This document summarizes arguments for and against the first premise of the moral argument - that morality requires God. It outlines several arguments commonly made for the first premise, such as that famous atheists rejected morality and Hitler/Stalin were atheists. However, it argues these involve logical fallacies. It also discusses objections to the first premise, including that it relies on undefined or ambiguous terms, faces the Euthyphro dilemma, and that secular conceptions of morality are possible. In the end, the document concludes the first premise of the moral argument is disputed and reasons for its truth are not clear-cut.
Proofs for the Existence of God PowerpointARH_Miller
The document summarizes three philosophical arguments for the existence of God: the ontological, cosmological, and teleological proofs. It outlines the key premises and conclusions of each proof, and then discusses criticisms of each proof put forth by philosophers David Hume and Charles Darwin. The criticisms question whether the proofs demonstrate a logical necessity of God's existence or merely impose order through human reasoning.
The document discusses atheism, agnosticism, and arguments against the existence of God. It defines atheism as not believing in God and agnosticism as being unsure if God can be known to exist. It then summarizes several common arguments against God's existence, such as that religious language is meaningless, human knowledge is limited, the problem of evil, and alleged logical contradictions in the concept of God. It notes that most of these arguments can be refuted, such as that statements against religious knowledge paradoxically make claims to knowledge themselves.
1. Evangelical theology is built on the foundation of supernatural events like creation, Jesus' miracles and resurrection, and his ascension into heaven.
2. There are two definitions of miracles - the weak view that they are unusual but not contrary to nature, and the strong view that they are beyond nature's power and can only be done by God.
3. Miracles have purposes like glorifying God, accrediting his spokespeople, and providing evidence for belief in God. Skeptics argue miracles violate immutable natural laws and that evidence is always greater for regular occurrences than rare ones, but these arguments can be refuted. Believing in miracles is important to theology because
This document discusses different methods used in theology and their proponents. It argues that methodology is important because it determines the conclusions reached. Naturalistic methods will inevitably lead to naturalistic conclusions, while methods open to the supernatural will not rule out supernatural conclusions. It also discusses category mistakes in applying methods from one discipline to another inappropriately. Methods must not be antisupernatural or incompatible with evangelical beliefs to be valid for theology.
This document discusses arguments for and against the existence of God from both a Christian and atheist perspective. It summarizes the views of H.J. McCloskey, an atheist author who argues that there are no undisputed proofs or signs of intelligent design in the world. Christians counter that while proofs have limitations, taking a cumulative case approach provides good reasons to believe in God. The problem of evil and pointless suffering is a major objection of atheism, though Christians believe God allows free will and that evil serves greater purposes unknown to humans. Overall, the document analyzes theological debates around origins and design without making a definite conclusion.
Philosophical arguments for the link between god and moralityRobinHH
This document outlines several philosophical arguments for linking morality and the existence of God, including arguments from Aquinas, Kant, and Socrates. It discusses premises of the arguments, potential problems with the premises, and criticisms of the conclusions. Key points addressed include the divine command theory, the need for an ideal judge to determine right and wrong, and the Euthyphro dilemma of whether God determines what is good or loves what is intrinsically good. The document aims to comprehensively survey the philosophical debate on this issue.
McCloskey argues against several common arguments for the existence of God in his article "On Being an Atheist". He rejects the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments. He also claims that the existence of evil in the world disproves an all-powerful, all-good God. Additionally, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more rational and comforting belief than faith in God. The response paper critiques McCloskey's arguments, pointing out logical flaws and inconsistencies. It defends theistic arguments and addresses the problem of evil by distinguishing types of evil and arguing that moral evil can coexist with free will.
This document discusses philosophical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological and contingency arguments.
1) The cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause, and there must be an uncaused first cause. Some object that an infinite regress of causes is possible or that the first cause need not be God.
2) The contingency argument states that everything that exists is either necessary or contingent. Since not everything can be contingent, there must be some necessary being, which is defined as God. Critics argue that existence is not an attribute and that the whole may not require further explanation beyond contingent parts.
Proofs for the Existence of God PowerpointARH_Miller
The document summarizes three philosophical arguments for the existence of God: the ontological, cosmological, and teleological proofs. It outlines the key premises and conclusions of each proof, and then discusses criticisms of each proof put forth by philosophers David Hume and Charles Darwin. The criticisms question whether the proofs demonstrate a logical necessity of God's existence or merely impose order through human reasoning.
The document discusses atheism, agnosticism, and arguments against the existence of God. It defines atheism as not believing in God and agnosticism as being unsure if God can be known to exist. It then summarizes several common arguments against God's existence, such as that religious language is meaningless, human knowledge is limited, the problem of evil, and alleged logical contradictions in the concept of God. It notes that most of these arguments can be refuted, such as that statements against religious knowledge paradoxically make claims to knowledge themselves.
1. Evangelical theology is built on the foundation of supernatural events like creation, Jesus' miracles and resurrection, and his ascension into heaven.
2. There are two definitions of miracles - the weak view that they are unusual but not contrary to nature, and the strong view that they are beyond nature's power and can only be done by God.
3. Miracles have purposes like glorifying God, accrediting his spokespeople, and providing evidence for belief in God. Skeptics argue miracles violate immutable natural laws and that evidence is always greater for regular occurrences than rare ones, but these arguments can be refuted. Believing in miracles is important to theology because
This document discusses different methods used in theology and their proponents. It argues that methodology is important because it determines the conclusions reached. Naturalistic methods will inevitably lead to naturalistic conclusions, while methods open to the supernatural will not rule out supernatural conclusions. It also discusses category mistakes in applying methods from one discipline to another inappropriately. Methods must not be antisupernatural or incompatible with evangelical beliefs to be valid for theology.
This document discusses arguments for and against the existence of God from both a Christian and atheist perspective. It summarizes the views of H.J. McCloskey, an atheist author who argues that there are no undisputed proofs or signs of intelligent design in the world. Christians counter that while proofs have limitations, taking a cumulative case approach provides good reasons to believe in God. The problem of evil and pointless suffering is a major objection of atheism, though Christians believe God allows free will and that evil serves greater purposes unknown to humans. Overall, the document analyzes theological debates around origins and design without making a definite conclusion.
Philosophical arguments for the link between god and moralityRobinHH
This document outlines several philosophical arguments for linking morality and the existence of God, including arguments from Aquinas, Kant, and Socrates. It discusses premises of the arguments, potential problems with the premises, and criticisms of the conclusions. Key points addressed include the divine command theory, the need for an ideal judge to determine right and wrong, and the Euthyphro dilemma of whether God determines what is good or loves what is intrinsically good. The document aims to comprehensively survey the philosophical debate on this issue.
McCloskey argues against several common arguments for the existence of God in his article "On Being an Atheist". He rejects the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments. He also claims that the existence of evil in the world disproves an all-powerful, all-good God. Additionally, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more rational and comforting belief than faith in God. The response paper critiques McCloskey's arguments, pointing out logical flaws and inconsistencies. It defends theistic arguments and addresses the problem of evil by distinguishing types of evil and arguing that moral evil can coexist with free will.
This document discusses philosophical arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological and contingency arguments.
1) The cosmological argument states that everything that exists has a cause, and there must be an uncaused first cause. Some object that an infinite regress of causes is possible or that the first cause need not be God.
2) The contingency argument states that everything that exists is either necessary or contingent. Since not everything can be contingent, there must be some necessary being, which is defined as God. Critics argue that existence is not an attribute and that the whole may not require further explanation beyond contingent parts.
The document discusses different philosophical positions on the nature of reality - pluralism, which asserts that multiple beings exist, and monism, which argues that all of reality is a single being. It states that theism would take the position of pluralism by asserting that both God and the natural world exist as separate beings. It then provides an overview of several common cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and anthropic arguments for the existence of God.
This document discusses various views of God and identifies problems with views that differ from theism. It defines theism as the view that God created all and is both beyond the world and active within it. Other views addressed include deism, which holds God is beyond the world but not active within; finite godism, where God is limited; atheism, which denies God's existence; pantheism, where God is equivalent to the universe; polytheism; and panentheism. The document also discusses neotheism and identifies logical inconsistencies within that view.
