Verifiable evidence basis of the "moral argument"

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads someone said:

Most of the central claims of theism come from reason based on verifiable evidence. Such arguments – like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and free will arguments – are well known and based on verifiable evidence.

One of the most popular apologetics using Moral Law is attributed to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and used extensively by William Lane Craig as Argument from Morality (AfM). It can be summarized as follows:

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Questions for debate (Kindly restrict comments to the "moral argument" in this thread – there will be others to deal with evidence basis of other arguments):

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

[Divine Insight]

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

The evidence to the contrary is actually profound.

The natural universe does not exhibit any moral consistency. Animals have always eaten other animals, and their babies. They have always fought over territories, food, and even mating rights. Disease exists in this universe that clearly follows no moral laws of nature. Natural disasters clearly do not follow any moral laws of nature. In fact, no two sentient humans can even agree on what should be more or immoral.

The very concept of morality is entirely a human invention and is totally subject to individual subjective opinions.

The evidence that there is no objective or absolute morality is profound. And there is absolutely no credible argument to the contrary.

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

Since there clearly is no absolute or objective morality the question of a moral lawgiver is a moot question.

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

Atheists have been pointing out the immorality of the Biblical scriptures for centuries. The Bible isn't even moral, so it doesn't stand a prayer in hell of being the basis of a God of moral objectivity. Note: the euphemism "prayer in hell" was obviously chosen as a fitting substitute for less civil characterizations.

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

The argument from morality for the existence of a God has absolutely no merit whatsoever. There simple is no evidence for any objective morality in the world in which we live. The best we can point to is some subjective agreement. And even that is limited to extreme scenarios like most humans will agree that torturing innocent babies would be "immoral".

Ironically we even have laws against cruel and unusual punishments for our fellow man. We have created those laws by mutual consensus. Yet the biblical God threatens eternal punishment to those who merely don't believe in him. Therefore by human consensus the God of the Bible would be immoral.

[DanieltheDragon]

The problem as presented is that there are moral laws we all agree are true. Let's say murder for example. Most people will say yes that is objectively morally wrong and everyone agrees on that. However, this entirely fails to account for circumstances. Like an abortion doctor; some people see this as murder and morally wrong. Even further still some people think that the murder oof these people are a good thing and go so far as to carry out those deeds because they believe it is tge morally good thing to do.

So right off the bat in possibly the only thing that could be the most univuniversal moral law we have layers upon layers of subjective moral judgements. For something to be objectiveobjectively moral it must be uniuniversal. This is simply not the case

[atheist buddy]

.
In one of the threads someone said:

Most of the central claims of theism come from reason based on verifiable evidence. Such arguments – like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and free will arguments – are well known and based on verifiable evidence.

One of the most popular apologetics using Moral Law is attributed to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and used extensively by William Lane Craig as Argument from Morality (AfM). It can be summarized as follows:

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Questions for debate (Kindly restrict comments to the "moral argument" in this thread – there will be others to deal with evidence basis of other arguments):

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

There's no such thing as absolute morality. All other steps in the argument depend on the first premise, which is false. The argument is therefore meaningless.

[dianaiad]

.
.........

Questions for debate (Kindly restrict comments to the "moral argument" in this thread – there will be others to deal with evidence basis of other arguments):

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

There's no such thing as absolute morality. All other steps in the argument depend on the first premise, which is false. The argument is therefore meaningless.

The question being raised in this debate is whether there is an absolute morality. See #1 "What conclusive evidence proves that the premise 'moral law exists' is true?"

Therefore the bit about whether absolute morality exists is the question, not the premise. Simply claiming that absolute morality does not exist is fine and all, but since it IS the question being offered for consideration, you will need to give us some evidence/reason/justification for your claim that it does not.

Now me, I think it does; I do think that there is an 'absolute morality,' for beings who can actually stop and consider whether there might be. One cannot prescribe it, but only describe it; what moral and ethical precepts seem to be most important to sentient cultures, and how serious are the consequences of breaking them?

