What is the best moral argument for God’s existence?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- In this episode Trent joins Matt at the Pints with Jack podcast to discuss the moral arguments of C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and David Baggett.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Pints with Jack podcast: www.pintswithj...
I’ve heard you comment on this before on your podcast but I couldn’t find the episode again. Thanks for doing this Trent!
Is infanticide moral or immoral or "depends"? Wait...read 1st Samuel 15:3 before answering.
I enjoyed this a lot. But now I am interested in his super rational case for Catholicism. 12:38
Moral knowledge argument from Dustin Crummett is a great one.
What’s the gist of this argument? How is it different from the classic moral argument?
What about each and everyone of Jesus' apostles being martyred? That seems like good evidence..
Good evidence of what?
A really well produced and well spirited and respectful discussion. Good work lads.
Trent, any chance you could address Jordan Peterson's argument regarding morality and ethical principle as an evolutionary product?
Hi Pat, i think Jesus Christ prove this materialistic theory wrong. Even if we look Jesus Christ as a simple human being (he's not) we can tell that his morality and ethic principles are still unmatched since 2000 years. We still try to imitate him with a lot failures and some good success. But in a way, Jordan he's not totally wrong, after the falling of Man, mankind was still guided by God but they have to prove to him, by hardship, that they can still be worthy of his promise (Son/Messiah/Savior/Christ) and his supernatural grace to guide them morally and spiritually. Some have succeed (Adam lineage by Seth), a lot of them have not (Cain lineage). So we can say that it was a progression (learning curve) by hardship and hardwork and only if mankind was worthy to be illuminate by God grace.
@@Simon-kt2lx Mankind had to prove to God for God to continue to guide us? This is not scriptural as God makes his decisions explicitly clear that God acts without regarding man's works. If he had we would have been annihilated a long time ago. I know not the main topic point but I felt compelled to respond to that claim.
@@danielhaas9469 You're right about the word "worthy", it was a bad term. You're right nobody is worthy of eternal life of pure beatitude.
When we detach ourself (refuse) of the commandment, we lose track of our final destination (him) and we sin.
By his infinite love and his infinite free nature, God give us freewill to do so (for the biggest lesson of our life with a lot of chance to repent and to return to him). He's not abandoning us (never) but we turn ourself or we hide ourself from him even if he is always here with us.
God invite us, by adoption, to become his child. But we need to accept the blessing and make it something of infinite value because by rejecting it, we can condamn ourself by our own fault.
God give us grace and talent, but we have to put them to work in his name for other than ourself (preaching the Gospel is a form of work) . Before Adam sin, maybe he did'nt need to work (no purgative effort). He was already in the state of grace (illuminative one and unitive one). But since the fall, we have to pass by a purgative state with the help of the sacrament, the teaching and the true Church of Jesus Christ (Catholic). We have to pray him everyday (another kind of work) and listen to him like a guide.
And as i write, i think that maybe, the only thing we have to do is to know him, love him more than anything, listen to him, serve him and accept his free grace. Maybe this is the only work we have to do for ourself and for other. :)
God bless you for you're correction!
Jordan Peterson is vastly overrated.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Jordan Peterson always seem in a ultimate existential crisis. Too much psychoanalytic make him sick and somehow trapped him in his own mind. He is fighting God work in him.
Without God, his grace, his truth and his transcendence, our mind reflect a world without an higher exit as we identify ourself with it.
Our trapped and limited mind will try to rationalise this broken world without an higher meaning or reason and Jordan Peterson seem trapped (even if he try to break the pattern recently).
I think his entourage doesn't help for his conversion (Joe Rogan is a lost soul and drive a lot of people in bad direction).
William Craig's formulation of the moral argument (@23:xx) makes no sense as a syllogism.
Its like he doesn't understand how syllogisms work.
The second premise says "but moral duties do exist"
Which is irrelevant, because the first premise doesn't speak about the condition that it does exist, but about the condition that it doesn't.