Some thinker has said, ‘A smattering of knowledge
turns people away from God. Grater knowledge
brings them back to Him’. The author concludes in
this book by examining various theories that the
choice humanity have is not between the universe
with God and the universe without God. The real
option is between the universe without God. The
real option is between the universe with God and
no universe at all. Therefore humanity is compelled
to opt for the proposition the universe with God.
Hence it is logical to say l exist, therefore, God exist.
This book proves the existence of God beyond
doubt. After reading it a reader has responded as
fellows?
Thomas Aquinas presented five arguments for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica, known as the Five Ways. This document argues that while Aquinas' logic is valid, his arguments lack empirical evidence. It presents Aquinas' five arguments and notes that upon scrutiny, inconsistencies emerge as he draws massive conclusions without evidence. The document concludes that Aquinas' arguments provide logical basis for the Big Bang Theory but not proof of God's existence on their own without faith or empirical evidence from science.
This document discusses various philosophical arguments that have been used throughout history to provide rational justification for belief in God. It outlines logical proofs put forth by thinkers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, and others. It also examines criticisms of these types of arguments, noting issues like ambiguous premises, dependence on outdated scientific assumptions, and the inability of logic alone to prove empirical claims. The document aims to provide context around the development and critique of different theological proofs and approaches to reasoning about God's existence.
Does Mankind Hunger for the Divine? (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)godknt777
This presentation explores the idea that due to our innate hunger for the transcendent and spiritual, mankind "can't live by bread alone" whether it be through materialism, humanism, or naturalism.
In their writings, even the famous atheists of the past, such as Sartre, Huxley, and Camus admit that there is a thirst and a longing for something beyond this world.
Read it for yourself....
1) St. Thomas Aquinas and others like Aristotle put forth philosophical arguments about the existence of God, drawing on ideas about an uncaused first cause, necessary beings, and maximum perfection.
2) St. Thomas specifically outlined five ways of proving God's existence: from motion, efficient causes, possibility and necessity, gradation, and governance of things.
3) St. Thomas believed that everything in the world is contingent except God, who must be a necessary being without beginning or end in order to explain the existence of contingent beings.
The document discusses different philosophical arguments regarding whether existence can be considered a predicate of God. It summarizes Anselm's ontological argument that God must exist based on the definition of God as "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." It also discusses criticisms of this view from Gaunilo, who argues that greatness does not necessarily imply existence, and from Kant, who argues that existence is not a predicate that provides any information about a concept. The document analyzes both sides of the debate around whether existence can logically be proven to be one of God's predicates.
Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intel...godknt777
Contrary to common opinion, believing in the existence of God is not something which must be left up the "blind faith" or personal subjectivity of the individual.
There are very strong intellectual and logical reasons to believe that God's existence is more plausible than not.
Many features of our reality such as objective morality, biological information, the beginning of the universe, and even human consciousness, that point powerfully and persuasively to God's existence.
For more information and resources like this, go to www.intelligentfaith315.com or to www.youtube.com/user/intelligentfaith315
PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL THEISM: FIVE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE...Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
The document summarizes and critiques five arguments for the existence of God put forth by Dr. William Lane Craig. It analyzes the first argument in particular, which is an argument about the origin of the universe. The document claims this argument commits several fallacies, including equivocating the meaning of "cause" and assuming the universe requires a causal explanation when in fact it may be part of a "closed system" with no need for an external cause. The document argues we have no experience of things truly beginning to exist from nothing, and that nothing in thermodynamics or our observations of causation supports the premise that whatever begins to exist needs a cause. Overall, the document thoroughly critiques this first argument and asserts all
The document discusses the ontological argument for God's existence. It explains Anselm's version of the argument, which claims that God must exist because God is defined as the greatest being conceivable, and a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind. It also discusses criticisms of the argument from philosophers like Gaunilo and Kant, who argue that just because something can be conceived does not mean it exists in reality, and existence is not an attribute that can be derived from a concept alone. Students are tasked with further analyzing and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument.
This document summarizes key aspects of Benedict de Spinoza's metaphysical philosophy as presented in his work Ethics. The summary includes:
1) Spinoza argued for substance monism, that there is only one substance which is God/Nature, and all things are modes or modifications of this one substance.
2) He used various arguments like the ontological, causal, and power arguments to prove the existence of an infinite, eternal substance with all possible attributes.
3) Modes exist as states of the one substance and can be either infinite/eternal or finite/temporal.
4) Spinoza's system is one of strict determinism, where all things are fully determined
This document summarizes Thomas Aquinas' third way argument for the existence of God. It explains that everything in the world is contingent and dependent on outside factors, and these factors are also contingent, requiring an ultimate necessary being (God) that depends on nothing outside itself. The document also discusses how Gottfried Leibniz and J.L. Mackie expanded on the cosmological argument using the principle of sufficient reason and an analogy about a train needing an engine.
Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief Robert Adams [I have.docxmoirarandell
Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief
Robert Adams
[I have discussed the topics of this paper for several years in classes at the
University of Michigan and UCLA, with students and colleagues to whom I am
indebted in more ways than I can now remember. I am particularly grateful to
Thomas E. Hill, Jr., Bernard Kobes, and Barry Miller for their comments on the
penultimate draft.]
Moral arguments were the type of theistic argument most characteristic of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. More recently they have become one of
philosophy's abandoned farms. The fields are still fertile, but they have not
been cultivated systematically since the latest methods came in. The rambling
Victorian farmhouse has not been kept up as well as similar structures, and
people have not been stripping the sentimental gingerbread off the porches to
reveal the clean lines of argument. This paper is intended to contribute to the
remedy of this neglect. It will deal with quite a number of arguments, because I
think we can understand them better if we place them in relation to each other.
This will not leave time to be as subtle, historically or philosophically, as I
would like to be, but I hope I will be able to prove something more than my own
taste for Victoriana.
I
Let us begin with one of the most obvious, though perhaps never the most
fashionable, arguments on the farm: an Argument from the Nature of Right and
Wrong. We believe quite firmly that certain things are morally right and others
are morally wrong (for example, that it is wrong to torture another person to
death just for fun). Questions may be raised about the nature of that which is
believed in these beliefs: what does the rightness or wrongness of an act
consist in? I believe that the most adequate answer is provided by a theory that
entails the existence of God--specifically, by the theory that moral rightness
and wrongness consist in agreement and disagreement, respectively, with the will
or commands of a loving God. One of the most generally accepted reasons for
believing in the existence of anything is that its existence is implied by the
theory that seems to account most adequately for some subject matter. I take it,
therefore, that my metaethical views provide me with a reason of some weight for
believing in the existence of God.
Perhaps some will think it disreputably "tender-minded" to accept such a reason
where the subject matter is moral. It may be suggested that the epistemological
status of moral beliefs is so far inferior to that of physical beliefs, for
example, that any moral belief found to entail the existence of an otherwise
unknown object ought simply to be abandoned. But in spite of the general
uneasiness about morality that pervades our culture, most of us do hold many
moral beliefs with almost the highest degree of confidence. So long as we think
it reasonable to argue at all from grounds that are not absolutely certain,
...
Subjectivism in EthicsJames Rachels&Stuart Rachels.docxpicklesvalery
Subjectivism in Ethics
James Rachels
&
Stuart Rachels
What are morals?
The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no ‘facts,’ and no one is ‘right.’ People just feel differently, and that’s all there is to it.
What are moral truths?
Different from moral standards
Some Implications
It is a fact that the Nazis exterminated millions of innocent people.
According to ethical subjectivism, it is not a fact that what they did was objectively evil.
Some Implications
According to ethical subjectivism, when we say that the actions of the Nazis were evil, we are merely expressing our negative subjective feelings toward them.
The same applies to any moral judgment whatsoever.
The Evolution of the Theory
It began as a simple idea—in the words of David Hume (1711-1776), that morality is a matter of sentiment rather than fact. But as objections were raised to the theory, and as its defenders tried to answer the objections, the theory became more sophisticated.
The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism
When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for Disagreement.
Moral statements simply reflect preference. We cannot disagree about what another person’s sincerely stated preference is.
