Religious Claims to Objective Morality are Might Equals Right Arguments

Your idea of what the religious argument is about morality is wrong. One first asks questions""where did we come from? What created matter? What is truth? What is Good? When one asks these questions, One could arrive at an entity that is considered "God". You say " "Is it unimaginable that something could create the universe and be evil? " The answer to this is no. " I would ask you to prove that something could create the universe AND be evil. You post that as an argument refuting the religious point of view, But you don"t "prove it". You simply say it and ask others to assume it"s true. But, I ask you to use logic and reason to show how it could be true that something could create the universe AND be evil. So, Before we embark on this journey together, Perhaps we should begin with some clarifications and/or definitions: A few questions/clarifications from you, If possible: - When you define God, What does that mean to you? How would YOU define "God"? I want to make sure we are on the same page and comparing apples to apples so to speak. I've been in discussions with "atheists" who ask me to prove God exists, Only to find out their idea of God is some magic genie that is here to cater to their every whim and desire. . . . ("If God exists, Why am I poor? Why am I hungry? " etc) - What do you mean by "good"? - What is "evil"? - What do you mean by "true"? You created the debate with these terms, So I will ask you to please provide what you mean by these terms. Again, I want to make sure I understand you when you speak these terms. Words and how we use them are important when communicating. I've been invited to people"s houses where they say "We are having BBQ" only to arrive and find out their idea of BBQ is grilling hot dogs and hamburgers. Sorry, I"m from Texas". Hot dogs and hamburgers are NOT BBQ. Likewise I want to make sure we are speaking the same language. Now, With regard to objective morality vs. Subjective morality, I like to think of this in simple terms, And again, For simplicity"s sake, Let"s stick with individual actions, Not the actions of a group of people, Such as a tribe, Clan, Family, Government or country. So I offer some basic definitions (I"m waiting for you to define "good" and "evil" before I do so =514; ) Morality " the extent to which an action is right or wrong, Good or bad Subjective Morality " each individual considers an action as "good" or "bad" (or "right" or "wrong") based on their own idea what right and wrong, Then use their own interpretation and do not look "outside" themselves for guidance. Objective Morality " each individual considers an action as "good" or "bad" ("right" or "wrong") based on something that is "outside" of themselves True " conforming to an essential reality Do you agree to these definitions of "morality", "subjective morality", "objective morality", And "true", And if not, How/what would you change? The question (for both me AND you, And really everyone) is really this: -IS there a right way and a wrong way to act? -If the answer is "yes", What determines this "right" way and "wrong" way to act? -Likewise, What determines if something is "True" or not? The fact that people may behave AS IF morality is subjective doesn"t necessarily mean or prove that morality is subjective. In discussions like this people like to use the classic example of Hitler. Hitler thought he was doing "good" by killing the Jews. He felt and thought he was in the "right". People will point to that and say "See! Morality is subjective! " Now let"s examine these actions, The Hitler scenario, A little closer, But from different perspectives. Most actions have 3 parts to it: the person doing the action, The person receiving the action, And the person observing the action: The person doing the action - Hitler"s perspective - Hitler killed Jews. He thought he was doing "good", He thought he was "right". But that is HIS interpretation of what is good or bad. If morality is subjective, He is making the determination for himself on whether something is good or bad. This is simply his interpretation of the action. The person receiving the action " the Murdered Jew perspective " it is safe to reason that the Jew that is killed would think this action of Hitler would be "bad", Would it not? They would consider this act "wrong" or "bad". But, If morality is subjective, That is simply THEIR interpretation of morality of the action. They are simply using their own idea of what is good or bad. Observer A " a person watching the action " watching Hitler kill the Jews " Now perhaps this person, Observer A, Sees this action and thinks it"s bad or wrong. Again, With subjective morality this view is simply that person"s interpretation"what he/she thinks. Observer B - a person watching the action " watching Hitler kill the Jews " Now perhaps this person, Observer B, Sees this action and thinks it"s good or right. Again, With subjective morality this view is simply that person"s interpretation"what he/she thinks. So now, If morality is subjective, Some very interesting questions and/or answers arise: 1. Of all 4 people (Hitler, The murdered Jew, Observer A, Observer B), Which one is right or wrong? And why would you consider it right or wrong? What basis would you use to determine if each was right/wrong? a. If morality is subjective, I. E. Simply what we think is right or wrong, One could argue that all 4 are right), Because that is their own belief. But again, This argument simply be the thought/belief of the person posing the argument. 