Uyi Iredia:

It does. We infer this because we know morality isn't a property of physical matter it is an aspect of intelligence.

.

If God is the moral giver, then he isn't necessarily bound by his moral Rules, hence free to commit/perpetuate the most appalling immoral atrocities. So God cannot be morally good because that would imply some adherence to his own rules/commands

Kay 17:

If God is the moral giver, then he isn't necessarily bound by his moral Rules, hence free to commit/perpetuate the most appalling immoral atrocities. So God cannot be morally good because that would imply some adherence to his own rules/commands

Wrong turn my friend. God is not bound by any rules towards man or anyone else. God has a character and that character is the basis for morality i.e. God's nature is good. Good is not something separate from God to which He must strive to attain. . . . . .good itself is based on God's nature.

Uyi Iredia: I don't even see why this argument should be. David Hume's quote sums it up quite nicely: 'You can't get an ought from an is.' Matter on its own lacks the intelligence (which is an abstract thing). So we take the other possibility that an intelligent being endowed man with his known capacity for ascribing morality to various instances.

Beautiful, just beautiful......but as usual, our resident atheist apologist missed it.

Mr_Anony:
Wrong turn my friend. God is not bound by any rules towards man or anyone else. God has a character and that character is the basis for morality i.e. God's nature is good. Good is not something separate from God to which He must strive to attain. . . . . .good itself is based on God's nature.

However God is free-willed and omnipotent, and therefore has the capacity for evil. Except we label all that he does as good.

Kay 17:

However God is free-willed and omnipotent, and therefore has the capacity for evil. Except we label all that he does as good.

Interesting........let me put it to you like this: If you were the only being in the universe, can your actions be classified as good or evil?

^^^

Without any reference to some moral code? Nope.

Logicboy03:



Look....I am restraining myself from abusing you.



Your comment can be summarized like this;

Uyi Iredia; I dont believe in evolution bla-bla-bla

As usual you have nothing tangible to offer.

Mr_Anony:
Beautiful, just beautiful......but as usual, our resident atheist apologist missed it.

I have come to expect that from them.

Uyi Iredia: I don't even see why this argument should be. David Hume's quote sums it up quite nicely: 'You can't get an ought from an is.' Matter on its own lacks the intelligence (which is an abstract thing). So we take the other possibility that an intelligent being endowed man with his known capacity for ascribing morality to various instances.

Mr_Anony:
Beautiful, just beautiful......but as usual, our resident atheist apologist missed it.

Uyi Iredia:

I have come to expect that from them.

Typical of apologist christians. They copy arguments that they think destroys the atheist position. You people dont understand Hume.


[size=14pt]Misconception

The is-ought distinction is sometimes misconstrued to mean that facts are totally disconnected from ethical statements, or that there is no relationship at all between is and ought. As can be seen, Hume does not argue this position, but states that a factual statement (or "is" needs to be combined with an ethical principle or assumption before an ethical statement (or "ought" can be derived[/size]



Who has been using facts to explain morality here? The person who says that we as humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality or the person that uses a hypothesis (presupposition of God) to argue that morality comes from God?

Logicboy03:








Typical of apologist christians. They copy arguments that they think destroys the atheist position. You people dont understand Hume.


[size=14pt]Misconception

The is-ought distinction is sometimes misconstrued to mean that facts are totally disconnected from ethical statements, or that there is no relationship at all between is and ought. As can be seen, Hume does not argue this position, but states that a factual statement (or "is" needs to be combined with an ethical principle or assumption before an ethical statement (or "ought" can be derived[/size]



Who has been using facts to explain morality here? The person who says that we as humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality or the person that uses a hypothesis (presupposition of God) to argue that morality comes from God?

In other words, morality is an empirical fact?!

Kay 17:

In other words, morality is an empirical fact?!

The evolution of certain ethical behaviours is fact.


Morality is a different thing

Logicboy03:








Typical of apologist christians. They copy arguments that they think destroys the atheist position. You people dont understand Hume.


[size=14pt]Misconception

The is-ought distinction is sometimes misconstrued to mean that facts are totally disconnected from ethical statements, or that there is no relationship at all between is and ought. As can be seen, Hume does not argue this position, but states that a factual statement (or "is" needs to be combined with an ethical principle or assumption before an ethical statement (or "ought" can be derived[/size]



Who has been using facts to explain morality here? The person who says that we as humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality or the person that uses a hypothesis (presupposition of God) to argue that morality comes from God?

Logicboy is really amusing...

Observe...........