You say it's a valid argument.. It is NOT.
Edit: i noticed how you struggle to find an analogy with location, because you get confused by all the negatives.
If god does not exist, then moral duties do not exist... If god does exist, moral duties still don't exist... Makes perfect logical sense. It is perfectly possible that a god exists without absolute moral duties.
Even saying "if god exists, then moral duties exist" isnt enough to meet the conditions of the syllogism.
Because, it would still allow for moral duties to exist without god. It only won't allow for moral duties to not exist when a god does.
.
// "Good is God and god is Good" //
*"Roll up roll up"* around and around we go on the theistic wheel of circular reasoning, a place where tautology becomes reality. I'm getting so dizzy I feel sick 🤮
Great work Trent! 🇦🇺
Trent please do a debate with Pastor DAVID LYNN the street preacher. I'd bet he wouldn't agree to it though.
Trent should do a debate with me!
Does David Lynn do debates?
@@EJ-gx9hl not official ones that Trent does. But thats what the guy does only he does it on the streets.
@@frankjamesiii5362 that would be pretty funny seeing trent out on the street debating a preacher lol, totally different type of content for him haha
Or that Taco Bell finally brought back their Nacho Cheese Fries! Amen, Lord! 🙏
Pints with jack? Not with Aquinas?
Yeah I was surprised to hear a similar name 😂
Answer: There isn’t one
The best argument? The history of Israel.
I appreciate your sarcasm and/or attempt at humor
Man, I came up with that today in my mind.
The history of Israel is proof of God where no one expects there to be proof.
@@mugsofmirth8101 tell me the history of Israel
@@koppite9600 Yes. Israel. A witness. Not always a faithful witness. But, who is faithful except the One True God! ✝️
And can you solve the historicity of exodus and Abraham?
"Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared goal with regards wellbeing and the values it incorporates like empathy altruism reciprocity equality, respect ect
Whether an action is "Good" is entirely relative to the desired objective / goal one is trying to achieve, the specific situation our levels of information and understanding and the range of posible alternative actions and outcomes available. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of your "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
Would you disagree ? What outcome do YOU think we are striving for when we use the the terms "good" or "bad" if not human wellbeing ??
All made up by HOLY PEOPLE. There pi’s NO EVIDENT, NEVER WILL. WAS and IS periods.
The best immoral argument for God's existence is sending people to him directly.
I kud, i kid
The best argument for God's existence is that we are sinners. It is obvious that we sin. The world isn't in turmoil because we aren't merely rightious enough. We have rebelled against God. This is why God established the Law of Moses.
There are philosophers who argue for anti-natalism because it's utilitarian. They're probably right, on an atheist utilitarianism
Can god change his nature or are there external resons?
Hey Trent, can you please respond to the Friendly Atheist's new video on Pelosi being denied Communion. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
@YAJUN YUAN He didn't know she was Jewish.
@YAJUN YUAN So?
@YAJUN YUAN So what?
@YAJUN YUAN Pope Francis is a jew
@YAJUN YUAN If she is willing to take it, that means she believes in it and is accepting Jesus as her saviour.
A good action is good because God is good. Or, even better, a good action is good because God is goodness itself.
So why is an action good?
@@maxmaximus2608 a good action is good because God is good. A good action reflects the truth, goodness and beauty of God.
@@alexjurado6029 So how do we decide which actions are good of god is the only standard. People use the Bible/gods word to justify all kinds of actions. How do we find out what ARE the right/good actions if we do not have a different standard?
@@maxmaximus2608great question. This gets us into morality. A good act is any act that does not contradict natural law or Divine Law.
So the morality of any human act is based on 3 elements:
1. The object of the act
2. The intent of the act
3. The circumstances of the act
@@alexjurado6029 I agree with #1-3, although I think a few “dimensions” are missing. I especially appreciate #3. Now how do you solve the following scenario: On Catholic answers a few years back it was debated whether lying to protect a Jew from the nazis is a mortal act. I was shocked to learn that it isn’t. I would apply #3 and due to the circumstances, lying is the morally right stand to take. How do you square this with divine and moral law and find the right answer? I personally don’t think moral absolutes exist, and it is claimed that god provides the foundation for absolute moral truths, it has no partial value as we do not find common ground to agree what these absolutes are.