Falwell: ʺHomosexuality is immoral. The so‐called ʹgay rightsʹ are not rights at all, because immorality is not right.ʺ
Subjectivist: “I agree.” (For the subjectivist, this merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .)
It's very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: marriage. You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not “gay lunch”. I parked my car; I didn't “gay park” it.
Liz Feldman
We seem to experience actual disagreement with others about moral issues.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Implies That We’re Always Right.
So long as people honestly represent their feelings, their moral judgments will always be correct and indisputable.
Falwell: “Homosexuality is immoral.”
Subjectivist: “You’re right.” (For the subjectivist, this still merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .)
We seem to acknowledge moral error in both ourselves and in others.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Moral language is not fact-stating language; it is not used to convey information or to make reports. Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979)
Moral language is instead used as a means of influencing other people’s behavior or expressing one’s own attitudes.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Stevenson: “Any statement about any fact which any speaker considers likely to alte ...
Does God Exist?
Why God Does Not Exist
Does God Exist
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist
Does God Exist Essay
Does God Really Exists? Essay
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist?
Does God Exist? Essay
The document discusses several philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. It outlines the moral, ontological, cosmological, teleological, causal, and pragmatic arguments for God's existence. It also discusses empirical, subjective, and problem of evil arguments against God's existence. The problem of evil argues that the co-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with evil in the world is unlikely or impossible.
This document provides an overview of several arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological, teleological, moral, and conscience arguments. It discusses each argument in 2-3 sentences and also addresses common objections to some of the arguments. The document aims to concisely summarize the key points and structure of several prominent philosophical arguments for believing in God.
Moral relativism asserts there is no absolute moral law, but rather that morality is relative to individuals and cultures. The document examines the claims of moral relativism and argues it cannot provide a satisfactory standard or authority for determining right and wrong. In contrast, the Christian worldview grounds objective morality in the transcendent God, who revealed His moral law for humanity's well-being. Without God, everything is permissible, as existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre acknowledged.
This document provides an overview of the moral law argument for the existence of God. It discusses various formulations of the argument by philosophers such as Hastings Rashdall, W.R. Sorley, Elton Trueblood, Linda Zagzebski, Robert Adams, and Douglas Drabkin. The moral law argument posits that the existence of objective moral absolutes implies a divine moral lawgiver. If there are universal moral truths, they require a transcendent source outside of human subjective opinions and cultural relativism. The document examines different logical formulations of this argument and responses to objections about the possibility of morality without God.
The document discusses different philosophical positions on the nature of reality - pluralism, which asserts that multiple beings exist, and monism, which argues that all of reality is a single being. It states that theism would take the position of pluralism by asserting that both God and the natural world exist as separate beings. It then provides an overview of several common cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and anthropic arguments for the existence of God.
This document discusses various views of God and identifies problems with views that differ from theism. It defines theism as the view that God created all and is both beyond the world and active within it. Other views addressed include deism, which holds God is beyond the world but not active within; finite godism, where God is limited; atheism, which denies God's existence; pantheism, where God is equivalent to the universe; polytheism; and panentheism. The document also discusses neotheism and identifies logical inconsistencies within that view.
Some thinker has said, ‘A smattering of knowledge
turns people away from God. Grater knowledge
brings them back to Him’. The author concludes in
this book by examining various theories that the
choice humanity have is not between the universe
with God and the universe without God. The real
option is between the universe without God. The
real option is between the universe with God and
no universe at all. Therefore humanity is compelled
to opt for the proposition the universe with God.
Hence it is logical to say l exist, therefore, God exist.
This book proves the existence of God beyond
doubt. After reading it a reader has responded as
fellows?
Thomas Aquinas presented five arguments for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica, known as the Five Ways. This document argues that while Aquinas' logic is valid, his arguments lack empirical evidence. It presents Aquinas' five arguments and notes that upon scrutiny, inconsistencies emerge as he draws massive conclusions without evidence. The document concludes that Aquinas' arguments provide logical basis for the Big Bang Theory but not proof of God's existence on their own without faith or empirical evidence from science.
This document discusses various philosophical arguments that have been used throughout history to provide rational justification for belief in God. It outlines logical proofs put forth by thinkers like Aristotle, Aquinas, Anselm, and others. It also examines criticisms of these types of arguments, noting issues like ambiguous premises, dependence on outdated scientific assumptions, and the inability of logic alone to prove empirical claims. The document aims to provide context around the development and critique of different theological proofs and approaches to reasoning about God's existence.
Does Mankind Hunger for the Divine? (by Intelligent Faith 315.com)godknt777
This presentation explores the idea that due to our innate hunger for the transcendent and spiritual, mankind "can't live by bread alone" whether it be through materialism, humanism, or naturalism.
In their writings, even the famous atheists of the past, such as Sartre, Huxley, and Camus admit that there is a thirst and a longing for something beyond this world.
Read it for yourself....
1) St. Thomas Aquinas and others like Aristotle put forth philosophical arguments about the existence of God, drawing on ideas about an uncaused first cause, necessary beings, and maximum perfection.
2) St. Thomas specifically outlined five ways of proving God's existence: from motion, efficient causes, possibility and necessity, gradation, and governance of things.
3) St. Thomas believed that everything in the world is contingent except God, who must be a necessary being without beginning or end in order to explain the existence of contingent beings.
The document discusses different philosophical arguments regarding whether existence can be considered a predicate of God. It summarizes Anselm's ontological argument that God must exist based on the definition of God as "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." It also discusses criticisms of this view from Gaunilo, who argues that greatness does not necessarily imply existence, and from Kant, who argues that existence is not a predicate that provides any information about a concept. The document analyzes both sides of the debate around whether existence can logically be proven to be one of God's predicates.
Is It Possible To Demonstrate That God Exists? - Dr. Norman Geisler (by Intel...godknt777
Contrary to common opinion, believing in the existence of God is not something which must be left up the "blind faith" or personal subjectivity of the individual.
There are very strong intellectual and logical reasons to believe that God's existence is more plausible than not.
Many features of our reality such as objective morality, biological information, the beginning of the universe, and even human consciousness, that point powerfully and persuasively to God's existence.
For more information and resources like this, go to www.intelligentfaith315.com or to www.youtube.com/user/intelligentfaith315
PROBLEMS WITH TRADITIONAL THEISM: FIVE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE...Dr Ian Ellis-Jones
The document summarizes and critiques five arguments for the existence of God put forth by Dr. William Lane Craig. It analyzes the first argument in particular, which is an argument about the origin of the universe. The document claims this argument commits several fallacies, including equivocating the meaning of "cause" and assuming the universe requires a causal explanation when in fact it may be part of a "closed system" with no need for an external cause. The document argues we have no experience of things truly beginning to exist from nothing, and that nothing in thermodynamics or our observations of causation supports the premise that whatever begins to exist needs a cause. Overall, the document thoroughly critiques this first argument and asserts all
The document discusses the ontological argument for God's existence. It explains Anselm's version of the argument, which claims that God must exist because God is defined as the greatest being conceivable, and a being that exists in reality is greater than one that exists only in the mind. It also discusses criticisms of the argument from philosophers like Gaunilo and Kant, who argue that just because something can be conceived does not mean it exists in reality, and existence is not an attribute that can be derived from a concept alone. Students are tasked with further analyzing and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the ontological argument.
This document summarizes key aspects of Benedict de Spinoza's metaphysical philosophy as presented in his work Ethics. The summary includes:
1) Spinoza argued for substance monism, that there is only one substance which is God/Nature, and all things are modes or modifications of this one substance.
2) He used various arguments like the ontological, causal, and power arguments to prove the existence of an infinite, eternal substance with all possible attributes.
3) Modes exist as states of the one substance and can be either infinite/eternal or finite/temporal.
4) Spinoza's system is one of strict determinism, where all things are fully determined
This document summarizes Thomas Aquinas' third way argument for the existence of God. It explains that everything in the world is contingent and dependent on outside factors, and these factors are also contingent, requiring an ultimate necessary being (God) that depends on nothing outside itself. The document also discusses how Gottfried Leibniz and J.L. Mackie expanded on the cosmological argument using the principle of sufficient reason and an analogy about a train needing an engine.
Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief Robert Adams [I have.docxmoirarandell
Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief
Robert Adams
[I have discussed the topics of this paper for several years in classes at the
University of Michigan and UCLA, with students and colleagues to whom I am
indebted in more ways than I can now remember. I am particularly grateful to
Thomas E. Hill, Jr., Bernard Kobes, and Barry Miller for their comments on the
penultimate draft.]
Moral arguments were the type of theistic argument most characteristic of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. More recently they have become one of
philosophy's abandoned farms. The fields are still fertile, but they have not
been cultivated systematically since the latest methods came in. The rambling
Victorian farmhouse has not been kept up as well as similar structures, and
people have not been stripping the sentimental gingerbread off the porches to
reveal the clean lines of argument. This paper is intended to contribute to the
remedy of this neglect. It will deal with quite a number of arguments, because I
think we can understand them better if we place them in relation to each other.
This will not leave time to be as subtle, historically or philosophically, as I
would like to be, but I hope I will be able to prove something more than my own
taste for Victoriana.
I
Let us begin with one of the most obvious, though perhaps never the most
fashionable, arguments on the farm: an Argument from the Nature of Right and
Wrong. We believe quite firmly that certain things are morally right and others
are morally wrong (for example, that it is wrong to torture another person to
death just for fun). Questions may be raised about the nature of that which is
believed in these beliefs: what does the rightness or wrongness of an act
consist in? I believe that the most adequate answer is provided by a theory that
entails the existence of God--specifically, by the theory that moral rightness
and wrongness consist in agreement and disagreement, respectively, with the will
or commands of a loving God. One of the most generally accepted reasons for
believing in the existence of anything is that its existence is implied by the
theory that seems to account most adequately for some subject matter. I take it,
therefore, that my metaethical views provide me with a reason of some weight for
believing in the existence of God.
Perhaps some will think it disreputably "tender-minded" to accept such a reason
where the subject matter is moral. It may be suggested that the epistemological
status of moral beliefs is so far inferior to that of physical beliefs, for
example, that any moral belief found to entail the existence of an otherwise
unknown object ought simply to be abandoned. But in spite of the general
uneasiness about morality that pervades our culture, most of us do hold many
moral beliefs with almost the highest degree of confidence. So long as we think
it reasonable to argue at all from grounds that are not absolutely certain,
...
Subjectivism in EthicsJames Rachels&Stuart Rachels.docxpicklesvalery
Subjectivism in Ethics
James Rachels
&
Stuart Rachels
What are morals?
The Basic Idea of Ethical Subjectivism
People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no ‘facts,’ and no one is ‘right.’ People just feel differently, and that’s all there is to it.
What are moral truths?
Different from moral standards
Some Implications
It is a fact that the Nazis exterminated millions of innocent people.
According to ethical subjectivism, it is not a fact that what they did was objectively evil.
Some Implications
According to ethical subjectivism, when we say that the actions of the Nazis were evil, we are merely expressing our negative subjective feelings toward them.
The same applies to any moral judgment whatsoever.
The Evolution of the Theory
It began as a simple idea—in the words of David Hume (1711-1776), that morality is a matter of sentiment rather than fact. But as objections were raised to the theory, and as its defenders tried to answer the objections, the theory became more sophisticated.
The First Stage: Simple Subjectivism
When a person says that something is morally good or bad, this means that he or she approves of that thing, or disapproves of it, and nothing more.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Cannot Account for Disagreement.
Moral statements simply reflect preference. We cannot disagree about what another person’s sincerely stated preference is.
Falwell: ʺHomosexuality is immoral. The so‐called ʹgay rightsʹ are not rights at all, because immorality is not right.ʺ
Subjectivist: “I agree.” (For the subjectivist, this merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .)
It's very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it: marriage. You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not “gay lunch”. I parked my car; I didn't “gay park” it.
Liz Feldman
We seem to experience actual disagreement with others about moral issues.
Objections to Simple Subjectivism
Simple Subjectivism Implies That We’re Always Right.
So long as people honestly represent their feelings, their moral judgments will always be correct and indisputable.
Falwell: “Homosexuality is immoral.”
Subjectivist: “You’re right.” (For the subjectivist, this still merely means: “It is true that you have feelings of disapproval toward homosexuality.” The subjectivist’s own feelings are irrelevant .)
We seem to acknowledge moral error in both ourselves and in others.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Moral language is not fact-stating language; it is not used to convey information or to make reports. Charles L. Stevenson (1908-1979)
Moral language is instead used as a means of influencing other people’s behavior or expressing one’s own attitudes.
The Second Stage: Emotivism
Stevenson: “Any statement about any fact which any speaker considers likely to alte ...
Does God Exist?
Why God Does Not Exist
Does God Exist
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist
Does God Exist Essay
Does God Really Exists? Essay
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist? Essay
Does God Exist?
Does God Exist? Essay
The document discusses several philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. It outlines the moral, ontological, cosmological, teleological, causal, and pragmatic arguments for God's existence. It also discusses empirical, subjective, and problem of evil arguments against God's existence. The problem of evil argues that the co-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with evil in the world is unlikely or impossible.
This document provides an overview of several arguments for the existence of God, including the cosmological, teleological, moral, and conscience arguments. It discusses each argument in 2-3 sentences and also addresses common objections to some of the arguments. The document aims to concisely summarize the key points and structure of several prominent philosophical arguments for believing in God.
Moral relativism asserts there is no absolute moral law, but rather that morality is relative to individuals and cultures. The document examines the claims of moral relativism and argues it cannot provide a satisfactory standard or authority for determining right and wrong. In contrast, the Christian worldview grounds objective morality in the transcendent God, who revealed His moral law for humanity's well-being. Without God, everything is permissible, as existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre acknowledged.
This document provides an overview of the moral law argument for the existence of God. It discusses various formulations of the argument by philosophers such as Hastings Rashdall, W.R. Sorley, Elton Trueblood, Linda Zagzebski, Robert Adams, and Douglas Drabkin. The moral law argument posits that the existence of objective moral absolutes implies a divine moral lawgiver. If there are universal moral truths, they require a transcendent source outside of human subjective opinions and cultural relativism. The document examines different logical formulations of this argument and responses to objections about the possibility of morality without God.
This document discusses several ethical theories including relativism, cultural relativism, and divine command theory. Relativism holds that morality is based on social norms and there are no absolute moral truths. Cultural relativism says that morality depends on the norms of a particular culture. Divine command theory states that an action is right if it is commanded by God. The document provides examples and analysis of each theory, discussing their strengths and weaknesses in describing ethical decisions. It also addresses interpretations of religious texts and how different groups can understand commands differently.
This document discusses several arguments for and against the existence of God. It begins by outlining the teleological argument, also known as the design argument, which states that the complexity and order in the natural world is evidence of an intelligent designer. However, it notes that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provides an alternative explanation for complexity without needing to invoke a designer. The document then examines additional arguments including the cosmological, ontological, problem of evil, and argument from miracles. For each argument, it outlines the key premises and conclusions as well as some common objections or weaknesses raised in response.
This document summarizes several philosophical arguments for the existence of God put forth by prominent thinkers throughout history. It discusses St. Anselm of Canterbury's ontological argument, Thomas Aquinas' five ways, William Paley's teleological argument, Cardinal Newman's argument from conscience, Blaise Pascal's wager, John Smith's argument from life's crucial junctures, and Rudolf Otto's argument from religious experience. It analyzes the different approaches and perspectives addressed by each argument and emphasizes the importance of building faith on a solid foundation of truly knowing God rather than blindly following what others say.
This was for our Philosophy of Religion examination which required us to explain the arguments that prove God's existence: ontological argument ,cosmological argument ,teleological argument ,argument from conscience ,pragmatic argument ,argument from life’s crucial junctures , and argument from religious experience.
Discoverability Score
The document compares and contrasts theological and secular theories of natural law. Theologically, laws are believed to originate from a divine source like God. Secular theories view laws as originating from human nature and reason, not necessarily from divine commands. While the theories differ in their interpretations of where laws come from, they also share some similarities. Namely, both see laws as derived from nature. More recently, the theological theory has lost credibility as the sole basis for laws due to difficulties adapting divine laws to a changing world and reconciling different religious views of divine law. Overall, the document argues that while both theories remain relevant, the secular theory better accommodates the needs of modern society.