The Christian theist argument:

IS - Objective moral values exist.
Ethical principle - The nature/character of God manifest in the life of Jesus Christ.
OUGHT - We ought to live like Christ

Compare with the argument Logicboy is trying to make:

IS - Objective moral values exist
IS - Moral values evolved
OUGHT- Therefore we are supposed to act a certain way

What are the ethical principles of evolution? how do you jump from the fact that moral values evolved to we ought to adhere to.....WHAT?

Kay 17 asks him a beautiful question

Kay 17:
In other words, morality is an empirical fact?!

To which he replies:

Logicboy03:
The evolution of certain ethical behaviours is fact.


Morality is a different thing

Showing clearly that he doesn't have any ethical principle/assumption that can help him link his "is" to his "ought".

But he is happy to criticize another for presupposing God. My dear confused boy, you have just succeeded in shooting yourself in the foot. SMH.

Mr_Anony:
Logicboy is really amusing...

Observe...........

The Christian theist argument:

IS - Objective moral values exist.
Ethical principle - The nature/character of God manifest in the life of Jesus Christ.
OUGHT - We ought to live like Christ

Compare with the argument Logicboy is trying to make:

IS - Objective moral values exist
IS - Moral values evolved
OUGHT- Therefore we are supposed to act a certain way

What are the ethical principles of evolution? how do you jump from the fact that moral values evolved to we ought to adhere to.....WHAT?

See the lies Anony has to tell to hold on to his delusions of grandeur? Who told you that I agree with your definition of "objective moral values"? The only moral values we have can only be objective from a human point of view.




Anony's argument does not even follow.

First of all, following christ is an ought not an ethical principle. It is a meaningless term. Hitler followed christ and so does Pat Robertson.


Ive never given a prescritive ethics from evolution, rather a descrioptive evolutionary ethics. You claim to have studied ehtics and yet you can not tell the difference between the two. To apply some ought to my arguments on the evolutionary basis of morality is daft.


I have principles and not religious codes unlike you.

Logicboy03:


See the lies Anony has to tell to hold on to his delusions of grandeur? Who told you that I agree with your definition of "objective moral values"? The only moral values we have can only be objective from a human point of view.

But humans do not have an objective view of reality. Our views are always subjective so how can your statement be true?

Anony's argument does not even follow.

First of all, following christ is an ought not an ethical principle. It is a meaningless term. Hitler followed christ and so does Pat Robertson.

I am quite sure that I made it clear that Christ's character is the principle while following Him is the ought. The second part of your statement is a lie and you know it. It is not worthy of a response

Ive never given a prescritive ethics from evolution, rather a descrioptive evolutionary ethics.

If it is not prescriptive, it is therefore not an ought and as a result it is not binding on anyone and hence cannot in anyway be regarded as an ethical principle

You claim to have studied ehtics and yet you can not tell the difference between the two. To apply some ought to my arguments on the evolutionary basis of morality is daft.

Precisely. If it is not an ought, then no one is morally obliged to adhere - it is neither good nor bad if the ethics are flouted - and therefore, the morality you describe has no basis.

I have principles and not religious codes unlike you.

What principles?

The mistake you are making here Anony is: you are not capturing morality as empirical data, rather describing an ideal preference: Jesus.

Logicboy is insisting that the facilitator for morality is our biological makeup and very complex brain, which is common in every human on the planet.

While you think its Jesus, who was unknown and was central to most cultures at all, and yet had morality. So definitely and as an empirical fact, Jesus isn't the cause of morality.

Kay 17: The mistake you are making here Anony is: you are not capturing morality as empirical data, rather describing an ideal preference: Jesus.

Logicboy is insisting that the facilitator for morality is our biological makeup and very complex brain, which is common in every human on the planet.

While you think its Jesus, who was unknown and was central to most cultures at all, and yet had morality. So definitely and as an empirical fact, Jesus isn't the cause of morality.

You have misrepresented my argument. I do not argue that Jesus is the cause of morality, I argue that the character of Jesus is the basis for morality. i.e. the definition of good character is the character of Christ. Please get me right.

Mr_Anony:
But humans do not have an objective view of reality. Our views are always subjective so how can your statement be true?

Isnt your bold the point of my statement?

Objectivity is a scale on a continuum and not a black and white case.

Facts or truth as we know it are true for only humans.

Mr_Anony:
I am quite sure that I made it clear that Christ's character is the principle while following Him is the ought. The second part of your statement is a lie and you know it. It is not worthy of a response

Christ character is meaningless. Is christ God or man?

I am not going to debate yo on some faulty premise or foundation on the character of Christ on which there is no consensus.

Mr_Anony:
If it is not prescriptive, it is therefore not an ought and as a result it is not binding on anyone and hence cannot in anyway be regarded as an ethical principle

Did I say that evolution is an ethical principle?