Omnibenevolence is necessary (along with God) in order to have any epistemology. If there is no omnibenevolent God, then logic as that which derives from God can be arbitrary and absurd, since God has no limit on whether He inverts the good into evil and vice versa. Therefore without omnibenevolence and that which stems from omnibenevolence (morality) there can be no logic. If there is no logic then there's no epistemological basis to deny logic (reductio ad absurdum). Therefore morality, logic necessitate God's existence.
Eternal damnation and omnibenevolence are antithetical
@@mugsofmirth8101 No, because God subsists our existence eternally as souls. So because of this every sin you commit is an eternal offense against God who is perfect. Which means eternally cutting you off from Him is just punishment. And even there God gives us many chances to confess and forgives us. So despite the just thing being to do cutting us off from even one mortal sin He allows us so many chances to come back to Him.
Omnibenevolence?... Hahaha. Have fun to reconcile it with Problem of Evil.... I suppose the solution can be beyond theodicy lol
@@gjafvalkdraturma3419 We did reconcile it with the Problem of Evil, the case was closed with Saint Agustine.
20:45 this is begging the question. The naturalist would say the difference between a “good song” and a “bad song” is how good it makes you feel. Thats the same answer they would give for “instincts”. When I say begging the question, I’m saying you are presuming the standard of a “good song” is absolute and mind independent.
This is a good point.
There's a lot to add to this type of discussion but you illustrated a very important note.
I would argue that a song making you "feel good" would be a really poor judge of whether a song is "good" or "bad". Art is traditionally considered a work that evokes an emotional response, but feeling "good" is only one potential response to an art work. For example, there are many songs that are widely considered "great songs" yet they poignant and make the listener feel sad.
So I'm guessing Trent would respond to this by saying it's not begging the question to reject a naturalist explanation that is illogical (like saying good songs make us feel good).
Thanks!
The analogy at the end with the meter stick ironically underscores the arbitrariness he wants to avoid. What if I'm using a different meter stick? Can you tell me there's a fact of the matter that your meter stick is the true meter stick and mine is false? One that doesn't appeal to the socially accepted status of the standard meter? I hear Christians say that they've wriggled out of Euthyphro, but I'm yet to be convinced.
The meter stick analogy is apt because humans arbitrarily chose the meter stick as a definition of length not because of some objective ontological truth but because it worked for a given time and place.
Your and my meter stick would be somewhat arbitrary. We can only judge whose stick is closer to a meter if there is a real meter stick. The stick is a meter. A meter is not what it decides or from something above it.
It would be a false binary to apply Euthyphro to that which by nature the standard.
When we say nature lacks justice, we appear to appeal to a real standard outside of nature that nature ought to be ordered by. The rod we measure nature by in problems of evil are outside nature. If imaginary, it is not real.
If real, it would seem to be supernatural.
@@nics4967 I like to measure in yards instead of meters.
@@nics4967 The point is, the first prong of Euthyphro (things are good because God says so) is problematic because it's arbitrary and subjective. The analogy Trent uses with the meter stick is equally arbitrary and subjective. Why is a meter the distance it is? Because people decided it should be. Saying "God (or God's nature) is the standard" is just the first prong.
What happened to the face cam?
Unfortunately it wasn't recorded for this episode but I felt that the content was so helpful it was worth uploading anyways.
9:00, 15:00
The moral argument is bottom of the barrel argument for god. Imagine god before he created the universe, as he is building the physical laws that govern the way nature works. He gets to the moral law and he has to decide what is moral and what isn’t moral. “Should I make torture moral, or immoral? How do I decide? Do I flip a coin?” Could god have made torture a moral act? Ask yourself that, because it goes to the heart of the theistic argument. It seems ridiculous that god could have made torture moral. Regardless of whether such morals are subjective or objective, god has nothing to do with it.
