Do we need God for Morality? [Spirituality & Religion]

@SW-User

[quote]Because there is no morality without God.[/quote]


I think what you might actually mean is that you think there is no objective source of morality without a god because there is [i]demonstrably[/i] morality without a god's influence or involvement.

But here's the thing: a moral touchstone only has value if people agree upon it.
That fact does not change if one attributes the source to a god.
It is just as valuable if one makes that value human well being. From there we can then objectively succeed or fail on moral grounds.

@SW-User [quote]Because there is no morality without God. [/quote]
Which god? You seem to be choosing the christian one but there are many others whose moral codes could be superior.

@Pikachu 👏 wow, that was so well said!

@SW-User The problem with your argument is the Euthyphro Dilemma - is something moral because God loves it, or does God love what is moral? The first leads to an arbitrary morality - anything can be moral if God loves it, for whatever reason. If God says drowning puppies is moral, we would have no other source of morality to argue against it. But if God loves what is moral, that implies a source of morality that is above God, that sets the standards that God merely transmits to us.

@Emosaur not really. A transcendent being that exists before time, before me, and before the planet itself obviously is not OWNED by me. MY god. Like breh :v
I respect you more than you respect me is what I'm witnessing

Regardless, a transcendent, All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Wise being obviously would carry insurmountable moral standards. You can choose not to follow or believe in such a diety and that's a different topic. We will focus on the discussion at hand of if one needs God for morality. You treat God like God is human and subject to your moral standards

A bit tangent but I would stop putting myself in God's shoes and actually take a moment to listen to and understand what my adversary in a debate is saying. For you, you challenge God 24/7. You don't need to challenge ME. Why not just sit and discover for yourself and actually do it in a just, fair way instead of just talking to me and saying "my god" doesn't exist?
🤔

I don’t agree that there s no morality without god. That’s extreme. I think people make it harder that it needs to be. Obviously there is some disagreement but partly we think too much. And some things are probably debatable because we change and evolve overtime. But when it comes downtown it some things we just won’t do to others because know it’s wrong meaning that it will hurt them. The only time we seem think it’s okay to hurt others is when they hurt us or someone else first. Of course sometimes humans don’t mean to hurt others. This is when philosophy does come in handy. If we didn’t think too much we probably wouldn’t philosophize. I don’t think we could have gotten this far if we didn’t at least mean well. We want to build and I get that some people are just looking out for themselves but that’s natural. I think all creatures look after themselves. No I do not believe in god because I don’t believe spirit can exist without a physical form for it to attach to. @SW-User

@SW-User

[quote]All-Wise being obviously would carry insurmountable moral standards[/quote]

Is that simply an assertion or something you can demonstrate through a logical argument?

@Penny

Thanks🙂

@Pikachu oh, I see. We're talking the same idea but I think you used better semantics to better attribute what I'm saying. However, I guess my idea of a moral touchstone's value also differs from your idea because I don't think more people agreeing on a moral touchstone increases its value

@LeopoldBloom I can see what you're saying but I don't think that's my issue ._.

@SW-User

I don't think the value of a moral standard is based on how many people agree on it either.
I was only pointing out that a standard for morality only exists when people agree it is valuable.
Saying that god is the standard of morality is fine but it's no more useful than saying human well being is the standard of morality.
Either can be useful if people value them.

But if either can be valuable for making moral choices, how can you reasonably claim that there is no morality without god?

@SW-User The issue is whether morality comes from God; the Euthyphro Dilemma demonstrates the illogicality of that position. Morality cannot come from God or any other conscious being.

@Pikachu I think the English language, basic common sense, and the ability to think can rather explain that (I mean this in no offense in any way!)
It's basic reasoning that if one has the best judgement, the morality that is set in their best will for subjects is going to be the best, no? Otherwise, the opposite argument is that one with poorer judgement will produce a moral standard that is better than the BEST in judgement giving the best judgement on what a moral standard should be .-.
The latter is backwards

Does that make sense? Look up the definition of wise. All wise is also a superlative

Even if it’s not your issue how can you think that people that don’t believe in god aren’t capable of being moral? @SW-User

@SW-User

Please don't make the appeal to common sense. It's a logical fallacy.

Your argument presupposes that morality is necessarily a priority of a being with omni-properties which is of course a claim that you'd have to give sufficient reason to accept.