Because of course moral precepts are always broken by someone, somewhere, or nobody would have to actually codify them or teach them. I mean, if it is impossible to violate an ethical/moral precept, there wouldn't be a law against it. There are, you will notice, no speed limits posted on people who, by dint of flapping their arms too fast, violate military air space.

As for me, I can't see where the existence of an absolute moral code would of necessity prove the existence of deity. I can see how the existence of deity would be pretty good evidence of the existence of an absolute moral code, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Divine Insight]

The question being raised in this debate is whether there is an absolute morality. See #1 "What conclusive evidence proves that the premise 'moral law exists' is true?"

Therefore the bit about whether absolute morality exists is the question, not the premise.

But it is the premise in the apologetic argument given in the OP

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

That is the premise that apologists must prove, since it's their claim.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
In one of the threads someone said:

Most of the central claims of theism come from reason based on verifiable evidence. Such arguments – like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and free will arguments – are well known and based on verifiable evidence.

One of the most popular apologetics using Moral Law is attributed to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and used extensively by William Lane Craig as Argument from Morality (AfM). It can be summarized as follows:

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Questions for debate (Kindly restrict comments to the "moral argument" in this thread – there will be others to deal with evidence basis of other arguments):

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

1. The cosmological argument. This is the argument of "first cause," and is based on the claim that everything has a beginning. This is in fact completely WRONG. Everything that we can observe directly is in fact a continuation of of some earlier cause. Effect follows cause WITHOUT FAIL in an unbroken chain. We may well interpolate cause back to the big bang today, but this merely represents the earliest presumed probable cause we are aware of. What occurred prior to the big bang, and indeed, what CAUSED the big bang are still wide open questions. Since all of our direct experience indicates that cause precedes effect WITHOUT FAIL, then there is certainly clear and valid reason to suppose, at least, that the big bang was preceded by cause. The "first cause" argument is a fallacy held over from ancient times when people believed that many things began spontaneously without prior cause. And we know today that this simply is not true.

2. The Teleological argument is the argument from design. This is the conclusion that the apparent order of the universe is evidence of intelligent design. In fact chaos inevitably leads a sort of order, or harmony. Two diametrically opposed forces, like two great armies, will eventually cancel each other out totally, leaving nothing, or eventually one side will prevail, leaving peace. The early universe was a chaotic place... no place for organic beings to exist. The relative order that we witness today, order from our chauvinist perspective since it allows for our existence, is a natural and obvious result of this cancellation process which has resulted in the current state of the universe. All of this occurs due to the forces of quantum mechanics, which itself is the result of the fact that the quanta come in both positive and negative types. The positive types of quanta are attracted to the negative types of quanta, while quanta with like charges are repelled by each other. This ongoing attraction/repulsion phenomenon is the cause for everything that occurs. It is the little engine that drives the universe. We have no reason to suppose that it is intelligent, however.

3. The Ontological argument. The ontological argument was first proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Essentially it is the argument that God is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." Anselm then argued that this being MUST exist in the mind, and that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. This argument is derived from pure make believe and assumption, and nothing more. It is an exercise in imagining which in no way can be demonstrated to translate into physical reality.

4. Morality. Morality is an opinion and nothing more, even though certain moral judgement may be shared by an overwhelming majority of individuals. The statement that "absolute morality" exists is itself an opinion, and nothing more. Events occur, and humans place value judgments on those events. OPINIONS. To the universe at large events are simply events. They either occur or they do not.

5, Free will. Living creatures have the ability to make decisions and take physical action based on those decisions. But only in a limited way. Humans freely imagine all sorts of possibilities that they can never accomplish physically. Free will is limited. While it is true that compared to a rock we humans have free will, such free will as we have comes with physical limitations.

[dianaiad]

The question being raised in this debate is whether there is an absolute morality. See #1 "What conclusive evidence proves that the premise 'moral law exists' is true?"

Therefore the bit about whether absolute morality exists is the question, not the premise.

But it is the premise in the apologetic argument given in the OP

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

That is the premise that apologists must prove, since it's their claim.

