Moral law = Moral law giver

Carl.Gustav

Hi all

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

Why then is the argument so often put forward, am I missing something ?

Any thoughts welcome.

georgieporgy

If you're having such trouble at page 3-4 I fear you are in for a rough ride!

If you really are new to the bible can I suggest you not start at the beginning. Start with one of the 4 Gospels, followed by The Acts of the Apostles.

That should get you up to speed and then you can tackle the beginning. Don't expect to become a theologian overnight. Get a good commentary to read alongside the biblical text. You will find it helpful when you run into questions such as the one you have raised.

Or at least get a bible with copious footnotes like the Navarre Bible.

An Amazing Study Bible, Very Well Written, August 13, 2010
By CynthiaW (Houston) - See all my reviews
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch (The Navarre Bible: Old Testament) (Hardcover)
I purchased the Navarre Gospels and Acts edition and liked it so much I decided to buy this one too. A lot of Christians stick to the New Testament but I enjoy the Old Testament stories and I think the theology in the OT is very important for context.

This study bible has scripture across the top and explanation and commentary across the bottom. It is typeset in a very nice font, I think it is Times New Roman, about 12 point. The result is large, clear, easy to read and pleasing to the eye. The translation from Spanish to English has been accomplished with very few errors, the grammar is quite good. It is printed on a heavier than usual paper and has a good quality binding and cover.

The preface and introduction are excellent and delve into the issues of the various traditions that source the books. Each separate book has its own preface and I found them very informative.

The commentary is very good. In the places where there may be translation problems it frankly addresses the issue. Where the text is repetitive or confusing the commentary doesn't avoid that and fairly points out what may be the problem. It has the best explanation of typologies I've seen and points out several I had never noticed. The commentary is gentle and instructive. It doesn't put you off - rather it makes you think. As far as I can tell it is scrupulously faithful to magisterial teaching.

The bible has extensive reference to church fathers and magisterial teaching. Somehow they managed to pull that off while keeping the text very easy to read to the point that it is very hard to put down. I have had sessions with this bible where I read it for hours just for the pure enjoyment of a good read.

I wish it were less expensive, but bibles aren't cheap and this is a serious scholarly work. It has opened my eyes to many things I hadn't seen in the raw text. I am very glad I purchased this one and I will be back for more.

philologos

OP: Read C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, it's excellent on morality.

Morbert

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: Read C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity, it's excellent on morality.

It's been a while, so I'll dig it out again and give it a second read. But I remember not being impressed with his reasoning.

hivizman

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

Similar arguments, that the existence of moral law implies that there must be a moral law legislator (that is, God), are also found in Judaism and Islam. I think, though, that the argument is fallacious. It relies on the unstated assumption that "moral law" is comparable to ordinary law. Our ordinary laws exist only because of the existence of legislators such as rulers and parliaments - they do not come into existence of their own accord. Hence, if ordinary laws require legislators, and moral laws are "like" ordinary laws, then moral laws require legislators. This does not imply that the legislator need be God, but usually moral laws are assumed implicitly to be objective (in the sense that they exist independently of particular humans or humanity in general) and universal (in the sense that they apply at all times and in all places). Such laws would require a particularly powerful "legislator", and only God would be powerful enough.

The fallacy comes in assuming that moral "laws" are comparable to ordinary human laws - they are clearly different in that ordinary human laws do not claim to be objective and universal (there is, as was pointed out in the Objective Morality thread, a concept in legal theory of "natural law" that would meet these descriptions, but that does not necessarily imply a "natural legislator"). If we reject the analogy, then there is no reason to conclude, even if we accept the concept of "moral laws", that such laws require a legislator or law-giver (and even if they do, there are other possibilities, such as "society", rather than God).

I recall that some theologians (for example, Richard Swinburne in his book Is There a God?) turn the argument around, and claim that, given the existence and nature of God, it is reasonable to believe that God would give humans an objective, universal moral law. If this is so, then there is danger of arguing in a circle to use the existence of such a moral law as evidence for the existence of God.

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

An interesting idea, but remember that a "gift" need not be something one wants (and indeed the word "gift" in German means poison) - it is simply something given. Perhaps people here are thinking more specifically of the laws handed down to Moses, which Jewish tradition sees as having been given by God, or the moral laws of the Gospels, which Christians believe to be God-given in that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, or the Sharia, which Muslims believe to be derived from the word of God as given to the prophet Muhammad.

I was interested to compare the Genesis story with the similar (but subtly different) narration in the Qur'an. In Genesis, the man is told ". . . of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die" (NRSV, Gen. 2:17). Quite frankly, if I were told that there was something called "knowledge of good and evil", which was being kept from me, I'd be curious as to what it was. So, psychologically, it's not surprising that, when the serpent says: "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5), that the woman ate the fruit and persuaded the man to do likewise.

In the Qur'an, the story is told three times, in Surat al-Baqarah 2:35-39, Surat al-A'raf 7:19-25, and Surah Ta Ha 20:115-124. In al-Baqarah and al-A'raf, God's command is: "do not approach this one tree, lest you become wrongdoers (al-zalimin)." This implies some sort of awareness of right and wrong, in particular that it is wrong to act against the explicit command of God - eating from the tree would be wrong precisely because God had commanded not to eat from the tree, rather than because it would open up the floodgates to a knowledge of good and evil. Incidentally, Islam denies the concept of original sin, and the story finishes with Adam repenting and God accepting this repentance.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

It's been a while, so I'll dig it out again and give it a second read. But I remember not being impressed with his reasoning.

It is terrible. But apparently saying that around here is heretical

Nemi

hivizman wrote: »

I think, though, that the argument is fallacious.

I suspect that I agree, but for slightly different reasons. I don't see how moral laws can exist without some kind of a god. Hence, rather than moral laws proving there is a lawgiver, a consequence of unbelief is that morality has no objective basis.

antiskeptic

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

The argument would probably include the word "absolute" or "transcendent" in front of "moral law". There is no problem with a relativistic moral law + no God. But if someone states that such and such an action is forever and irrevocably wrong - irrespective of influences from culture, era, fashion, opinion, social law at that time, etc ... then they need to include a transcendent lawgiver. For example: if someone says that child molestation is forever and a day wrong then they need to say how, without a God, that should be the case.

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

The aquiring of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't a sin, it was something man was equipped with in response to his sinning. Given that this knowledge of good and evil is a central tool utilised by God in the salvation (or damnation) of man, one can see that God responded immediately to mans fall with his mechanism of restitution.