All I have been doing is explaining some ethical behaviours with evolution. Descriptive and not prescriptive.

I am only prescriptive when I talk about secular humanistic principles which I did not do.

Mr_Anony:
Precisely. If it is not an ought, then no one is morally obliged to adhere - it is neither good nor bad if the ethics are flouted - and therefore, the morality you describe has no basis.

Yawn. Did I give instructions for people to follow from evolution? Did I say anything is binding?

What does binding have to do with the description of the basis of some ethical behaviours?

Unless I am prescribing a principle to follow (eg secular humanism) then you can talk about "morally obliged"

You love straw men

Mr_Anony:
What principles?

Humanistic ones which I didnt talk about

Mr_Anony:
You have misrepresented my argument. I do not argue that Jesus is the cause of morality, I argue that the character of Jesus is the basis for morality. i.e. the definition of good character is the character of Christ. Please get me right.

So would you destroy the tables of merchants at a church? There are merchants at many churches I have been to in Nigeria.

That is the character of christ.

Sorry Anony! Basis rather.

Kay 17:

If God is the moral giver, then he isn't necessarily bound by his moral Rules, hence free to commit/perpetuate the most appalling immoral atrocities. So God cannot be morally good because that would imply some adherence to his own rules/commands

Clearly none of what you stated has anything to do with what I said. I simply noted that matter lacks morality.

Uyi Iredia:

Clearly none of what you stated has anything to do with what I said. I simply noted that matter lacks morality.

And how does that destroy the atheist argument?

Logicboy03:
Typical of apologist christians. They copy arguments that they think destroys the atheist position. You people dont understand Hume.


[size=14pt]Misconception

The is-ought distinction is sometimes misconstrued to mean that facts are totally disconnected from ethical statements, or that there is no relationship at all between is and ought. As can be seen, Hume does not argue this position, but states that a factual statement (or "is" needs to be combined with an ethical principle or assumption before an ethical statement (or "ought" can be derived[/size]



Who has been using facts to explain morality here? The person who says that we as humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality or the person that uses a hypothesis (presupposition of God) to argue that morality comes from God?

Which shows facts (or phenomena) in themselves lack morality unless a being making moral choices ascribes ethical values to them. By saying humans develop certain instincts for survival which become a basic guide for morality you have already ascribed an ethical value to those instincts. You have assumed an ought from an is. I on the other hand clearly note that intelligence is required to make ethical values (ought) and note that facts in and of themselves lack intelligence and therefore infer that an intelligent being endowed humans with the capacity to make ethical values. What's most pitiable in your post is that you twisted my position.

Logicboy03:
And how does that destroy the atheist argument?

Because you are left without an explanation for how morality could have arisen.

Logicboy, please state how survival instincts are a basic guide for morality. Also, do you agree that by saying that survival insticts are a basic guide for morality you have attached morality to them ?

Uyi Iredia:

Because you are left without an explanation for how morality could have arisen.

Wrong.....your comment only makes sense if humans are only matter

Uyi Iredia: Logicboy, please state how survival instincts are a basic guide for morality. Also, do you agree that by saying that survival insticts are a basic guide for morality you have attached morality to them ?

Isnt it clear? You have to behave somehow to survive, otherwise, it is suicide by natural selection

Logicboy03:


Wrong.....your comment only makes sense if humans are only matter

So do you believe humans are endowed with an intangible mind ?

Uyi Iredia:

So do you believe humans are endowed with an intangible mind ?

Perfect question

Logicboy03:


Isnt it clear? You have to behave somehow to survive, otherwise, it is suicide by natural selection

Actually there are no guidelines for behavior to survive. It's either you survive or you don't. It's mainly left to chance. You are yet to show how survival instincts breed morality.

Uyi Iredia:

So do you believe humans are endowed with an intangible mind ?

How did you arrive at that from my comment?


this is why I dont like arguing with you. You hardly make sense.

Uyi Iredia:

Actually there are no guidelines for behavior to survive. It's either you survive or you don't. It's mainly left to chance. You are yet to show how survival instincts breed morality.

It wuld serve you well to stop repeating ignorant questions and start reading what others write.

Who said that there are guidelines for behaviour to survive? Read the comment again

Logicboy03:


Isnt it clear? You have to behave somehow to survive, otherwise, it is suicide by natural selection

Those behaviours are survival instincts that form a basic, animalistic morality. You protect young ones so that your genes and and family survive.You avoid predators. You avoid things that are harmful to survival.

Logicboy03:



How did you arrive at that from my comment?


this is why I dont like arguing with you. You hardly make sense.

Seriously? Hae you so quickly forgotten this?

Logicboy03:

Wrong.....your comment only makes sense if humans are only matter