The moral argument isn’t attempting to say because morality exists, God exists bc someone had to create morality but the mere fact that morality exists means that there must be a creator in which the morality derives from. Not what God does but who God is determines morality of the creation. So God didn’t sit around and choose morals, but simply because it is God’s nature to be Good and Moral, everything that is created is in line with that Goodness and Morality in which who God is. So, God didn’t choose and couldn’t have chosen torture to be bad because torture is bad and thus goes against the very nature of who God is and what He is made of therefore torture would always be bad.
@@SawyerStudios I don’t think you have the argument at all. You are just spouting theology. Morality can be explained by human evolution - we are the social ape, after all., and our social leanings have made us the most powerful ape on the planet, highly able to reproduce in safety.
You can’t just claim that morals exist therefore god exists and think that is even remotely convincing as an argument for gods existence. Evolution has already answer this question. No magic required.
@@SawyerStudiosdid you listen to the video? That is the argument. Objective morality exists therefore god. So now you have to prove two things: god and objective morality.
Also, your “argument” is just theology. “Because it is gods nature to be good and moral” you just contradicted your own argument. You are stating that god is in conformance with what is (external to god) good. God conforms with external principals of goodness. Exactly. God has nothing to do with it, other than he conforms to an external standard of good. We can tell that god is good because we understand the external standard that is apart from god.
I have a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around someone who, for example talks about being raised a Roman Catholic. They mention that there were things about it they didn't agree with so they 'went abroad and became an atheist.' 'Became an atheist' what did that mean to them? Then...after thus and so such and such, they return NOT just to theism in general, but TO Christianity and then specifically back to Roman Catholicism. What could they have learned or been exposed to that they hadn't known about during their journey away from RCC, Christianity and theism in general? Were they, instead of an atheist, just a disgruntled ignorant theist? It seems they hadn't actually explored enough, read enough, reasoned enough to deserve the title atheist. It seems they MUST have harbored SOME notion of what a god actually is. An atheist no longer harbors a notion of what a god even is much less is there one and does it seek/want the worship/belief of humans. ALL of that has to be thought through and rejected before one can be an atheist. It's not enough to just think...I don't believe in THIS SPECIFIC form of god to call one's self an atheist. You really do have to think through..well, ALL the arguments and lines of reasoning that support Christianity...then ALL the arguments that support other religions, then arguments for a moral god, a creator god, a omni-god. ALL of these must be dealt with or you may just be kidding yourself or just angry at god and SAYING you no longer believe in god. Don't confuse anger at god or anger at those who think they're following a god (ie a certain denomination or religion) with actually no longer thinking there is a god or having no idea what a god might be.
One key point to remember. If you still refer to god as a person...ie HE this or HIM that, you may not actually an atheist but a theist in denial. When I think of god, I always think of...well it, as an it. Obviously I can't be thinking of it as a male person (or a female person), because among the things you lose when you become an atheist is a sense of what, even a god is. So you've already shed the notion it's a person.
I understand and can respect this criticism in some way. But I think it is too far to reject the notion of an ignorant atheist. I am curious as well why they thought they were atheist and their thought process. But I don't think you need to formally investigate everything about gods to stop being convinced.
I mainly understand your position since a common trope from theists about atheist is that they are mad at god or the community they were in. And I think this idea is formed because of what they felt during their "atheist phase."
Anyway, I just worry about trying to No True Scotsman atheists who turn back to a religion.
Biblically man was made in the image of God. That’s why they refer to God as a him.
Jesus who theists believe is the son of God, as part of the trinity is actually God. And Jesus was clearly a man.
People who research Christianity find out Jesus was a real person. Historians of the era (even atheist ones) reject Jesus mythicists. The only thing the atheist historians do not believe is that Jesus resurrected from the dead because they say that’s impossible. Those who are theists say … exactly that’s God.
