Another one of my arguments for God's existence

Author: Soluminsanis
Philosophy
theology

Posts

Total: 105
Topic's author
#1
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
I cooked this little argument up at work the other day.  Most axiological arguments tend to use the idea of objective morality to point to God,  which is great.  However I wanted to go a slightly different route and explore the idea of moral authority. 


Please note this one is a little long so stay with me,  and this is still VERY much in the baby stages 👶 



P1. A command is only intelligible if received from a higher authority.  (i.e. a Private in the military commanding a General is unintelligible)

P2. Human societies, generally speaking,  dish out moral commands. 


P3. Human societies at times command morally egregious things as though they were moral (i.e the orders of Nazi Germany,  etc.)

P4. Therefore the innate "moralness" or "immoral-ness" of any particular moral command is not derived from strictly human authority. 

P5. Since this is the case all moral commands should be unintelligible 

P6. However there are intelligible moral commands


P7. Therefore they are derived from an authority higher than human beings. 

P8. Any issuer of moral commands must be capable of reasoning and using intellect. 

P9. A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists,  and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word,  a mind. 

P10. This issuer of commands cannot be subject to a higher authority, if said issuer were,  for all we know,  that authority's commands could contradict our intelligent issuer's commands,  rendering them unintelligible,  leaving us back to p5.  But since there are intelligible commands,  the one issuing them must be the highest authority. 

P11. A rational mind that is not subject to a greater authority and issues moral commands exists.  All men call this Mind God. 

P12. Therefore God exists 



Thoughts?






Topic's author
#2
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
On a scale of convincibility I rate this bad boy pretty darn high,  however if this argument has been floated before by someone else please let me know
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
First of all, a lot of non-sequiturs; particularly premise 2, 3, and 4 - furthermore, no, I do not think that morals are expressed in "commands" they are expressed in obligation - which are distinct. Second, I don't think objective morality exists, prove that it does and then we can get talking

Just as an example of your non-sequiturs though some moral commands by human authority is bad therefore its all bad? What?! That's like claiming that because some machines don't work, no machines work - it just doesn't logically follow at all.

Finally... most of it is assuming, a lot, especially in the later premises, with no justifications. I could probably go waaay further in depth, but I don't particularly have the inclination right this second. I don't find this argument very compelling, and honestly the kalam was stronger than this.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
Just a variation on a human theme that's been around for quite a while.

And as yet has never managed to unequivocally prove the existence of a specific GOD.


Though you do need to refine some of the above, as certain bits are gobbledygook and certain bits contradict each other.


If I could be bothered, I could reword your argument slightly and claim the opposite.


Though tomorrow, nothing will have changed.....And specific GODS as creators, will remain unprovable hypotheses.


Nonetheless,  the GOD principle remains sound.....Though the GOD principle could just as easily relate to something that goes BOOM every few billion years or so.
#5
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
Well P1 is a falsism. Commands from below are perfectly understandable. I mean take democracy and representative democracy as examples. They delegate government powers from the bottom up. Even in the military, a private telling an officer on a comm to bring in air support is a perfectly intelligible command.
Topic's author
#6
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Sum1hugme
This is a good point..... oh well,  back to the drawing board
Topic's author
#7
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps a formal debate on the existence of objective moral values and duties is in order
#8
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
Done that two or three times by now
#9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Still no connection between 11 and 12. Not to mention there's zero evidence that the conclusion of 11 ("all men call this Mind God") is correct. I don't call it that, for example. 
#10
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


.

SOLUMINSANIS,

YOUR QUOTE REGARDING P9: " A higher authority that issues moral commands to humans exists,  and has the capacity to reason and make moral judgments. In a word, a mind." 

Would this command from the inspired word of our serial killer Jesus fall into this category of P9? "If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12) "


Why do you continue to slap Jesus in the face by questioning whether He exists or not? To a pseudo-christian like you, and a TRUE Christian like me, Jesus has to exist and it ends there, understand? Huh?

Its no wonder that you had to block be, and this is because you are as Bible ignorant as the other pseudo-christians within this forum!



.


#11
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Soluminsanis
Seems to me you are arbitrarily counting the misses as human and the hits as 'of God'.  By the same reasoning you could reverse it and count the hits as of humanity and the misses to 'God', yes?
#12
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Second, I don't think objective morality exists, prove that it does and then we can get talking
I can’t, but maybe you can prove subjective morality exists and we can get talking.
#13
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
If objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality defacto does - if the morality isn't true independent of the mind, then it is defintionally true being dependent on the mind. That's how that works, furthermore - you never proved a point - I got tired of your nonanswers.
#14
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
If objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality defacto does
I’m sure nihilists disagree with that.