The document provides rational arguments for the existence of God as the creator. It argues that everything in the universe is finite and limited, needing sustenance to exist, so must have been created by something unlimited. It also argues that scientific methods cannot prove or disprove God's existence, as God is not physical or testable. The document concludes that through rational thought, the only solution is that an infinite, eternal creator brought the dependent, finite universe into being.
Human Freedom; Orthodox Trotskyism/Orthodox One World Government, Democracy, ...Mimic Octopus Man
Written Sunday, July 15, 2023Orthodox Trotskyism/Orthodox One World Government And Democracy Supporting Communism/Trade Union Supporting Communism is good.
OrthodoxTrotskyism/OrthodoxOneWorldGovernmentAndDemocracySupportingCommunism/TradeUnionSupportingCommunismcangetridofmoney.OrthodoxTrotskyism/OrthodoxOneWorldGovernmentAndDemocracySupportingCommunism/TradeUnionSupportingCommunismcanmakestufffreelikefood,homes,publictransit,education,andwater.OrthodoxTrotskyism/OrthodoxOneWorldGovernmentAndDemocracySupportingCommunism/TradeUnionSupportingCommunismcandogoodlikeepochrewildinglikePleistocenerewildingandmakingformsoftransportationenvironmentallyalternatefuelsourceslikepropaneandbiodiesel.Nazism/NationalSocialism/HitlersupportingfascismisalsocalledNationalDecayingCapitalism/Naverpi/NationalerverfallenderKapitalismus,NationalNationalDecayingSmithism/Naverthism/NationalerverfallenderSmithismus,NationalBureaucraticStateCapitalism/NationalbürokratischerStaatskapitalismus/Nabürstaatpism.ANazi/NationalSocialist/HitlersupportingfascistisalsocalledaNaverpi/Nabürstaatpi/NationalBureaucraticStateCapitalist/NationalbürokratischerStaatskapitalistNationalTrotskyism/NationalOneWorldGovernmentAndFascistAutocracySupportingCommunism(Russian:Национальныйтроцкизм/Natsional'noyeyedinoyemirovoyepravitel'stvoifashistskayaavtokratiya,podderzhivayushchayakommunizm,German:NationalerTrotzkismus),whosesupportersareknownasNationalTrotskyists(Russian:Национал-троцкисты,German:NationaleTrotzkisten )alsocolloquiallyknownasNavertpTrotsandNazTrots(Russian:Natsional-trotskisty/ ),[1]isasyncreticpoliticalmovementcombinesfascism/decayingcapitalism/decayingSmithism,ultranationalismandTrotskyism/orthodoxoneworldgovernmentanddemocracysupportingcommunism/orthodoxoneworldgovernmentanddemocracysupportingsocialism.NationalTrotskyismisevil.YaldabothcouldbeaNazTrot.Yaldabothcouldbegoodandevil.EvilLucifercouldalsobeaNazTrot.EvilLucifercouldbegoodandevil.YaldabothandevilLuciferopposeeachother.TheywanttobetheDux/ChiefoftheUnitedNazTrotStatesofthePlaces/NazTrotCreation.NationalBolshevismisalsocalledNationalStalinism,NationalBureaucraticStateCapitalism,NationalBureaucraticStateSmithism,andNationalBureaucraticCollectivism.NazbolsarearealsocalledNaverpStalsandNazStals.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_BolshevismTheNazTrotswantaNaziTrotoneworldgovernment.TheNazStalswantNazStalinisminonecountry.Evileconomicsystems,likecapitalism/Smithismlikecentristneoliberalcapitalism/Smithismandconservativecapitalism/Smithism,fascism/Mussolinism/Hitlerlism/Stalinism,JosephStalinsupportingbureaucraticstatecapitalism/Smithism,NationalStalinism/NationalBolshevism,andNationalTrotskyismwon'tbringhumanfreedom.WrittenSep12,2023YaldabaothistheOldTestamentGod.TheMonad/NewTestamentGodisgood.TheMonad/NewTestamentGodisaTrotskyist.TheMonad/NewTestamentGodistheUniverse.https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/16e41y9/who_is_the_one_god_according_tto_extraterrestrials/?rdt=5406
Este documento fornece informações sobre direitos autorais e dados técnicos de um livro. Resume que o livro é disponibilizado gratuitamente para pesquisa e estudo, sendo proibida sua venda ou uso comercial. Também apresenta a equipe responsável pela publicação e distribuição do conteúdo de forma gratuita, visando tornar o conhecimento acessível.
O documento apresenta informações sobre direitos autorais de uma obra disponibilizada gratuitamente para pesquisa e estudo acadêmico, mas proíbe o uso comercial. Também descreve a equipe que disponibiliza o conteúdo de forma gratuita para promover o acesso ao conhecimento.
This document is the introduction to The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, edited by Michael Shermer. It discusses the relationship between facts and theories in science. The introduction cites a quote from Charles Darwin about how observations must be viewed through theoretical lenses to be useful. It notes that science blends data and theory, and that viewing science as too rigidly empirical or relativistic are extremes. The goal of the encyclopedia is to explore areas where science and pseudoscience intersect, with the understanding that theories and biases shape how data is interpreted.
O documento discute a história do uso da hipnose em crenças e religiões ao longo da história. Xamãs, sacerdotes egípcios, médicos gregos e yoguis praticavam técnicas como ritmos monótonos, visualização e sugestão para induzir pacientes a estados alterados de consciência, que eram vistos como formas de cura ou comunicação espiritual. Essas práticas precursoras da hipnose moderna foram amplamente utilizadas no passado por diferentes tradições religiosas.
This document does not provide any apparent essential information in 3 sentences or less. It consists of a series of blank lines without any text content.
1. O autor resume o Argumento Cosmológico de Kalam em duas partes, tentando mostrar que o universo teve uma causa e que essa causa foi Deus.
2. O autor levanta objeções a ambas as partes do argumento, questionando se a premissa de que tudo que começa a existir tem uma causa é válida para eventos no início do tempo e se o argumento realmente mostra que a causa foi uma pessoa.
3. O autor critica os argumentos filosóficos usados para rejeitar a possibilidade de um passado infinit
1) O documento discute o problema do mal, especificamente a visão de que a existência de Deus é logicamente incompatível com a existência do mal no mundo. 2) Existem duas formas do problema do mal - a forma lógica e a forma indiciária. 3) A forma lógica alega que afirmar a existência de Deus e do mal é logicamente inconsistente, enquanto a forma indiciária alega que a abundância do mal fornece evidências para o ateísmo.
This document summarizes Quentin Smith's argument that the universe causes itself. It presents two key ideas:
1) The "entailment argument" claims that while individual states of the universe are caused by earlier states, the existence of the whole universe is logically entailed by the existence and causal explanation of its parts.
2) Even if the universe began a finite time ago in the Big Bang, each instantaneous state is preceded by and caused by earlier states. Therefore, the finitely old universe still causes itself through the causal relationship between successive states from the Big Bang to the present.
The kalam cosmological argument attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, and therefore the universe must have a cause (God). However, this argument faces several counterarguments, including that it is circular, equivocates on key terms, commits special pleading for God, assumes only one cause is possible, and commits the fallacy of composition by treating the universe as just another "thing" rather than the totality of all things. Overall, the kalam argument is an example of attempting to prove God through logic alone without empirical evidence to support its premises.
