What do you think of this argument?
Sound? Valid? Fallacious? Flawed?
Why?
2007-07-02 16:24:30 · 20 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Logically it is a very flawed argument. It assumes the thing it's trying to prove. For morals not to be relative, then there has to be a God.
I believe in God and I have accepted Jesus as my Saviour and Lord, but I know some Christians use that as a proof of God. It makes me uneasy.
St. Paul says in the book of Colossians for the people of that church to steer clear of a certain person who preached that following the law or good morals were needed to get into heaven. St. Paul says it is through only the gift faith that people can come to God not through "vain human reasoning" and he said of the person who preached good morals "he is vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind."
2007-07-02 16:44:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If God didn't exist, there would not be morals.
The question is not whether God exists. Existence means very little. The question is why should I be concerned if God exists?
God is only God if He created the universe. If God created the universe, He becomes very relevant in that He gave everything a purpose like manufactures do for their creations.
So if you had a microwave, would you want to know what the manufacturer intended for it to do or would your prefer to approach the question using the trial and error method?
Suppose you wanted to take a bath and warm your lunch at the same time. Couldn't you put the microwave on, start it, and shower with your microwave at the same time?
The narrow minded fundamentalists will say "no."
The tolerant liberals will say "yes."
Which one is right? They both are. They just answer from different prospectives.
The tolerant Liberals answer theorically. Sure, you can put a microwave in the tub with you while your are taking a bath. And who has the right to tell you that you shouldn't?
The intolerant fundamentalist answer partically. If you want to live and have a working microwave, you can't warm your lunch with you in the shower.
The questions you are asking about morals is about what breaks us as humans.
Who you give the authority as teacher will determine your condition after you applied what you learn.
You can fight for your right not to have anyone tell you what to do and be toast while cooking your toast. Or you can learn the specifications the Creator gave the creation and learn the what the creation is intended to do.
Basic morality does not change over time. We are still talking about peace and love....things chance could never create
2007-07-02 16:44:47 · answer #2 · answered by DS M 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First fallacy: stolen concept - you don't believe in God
Next fallacy: straw man - you know a believer in God also believes we are created by God - no God, no creation, morals moot
Next fallacy: confusing correlation and causation - taken with the stolen concept, its just not very nice ; )
Last fallacy: affirming the consequent, or a logical reversal
2007-07-03 04:47:22 · answer #3 · answered by super Bobo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm a Christian but if I entertained the thought that God did NOT exist that would still make morals relevant in this generation. Morals are what keep people alive. If there were no morals...there'd be no rules therefore more teen girls would be pregnant, more teen boys would be lying dead in the streets because of drugs, and more homes would be broken due to a loss of control. Morals are not meant to make life boring. They are to protect us. And God DOES exist and He does not give you morals exactly but He does heighten our sense of right and wrong. Hope I helped.
2007-07-02 16:33:38 · answer #4 · answered by Aaron H 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, first off, I believe that there are a heck of a lot of people who would argue that morals are relative. Maybe you've heard people saying stuff like "It maybe good for you, but it's not good for everyone". Many people believe religion to be relative. I've heard of some people who say "Religion should be like this..." and then believe it to be true.
This is very similar to C.S. Lewis's Moral Law from the first couple of chapters of Mere Christianity. Lewis makes a case for a universal Law of Decent Behavior, that there are certain things human beings ought to do, such as "Men ought to be unselfish".
2007-07-02 16:35:20 · answer #5 · answered by chess19902000 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem with the argument is morals change over time. If they were determined by god and not created by man, they could never change.
2007-07-02 16:29:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The premise seems to be that morals aren't relative. Is that premise valid?
2007-07-02 16:29:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No Christian uses that as an argument for God's existence. Its only used to argue with atheists who say "this is wrong" "that is right"
2007-07-02 16:28:14 · answer #8 · answered by Monkey Chunks 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
God exists because God is--Morals exist to try to elevate mans actions to that of Righteousness
2007-07-02 17:01:28 · answer #9 · answered by j.wisdom 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Morals are relative. Sorry. And one needs not associate themselves with the bible to know morals. Or god.
2007-07-02 16:28:48 · answer #10 · answered by umwut? 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