I got tired of your nonanswers.
Pardon me but you gotta question for me? Ask away.
#15
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
I could care less what nihilist think, if something is either a or b, and it is not a, then it is b. Furthermore, we've already had this discussion twice and I have not gotten satisfactory answers either time from you, in fact, you didn't even fully address my syllogism
#16
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
you didn't even fully address my syllogism
I could go searching for it but I think it would be quicker if you reiterate.
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
@Theweakeredge
My Syllogism:

Objectivity relative to factuality is an occurrent internal process....  As is subjectivity relative to reasoning, which may or may not be relative to external factuality.

Nonetheless, objectivity is still derived from internal reasoning, and so as such, is reliant upon a subjective process of reasoning.

Therefore factual objectivity is an internally generated subjective conclusion.


In short...Everything is the same, but with different labels.
#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I would argue that there is a distinction - you are correct that "objective" things are technically dependent on internal reasoning; however, if you were to go off the preponderance of evidence our senses are accurate more times than they are not. Therefore it would be reasonable to presume there to be a physical universe with things as we observe them.
#19
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
In short...Everything is the same, but with different labels.
Not according to the dictionary.
#20
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could care less what nihilist think, if something is either a or b, and it is not a, then it is b.
Do you care what theists think? Because why do you consider them an option but not nihilists?
#21
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
If I am arguing with a theist, such as you, then sure: I am not arguing with a nihilist, I am not a nihilist; therefore I do not care what nihilists think right this second. If I were to debate a nihilist or someone important in my life was a nihilist, sure; I mean specifically in regards to what we are discussing currently.
#22
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
If I am arguing with a theist, such as you, then sure
But you can’t make your case for subjective morality solely based on me, if that’s the case that argument works both ways what would you say if I made the opposite argument If subjective morality does not exist, then objective morality defacto does?
#23
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
What? I was talking about this view, in particular, my argument isn't dependent on anybody's views. Just the definitions of words.... morality is definitionally incapable of being objective.
Topic's author
#24
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
"morality is definitionally incapable of being objective"

Do you believe in objective truth? Because

"my argument isn't dependent on anybody's views." Just the definitions of words..

Sounds an awful lot like objective truth to me


#25
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
Objective truth, as in something which is objectively true; such as the planets - are true independent of a mind; in contrast - morality is only true because of minds.
Topic's author
#26
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
On this epistemology I could just as well ask you how you know the proposition "the planets exist" are true independent of your mind? 

Morals are ultimately boiled down to propositions that are either true or false.  


Example,  I would like to know your response to this question;


"Torturing infants for fun is wrong and ought not to be done."

Is this proposition true? Or is its negation true?

#27
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7




.
SOLUMINSANIS,

YOUR QUOTE RELATING TO TORTURING INFANTS:  "Torturing infants for fun is wrong and ought not to be done."

I would agree with your proposition, but what do we tell the Hell bound Atheists when they bring forth that our serial Killer Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate, for fun or not, tortured infants by drowning them in His Great Flood because they were allegedly evil. Whereas, how could an infant that did not know of Jesus be held culpable of being evil to begin with?

To save yourself further embarrassment upon this quote of yours, I will not bring up the biblical axiom of our Jesus as God, torturing infants within the wombs of women and torturing them by murder upon their birth in the book of Hosea, okay?

Don't forget my post to you shown below within this thread, because it would be great for me and the membership to hear your cogent godly response:



.

#28
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
Because you assume the reality you live in is real, otherwise, your arguments are invalid as they are based on subjective elements of a non-reality. It is an axiom, you are either a solipsist or you agree with it. And I can simply disagree - that is a ethical question, without a framework you have no room to declare it wrong or right.
#29
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just the definitions of words.... morality is definitionally incapable of being objective.

Now, it could be asserted that, based on a definition of principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." that I'm wrong
I thought you abandoned the former position after recognizing the latter.
#30
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
INcorrect. you are taking that out of context, and eliminating my posts after that, clarifying that that definition was not the one to be most reasonably interpreted. Furthermore, you completely forgot that morality applies to the "or proposition" of that definition. You do not understand my argument or you attempting to strawman it.