Describing and Interpreting an Immersive Learning Case with the Immersion Cub...Leonel Morgado
Current descriptions of immersive learning cases are often difficult or impossible to compare. This is due to a myriad of different options on what details to include, which aspects are relevant, and on the descriptive approaches employed. Also, these aspects often combine very specific details with more general guidelines or indicate intents and rationales without clarifying their implementation. In this paper we provide a method to describe immersive learning cases that is structured to enable comparisons, yet flexible enough to allow researchers and practitioners to decide which aspects to include. This method leverages a taxonomy that classifies educational aspects at three levels (uses, practices, and strategies) and then utilizes two frameworks, the Immersive Learning Brain and the Immersion Cube, to enable a structured description and interpretation of immersive learning cases. The method is then demonstrated on a published immersive learning case on training for wind turbine maintenance using virtual reality. Applying the method results in a structured artifact, the Immersive Learning Case Sheet, that tags the case with its proximal uses, practices, and strategies, and refines the free text case description to ensure that matching details are included. This contribution is thus a case description method in support of future comparative research of immersive learning cases. We then discuss how the resulting description and interpretation can be leveraged to change immersion learning cases, by enriching them (considering low-effort changes or additions) or innovating (exploring more challenging avenues of transformation). The method holds significant promise to support better-grounded research in immersive learning.
The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defectsSérgio Sacani
Assuming spherical symmetry and weak field, it is shown that if one solves the Poisson equation or the Einstein field
equations sourced by a topological defect, i.e. a singularity of a very specific form, the result is a localized gravitational
field capable of driving flat rotation (i.e. Keplerian circular orbits at a constant speed for all radii) of test masses on a thin
spherical shell without any underlying mass. Moreover, a large-scale structure which exploits this solution by assembling
concentrically a number of such topological defects can establish a flat stellar or galactic rotation curve, and can also deflect
light in the same manner as an equipotential (isothermal) sphere. Thus, the need for dark matter or modified gravity theory is
mitigated, at least in part.
When I was asked to give a companion lecture in support of ‘The Philosophy of Science’ (https://shorturl.at/4pUXz) I decided not to walk through the detail of the many methodologies in order of use. Instead, I chose to employ a long standing, and ongoing, scientific development as an exemplar. And so, I chose the ever evolving story of Thermodynamics as a scientific investigation at its best.
Conducted over a period of >200 years, Thermodynamics R&D, and application, benefitted from the highest levels of professionalism, collaboration, and technical thoroughness. New layers of application, methodology, and practice were made possible by the progressive advance of technology. In turn, this has seen measurement and modelling accuracy continually improved at a micro and macro level.
Perhaps most importantly, Thermodynamics rapidly became a primary tool in the advance of applied science/engineering/technology, spanning micro-tech, to aerospace and cosmology. I can think of no better a story to illustrate the breadth of scientific methodologies and applications at their best.
hematic appreciation test is a psychological assessment tool used to measure an individual's appreciation and understanding of specific themes or topics. This test helps to evaluate an individual's ability to connect different ideas and concepts within a given theme, as well as their overall comprehension and interpretation skills. The results of the test can provide valuable insights into an individual's cognitive abilities, creativity, and critical thinking skills
Phenomics assisted breeding in crop improvementIshaGoswami9
As the population is increasing and will reach about 9 billion upto 2050. Also due to climate change, it is difficult to meet the food requirement of such a large population. Facing the challenges presented by resource shortages, climate
change, and increasing global population, crop yield and quality need to be improved in a sustainable way over the coming decades. Genetic improvement by breeding is the best way to increase crop productivity. With the rapid progression of functional
genomics, an increasing number of crop genomes have been sequenced and dozens of genes influencing key agronomic traits have been identified. However, current genome sequence information has not been adequately exploited for understanding
the complex characteristics of multiple gene, owing to a lack of crop phenotypic data. Efficient, automatic, and accurate technologies and platforms that can capture phenotypic data that can
be linked to genomics information for crop improvement at all growth stages have become as important as genotyping. Thus,
high-throughput phenotyping has become the major bottleneck restricting crop breeding. Plant phenomics has been defined as the high-throughput, accurate acquisition and analysis of multi-dimensional phenotypes
during crop growing stages at the organism level, including the cell, tissue, organ, individual plant, plot, and field levels. With the rapid development of novel sensors, imaging technology,
and analysis methods, numerous infrastructure platforms have been developed for phenotyping.
Or: Beyond linear.
Abstract: Equivariant neural networks are neural networks that incorporate symmetries. The nonlinear activation functions in these networks result in interesting nonlinear equivariant maps between simple representations, and motivate the key player of this talk: piecewise linear representation theory.
Disclaimer: No one is perfect, so please mind that there might be mistakes and typos.
dtubbenhauer@gmail.com
Corrected slides: dtubbenhauer.com/talks.html
Travis Hills' Endeavors in Minnesota: Fostering Environmental and Economic Pr...Travis Hills MN
Travis Hills of Minnesota developed a method to convert waste into high-value dry fertilizer, significantly enriching soil quality. By providing farmers with a valuable resource derived from waste, Travis Hills helps enhance farm profitability while promoting environmental stewardship. Travis Hills' sustainable practices lead to cost savings and increased revenue for farmers by improving resource efficiency and reducing waste.
Immersive Learning That Works: Research Grounding and Paths ForwardLeonel Morgado
We will metaverse into the essence of immersive learning, into its three dimensions and conceptual models. This approach encompasses elements from teaching methodologies to social involvement, through organizational concerns and technologies. Challenging the perception of learning as knowledge transfer, we introduce a 'Uses, Practices & Strategies' model operationalized by the 'Immersive Learning Brain' and ‘Immersion Cube’ frameworks. This approach offers a comprehensive guide through the intricacies of immersive educational experiences and spotlighting research frontiers, along the immersion dimensions of system, narrative, and agency. Our discourse extends to stakeholders beyond the academic sphere, addressing the interests of technologists, instructional designers, and policymakers. We span various contexts, from formal education to organizational transformation to the new horizon of an AI-pervasive society. This keynote aims to unite the iLRN community in a collaborative journey towards a future where immersive learning research and practice coalesce, paving the way for innovative educational research and practice landscapes.
1. Moral argument
Jesus and Mo lampoons one of the problems with the moral argument.
The simplest form of the moral argument is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, morality does not exist.
2. Morality exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.
This is a deductively valid argument, which is to say if its premises are true its conclusion cannot be
false. The key question is whether or not the premises are true.
The first premise is by far the most often-disputed premise in the argument. While many religious
believers take the first premise for granted, the reasons for thinking it true are not clear, and there are
some serious objections to it.
Contents
[hide]
1 Arguments for the first premise
o 1.1 Famous atheists rejected morality
o 1.2 Hitler and Stalin were atheists
o 1.3 If God does not exist, humans are just animals
o 1.4 Moral law requires a Lawgiver
o 1.5 God's rewards and punishments needed to make morality in one's own self interest
o 1.6 Absolute morality requires an absolute standard
2 Arguments against the first premise
2. o 2.1 Circular definition/no definition of "moral"
o 2.2 The Euthyphro dilemma
o 2.3 Moral truths as necessary truths
o 2.4 Which God?
o 2.5 Naturalistic pantheism
o 2.6 Argument is self-refuting
o 2.7 Argument from Ignorance
o 2.8 Heaven precludes genuine charity
2.8.1 Premises
2.8.2 Argument
2.8.3 Therefore
o 2.9 Secular morality
3 Other formulations of the moral argument
o 3.1 Normativity of morality
o 3.2 Counter-apologetic responses to normativity
o 3.3 The Immoral Imperative
4 References
5 External Link
Arguments for the first premise
Famous atheists rejected morality
Though this line of argumentation is popular among religious apologists, it clearly commits the fallacy
of appealing to authority, and that is not its only problem. Many nontheists who have rejected
conventional views of morality have done so on grounds independent of their views on the existence
of God. Also, it requires selectively quoting authorities, because many nontheists--indeed, many
theists--have rejected the first premise of the moral argument. Finally, it is trivially easy to construct a
similar argument against theism, for example: "John Calvin did not believe in free will, therefore 'If
God exists, free will does not exist,' but free will does exist, therefore God does not exist." Even if
3. Calvin had good arguments for his stance on free will being entailed by theism, non-Calvinistic
theists will not be swayed by the mere citation of Calvin's authority, nor should they be.
