Dtruthspeaker:


Yet you opened a thread on "Morality"!

I think I know who you are!

Again, assuming from little or no evidence at all. What moral theory I subscribe to is of no relevance to this thread. It is a thread on the problems with the divine command theory that demands a possible resolution. Haba, think straight na!

Dtruthspeaker:


What do flaws do? When a bridge or building or car or anything is flawed, what happens to them?

Aside!



Give you a particular feeling? Do Warnings not elicit certain feelings?

Do what seemeth good to you!

Ok

Dtruthspeaker:


Like you said, I do not know what you know so it is time for you to present what you know then I can match it up with mine.

And the first thing is where do you think Morality comes from? Or who do you think is in charge of Morality or what is your own opinion as to the source of Morality?

Both your Bias and Unbiased view is welcome!

My opinion on morality matters less. This is derailing the thread.

Dtruthspeaker:


Truth does not like to be Hidden, it would show, so I do not need to prove it and besides that is not what this thread is about.

It is about

"Is something right because it is commanded by God or God commands something because it is right?"

Which I am poised to answer!

You're poised to answer but you have not.

Dtruthspeaker:


I am An Authority and Teacher of "That which makes A Person Fall" called (Fall,acy which is in similitude to "legitim,acy, Supreme,acy and all the "acy" things).

A fallacy is simply a flaw in reasoning. It undermines an argument. Where you got your own definition of a fallacy is simply beyond me.

And Natural Truth, like the ground under your feet does not make a person Fall.

Okay

I am just giving you a warning about who you are engaging with and how soul damning his works are which are plainly recorded here in nairaland.

After that, what you do, is up to you, but I STAND WITNESS TO SAY THAT YOU WERE WARNED!

This is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well" or a smear tactic. You want me to feel a particular way about a person without giving me the opportunity to relate with such a person to know if I'd like them.

truespeak:


This reaction of yours to Dtruthspeaker's statement, I find very Interesting!

For the 1st time I see you display an emotional response quite in variation from all your responses I have noticed so far!

Further, I would have thought seeing from your posts an appearance of reasonability, that your reasonable response would have been to enquire into the reason for Dtruthspeaker's statement but you rather concluded hastily and responded emotionally as though you were the one on trial!

Very Interesting indeed!

Errm, it actually is an ad hominem and how else am I meant to respond? My response is very valid given his claims.

Dtruthspeaker:


You can not know or understand the number 7 or 10 without understanding 0 and 1.

And the beginning is who made Laws of Rights and Wrong?

God or man?

I bet you did not know till now that morality refers ALWAYS to that which is ALWAYS RIGHT and GOOD!

*sigh*

You bet? How did you arrive at the conclusion that I do not know what morality is? My guess is I'm in for a crappy argument with no logical basis but I'll give you the benefit of proving me wrong.

Dtruthspeaker:


You can not know or understand the number 7 or 10 without understanding 0 and 1.

And the beginning is who made Laws of Rights and Wrong?

God or man?

It is one thing to know what a number is, it is another to know that there are numbers preceding or succeeding said number. I can know the number 7 or 10 if I am taught what they look like on a surface (say a board or surface one could write on) but learning to count to 7 or 10 is a different thing altogether.


Your second question is a loaded question fallacy. Being a Christian myself, I would throw in a bias by saying God made the laws yet it doesn't solve the problem I have highlighted. It only begs the question over and over.

Dtruthspeaker:


Your first fall is that you do not know the history of Morality

What is the history of morality? How is that relevant to this thread?

Dtruthspeaker:


Watch Out for that guy, he is A Satanist and one Satan's best recruiter on nairaland. He Hates God with an insane hatred, the way Satan must.

Even in the presence of Irrefutable Good Reason, he can not be convinced.

So reasoning with him is only meant to swallow you up as An Anaconda.

Many of the Antichrists, Haters of God and Satanist that you see here today were former "Christians" who once contended with him and we're swallowed whole by him.

He is very well informed, intelligent and cunning.
Guard your soul!

This is just ad hominem! Everyone that isn't philosophically aligned with your beliefs is diabolical? Dude, this is the era of information, no more backwards thinking. I've debated atheists since God knows when, yet I haven't become one myself.

Disclaimer: I'm a theist and this thread isn't to say morality isn't objective, it aims to highlight problems with the divine command theory.


A long surviving philosophical quandary (problem) to believing in God-dictated morality is the Euthyphro problem. It was posed by Socrates to Euthyphro in a discourse and it goes thus:

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious or it is pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Simply put: "Is something right because it is commanded by God or God commands something because it is right?"