Given how much the bible tells us of god's character and actions, i think you'd have a hard time making that argument.

@Spoiledbrat I did not say they're not capable of being moral. I'm saying that morality would not be the same for everyone and all moral standards are to be seen as equal. What makes something standard is to be agreed upon. If there is a Creator and Owner for the Universe exists, then the laws and ruling will be up to that being, then next would be us to govern ourselves. Beyond that, I really don't see the confusion

@Pikachu do I claim it to be a priority at all?

Your question had nothing to do with the priority of such a being but how morality would have a sacrosanct foundation and origin with or without such a being. My point is that IF an All-Wise being were to write morality and give it to us, since, obviously, we cannot surmount such wisdom, we would not be able to make better moral standards. That is why if such a being establishes a moral standard, we cannot claim to be above it. That's pretty standard logic, right?

@SW-User

So what are you saying exactly?

Because you began with the outright claim that there is no morality without god but now you appear to have change the claim to "If an omni-property god did want to be moral and made a moral code then it would be superior"....

@LeopoldBloom is something moral because God loves it? Or is something moral because God loves what's moral? That's the question, right?

Well, I don't think that's how things work ._.
What IS moral is the question?

My entire point is that we are trying to define good and bad behavior but what is good for you and what is good for me is different and the ages will change and we know it. We accept that people of the future will have standards that are somehow "newer" and they'll mock today's world and standards. Why are we okay with it? Because we accept changing morals. What governs for us to accept new morals is the question? Why are new actions accepted and some old ones not? WHO controls these?

That's a heavy aspect of morality. The entire dynamic changes when God enters the picture. That should not be difficult to grasp if you read what I'm saying. If God exists as God is explained in the Abrahamic religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, then God would OWN everything, KNOWS everything, and MANAGES everything. That God would be all-Wise. If I OWN something, I make the rules for how it should be used. I get to decide what's right and what's wrong. That's why religion is heavily tied with morality and the existence of God Himself also matters rather heavily because if a god that owns all of existence exists and tells us what is right and wrong under His jurisdiction or face accounting and judgement, then what's the dispute? Are we going to pretend like that's not a factor or it doesn't matter?

I clearly HEAR you and understand all of you but you guys seem to not want to understand me or are just missing the whole idea of ownership change. You guys act like of God owns all of existence that we still make the rules and we're smarter than God, can write better moral standards than God, AND can do a better job of running this Earth than God. That's what I'm saying is kinda strange but seemingly a description of the scenario

@Pikachu clearly, I'm speaking and my words are not making sense to you. Read my response just above, first because I took the time to explain it.

If we are all equal, what is morality? What if we all agree or disagree? How can we gauge what's right and what's wrong? Our individual minds? And just agree together on what makes the most sense? It all boils down to what we agree on and that's ad populum. That, or we agree that SOMEONE is above the rest and we follow a leader and that leader can tell us what is best.

Either all ideas are the same in moral correctness or they're not. If what is moral to me is not moral to you, WHO is right? If you got a group of people agreeing with you, does that make ALL of you more correct based on numbers? What would make it right?

@SW-User Correct, which is why we need an objective moral standard. You can say "that's what God is," but the problem with that is accessing it. Many people claim to know what God wants; none, so far, have managed to prove conclusively that they speak for God, and aren't just engaging in the appeal to authority fallacy. Every religious leader of every denomination claims to speak for God; they can't all be right.

I would propose a better objective standard of morality, based on suffering and thriving. That which promotes thriving and/or diminishes suffering is moral; that which promotes suffering and/or diminishes thriving is immoral. The advantage of this is that suffering and thriving are at least theoretically quantifiable, unlike nebulous concepts like "human dignity" or "divine authority" or what have you. You reduce a moral question to a number and pick the highest one.

@SW-User

[quote]How can we gauge what's right and what's wrong? [/quote]

Well i'd answer but HazelMotes summed it up pretty well.

A system based on well being gives us an objective measure for morality. So it doesn't matter if what you think differs from what i think if what i think promotes well being and what you think doesn't.
That's the standard. Placing god as that standard gets us nowhere unless god hisownself actually shows up to administrate it in person.

So it's not really logically true to say that morality can only come from god, is it?