Man pinned down under the moral law (his knowledge of good and evil .. or his conscience if you prefer) is what will result in his salvation ("..the law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ") or his damnation (in the case that he wills it not to be so led)

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

Who do you think planted the garden. Who do you think placed man in that garden. It was God: providing in advance for the restitution of man in the case that he would fall. We can't be sure what would have been the case had Adam chosen otherwise - the Bible majors on the case that actually occurred. Little doubt though that God would have had that scenario covered too - there was only two choices to deal with afterall

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: if someone says that child molestation is forever and a day wrong then they need to say how, without a God, that should be the case.

And is it fair to point out that, so far, no-one has produced any objective reason why that should be the case.

On the other hand, some have pointed out that a mindset that expects some things to be absolutely wrong is one created by Christianity, that ceases to make sense once a deity is removed from the equation.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

And is it fair to point out that, so far, no-one has produced any objective reason why that should be the case.

What should be the case?

On the other hand, some have pointed out that a mindset that expects some things to be absolutely wrong is one created by Christianity, that ceases to make sense once a deity is removed from the equation.

Which was my point. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. Utterly subjective in other words.

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

What should be the case?

Same as you go on to say. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. In other words, Hannibal Lector isn't evil. Just scary.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

"Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit."

The objective reason why this is so is self-evident. If all views on what constitutes good and evil are personally decided upon then you cannot have an objective moral standard. I'm sure some find Hannibal good.

Nemi

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm sure some find Hannibal good.

Oh, absolutely. Something like the attitude of Ash in the film 'Alien' I admire its purity. A survivor. Unclouded by conscious, remorse, or delusions of morality. Alternatively, there's that quote from Genghis Khan (borrowed by Conan the Barbarian) The greatest joy a man can know is to conquer his enemies and drive them before him. To ride their horses and take away their possessions. To see the faces of those who were dear to them bedewed with tears, and to clasp their wives and daughters in his arms.

In what we believe to be wrong, we are absolutely just creatures of our time.

antiskeptic

Nemi wrote: »

In what we believe to be wrong, we are absolutely just creatures of our time.

Subjectively just...

For I disagree.

ISAW

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Hi all

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

Thread replication.

Already answered here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68413879&postcount=3

You are wrong to assume only Christians say this. Jews and Muslims and others also say it.

Also the idea of a moral law extends to non believers. Go look at the other thread.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which was my point. Without a deity, there is no such thing as a transcendent moral law. Just a relativistic moral law. Which is not so much a moral law as a convention-of-the-times: held by some and not by others - if they see fit. Utterly subjective in other words.

If God exists and objective morality exists, doesn't God simply know what the objective morality is, as purely objective morality is simply a fact of existence, like "God exists" is a fact of existence (God in a state of non-existence didn't decide to exist)?

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

It becomes then a question of authority rather than objectivity.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

If "laws of physics" or "laws of nature" exist are they subject to the laws of nature? Including all the ones that say they aren't?

see what happens when we stitch up the concept of subjectivity?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If "laws of physics" or "laws of nature" exist are they subject to the laws of nature? Including all the ones that say they aren't?

If the laws of nature were decided by something (like God) then they are subjective to that decision and the existence of that deity. If they just are, then they are objective.

Objective means just being the way it is, not dependent on anyone deciding it will be this way or that way.

For example, if God exists that is an objective fact or reality (by definition) since nothing decided God would exist, he just does.

I suppose one could argue that once God creates something it exists in an objective state, like the Mona Lisa just is the Mona Lisa objectively, where as the act of deciding what it would be was subjective. So what are moral laws is a subjective notion but once God has created them their existence is an objective fact.

But that still get to the issue that God decided what they are.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

If the laws of nature were decided by something (like God) then they are subjective to that decision and the existence of that deity. If they just are, then they are objective.
...
So what are moral laws is a subjective notion but once God has created them their existence is an objective fact.

But that still get to the issue that God decided what they are.

Whether or not made by God, their existence is according to you an objective fact.

The idea of a first cause does away with the "turtles all the way down" issue of subjectivity.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Whether or not made by God, their existence is according to you an objective fact.

Saying whether or not made by God is a bit pointless since the whole nature of existence changes if God exists.

For example, if God exists can something exist completely independent to God? Or is it God's notion that keeps things existing?

The answer to that question will determine if somethings existence is objective or subjective.

ISAW wrote: »

The idea of a first cause does away with the "turtles all the way down" issue of subjectivity.

I've no idea what that refers to. That has never been the issue.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying whether or not made by God is a bit pointless since the whole nature of existence changes if God exists.

Depends on what you mean by "God". It seems you are referring to the first cause or creator concept of God whih determines the whole universe.

For example, if God exists can something exist completely independent to God? Or is it God's notion that keeps things existing?

If it is the "first cause" God then it couldn't come into being without God but one could posit that things could exist independently of God after they become real.

I've no idea what that refers to. That has never been the issue.

If the concept is of a first cause then the cause of that isn't at issue. If the concept is a Zeus or other type of god then we can get into turtles.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If it is the "first cause" God then it couldn't come into being without God but one could posit that things could exist independently of God after they become real.

True, you could say that God is something that exists and creates but when something is created it exists in the set of things that exist, along with God but independently. So if theoretically God ceased to exist that thing would continue to exist. Then its existence would be considered objective, as in it is merely a fact of existence.

The issue would be if God's creations require God to exist, that existence is itself some sort of continuous "thought" of God.

For example does God change something that exists (in that he interacts with something that he has completely control of but that is still independent and requires interaction with) or does the thing simply be what God says it is.

A bit like imagining that reality is a dream of God. When you change something in a dream you don't walk over to it and change it. It just changes. And when you wake up the dream is gone.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

If God exists and objective morality exists, doesn't God simply know what the objective morality is, as purely objective morality is simply a fact of existence, like "God exists" is a fact of existence (God in a state of non-existence didn't decide to exist)?

And if on the other hand God decides what the morality is then is that not just subjective morality, morality subjective to God's opinion? An existence exactly the same but with and without God will contain these moral laws only in the reality where God existed and decided them, thus they are subjective on his decision.

It becomes then a question of authority rather than objectivity.