Zzyzx can do a better job of this, of course, than I can, since it's his OP, but it seems to ME, at least, that the quote you just took completely out of context was not the premise, but rather the set up for his own question as to the validity of that premise.

In other words, it seems to me that he was pointing out that these quotes were very much begging the question he then raised for discussion. Is there an absolute morality?

As I mentioned myself, I believe that there is; not as a set of rules that are prescribed and dictated to, so much, as the set that is fairly universally held to; our definition of the absolute human moral code is indeed a definition.

In linguistic terms, we are talking about descriptive values, not proscriptive ones. The dictionary does not dictate what a word means; it reports what the majority of people who use that word think it means--and as the meaning of the word changes, do does the definition reported. Look at any dictionary and see that, listed at the bottom of many definitions, are meanings that begin with the designation 'obs,' meaning 'obsolete.'

An "absolute morality," then, isn't so much a prescription of what morals MUST be, but rather a description of what most people and cultures think they should be.

There are a few fairly universal moral standards that most cultures adhere to. Find and identify them, and you will have your 'absolute morality.'

Again, as I wrote before, it seems to me that having such a universal set of moral codes, an 'absolute morality,' does not prove that God exists. However, if God does, then one would expect to see such a code. As in: the presence of such a set of codes doesn't prove God is, but the absence of one might be evidence that He is not.

It's fairly obvious, at least to me, that sentient creatures have such a set of moral and ethical codes. Simple ones, but ubiquitous.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 8 by dianaiad]

It's fairly obvious, at least to me, that sentient creatures have such a set of moral and ethical codes. Simple ones, but ubiquitous.

Sentient creatures such as humans DO have moral and ethical codes. We are forced to because, as societal creatures we need such codes to produce the harmony that is the main obvious benefit of societal life. Clearly however, these moral and ethical codes, or laws, are not absolute, because they can be altered based on need and necessity of the society. "Thou shalt not commit murder," unless of course we conclude that it is necessary, in times of war, or as a form of state sanctioned punishment. Is state sanctioned murder moral? Opinions differ, because MORALITY ITSELF IS AN OPINION. A better example is slavery. Slavery is considered to be morally repugnant today, and forbidden. For most of human history it was simply a fact of life. The Bible allows for it and even condones it. To the universe at large however, the purposeful killing of humans by other humans and slavery are simply events. They either occur or they do not. It's we humans that supply the value judgments, the OPINIONS, on what is moral; on what is generally to be considered acceptable, and what is not.

[Zzyzx]

.

The question being raised in this debate is whether there is an absolute morality.

Exactly. Some have claimed that "Absolute Morality" exists. First, proponents must define the term "absolute morality" and then provide verifiable evidence to support the claim.

So far it doesn't seem as though an attempt has been made.

Notice that the OP does NOT ask for evidence that such a thing doesn't exist.

Therefore the bit about whether absolute morality exists is the question, not the premise. Simply claiming that absolute morality does not exist is fine and all, but since it IS the question being offered for consideration, you will need to give us some evidence/reason/justification for your claim that it does not.

Now me, I think it does; I do think that there is an 'absolute morality,' for beings who can actually stop and consider whether there might be.

An "absolute morality", by definition must apply at all places and all times to all people. Right?

What are examples of moral absolutes?

When, where and by whom was the claimed absolute morality formulated – and how can that be shown to be true?

Note: "Absolute" is defined as: "something that is always true and accepted as fact, with no arguments against it or conditions necessary for it to be true."

One cannot prescribe it, but only describe it; what moral and ethical precepts seem to be most important to sentient cultures, and how serious are the consequences of breaking them?

Are you using "moral and ethical precepts" as synonymous with "Moral law?"

Precept is defined as: a commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct

Absolute morality does not connote what is "most important to sentient cultures cultures"

because of course moral precepts are always broken by someone, somewhere, or nobody would have to actually codify them or teach them.

Agreed, laws and commandments are broken. However, absolute moral codes cannot vary from culture to culture or from time to time.