All that is left for you then is to figure out why the apostles who could have gone home after … didn’t but led humble lives while professing the gospel even at the threat of bodily harm and torturous death. Or why people who converted after seeing miracles that made them convert … also chose death by cruel means when they could have retracted belief.
And what about all the church relics that have undergone scientific scrutiny where the scientists cannot explain how the relic exists because they are not natural? The shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles, incorruptibles.
Even atheist MD’s who were tasked with investigating NDE’s have concluded that human consciousness is not understood because people recall what happened to them when they should not have been able to. That consciousness goes beyond the meat of the brain. Some people already knew this as they are able to instinctively know when something bad happens to siblings or family across distances that should preclude such knowledge.
For those who are looking there are more than enough bread crumbs to convince them. Even if they lost faith at one point of their life.
Ahh looks like another posting of the same discussion. As I said there, I think this is a good discussion. However, I'm a moral antirealist, and rejecting the moral argument is fairly straightforward: simply deny moral realism. There are no good arguments for moral realism, so it's a bit strange Christians would appeal to something even less plausible than the existence of God as an argument for God.
"There are no good arguments for moral realism"
Objectifying of sight much?
P.S. You never even justified your claim that moral realism is less plausible than God. You merely asserted it. And assertions don't mean much.
@@christsservant583 Objectifying of sight? What do you mean?
//You never even justified your claim that moral realism is less plausible than God.//
That's true, but sometimes people state what their views are without immediately presenting a bunch of arguments and justifications for those views.
There a no good arguments for moral anti-realism.
@@greeenwaters9125 You don't need arguments for not believing something. If you think moral realism is true, you're welcome to present an argument for it. If you don't have any good arguments I see little reason to take moral realism any more seriously than Bigfoot.
@@lanceindependent I think phenomenological conservatism, which says that it is reasonable to assume things are as they appear, unless there are positive grounds for doubting this, is very plausible. Since moral realism seems intuitively right, I don't think *only* I have a burden of proof to show that it's true. In fact, I'd contend the anti-realist has the burden to prove the falsity of moral realism as it's the default epistemic stance.
Trump's election loss! Yes, JESUS!!!!
Bidens amazing presidency! For the American people right!!!!
Shame on you.
Miracle is the best argument for God's existence.
Christ said so. Vatican I said so.
Where in Vatican 1 is that said? I thought all Vatican 1 said was that God’s existence can be known with certainty through the light of natural human reason. I don’t recall the council commenting on specific arguments.
@YAJUN YUAN John 10:25, 37-38.
@@calebadcock363
Ch 3, On Faith
4. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.
Canon (On Faith)
3. If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema.
@YAJUN YUAN I really don't think so because a mere prophet can be sent by the Father and the pharisee would've had no qualm with that.
In John 10:25 the works gave testimony about Christ. And the most essential thing about Christ is that He is God.
The title is "what is the best _moral_ argument for God's existence?" To be clear, miracles aren't arguments, they're events. When you say "Christ said so," you're conflating actual miracles with secondary evidence of miracles. The best way to show someone that God exists is to perform a miracle in front of them. No doubt. But we can't do that. Christ was able to prove his claims that way, but we're not. We can only rely on recounting testimony of miracles. That testimony might be persuasive to someone who already believes that miracles are possible, but if they believe miracles are possible, that means they believe God exists. So how is the testimony evidence for God's existence if it's only persuasive to people who already believe in God's existence? To constitute evidence for God's existence, it needs to be able to persuade someone who doesn't believe in God to believe in God. But people who don't believe in God aren't going to accept testimony of miracles, because they think miracles are impossible.