If you are talking to a Christian about existence then it doesn't make much sense to discuss existence with and without God. To the Christian, God and existence are not mutually exclusive. God simply is and everything exists because of him. This means that God, the uncaused cause, is not a sub-set or any type of set of existence. Likewise, I don't think you can separate God from his nature, which is another way of saying you can't separate God from objective morality.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are talking to a Christian about existence then it doesn't make much sense to discuss existence with and without God. To the Christian, God and existence are not mutually exclusive. God simply is and everything exists because of him.

Everything else exists because of him, as I assume you agree God cannot cause himself to exist as that would require at some point he didn't exist and then willed himself into existence which seem paradoxical since he wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Thus when I discuss existence I mean God + plus everything else. If you want to think of existence as simply a set with God in it, and everything else is then a sub set of God that is fine as well. I'm using existence as the super set of everything that exists, including God.

the existence of God is a property of existence, it is a thing that is true. "God exists" is a true statement, a property of existence. The super-statement of that is that existence exists.

So the question is where do these "objective" moral laws fall. Are they a fact of existence something that just is like God's existence (God just exists, nothing decided that he would). Or a product of God?

If they are the former then they can be objective but God wouldn't decide them simply know them.

If they are the latter then God decides them but they are subjective based on what he decides and thus it becomes an issue of authority rather than objectivity.

Of course this depends on how you use objective as well, what exactly are we talking about here. As ISAW and myself are discussing could it be that God decided what these laws were (so what they are is subjective) but once he did their existence is simply a fact of nature, like the existence of the universe itself.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Likewise, I don't think you can separate God from his nature, which is another way of saying you can't separate God from objective morality.

You agree thought that God doesn't decide his own nature, I would hope? So that means these moral laws are his nature but they just are. God exists and is the way he is, no one decided that.

If that is the case then these moral laws are certainly objective, but God simply knows them rather than decides them. they exist independently to God's decisions, as he himself does.

The next question is why then are moral laws one way and not the other. It seems arbitrary. But you could turn that to simply ask why does God exist and is the way he is rather than not exist or be a different way.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Everything else exists because of him, as I assume you agree God cannot cause himself to exist as that would require at some point he didn't exist and then willed himself into existence which seem paradoxical since he wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Perhaps you don't understand what the orthodox Christian position on God is. Talk of God willing himself into existence is not only paradoxical, as you point out, it is also meaningless in a conversation about an atemporal being that is uncreated. There was no moment for God to have willed himself into existence because there was no time. It is a category error akin to talk about married bachelors, sad triangles, and, dare I say, selfish genes.

Wicknight wrote: »

Thus when I discuss existence I mean God + plus everything else. If you want to think of existence as simply a set with God in it, and everything else is then a sub set of God that is fine as well. I'm using existence as the super set of everything that exists, including God.

the existence of God is a property of existence, it is a thing that is true. "God exists" is a true statement, a property of existence. The super-statement of that is that existence exists.

I've modified my position since the last time we discussed this issue, and I now no longer accept that god is a sub-set, set or super-set of anything. God simply is. Meaning he is not a property or a consequence of anything else, including something like existence.

Wicknight wrote: »

So the question is where do these "objective" moral laws fall. Are they a fact of existence something that just is like God's existence (God just exists, nothing decided that he would). Or a product of God?

They exist as God exists and because God exists. To me it is like asking if an elephant is objective or subjective. In other words, it doesn't make sense.

Wicknight wrote: »

If they are the former then they can be objective but God wouldn't decide them simply know them.

If they are the latter then God decides them but they are subjective based on what he decides and thus it becomes an issue of authority rather than objectivity.

It really is a matter of perspective, is it not? If all of reality is founded upon, and sustained by, God, then I really don't know what authority you can appeal to that will serve as a guide to lead you out of this objective/ subject alley you have backed yourself into. The state known as existence is because God is.

Furthermore, if we are looking at the largely orthodox Christian view of God - that is to say, God has a quality, amongst other qualities, of being immutable - then I don't see what is the point in asking if morality is objective or subjective. What was moral yesterday will be moral at the end of time. Like existence, morality simply is because God is. I'm not sure if you understand what a non-issue this analysis of God's objective/ subjective morality is for most Christians.

But, hey, if you are looking for an answer, I think that morality (and I'm talking about God's morality, not what we say about the morality of porn, or abortion or whatever) is objective and it is based upon authority.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course this depends on how you use objective as well, what exactly are we talking about here. As ISAW and myself are discussing could it be that God decided what these laws were (so what they are is subjective) but once he did their existence is simply a fact of nature, like the existence of the universe itself.

Indeed! And perhaps I've clumsily burst into this debate without understanding the intracity of the either position. A point of order, though. I would not say that the universe is a fact of God's nature. To me at least, this implies that God was somehow bound to the act of creating this universe.

Wicknight wrote: »

You agree thought that God doesn't decide his own nature, I would hope? So that means these moral laws are his nature but they just are. God exists and is the way he is, no one decided that.

I think that you are hung up on the idea that this being we call God is somehow distinguishable from this thing we call God's nature. Accordingly, it seems to me that you are under the impression that God at some point created these entities called "OBJECTIVE LAWS". This is like somebody saying that the processes described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics only exist because Carnot or whoever says so. Objective morality is describing God just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes the reality of the universe.

Wicknight wrote: »

The next question is why then are moral laws one way and not the other. It seems arbitrary. But you could turn that to simply ask why does God exist and is the way he is rather than not exist or be a different way.

You'll have to ask God that. But I live in hope that my above response will have given you some idea of my personal opinion.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps you don't understand what the orthodox Christian position on God is. Talk of God willing himself into existence is not only paradoxical, as you point out, it is also meaningless in a conversation about an atemporal being that is uncreated. There was no moment for God to have willed himself into existence because there was no time. It is a category error akin to talk about married bachelors, sad triangles, and, dare I say, selfish genes.

Yes, that is my point. God exists and is not responsible for his existence.

Therefore there is at least one thing that just exists, and can sit in the set of things that just exist.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've modified my position since the last time we discussed this issue, and I now no longer accept that god is a sub-set, set or super-set of anything. God simply is.

These are just terms attempting to explain what we mean. "Is" is an English world. The sentence "God simply is" is an English sentence. When attempting to convey meaning there is nothing particularly special about shortening something other than it sounds nice. I prefer mine, though they essentially mean the same thing.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

They exist as God exists and because God exists. To me it is like asking if an elephant is objective or subjective. In other words, it doesn't make sense.

It doesn't since it isn't a judgement. Do elephants exist would be.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It really is a matter of perspective, is it not?