Hitler and Stalin were atheists
Main article: 20th century atrocities
The basic fallacy of this argument is similar to the one in the first, though it could be considered an
example of guilt by association rather than an appeal to authority. Furthermore, the historical
accuracy of the argument can be questioned. Hitler's theistic proclamations are well documented,
[1] and anti-religious quotes attributed to him are apparently inauthentic. He seems to have held to
basic doctrines of Christianity, in spite of rather unorthodox changes, such as his belief that Jesus
was an Aryan and Paul corrupted Christianity with proto-Bolshevism. Stalin was an atheist, but given
that this is one of many beliefs he held, it is unclear why his actions should be attributed to his
atheism. For example, though many would be surprised by this, Stalin opposed mainstream theories
of evolution on the grounds that they were too capitalistic. Stalin's rejection of evolution could just as
easily be named the source of his crimes as his rejection of God, and indeed his rejection of
evolution arguably sheds more light on the ideological dogmatism at the heart of the Soviet regime.
If God does not exist, humans are just animals
One snappy response to this argument is "Humans are animals whether or not God exists," which
has indeed been the consensus view among taxonomists since Aristotle. Though this point may
seem trivial, beneath it is the deeper point that it is hard to see how God's existing or not existing
changes the status of humans. If the theist insists on claiming that human beings are worthless on
their innate attributes alone, it is hard to see how God could change this situation; see Appeal to
emotion. It also rests on the assumption that animals do (or would) not have any sort of relationship
with or ability to worship a god. While this may be the case, we do not and can not know this for
certain. The truth is however that humans are animals, and just because this fact may not be liked by
some does not make it any less true. In addition one could ask “so what? Why presuppose that
being an animal is a bad thing?”
Moral law requires a Lawgiver
Though we sometimes use the same words to talk about moral principles and human legislation,
closer inspection calls into doubt the claim that there is a strong analogy between them. Human laws
can be changed if the government wills it and follows correct procedures, but moral principles are
typically thought to be unchanging. Also, it is possible to have a bad human law, but it is impossible
to have a bad moral principle. In response to this second argument, it could be claimed that amoral
laws are analogous to acts of a lower body that violate acts of a higher body which the lower body is
responsible. This seems intuitively wrong, however: the wrong in a national law relegating part of the
population to sub-human status seems very different, and more serious, than the wrong in a local law
that contradicts a state. This argument is built on an equivocation, and is fallacious on those grounds.
4. God's rewards and punishments needed to make morality in one's
own self interest
Usually, this argument is not stated so baldly. A more typical statement is "we admire people who
sacrifice their lives for others, but if there is no God who rewards self-sacrifice, then such people are
being stupid." When the underlying assumption is stated explicitly, most people recoil. Most people
do not believe that the ultimate maxim by which we should act is "look out only for your own self
interest." Though such a view is technically an ethical theory (known to philosophers as ethical
egoism), it is not what most people mean when they talk about morality. It seems that if ethical
egoism is true, then the second premise of the moral argument is false, at least in the normally
understood sense.
Absolute morality requires an absolute standard
Statements of this argument are often unclear, but it seems to rest on an equivocation of the term
"absolute," in much the same way that the Lawgiver argument rests on an equivocation of the term
"law." The two relevant senses here are "applicable in all cases" (a characteristic typically applied to
moral principles) and "omnipotent, omniscient, etc." (a characteristic typically assigned to God).
There is no reason to think that the first sense entails the second sense.
Arguments against the first premise
Circular definition/no definition of "moral"
A common understanding of "moral" is assumed - why? The word "moral" should be defined as soon
as it's introduced - this definition can't include reference to a god without the argument becoming
circular, and if it doesn't include reference to a god, then in what sense is a god necessary for the
concept?
For example, why does the apologist consider rape to be wrong (assumning they do)? "It is contrary
to God's nature" is begging the question; "because the victim suffers needlessly" would require
subsequent proof that the victim wouldn't suffer in a godless universe. ("There wouldn't be a universe
at all without a god" and the argument folds into First Cause et al.)
The Euthyphro dilemma
This is perhaps the most famous objection to the second premise. The Euthyphro dilemma is found
in Plato's Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks the question, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it
is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" In layman's terms this would be, "Is that
which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?" Both
options are problematic for those who would claim morality is dependent upon God.
If God is free to decide what is good, and it is good by virtue of his decree, then God has no higher
standard to answer to. Therefore his will may be seen as genuinely arbitrary. Although God once
decreed that murder and theft are morally wrong, he might have declared the opposite just as easily,
5. so then murder and theft would be right. This makes morality arbitrary, not what most theists mean to
say in articulating the second premise of the moral argument.
If right and wrong are inherent to the action, regardless of God's decree, then God has nothing to do
with the process. God doesn't set moral standards; he follows them, and is therefore irrelevant to
morality (except to the extent that he can tell us things which we could not figure out for ourselves.)
If goodness is not something that a god exhibits, but something of which the god is the source, the
statement "god is good" becomes a meaningless tautology. Consider the property "tastes like an
apple". Many things that aren't apples exhibit this quality, but what does it mean to say that
an apple tastes like an apple? Nothing; it simply cannot be any other way. Similarly, defining god as
the source of the property "goodness", then applying that property back to god, is equivalent to
saying "god is consistent with his own nature", which tells us nothing.
An effective summary of the argument was given by Bertrand Russell:
"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and
wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to
God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a
significant statement to say that God is good."
— Why I Am Not a Christian
One perceived way to get out of the dilemma is to say that,
although God has the freedom to command immoral acts such as
rape, he would never do such a thing because it goes against his
character or nature.
In response, Michael Martin has argued that this doesn't solve
anything because the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of
God's character: "Is God's character the way it is because it is
good or is God's character good simply because it is God's
character?"[2] The structure of this modified dilemma is exactly the
same as before, and it appears to be if anything harder to escape.
Another counter to ED is to take "good" outside the scope of
command/endorsement and tie it to god's nature, as in "it is in
god's nature that murder is wrong". However, the nature of X is
intrinsic, applying only to X. "It is diamond's nature to be hard" is
only meaningful when diamond's scratching other materials is
being considered, and it is meaningless otherwise; diamond's hard
nature has nothing to do with sapphire scratching quartz, for
example. A theistic god is separate from the universe, so if Dave
6. murders John, how can god's nature have any bearing on the
situation?
Moral truths as necessary truths
Richard Swinburne, a theistic philosopher, has argued that moral
truths cannot depend on God because moral truths are necessary
truths, existing in all possible worlds, including ones where God
does not exist. This objection of Swinburne's was cited by Jeffery
Jay Lowder in Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes.[3] Keith
Yandell, another theistic philosopher, raised a similar objection in
his comments on the Craig-Flew debate.
Which God?
Main Article: Which God?
This argument does not specify a particular God which is the
source of a true objective moral standard. Even if one
accepted the argument, one would be forced to decide which
religion to follow by some other means. If one can determine
which God is the "true" God without using this argument,
how is the argument necessary in the first place?
Alternatively, if one cannot rationally find the correct religion,
the argument undermines its own respect towards objective
morality, by suggesting that morality comes from a source
we cannot recognize. While this does not mean that the
argument is false, it does imply that human beings can never
legitimately understand whether they are acting rightly or
wrongly.
Incidentally we can also ask, Which morality? Christian
morality changes with history and varies according to which
Christian individual or which Christian sect is interpreting
Christianity.
Naturalistic pantheism
Many atheists like to state that they are technically
naturalistic pantheists, meaning that they believe that God is
the universe, but in a way that rejects supernatural or
paranormal elements.
7. Based on this, one can assert that there is, in fact, a Godly
morality, but that the definition of God is the natural universe,
and, therefore, morality is both objective and superior to
human morality.
Argument is self-refuting
One can argue that if God does not exist, an objectively
provable existence of objective morality does not exist, and
an objective need for objective morality to exist does not
exist. Hence, the atheistic situation is no longer problematic.
The argument boils down to "objective morals exist,
therefore god exists". Thus, the proposed definition of
"moral" must simultaneously OMIT god (so the argument
isn't circular, god being the conclusion) and REQUIRE god
(in order to reach the conclusion at all). This is logically
impossible.
Another way to look at it is, regardless of whether or not the
premises have/require god or omit god, the argument is
doomed to fail. If the premises have god in the sense of a
being then the argument is circular, if the premises have god
as a concept or omit god then the argument is invalid:
If the premises have god (the being) then the argument
becomes circular because god the being, what the argument
is trying to prove, is assumed as a premise.