So from that point of view, any testimony of miracles must be a lie or testimony to a hallucination. You can try to make an argument about such testimony, but most atheists will not accept that miracles are possible because their worldview presupposes naturalism. They philosophically rule miracles out. As a former atheist, I'll describe how I would go about convincing an atheist to believe in the God of the Bible. But first, we need to establish why certain approaches won't work. Since there isn't any hard evidence of miracles, i.e, the resurrection was not captured on video and published in a peer reviewed research journal, atheists will just dismiss the evidence as not solid enough. They're certainly not going to accept the Bible as evidence of the resurrection, since they have an anachronistic perspective on religious texts. They assume that religions create religious texts as propaganda. It would be better to treat the books of the Bible as historical sources that independently document the genesis of a religion. But because we're looking back after almost 2000 years of Christian dominance in the west, they start with an unusually skeptical attitude toward the texts. So when the texts make a miracle claim, it can just be dismissed out of hand.
From that point of view, texts that are central to contemporary religions can't be trusted because contemporary religions have a conflict of interest. Never mind that contemporary religions are a result of, rather than a cause of, ancient texts. Never mind that ancient texts have to be shown to be false, can't just be assumed false by virtue of the fact that they've been regarded as sacrosanct for a long time _after_ their writing. It's an attitude, almost a worldview. I know because I come from that worldview myself. I rejected the Bible as a worthwhile source of information because all sorts of mainstream scholars do. And I wasn't willing to critically examine that assumption because I didn't see any reason to. My whole metaphysics did not permit any kind of supernormal events.
So it's a self-sustaining worldview, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I assume that the Bible isn't a trustworthy source of information, I have no reason to change my mind about supernormal events being possible. And if I can't see any examples of a supernormal event occurring, I don't have any reason to change my opinion that the Bible can't possibly be true, as it makes impossible claims. The view that had to be broken first is the a prior assumption that miracles can't happen. That is ultimately a result of bad theology. A false understanding of what God is, how God works. It's rooted in a materialist, physicalist worldview. Nobody ever bothered to teach me about immaterial things. Instead, I was taught that immaterial things like numbers, concepts, and other forms are only _ideas_ in the human mind. They have no real existence. Therefore, there are no immaterial things. Everything that exists has some grounding in a physical framework like spacetime.
So, when I thought about God, I imagined him as basically a physical being that somehow could not be observed. Something that has the power to interfere with physical causality, but doesn't reflect light or gravitate or anything else that might be measurable. The whole idea seemed incoherent to me. Because it is. That's not what God is, obviously. God created and sustains everything in existence, so the fact that the laws of nature are uniform isn't something constraining God, it's just a description of God's usual will. It's not like God intervenes in events that would operate according to their own internal, immanent properties without his involvement. He is the thing sustaining all of the events in existence, and the reason for their uniformity.
Articulated in that way, it sounds absurd to say that he is somehow constrained by what we observe to be uniformity in his behavior. To say that I normally wake up at 7 AM is not to say that I'm physically incapable of sleeping in late. The laws of nature are just what we observe to be the way the universe normally behaves. It normally behaves that way due to God's influence. So, miracles are not violations of law, they are, at worst, outliers in a stochastic system. Once I understood this, I had fewer objections. Once I understood some of the philosophical arguments for God's existence, I understood 1) that there are good reasons to believe God exists, 2) that believing in God is not foolish and does not require denying reason or facts, and 3) that disbelieving in God has some serious intellectual costs, requiring us to either reject objective facts like the existence of consciousness, or to simply avoid thinking about or examining a wide variety of things that become problematic without God's existence (like why anything exists, how minds can exist, how anyone can make a moral judgment of anyone else, etc.). (1/3)
"What is the best moral argument for God’s existence?" I am not convinced that your god exists. Pretty easy, morally speaking.
The conclusion of moral arguments is that God exists. God's existence isn't one of the premises, so not being convinced that God existed doesn't seem like a good reason to reject the moral argument.
@@lanceindependent Hi, thanks for the reply:
"The conclusion of moral arguments is that God exists".
If the conclusion is that god exists, then as i said in my statement 'I am not convinced that your god exists' and that's me speaking according to my morals. So morally speaking god is not a factor in my moral equation.