No, it is a matter or whether something is determined based on opinion or whether it is a factual statement true even if no opinion existed (including Gods)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If all of reality is founded upon, and sustained by, God, then I really don't know what authority you can appeal to that will serve as a guide to lead you out of this objective/ subject alley you have backed yourself into. The state known as existence is because God is.

That is using a definition of existence that is a subset of God (ie existence exists because of God), which is nonsense as it excludes God as something that exists.

God cannot create existence since the existence of God is required. If God just exists then so does existence.

Our existence, our universe, is a different matter. But when I say "existence" I mean all that exists. If God exists then he is included in that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Furthermore, if we are looking at the largely orthodox Christian view of God - that is to say, God has a quality, amongst other qualities, of being immutable - then I don't see what is the point in asking if morality is objective or subjective. What was moral yesterday will be moral at the end of time. Like existence, morality simply is because God is.

That would make morality objective, and thus not determined by God.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understand what a non-issue this analysis of God's objective/ subjective morality is for most Christians.

And yet here we are

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed! And perhaps I've clumsily burst into this debate without understanding the intracity of the either position. A point of order, though. I would not say that the universe is a fact of God's nature. To me at least, this implies that God was somehow bound to the act of creating this universe.

I didn't say the universe, I said existence. If God simply exists then this is a fact of existence.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that you are hung up on the idea that this being we call God is somehow distinguishable from this thing we call God's nature. Accordingly, it seems to me that you are under the impression that God at some point created these entities called "OBJECTIVE LAWS". This is like somebody saying that the processes described by the 2nd law of thermodynamics only exist because Carnot or whoever says so. Objective morality is describing God just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics describes the reality of the universe.

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

As you say if morality is what God is then morality just exists. It is arbitrary, as is God's nature. Nothing decided it would be this way rather than that way. It just is this way.

This can be applied to all of God's moral laws.

Why is homosexual acts wrong? Because God says so. Why does God say so? Because it is his nature. Why is it his nature? It just is.

Who decided this? No one, it just is. Why is it this way rather than that way? There is no reason, it just is. Etc.

I would imagine a lot of people don't like this idea.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

I don't fully go with your definition of 'subjective' here. Subjective, in the context of morality, means to me that there is nothing present in the world to determine whether something is right or wrong, apart from my personal preferences. So, from the point of view of the individual, morality is flexible in the way that, say, the concept of 'up' or the boiling point of water isn't.

Presumably, from our interpretation of a theist perspective, God could devise a different morality for humans just as he could set a different boiling point for water. Its all his gig. He could create humans with three arms and decide its right for them to marry their grannies. Both the possession of three arms and the rightness of marrying your granny would then be objective.

However, I also take Fanny Cradock's point that its really an irrelevant question, or at best a thought experiment, for a theist, as the contention is then simply that there was always a deity, and that deity always 'had' a morality.

Zombrex

Nemi wrote: »

I don't fully go with your definition of 'subjective' here. Subjective, in the context of morality, means to me that there is nothing present in the world to determine whether something is right or wrong, apart from my personal preferences. So, from the point of view of the individual, morality is flexible in the way that, say, the concept of 'up' or the boiling point of water isn't.

Presumably, from our interpretation of a theist perspective, God could devise a different morality for humans just as he could set a different boiling point for water. Its all his gig. He could create humans with three arms and decide its right for them to marry their grannies. Both the possession of three arms and the rightness of marrying your granny would then be objective.

Exactly, that makes morality subjective to God's "personal preferences" as you put it.

This is contrasted with the idea that morality is an objective fact, something that just exists.

Nemi wrote: »

However, I also take Fanny Cradock's point that its really an irrelevant question, or at best a thought experiment, for a theist, as the contention is then simply that there was always a deity, and that deity always 'had' a morality.

Well that may be Fanny's opinion but a lot of the other regular Christian posters here seem to debate this topic as if it was far from irrelevant.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly, that makes morality subjective to God's "personal preferences" as you put it.

Sort of. But I think the pertinent point is that the boiling point of water is then also subjective.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

These are just terms attempting to explain what we mean. "Is" is an English world. The sentence "God simply is" is an English sentence. When attempting to convey meaning there is nothing particularly special about shortening something other than it sounds nice. I prefer mine, though they essentially mean the same thing.

Considering the word existence is already taken up by the discussion, I sought another suitable word. I eventually settled on an alternative because it had not been burdened with prior association. I would have liked to think that you would have seen my intention for what it was and spared me the lecture me on my choice of "special" words.

Wicknight wrote: »

No, it is a matter or whether something is determined based on opinion or whether it is a factual statement true even if no opinion existed (including Gods)

And what is truth in relation to God? And how can anything exist without God? Remembering, of course, that you are replying to a theist.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is using a definition of existence that is a subset of God (ie existence exists because of God), which is nonsense as it excludes God as something that exists.

You seem determined to break God down into component parts, which I guess isn't surprising considering you are a reductionist. Again, I don't accept that God is part of a set - however large. Even if you combine all possible sets together to create some super-set that entity isn't itself a set. If it were a set then it would self-referentially include itself, which is a problem if you consider Russell's Paradox. See Paul Davies for reference. Interestingly, some time in the 5th Century, in the book The City of God, Augustine argued that God was beyond even infinity. Make of that what you will.

"all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to His knowledge..."

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not arguing morality is or isn't created by God. I'm arguing that Christians can't have it both ways, they can't argue that objective morality exists but is determined by what God thinks it is for reasons x,y,z. If that is the case then morality is subjective.

Well, if by subjective you mean "relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself", the whole discussion becomes a nonsense if you are framing it in relation to God, the uncaused cause. Why? Because if everything that existed/exists/and will exist is due in some root way to God, then everything - from morality to material existence - is subjective in relation to him and his "mind". (Amusing that God has such a thing called a mind.) Ultimately, I don't see how words like subjective or objective would have any meaning to God.

Wicknight wrote: »

As you say if morality is what God is then morality just exists. It is arbitrary, as is God's nature. Nothing decided it would be this way rather than that way. It just is this way.

But God's nature isn't arbitrary. He didn't at one point have no nature and then at some other point settle on one. You are confusing arbitrary with necessary. God is necessary, meaning his nature is necessary. As a naturalist I assume you don't believe that lava arbitrarily decides to be hot, just like a giraffe doesn't arbitrarily decide to have a long neck or Pluto one time took the decision to go with an atmosphere of methane and nitrogen and shuffle around the back of the solar system. Please note that explaining how lava gets hot is not the same as explaining why (the metaphysical "why") it gets hot.

Wicknight wrote: »

This can be applied to all of God's moral laws.

Says you! Of course, other than dismissing whatever shoddy ontological and theological arguments I've put forward, you also have completely ignored the whole orthodox doctrine of God's immutability.

Wicknight wrote: »

Who decided this? No one, it just is. Why is it this way rather than that way? There is no reason, it just is. Etc.

I would imagine a lot of people don't like this idea.

So I assume there are not operating on double standards and you aren't willing to accept that the universe is simply the way it is because that's the way it is? Besides, when did popular taste equate to correctness?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that may be Fanny's opinion but a lot of the other regular Christian posters here seem to debate this topic as if it was far from irrelevant.

Perhaps you mistake interest with relevance.

Nemi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Augustine argued that God was beyond infinity. Make of that what you will.

"all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to His knowledge..."

I suppose, if Buzz Lightyear can do it ...

More seriously, isn't there some equation in Quantum theory that involves subtracting infinity from infinity to make the thing balance?

As to Augustine, I take it the point he's getting at is that an omnipotent creating deity should contain whatever it is he has created. Who's to know, but it might be compared with the view that a simple system can create something more complex than itself (which, I know, raises the argument that the simple system must then contain the potential for that complexity).

Morbert

Nemi wrote: »

I suppose, if Buzz Lightyear can do it ...

More seriously, isn't there some equation in Quantum theory that involves subtracting infinity from infinity to make the thing balance?

The process of renormalization in Quantum field theory is somewhat similar.

As to Augustine, I take it the point he's getting at is that an omnipotent creating deity should contain whatever it is he has created. Who's to know, but it might be compared with the view that a simple system can create something more complex than itself (which, I know, raises the argument that the simple system must then contain the potential for that complexity).

Augustine was being vague it seems.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Augustine was being vague it seems.

Give him a break. It was about 1600 years ago :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Nemi wrote: »

As to Augustine, I take it the point he's getting at is that an omnipotent creating deity should contain whatever it is he has created. Who's to know, but it might be compared with the view that a simple system can create something more complex than itself (which, I know, raises the argument that the simple system must then contain the potential for that complexity).

Probably well of the point here. But I would have thought that much of orthodox Christian thought has argued that God is simple whereas his creation - the physical universe - is complex. See here for a previous debate. I'm sure Morbert remembers that one!

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Considering the word existence is already taken up by the discussion, I sought another suitable word. I eventually settled on an alternative because it had not been burdened with prior association. I would have liked to think that you would have seen my intention for what it was and spared me the lecture me on my choice of "special" words.

"God just is" conveys nothing more than saying God is something that exists and the super set of everything else. It just sounds nicer :pac:

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And what is truth in relation to God? And how can anything exist without God?

Those to questions are not related to each other.

Do you agree that "God exists" is a true statement. If so then he is in the set of things that exist. You can say he is that set, but it essentially means the same thing.

I think you are worrying far too much about this notion that we might some how lessen God through describing him in some way rather than another way.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You seem determined to break God down into component parts, which I guess isn't surprising considering you are a reductionist.

It is more that I am determined to avoid nonsense paradoxes just because they sound nice.

Defining God as something separate of things that exist is silly given that you believe God exists.

If you don't like the term "set" I'm happy to use something else.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Augustine argued that God was beyond even infinity. Make of that what you will.

Like I said, things that sound nice are all very well but they actually have to mean something to be any use in a discussion. Anyone can string words together that sound profound. You might as well say God is the answer to a division of a number by zero... think about it!

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, if by subjective you mean "relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself", the whole discussion becomes a nonsense if you are framing it in relation to God, the uncaused cause. Why? Because if everything that existed/exists/and will exist is due in some root way to God, then everything - from morality to material existence - is subjective in relation to him and his "mind".

Well yes, that is was my original point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

(Amusing that God has such a thing called a mind.) Ultimately, I don't see how words like subjective or objective would have any meaning to God.

You just put it rather well why they would. If nothing exists independently to God except God himself then God is the only objective thing who then decides what everything else will be, including morality, then it could be argued that nothing is objective eveything is subjective.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But God's nature isn't arbitrary. He didn't at one point have no nature and then at some other point settle on one.

I know, that is why it is arbitrary. If he (or something) had settled on a nature then it wouldn't be arbitrary, it would have been determined by that decision for what ever reason that decision was taken.

But as you say nothing decided God's nature. It just is. Why it is one way rather than another way is just arbitrary in that nothing decided this.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You are confusing arbitrary with necessary.

I'm really not.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Says you!

Well yes, obviously. God immutability is actually support for this position, since if God's nature just is, and God's decision on morality is based on his nature, then the decision just is.

Or to put it another way God won't decide a moral law that goes against his nature and God didn't decide his nature, his nature just is.

Which would make God's laws (including the moral ones) objective and arbitrary. They just are.

Whether God's moral laws are subjective or objective ultimately comes down to the question of whether God makes decisions and has choice, which comes down to the question of what exactly does God's nature mean.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So I assume there are not operating on double standards and you aren't willing to accept that the universe is simply the way it is because that's the way it is?

I've no idea why (as in cause rather than the royal why) the universe is the way it is but ultimately I'm comfortable with the notion that say some fundamental particular is say rotating right instead of rotating left and just is doing that.

It tends to be theists who are more uncomfortable with the notions that something "just is" rather than atheists.

Nemi

Wicknight wrote: »

If nothing exists independently to God except God himself then God is the only objective thing who then decides what everything else will be, including morality, then it could be argued that nothing is objective everything is subjective.

Just a thought from nowhere - I wonder it that's the kind of thing that William of Ockham was getting at (him of Occam's Razor) when he said God was the only necessary entity and everything else was contingent on that.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

"God just is" conveys nothing more than saying God is something that exists and the super set of everything else. It just sounds nicer :pac:

Take that up with the Bhuddists.

Do you agree that "God exists" is a true statement. If so then he is in the set of things that exist. You can say he is that set, but it essentially means the same thing.

As I suggested the mystical intepretations of "The universe is everything that is the case" may be best addressed by the Bhuddists.

I think you are worrying far too much about this notion that we might some how lessen God through describing him in some way rather than another way.

Or in not describing him and learning throught being silent on the matter?

It is more that I am determined to avoid nonsense paradoxes just because they sound nice.

Again, listening to silence is more suitable addressed to Bhuddists. You might consult Wittgenstien for the possibility of learning through silence.

Defining God as something separate of things that exist is silly given that you believe God exists.

If you don't like the term "set" I'm happy to use something else.

I think Wittgenstien Russel and others all had a good go at that one ( defining the universe in terms of set theory) call it what you want it can't be done.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
The whole sense of the Tractatus might be summed up the following words: what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

Like I said, things that sound nice are all very well but they actually have to mean something to be any use in a discussion. Anyone can string words together that sound profound. You might as well say God is the answer to a division of a number by zero... think about it!

SAme author:
What we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stood.

You just put it rather well why they would. If nothing exists independently to God except God himself then God is the only objective thing who then decides what everything else will be, including morality, then it could be argued that nothing is objective eveything is subjective.

If everything is defined relative to an absolute then that is an objective frame of reference.

Or to put it another way God won't decide a moral law that goes against his nature

Yup The Pope would agree with you on this point.

Which would make God's laws (including the moral ones) objective and arbitrary. They just are.

But the "going against nature" but adds in "are but are reasonable". THe idea being that mnathematics and physics follow rules. god could change these rules but doesn't since doing so requires being unreasonable.

Whether God's moral laws are subjective or objective ultimately comes down to the question of whether God makes decisions and has choice, which comes down to the question of what exactly does God's nature mean.

Eh no I think there are problems with that expression. When it comes to being reasonable it is like God not having a choice i.e. actng in a way against reason or nature which God created. I refer to the Christian concept of God here.

It tends to be theists who are more uncomfortable with the notions that something "just is" rather than atheists.

So you contend theists are more radical than atheists who are more conservative?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, that is my point. God exists and is not responsible for his existence.

Therefore there is at least one thing that just exists, and can sit in the set of things that just exist.

Okay here is the problem with that position. Suppose before God created anything what is in your "set" of things then? Just God? so the set can never be empty? It has at least to have God in it. And the creator of this set is inside it as part of it? What is the "null set"?

ISAW

Nemi wrote: »

Just a thought from nowhere - I wonder it that's the kind of thing that William of Ockham was getting at (him of Occam's Razor) when he said God was the only necessary entity and everything else was contingent on that.

I wuld think he was getting at Aquina's "First cause" or Aristotle's "Prime mover" and references to set theory are anachronistic.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Okay here is the problem with that position. Suppose before God created anything what is in your "set" of things then? Just God?

Yes. If "before" God created anything (if such a concept makes sense) the only thing that existed was God then the set of "Things that exist" contains just one thing, God. Whether it contains anything more after creation depends on how you view the things God made, as independent entities or part of God.

ISAW wrote: »

so the set can never be empty?

Not if God is eternal. Something (ie God) will always exist.

ISAW wrote: »

And the creator of this set is inside it as part of it?

There is no creator of this set, that is the point. God exists, nothing created him, he just is and always has been.

ISAW wrote: »

What is the "null set"?

That is a good question, and again comes back to your definitions. The null set is either nothing exists except existence itself (ie existence is empty) or existence itself doesn't exist (there is no concept of existence). Depends on whether you consider existence itself a thing that can existence independently to anything being in it (ie whether empty existence makes sense as a concept)

Can I ask what was the "problem" you were referring to above?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Can I ask what was the "problem" you were referring to above?

Yes you can but I'll assume you actually expect a reply from me and actually mean "may I " and not "can I" ?

If you mean Russel etc. it was the problem of the associated null set and reducing all of mathematics to set theory. but tyhe one he had was related to fuller sets.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/

But why would you be interested in " nonsense paradoxes?" not just because they sound nice.?

Let R be the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. Then R is neither a member of itself nor not a member of itself. Symbolically, let R={x:x not in x}. Then R in R iff R not in R.

Bertrand Russell discovered this paradox and sent it in a letter to G. Frege just as Frege was completing Grundlagen der Arithmetik. This invalidated much of the rigor of the work, and Frege was forced to add a note at the end stating, "A scientist can hardly meet with anything more undesirable than to have the foundation give way just as the work is finished. I was put in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell when the work was nearly through the press."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CatalogueParadox.html
Consider a library which compiles a bibliographic catalog of all (and only those) catalogs which do not list themselves. Then does the library's catalog list itself?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If you mean Russel etc.

I don't mean anything, you stated there was a problem but you didn't seem to explain what that problem was. Was the problem Russel's paradox. If so you can see from below that I don't consider that a relevant problem since I'm using sets to describe nature, not trying to define a non-paradoxical set theory.

ISAW wrote: »

it was the problem of the associated null set and reducing all of mathematics to set theory.

I'm not attempting to reduce all mathematics to set theory so that seems some what irrelevant, as does Russell's paradox which is to do with the paradox of a formal definition of sets and the problem of sets of sets when a set is defined to specifically rule itself out.

How does this apply to what I've been saying?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't mean anything, you stated there was a problem but you didn't seem to explain what that problem was.

Au contraire! Message 38 - I think Wittgenstien Russel and others all had a good go at that one ( defining the universe in terms of set theory) call it what you want it can't be done.

Was the problem Russel's paradox. If so you can see from below that I don't consider that a relevant problem since I'm using sets to describe nature, not trying to define a non-paradoxical set theory.

But of a himpty dumpty anti formalist use of "set" then.?

I'm not attempting to reduce all mathematics to set theory so that seems some what irrelevant, as does Russell's paradox which is to do with the paradox of a formal definition of sets and the problem of sets of sets when a set is defined to specifically rule itself out.

You are reducing the problem to defining nature and God as elements in a set. Im asking you what is the set when you take these things out? Im also asking what is the union of all sets which don't have God in them?

How does this apply to what I've been saying?

QED. The problem flows from trying to put God into a set called "the universe" if the concept of God is that the set is created by God. You are into "Does God contain itself"?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Au contraire! Message 38 - I think Wittgenstien Russel and others all had a good go at that one ( defining the universe in terms of set theory) call it what you want it can't be done.

They did? I thought they were trying to define set theory in terms of set theory? I'm not sure if it has much implications beyond that.

ISAW wrote: »

But of a himpty dumpty anti formalist use of "set" then.?

Yes. If you prefer "all things that exist". I'm not sure one would say a set exists, and such Russell's paradox is not particularly relevant since I'm not trying to define a set using sets.

ISAW wrote: »

You are reducing the problem to defining nature and God as elements in a set.