If the premises have only the concept of god and not the
being god, then the argument becomes an invalid argument
of false equivocation. The premises have god in the sense of
a mere concept, and the conclusion has god in the sense of
an actual being. The two are not equivocal. For example the
mere concept of a dragon is not equal to a real dragon. So
no matter what the premises prove about the concept of god,
it would not necessarily follow from those premises that there
is an actual god. In other words, it is possible for the
premises to prove something about the concept of god and
thus be true but it can still be false that god as an actual
being exists.
8. If the premises have nothing to do with god, then the
argument has no validity because god is not a valid inference
from the premises.
Argument from Ignorance
The moral argument is also one from ignorance. Even if
objective moral values and duties were proven to exist
100%, it doesn't follow that a god put them there. It may, for
all we know have been aliens who put them there. Just
because we don't know where morality came from, doesn't
mean we should presuppose a god did it. This argument, in
some ways therefore falls under the same category as the
Teleological and Cosmological arguments.
Heaven precludes genuine charity
If there is an omnipotent and perfectly just God and an
everlasting reward, there is no reason to act morally except
to secure one's own well-being in the afterlife, i.e. loving your
brother can only be a rational means to one's own ends not
the well-being of one's brother.
Premises
1. If all else being equal my actions cause you to
forego a good I have wronged you.
2. Heaven is a good that outweighs all Earthly goods.
3. In a perfectly just world, any wrong done to a
person that can be compensated will be
compensated.
4. God desires a perfectly just world.
5. God is omnipotent, therefore capable of
compensating any wrong.
Argument
1. If my actions caused you to forego Heaven (for
example by convincing you to reject God or seeing
that you die before repenting) you would be
wronged. (Premises 1, 2)
9. 2. God desires to compensate any wrong. (Premises
3, 4)
3. God would compensate you for that wrong.
(Premise 5, Argument 2)
4. No action of mine can deny you a good that makes
all others trivial or otherwise affect your ultimate
well-being. (Arguments 1, 3)
5. No action of mine can deny you Heaven or
otherwise affect your ultimate well-being. (Permise
2, Argument 4)
Therefore
My actions are irrelevant to your ultimate well-being
(Argument 5) assuming a just God and an eternal reward
(Premises 1-5).
Secular morality
Main article: Secular morality
Finally, it can in general be claimed that there is a
specific, well-founded theory of morality that leaves
God out of the picture. This is a complex topic and is
dealt with in full by the above-linked article. One thing
is worth noting here: some theists appear to think that it
constitutes a valid link in the moral argument to simply
demand a secular theory of morality without giving any
reason to think that theistic theories are more likely to
be successful. This is clearly fallacious, and debaters
should not fall into this trap. Meta-ethics, like most
areas of philosophy, has unresolved debates, but
pointing to an unresolved philosophical debate is no
argument for the existence of God. To show that the
moral argument is unsuccessful, one need only show
that we should not accept the second premise. Full
development of secular theory of morality may be
helpful here, but it is not necessary.
10. Other formulations of the moral
argument
Normativity of morality
This formulation of the moral argument relies on the
assumption of normativity, that is to say, that the
awareness of morality is a more or less universal
experience among humans. Most people recognize
that, for example, murder is wrong. From there, a theist
claims that this universal awareness must come from
some ultimate source, which is God.
To put it concisely:
1. It appears to human beings that moral
normativity exists.
2. The best explanation of moral normativity is
that it is grounded in God.
3. Therefore God exists.
This version of the moral argument may sometimes be
used by theists as red herring when responding to
arguments about the moral nature of God. For
instance, a person who points out the inherent cruelty
of exterminating 99% of the earth's population, as in
the story of Noah's ark, or takes issue with the
apparent Biblical support of slavery and rape, may
quickly expect to be countered with this claim:
"You recognize mass murder/slavery/rape as
a bad thing, so you must have some standard to judge
that against. If there was no God, then you'd have no
rational reason to say that those things aren't good."
Counter-apologetic responses to
normativity
1. Although the awareness of SOME sort of right
and wrong is apparently universal, many
specific details differ across cultures and time
periods. In the case of slavery, for example,
11. the practice was once universally accepted in
the southern United States, and many anti-abolitionists
even quoted the Bible to justify
the practice. (See the main slavery article for
more details.) This indicates that morality has
a strong cultural component to it, and is tied
up in evolving notions of secular morality.
In fact, this serves as an argument against the
existence of God.
Moral-Knowledge Argument
A recently proposed atheological argument is the
Moral-Knowledge Argument, which can be expressed
as follows: If the theists' version of god exists, then he
is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and
benevolent. Since this god is benevolent and his ethics
are supposedly morally good for humanity, he would
want all human beings to know his ethics perfectly. And
since this god is omnipotent, it would be within his
capacity to make sure that all human beings know his
ethics perfectly. However, all human beings do not
know his ethics perfectly, which is shown by their
disagreeing about many moral values. Therefore, this
version of god does not exist.
1. Other human perceptions also have the
appearance of being normative. For instance,
most people agree that chocolate is
"delicious," while dirt is "not delicious." By the
same reasoning as the argument from
normative morality, it could be said that there
must be some ultimate standard for
deliciousness, and that standard must be
God, the ultimate tasty treat. We could use a
similar argument to prove that God is the
definition of the perfect homosexual lover.
12. 2. The fact that there may be an abstract
standard of perfect goodness that an
individual strives to achieve, does not indicate
that this standard represents an existing
object. For example, golfing a perfect game
would yield a score of 18. However, even
though no one in history has ever golfed an
18, this is the the best attainable score
according to the rules of the game. It is quite
possible to have a theoretical ideal, yet not
have any concrete instance of that ideal.
Therefore, we could say: "Yes, this thing that
you call 'God' could be our standard for
morality. However, this tells us nothing about
whether or not God exists."
The Immoral Imperative
1. Christians are called to evangelize and share
the gospel as a command from God. The
mercy of God is shared for the purpose of
conversion which treats people as a means.
According to Kant, treating anyone as a
means rather than an end in themselves is
immoral, therefore, Christians are immoral as
is the command.
A possible solution to this dilemma is in reassessing
the command from God. If the gospel of Christianity is
not specifically for the sake of the gospel itself, nor is it
a means to God's end, but rather is the means by
which a person's life is improved, the individual
becomes the end, thus making it moral under the
Kantian mindset. The person "receiving" the
evangelism (i.e. the gospel) is treated justly insofar as
her personal improvement is the goal. This solution can
only be upheld if the reality of "salvation" is in fact the
reality of a better life.
References
13. Stan W. Wallace, ed. Does God Exist?: The Craig-
Flew Debate. Ashgate, 2003.
Richard Swinburne. The Existence of God. Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Richard C. Carrier. 'Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling
Finds.' German Studies Review 26.3 (Oct 2003):
561-76.
External Link
Full text of the Euthyphro dialogue by Plato
Moral Arguments for the Existence of God
[4 ]
v · d Arguments for the existence of god
Anthropic arguments Anthropic principle · Natural-law argument
Arguments for belief Pascal's Wager · Argument from faith · Just hit your
knees
Christological arguments
Christological argument · Argument from biblical
miracles · Would someone die for a lie? · Liar, Lunatic or
Lord
Cosmological arguments
Cosmological argument · Fine-tuning argument · First
cause argument · Kalam · Uncaused cause · Unmoved
mover
Majority arguments Argumentum ad populum · Argument from admired
religious scientists
Moral arguments Moral argument · Argument from justice · Divine
command theory
Ontological argument Ontological argument · Argument from
degree · Argument from goodness · Argument from desire
Reformed epistemology Argument from divine sense · Sensus divinitatis
Teleological arguments Argument from design · Banana argument · 747 Junkyard
14. argument · Laminin argument
Testimonial arguments
Personal revelation · Argument from observed
miracles · Argument from personal
experience · Consciousness argument for the existence of
God · Emotional pleas
Transcendental
arguments Transcendental argument · God created numbers
Biblical arguments Biblical knowledge of round earth before science
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument