Another one of my arguments for God's existence

Author: Soluminsanis ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 105
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    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?






  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    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
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,984
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @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.
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 553
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @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.
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    --> @Sum1hugme
    This is a good point..... oh well,  back to the drawing board
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Perhaps a formal debate on the existence of objective moral values and duties is in order
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Soluminsanis
    Done that two or three times by now
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,348
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    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. 
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,624
    3
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas


    .

    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!



    .


  • SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 706
    3
    3
    6
    SkepticalOne avatar
    SkepticalOne
    --> @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?
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @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.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @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.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @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.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,984
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @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.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @zedvictor4
    In short...Everything is the same, but with different labels.
    Not according to the dictionary.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @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?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.
  • Tarik
    Tarik avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,373
    3
    3
    2
    Tarik avatar
    Tarik
    --> @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?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.
  • Soluminsanis
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 73
    0
    1
    5
    Soluminsanis avatar
    Soluminsanis
    --> @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


  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 22
    Forum posts: 2,564
    4
    5
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @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.