I'm not sure that is "reducing" anything. God exists. Therefore God is one of the things that exists. It seems pretty logical. I said he exists in the set of "things that exist" but that seems to be causing some confusion, so if you like use any terminology you prefer, "collection" or "definition" or "logical construct"

ISAW wrote: »

Im asking you what is the set when you take these things out?

The "set" is just a logical construct, it doesn't have an existence of itself, the "set" isn't something when these things are in any more than it is a thing when it is out. If I said imagine the set of all dogs alive at the moment. That is a mental grouping of dogs. The set itself doesn't exist. It is just a mental tool.

Now what is an interesting question, but one for theology not mathematics, is if nothing existed would existence still exist. IE can existence be empty.

ISAW wrote: »

The problem flows from trying to put God into a set called "the universe" if the concept of God is that the set is created by God.

I was never putting God into a set called the universe, so that "problem" is irrelevant.

I'm putting God into a set (or collection, or logical construct) of "things that exist" and God didn't create existence since such a claim is paradoxical since God would have to exist in the first place to do this, thus requiring existences.

There has always been existences since God has always existed.

ISAW wrote: »

You are into "Does God contain itself"?

That is a theological matter. I look forward to seeing what completely made up guess theology comes up with

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

They did? I thought they were trying to define set theory in terms of set theory? I'm not sure if it has much implications beyond that.

It had vast implications! It would mean all of mathematics is reducible!

Yes. If you prefer "all things that exist". I'm not sure one would say a set exists, and such Russell's paradox is not particularly relevant since I'm not trying to define a set using sets.

You are! If God = a one element set and all things that exist are the union of the universe and God.

I'm not sure that is "reducing" anything. God exists. Therefore God is one of the things that exists.

then God is part of the set "things that exist"!

.
It seems pretty logical. I said he exists in the set of "things that exist" but that seems to be causing some confusion, so if you like use any terminology you prefer, "collection" or "definition" or "logical construct"

set is fine. and it isn't logical. Suppose before God created anything. What is in your "set" of things then? and what about the set which is the set of all things not in the universe plus God set?

The "set" is just a logical construct, it doesn't have an existence of itself,

Logically it does!

the "set" isn't something when these things are in any more than it is a thing when it is out. If I said imagine the set of all dogs alive at the moment. That is a mental grouping of dogs. The set itself doesn't exist. It is just a mental tool.

so what? Numbers don't exist and mathematics doesn't exist. It is just a mental tool. So what? You are using this formal mental tool to make a logical point. If you "claim one plus one equals two" then you are making a statement which is logically subject to analysis just as if you claim
Elephants with four legs have big
Pink elephants have four legs
Pink elephants have big ears.

It is logically valid even if pink elephants do not exist!

Now what is an interesting question, but one for theology not mathematics, is if nothing existed would existence still exist. IE can existence be empty.

It IS a question prompted by the mathematical idea of null sets and the philosophical Principle of Mach which I believe led Einstein to the superposition principle.
Science can work like that!

I was never putting God into a set called the universe, so that "problem" is irrelevant.

You were putting God into a set God union "the universe" i.e. things that exist.

I'm putting God into a set (or collection, or logical construct) of "things that exist" and God didn't create existence

So what is this "God" then that exists apart from things that exist and has no involvement in creating them?

since such a claim is paradoxical since God would have to exist in the first place to do this, thus requiring existences.

He could have existed outside of or before time began.

There has always been existences since God has always existed.

Even outside of and before time began?

That is a theological matter. I look forward to seeing what completely made up guess theology comes up with

No it is you set theory idea of sets which contain other sets! What do you do with empty sets and with sets which contain themselves?
Do sets contain themselves or not?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

It had vast implications! It would mean all of mathematics is reducible!

Yes but that is an issue for mathematics. It doesn't have implications outside of maths.

ISAW wrote: »

You are! If God = a one element set and all things that exist are the union of the universe and God.

Who said all things that exist are the union of the universe and God. There is only one set "things that exist". Everything that exists are elements of that set. Neither God nor the universe are sets. They are elements of a set.

ISAW wrote: »

Suppose before God created anything. What is in your "set" of things then?

Things that exist. God creating things simply puts elements into that set.

Maybe I'm not up on my set theory but I'm really not seeing the issue here.

ISAW wrote: »

what about the set which is the set of all things not in the universe plus God set?

In my example there is no "universe set" nor "God set" nor is there any union of any set. There is one set, things that exist.

If you like you can say there is a set of all things that could exist but don't. That set I imagine would be infinite. I'm not sure how that set causes any problems.

ISAW wrote: »

Logically it does!

Logical constructs do not fall into the set of things that exist.

ISAW wrote: »

so what?

So there is no problem here. Russell's paradox only occurs is you try and define set theory in terms of set theory. My set doesn't expand into theoretical constructs so there is no issue here.

ISAW wrote: »

You were putting God into a set God union "the universe" i.e. things that exist.

No I'm not. I'm putting God into a set "things that exist"

ISAW wrote: »

So what is this "God" then that exists apart from things that exist and has no involvement in creating them?

I didn't say God didn't create things. I said he didn't create himself, and thus is not responsible for existence.

ISAW wrote: »

He could have existed outside of or before time began.

Existing outside of time is irrelevant to my point. He can't, by definition, exist outside of existence. And thus he could not have created existence, as that would require he existed.

ISAW wrote: »

Even outside of and before time began?

Time isn't relevant to my point.

ISAW wrote: »

No it is you set theory idea of sets which contain other sets! What do you do with empty sets and with sets which contain themselves?
Do sets contain themselves or not?

Empty sets by themselves are not an issue. Russell's paradox is that if you try and define set theory using set theory you run into a problem as you need to define empty sets in terms of non-empty sets. Since I'm not doing that this isn't any issue.

That is my understanding of set theory. I'm not an expert, and am open to being corrected but so far I see nothing that connects what we have been discussing about God's existence and Russell's paradox.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

It is terrible. But apparently saying that around here is heretical

I take it you are referring to Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis and not the Bible. If so, then what part(s) in particular did you find terrible? Spark up a new thread and we'll discuss it/them if you like. To say that in the Christianity forum it is thought of as heretical for someone to have such an opinion about a book is just a stupid sounding over generalization. There may be people who might feel that way about similar opinion's that others may have about the Bible, but not books, especially not modern books, which were written by Christians. But I'd really like to know what parts of Mere Christianity you thought were terrible and why. You can't just say that a book is terrible and leave it that. Your critique must be specified and elaborated on, so I'm all ears if you want to open a new thread. If your not interested in opening a thread about it then I suggest you don't bother to give us your opinion on the book at all. Imagine me going into the A&A forum and stating that the The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins is a terrible book and just leaving it at that? I'd be asked to explain why I thought so.