"God's existence isn't one of the premises, so not being convinced that God existed doesn't seem like a good reason to reject the moral argument.
god's existence is the conclusion. So if you can't demonstrate a god to exist how can you give moral attributes to said god or attribute our morals to it? It's existence is paramount before any argumentation can transpire.
I hope you see my point.
cheers
G
@@coachp12b Hi thanks for the reply:
“So morally speaking God is not a factor in my moral equation”
"This seems impossible to me".
Not really. It's quite simple. It just means that when i consider things morally, no god is factored in. I do not take into account what is written about said god/s.
"What are factors in your moral equation? What makes something moral or immoral?
What makes something good? Or is there no such thing as objective morality?"
For me something is moral in relation to a goal. Whether it be personal or societal (in the end pretty much the same thing). So it's subjective to an outcome. As for what makes something good, there is no good as an 'object', but descriptive in relation to a goal, it's more like a scale.
Hope that helps. If you need clarification, happy to expand.
cheers
G
@@coachp12b Hi, thanks for the reply:
"OK I just wanna make sure I’m not misunderstanding, so something is moral in relation to a goal, personal or societal, so as long as I am achieving a personal goal no matter what I do, my actions are moral?"
Subjective morality means our morals are all human-made, they can also vary from person to person and society to society and our interactions with it. We all mostly share similar morals, such as not killing. So if the goal is to stay alive we can all agree to not kill each other. Or if the goal is to not steal food then we can agree to not do it. When people decide not to comply(or do anything they want) we put forward deterrents. Back when we were in small tribes before large societies if someone killed or stole willy nilly they would soon be turned out to the wild to fend for themselves. So this also promoted societal cohesion. So yes you could do all you wanted to do and say my actions are moral, but nowadays as well as then there would be consequences. So the goal itself needs to be practical as well as not ostracize you from the pack as it were.
"As long as I’m achieving my goal?"
Yep but if it goes against the tribe/society there may be consequences so choose wisely. You may try to justify it as moral(whatever it may be) but if the rest of us do not agree there may be questions.
It's ultimately about yours and the societal well being (the goal as it were). And no this does not mean might makes right. We discuss(eg: in government submissions) the best option in a situation and do our best to implement a fair employment (eg: police) with refinements were necessary.
"That’s what it sounds like you’re saying but I might be confused or misconstruing. Any help is appreciated"
Hope i have clarified it. Let me know if not.
cheers
G.
@@giuseppesavaglio8136 Friend, you are not understanding the actual dilemma and instead you are jumping to an unrelated fallacy.
You believe you have morals without God because you want to deny His role in you having morals in first place, in other words, you are not understanding that the question is where do those morals even come from in first place, not if you have them or not (how you are misunderstanding the issue). The common position, which is what is being discussed, is that God put them there in first place.
Saying "I've morals, but I deny or don't believe in God (who is known as the moral giver), therefore God doesn't exist" is a juvenile circular fallacy. Your conclusion not even addresses the original question.
That's like you saying you don't believe in gravity, but that doesn't prevent you from experiencing its effects. Know what I'm saying?
The ONLY way a god exists is that the people who want to BELIEVE their god exists BELIEVE their god exists. The ONLY REQUIREMENT for a god's existence is FAITH, which requires NO PROOF...of any kind: moral, scientific, philosophical, etc. YEHUA SAID SO! These apologists are SILLY, love to hear the sound of their voices in their echo chamber!!!
Nonsense comment
@@omgitsatree4503 Actually my comment is duly and enthusiastically supported by most legitimate responsible biblical scholars, including those who belong to a religion. Between the two of us, your comment is not only NO SENSE, but a reflection of how shallow a thinker and believer you really are.
@@jacuz169 nonsense comment again. Vague on purpose with jumbled together words because you have no clue what you are on about. Completely fallacious and everything you said is wrong and exaggerated.