The Kalam Cosmological Arguement, Pascal’s Wager, The Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument, The Teleological Argument (i.e. the argument from design), The Moral Argument, Religious Experience and The Argument from Miracles.

"If...there are...objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of God."

Define moral: concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles;

Philosophy 101 - I have this text book. It also includes the arguments against those issues. You should read it sometime, maybe you will become a more well rounded person....

“If there is no God, then everything is permissible.”

--warning mental vomit incoming.

I agree with you abra, unless we take it upon ourselves to change the terms of what a value and morale is then it indeed does not follow that they are objective to living beings no less the universe. Let me make this clear, in any kind of common usage I do not accept that there are objective moral's or values . . .

I am sure you will agree with this line of reasoning, but only if we alter the meaning of morale and value a bit(not that everyone could agree on those definitions anyways)perhaps strip down is a better description.



We can take this quote as a basis. It comes down to right and wrong or good and bad, or good and evil.

The standard by which we apply these terms is relational dependent on frame of reference. To some one action will be good, while to others that action will be bad.

The stock market is a prime example for anyone to make money requires someone else to either loose it or spend it which could be good or bad based on many different reasons. But the market can as a whole could be better off.

But we can widdle down all things to a simple analysis of survival and reproducibility which would be inherent to all living creatures, and if looked at as a whole then a system with positive growth would show an overall increase in the quantity of life if and only if a balance can be struck.

So if we are to say that any objective value, or morale could exist it would be at a macro level where its in relation to the average of all living systems, but what further complicates any kinds of assessment is then you must give weight to different types of life, unless we might find that humanity is bad for life . . . .

Objective value of life: to live and reproduce, to grow and consume.

That would only hold true if you were a diagnosed sociopath that lacked the ability to feel empathy.

Exactly

“If there is no God, then everything is permissible.”

If we're going to argue for a God on the basis of moral superiority we'd have to argue for the Moon Goddess of the Witches.

"Do as ye will, and harm none".

There you go. One simple creed and all morality is covered.

And she's already far superior in morality than the Biblical God who has no morals at all.

The Biblical God drowned innocent babies in the Great Flood.

The Biblical God commanded people to murdered heathens, their wives, and children. And often times entire villages. And he did this on more than one occassion.

That's clearly an immoral God. His morals are simple. Worship me or die!

Most humans would not agree with the morality of such a demon. I think Hitler had a similar "morality". And nobody wants to worship him.

The burning times are proof positive that the Christian God has no morals at all.

Hundreds of thousands of women were tortured until they confessed to being witches and then burned alive at the stake in the name of Jesus Christ.

You call that moral?

You can't have an intervening God who writes an instruction books on morals and then just sits by for 300 years whilst his worshipers brutally torture and murder innocent midwives in his name.

Clearly the biblical God is highly immoral anyway.


I admit Christianity has a very sad history. But these things hardly would have been approved by the person of Christ. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world that men should fight over it. We cannot lay these things at the feet of Christ. We have got to look at His claims and His life.

So the whole argument is utterly moot for the Biblical God.

Even if absolute morals could be proven to exist all that would do is prove that the Biblical God is highly immoral.

So any moral arguments for the existence of a God would rule out the Biblical God anyway.

So therefore, no god. No omniscient being required. Humans under normal conditions possess an internal 'moral compass' that dictates right from wrong or at the very least what will be harmful to others.

Any gods/goddesses were the invention of man and really has nothing to do with moral values. That premise came much later in human development as a means to offset fear of death and the wonder of birth.