While this doesn't seem like it is a problem, it poses a huge one regardless of what your answer is. To explain how, I'll take each horn of the problem and explain why it is a problem.



1. Something is right because God commands it:

You might be compelled to think God only commands appealing things like "do not kill", "do not commit adultery" e.t.c. but those of us who know our Old Testament, would agree that God does command killing when he feels like it.
Now, imagine a hypothetical scenario where God appears to you and says he's reversing the 10 commandments and you can now do their opposites and not obeying this instruction would be a sin. Would you?


2. God commands something because it is right:

This implies that there is something above God. How? God commanding something because it is right means he cannot command what is wrong, hence he is obliged by such circumstance. If God could never at some point command what he pleases, it means God like us is obliged to a moral standard and is thus below it. It means morality is what God has just discovered and uses. It is not right because he commands it, he commands it because it is right. This makes God superfluous or unnecessary with regards to the grand scope of morality. It means if God did not ever exist, morality would still exist because it is independent of God's command.



Your thoughts?

LordReed:


You are an interesting theist. May I ask, what convinces you that a god or gods exists?

Experience! But I do not use my experience in arguments because the other party has no way of verifying whether or not my experience is true.

Hashabiah:
Except you are in denial, there is an objective standard for morality. And if there is no objective standard, then how can we be sure that what we are doing in society is right?

I did point out that I believe in an objective moral standard. Immanuel Kant believed same but according to him, morals take root in intellect. To know what is moral according to him, is to envision what it would be like for an action to be universalized and if it produces a conceptual contradiction, then it isn't moral. He states this formally as:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction"

Take stealing as an example. If one has the urge to steal, they should first consider the maxim of stealing (i.e the rule behind the concept of stealing or what stealing assumes or presupposes). Stealing is a concept that presupposes that there is such a thing as a private or personal property and if one intends to make a thing their own by illegally obtaining it, then they're universalizing stealing (saying there is no such thing as private property) and if there cannot be private property, there cannot be such a thing as stealing because it begs the idea of private property to be a thing. Hence, stealing is self-contradictory and cannot be moral.



This way Kant said, we'd realize moral truths without God. The objective moral standard in this case, is logic or intellect.

Ps: Kant actually believed in God.

Hashabiah:
[s][/s] Atheist steal from God. The moral standards they claim to have originate from God. Or do atheist have a moral standard by which they operate on?

While I agree that there is an objective standard for morality, there are other moral theories that do not beg the existence of God.

1. The Categorical Imperatives put forth by the philosopher Immanuel Kant, precludes God as a dictator of morals. It is derived from various formulations that are quite intuitive. The most popular of the four formulations that make up the categorical imperatives are the principle of Universalizability and the formulation on humanity.


2. Utilitarianism also precludes God. It grounds morals on the desire for happiness and the achievement of the ultimate good.

3. Contractarianism is a theory that claims that morality doesn't exist in nature but it is borne out of the need to survive in a harsh world. Moral codes exist according to the specific needs of an era according to this theory.

XXXXTENTACION:
If God existed you would not have created a thread to prove so.
God only exists in people's minds.

This is a Bifurcation fallacy. God existing and creating threads to prove so are not mutually exclusive. Using your logic, it could also be argued that if God didn't exist, you wouldn't have to say it, we'd all just realize it.

Hashabiah:
If there were no God, there would be no atheist

Actually, if there were no God there might still be atheists. Atheism is a response to the belief in God or claims about God and not a response to the existence of God. There are atheists because there are people who believe in God and talk about said God.

PS: I believe in God but I had to drop this because your reasoning is flawed.

BecaciaBarbie:
. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

Photo showing the earth's relative size and perfect distance to the sun as evidence of God's existence in creating the universe.The Earth is located the right distance from the Sun. Picture a typical front door of a house. If the Sun were at the top of the door frame, the Earth would be like a small coin sitting on the bottom door frame.4

Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible.

The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our Moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The Moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.5

Not an atheist but this argument is flawed. It implies God couldn't have created life on a planet with an atmosphere that isn't of the same composition as earth's. The argument from fine-tuning is flawed in that it binds God to precision. There would be no need for a fine-tuning if God is perfect. If God had to make the earth's condition to suit a particular cause, then he is bound by said cause and is hence not omnipotent. To say God made the earth a particular way so life could thrive on it, is to say God couldn't have created life in a different situation.