2. If morality is subjective, Simply what the person doing the action makes of it, Does anyone have the right do tell (or prevent) the other person from NOT doing an action that is "bad" or "wrong". But, With "subjective morality", Is it "bad" or "wrong" if the person doesn"t think it is? If so, Why? 3. Now one could simply argue "Well, We have laws against killing people! It"s wrong! " Um, Ok. a. But WHAT makes it wrong (or right)? Popular vote? b. If we have "laws against this or that", Are we now asking the person committing the action to not look inward (i. E. Be subjective) but rather look outward to determine if something is good/bad, Right/wrong? And if we do that, Then aren"t we now basically saying that morality is objective? i. This leads to the question WHAT then should be used ot determine if an action is good/bad, Right/wrong? For example, For all we know, Hitler could have modelled his behavior on Diocletian. He would be using Diocletian as his objective standard. Still being objective, But perhaps having the wrong standard. ii. How does one determine what is the standard then to measure behavior"popular vote? Government edict? If out of 100 people on a deserted island, 95 vote to enslave the other 5, Does that now make it right? We use "objective" standards in all aspects of our life. When we travel/hike/etc we use something outside of ourselves, Such as a compass, A map, The moon/sun/stars, To guide us"we don"t simply use our own intuition of what we think "the direction north" is"we"d never get to where we are going. When we take measurements, We use objective standards, Such as a ruler, A scale, Etc to determine the physical dimensions of something. The doctor, At check-in, Doesn"t say "hmmm you look like you"re about 175 pounds", No"they weigh you using a scale. The doctor doesn"t say "hmmm, You look like you have a temperature of 100""no, They use a thermometer to take your temperature. But guess what"even these "objective" standards must be calibrated correctly against some standard outside of itself, Otherwise the map/compass will point us in the wrong direction, Or the scale/thermometer/ruler will give the wrong reading/dimensions. You argue that morality is subjective, But I"m willing to bet money you don"t live your life like that. If someone cuts in front of you at Starbucks or HEB (regional supermarket), Would you simply excuse it and say "Go right ahead, Morality is subjective, You are simply following your own idea of what is right and wrong. You think it"s right to cut in front of me, So go ahead. " Or would you appeal to something called "fairness", Some other standard outside of you and the other person. If the ne"er-do-well down the road takes your car for a joy ride, Would you protest, Saying "NO! You can"t do that it! You are can"t take what is not yours! ", Even though the other person thinks it"s perfectly alright? Now, This doesn"t automatically mean God exists"by no means does this "prove" God exists. However, A subjective morality leads to some uneasy and uncomfortable questions that must be answered. 1. Who determines what is permissible or not permissible with subjective morality (the answer is the person doing the action determines the morality). 2. What is permissible, Not permissible with subjective morality? If something is not permissible, Who determines (see #1 above) Likewise, An objective morality leads to some equally uncomfortable and difficult questions as well: 1. Who/What determines what is permissible or not permissible with objective morality. This is really the ONLY question. One can"t leap from this question and say "God". That answer presupposes that God exists, Etc. That"s kind of like jumping into Nuclear Physics without first learning basic math, Algebra, Calculus, Differential equations, Etc. It"s a daunting task. One must first start with the basics that will lead you to the revelation that there must be something that points in the direction of truth, Right, And good- (we can decide later if we want to call this "God" Alas, In a subjective morality, You think YOU are right, And I think I am right. So, We are both right. Unless"unless, There is something outside of YOU and I that determines who is right", But then, That would be objective morality.