Is there a better chance of proving the existence of a deity than of an absolute right and wrong?

Question

Wouldn't the existence or non-existence of a deity lend itself more to observable fact while right and wrong will seemingly always inhabit the realm of opinion?

And would not a deity simply be yet one more level of entity that ITSELF could either be right or wrong?

Isn't absolute morality itself relative, if two cultures have completely antithetical beliefs and both insist their beliefs are absolute and everyone else is wrong? Isn't "absolute" more a factor of how many people agree? If not, and assuming deities would only be another level of entity or existence, then what additional "thing" (for lack of a better word) would be the arbiter of absoluteness of right and wrong?

(This is for theists and atheists alike, so both of you, please think outside the box for a moment. I hate to qualify this, but if you respond with something like "the Bible says" you aren't answering any question, you're evading it.)

Something as basic as whether stealing "for a good cause" (the mantra of wealth redistributionists) is okay while a bank robbery is a crime hinges on whether there is absolutism. Liberals and conservatives alike both have their own forms of relativism and absolutism that serve their competing beliefs.

The above not only hinges on absolutism, but WHO defines it.

Answer 1

oddly enough there is no right or wrong for this question. None, either theist or atheist, can generally think, outside the box to the point where an agreement can be reached.

absolute in itself is questionable. if it is by majority vote then what majority? of what race, religion, creed etc can we grade this absolute on? The adage that there's a silver lining in every cloud comes to show that there are no absolutes really. I realize that by saying there are no absolutes I have just made an absoulte statement but you get my meaning. some will believe there are absolutes to everything and anything, others will believe the opposite. with that in mind than there can be no universally agreeable absolution of anything. where you have one majority or group of individuals believing in one thing, there will be others, of the same amount, that will believe the opposite. especially when debating about this particular subject.

Answer 2

You have a higher probability of proving the existence of a deity than proving that there is an absolute right or wrong. The reason for this is that if you examine humans there is no absolute since they all do not all have the same belief systems or cultures. On the other hand a large majority of human cultures have at some point in time believed in deities and have some form of documenting this belief. This therefore gives you some basis of proof of some deities existence.

Answer 3

I have a feeling that your question is in the realm of the unanswerable. I don't see how absolute right and wrong are possible. It has to be very subjective to the situation and the viewer.

As far of the existence of a deity, at this point in the human experience it cannot be proved or disproved, Reading material written by men (and a few women here and there) is not acceptable proof of anything except that ideas can be exchanged and can last through millenia if written down and preserved.

Answer 4

Unanswerable. Thought provoking. Wonderful.

All of humanity is subject to the subjective. Our perception is so limited and "wrong and right" are perceptions after all I do not believe in the "absolute" within the confines of human existence. Dissention is inevitable simply because wrong and right are not only moral issues, but usually touch upon the emotional realm.

Yes, it would be easier to prove the existence of a deity than to set an absolute standard of wrong and/or right.

Your agnostic friend, J

Answer 5

I like the question...ok here goes,
How do we know of right and wrong???????
You say 2 cultures or groups disgree on right and wrong??
REALLY??? Violent groups of both Christians and Muslims have killed people, this doen'st seem to imply in conflict of what's thought of as right and wrong?? (by the way both sides will usually explain themselves by saying killing is wrong but sometimes neccessarry) Name a society that condones stealing? hmmm even the crude isolated tribes that share everything don't "steal" from each other. Even polygomous groups agree to a certain amount of fidelity, and most amorous people still admit to a certain level of guilt.
In other words right and wrong are absolutes common to all humans. Now where did we get that from is the next question you should ask.

Answer 6

What a question !

I'll try to answer it ... it sounds sincere.

If I imagine a god he is not a puppet master in the Sky he is the source of being inside of all of us and every other living being.

Shakespeare said "... know thyself ..." if you know thyself you can't help but find a spirit inside you that is pure conscienceness and being,

You have many ideas of who you are and underneath them all is simply that pure being and existence.

Morality isn't even important if you're " true to yourself " * then you can't be false ... you will have your own true morals naturally.

Absolute is for fanatics not 'God' or mankind; and, people who understand this don't commit hate-full acts or judge others without understanding !

Hope I helped.
Jonnie

* The bard again.

Answer 7

I have studied many cultures and religious doctrine...and it all led me back to fundamental truths that apply to all of us. There is Universal Law containing known scientific and factual data. There is Divine Law that is meant to guide us…and take us beyond the Universal application into the spiritual realm; and there is Man's Laws which are convoluted, at best.

The only area that would raise an eyebrow would be Divine Law...as it does not contain irrefutable, proven components...but rather serves as an individual concept or guide through mass consciousness, perception, and experience. When you get in touch with this dimension of yourself; you begin to comprehend there is more to our existence than any one person can produce.

This is part of the Grand Design in all things, as we are forced to come together to form one complete truth. My truth may not be your truth, but when combined may form the basis for yet another truth. This is my concept of the Divine Consciousness we call God. It represents all of us, the known and the unknown...the Light and the Dark, all energy, thought, and matter...and then becomes the only absolute.

This represents unconditional acceptance and makes no moral determination other than what would benefit us as spiritual beings in the collective. We are interconnected in ways that become almost unfathomable...and to hurt one is to hurt us all...and therein lies the moral dilemma we attempt to reconcile through religious doctrine and belief systems.

Answer 8

all beliefs and "isms" are a road map for the blind. those who don't know, believe. belief is a dud tool in the hands of the ignorant. it might be possible to prove the existence of anything using our logic and other faculties. but that is just a theory. knowing is different. one knows and that's it. to have a text book teaching us morality or other such things, is to fall into the hands of the priests and politicians. the dead working to make others dead too: to stop them from inquiring. to stop them from sharpening their intelligence. give them a set of rules, and they will be dull and will never ask for an answer, will not rebel, and will be perfect conformists. so the first thing that an intelligent person will look for is Original answers. that intelligence is within us, and if it isn't, it would be too bad if we allowed others to tell us what is and what not.

Answer 9

A 'better proof' though another relative term subject to varied assumptions, can be established. A matter of completely reversing our semantically-based opinions of how we define and determine 'observable' and mere 'opinions.'

What if we were preconditioned to deem real what we can not visualize, and deem what is 'observable' as illusion.

Your question within that realm of opinion would be: "Can we prove the existence of what we see?"

The response would likely be: "You're out of your mind!"

Answer 10

There are no absolutes when it comes to the existence of a diety.

The only "proof" you will ever know that there is a diety, would be for the diety to show 'itself' to all.