Soul Winner

Carl.Gustav wrote: »

Hi all

I watch a lot of the Christian Vs atheist videos on youtube and similar and one of the most common arguments for God is if there is a moral law then there must be a moral law giver, it's only Christians I see offering this, I'm not saying they are the only religion offering this but I guess I'm only watching english language videos.

I'm confused about this argument and cannot understand how Christians can put it forward, implying our morals were a gift from a loving God.

Given the account of the fall which is page 3 or 4 or the bible, our acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil was not a gift but a terrible sin , we went against the direct command of God and ate from the tree, got thrown out of the garden and stamped with original sin and unless saved given a ticket to hell.

So there was no moral law giver, we stole moral law.

Why then is the argument so often put forward, am I missing something ?

Any thoughts welcome.

One of those arguments goes like this:

Premise 1:

If God doesn't exist then objective moral values don't exist.

Premise 2:

Objective moral values do exist.

Conclusion:

Therefore God exists.


Now some people will confuse this argument with the existence of normal (or subjective) moral values. They confuse normal moral values with objective moral values. Every society has normal subjective moral values which differ from each other in many ways. But even in a universe without God laying down the law, we could still have these normal subjective moral values.

No, what this argument deals with is the existence of Objective moral values. If there is no God, then there is no ultimate accountability for our actions. Plus there is no true ultimate definition of what's right and what's wrong. There's just subjective opinions about what's right and wrong. In a universe without any objective moral values then everybody's moral values have equal validity. For example, a person who values health, family, love and loyalty are on an equal plane with a person who thinks that torturing babies is funny.

The reason this sounds so preposterous to practically everybody who reads this is because objective moral values exist. Torturing babies for fun is not just socially unacceptable like your best man being too drunk and noisy at your wedding ceremony. There are some acts of mankind which are just evil. But in a universe without God there is no such thing as evil, there's just whatever happens to happen. If we define evil as the way things are not supposed to be, then that presupposes that there is a way that things are supposed to be. But if there is a way that things are supposed to be, then that means that the universe was created with such a purpose in mind. But in the absence of a planner and creator of the universe how can this be?

So unless you can show that objective moral values don't actually exist only then can this argument be refuted. Are there things that are and always will be evil? Is torturing babies for fun really evil or just socially unacceptable? Of course it's evil. Therefore evil exists. And if evil exists then it logically follows that a creator of the universe exists.

That this creator allows evil to exist has no bearing on this argument for His existence. That subject is for another debate. Just stick to the 1st and 2nd premise of this argument if you want to tear it down. You either have to show that objective moral values can exist in a universe without God or you must show that objective moral values don't actually exist. If you can do either of these then you have won the argument.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but that is an issue for mathematics. It doesn't have implications outside of maths.

Would you say formal logic doesn't have implications outside formal logic?
Would you say logical fallacy is irrelevant outside the field of logic?

Who said all things that exist are the union of the universe and God.

If God is not an element of the set of all things that exist then it is implied.

There is only one set "things that exist". Everything that exists are elements of that set. Neither God nor the universe are sets. They are elements of a set.

So a subset isn't a set? Under what logic do you operate? Do you make it up as you go along or are we going to follow proscribed rules? You cant claim two is a number and then also claim one isn't!

Things that exist. God creating things simply puts elements into that set.

So before God puts elements in does the set have less elements than after?

Maybe I'm not up on my set theory but I'm really not seeing the issue here.

Ill agree with your earlier concept here since it is difficult to deal with the null set and say God created it because God would then have to be in a superset. But the logic can hold if you hold to the formal theory as I view it. You however are fiddling with the definitions.

In my example there is no "universe set" nor "God set" nor is there any union of any set. There is one set, things that exist.

But how will you deal with operators? And subsets? and supersets?

If you like you can say there is a set of all things that could exist but don't. That set I imagine would be infinite. I'm not sure how that set causes any problems.

Like the sets of three sided squares? It doesn't. But the set of things that exist is a subset of this set.

Logical constructs do not fall into the set of things that exist.

so what numbers don't "fall into" the set of numerals but they are logically valid and sound arguments can be made with them.

So there is no problem here. Russell's paradox only occurs is you try and define set theory in terms of set theory. My set doesn't expand into theoretical constructs so there is no issue here.

there is no problem if you fiddle with the definition of a set and say the only sets we can talk about are the set of all things that exist and that any bigger sets are not considered. Even then you still have a problem with an empty set. What is the set of things that exist before God starts adding things to it? Does that set contain God ?

No I'm not. I'm putting God into a set "things that exist"

So that set can never be empty? When then is a null set?

I didn't say God didn't create things. I said he didn't create himself, and thus is not responsible for existence.

But God always has to go in the set of things that exist so it can never be empty?

Existing outside of time is irrelevant to my point.

So things that exist don't have to exist in time?

He can't, by definition, exist outside of existence. And thus he could not have created existence, as that would require he existed.

But now you are into circular definitions! What is "existence" other than being defined as being in this set of things that exist?

Time isn't relevant to my point.

So given enough time we can have three cornered squares? If we can't what OTHER rulkes givern what goes in the set of "things that exist"?

Empty sets by themselves are not an issue. Russell's paradox is that if you try and define set theory using set theory you run into a problem as you need to define empty sets in terms of non-empty sets. Since I'm not doing that this isn't any issue.

Because you are saying they can't exist! what is the set of things that exist before God started putting things into it? What is the set of this minus the element God?

That is my understanding of set theory. I'm not an expert, and am open to being corrected but so far I see nothing that connects what we have been discussing about God's existence and Russell's paradox.

It is just logic. But if you begin with ground rules you have to state them and hold to them.
If you start making up your own set theory then you can do that but inevitability you will arrive at logical paradoxes.

ISAW

Soul Winner wrote: »

I take it you are referring to Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis and not the Bible. If so, then what part(s) in particular did you find terrible? Spark up a new thread and we'll discuss it/them if you like. Imagine me going into the A&A forum and stating that the The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins is a terrible book and just leaving it at that? I'd be asked to explain why I thought so.

Heretics are also welcome. Their arguments warrant discussion.