of God the whole debate is moot, anyway.

No it’s not, because you can be told by your mother that your father is going to kick your ass, if you don’t behave…doesn’t matter if dad never comes home…if you believe he will.

[CUDA]

geezus, CUDA, I really am not disagreeing with you, but merely putting my two cents into it, as without proof of God the whole debate is moot, anyway.

HOW SO?!?!?!?!?! isn't the debate Does morality require God?. why is there a need to prove God's existence if there is no need to have God to be moral?? that's an Oxymoron

[callmeslick]

valid enough point, CUDA