CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the Christian God the ontological source of morality?
It has been argued before that without God there is no objective source for morality – this is meant to address the inverse: if that God does exist, does objective morality exist?
PLEASE READ!
This is NOT a debate about whether any specific verse(s) advocate or condone actions that you think are moral or immoral.
While the relevant arguments would likely apply to many other gods/scriptures, for this debate we are specifically addressing the Christian God.
An objective morality conveyed through the imperfection of human language would easily be misinterpreted. The resulting subjective morality would not eliminate the existence of the objective morality that lies behind the imperfect language.
If I may get a word in here ------- the answer is NO
Morals are simply (Do and Do Not) rules created by a society's consensus, much the same as laws, without having a legal context. Typically morals stem from a society's need for some restraint against chaos. As such, morals have no intrinsic connection to a God or religion. IMO religions have adopted morals, in order to solidify them for the betterment of societies.
The presumption of God as the definition of the good is subjective, but this may apply to any idea of any God. If the presumption were actually true, then God would be the source of morality.
A creator of the universe (e.g. a multiverse) without God’s morality, omniscience, and ability to hear/answer prayers, perform miracles, etc. is far simpler and therefore more probable.
You may need to explain to a Christian how the complex scientific view of the universe is simpler than the Christian God/Creator view. Also, why is the existence of countless unknowable universes a simpler construct than the existence of only two universes? The Christian heaven is no less provable than the multi-verse.
how the complex scientific view of the universe is simpler than the Christian God/Creator view
The scientific view has something that is potentially outside our space/time with the power to create our universe.
The God view has a disembodied mind outside our space/time with the power to create our universe AND has perfect knowledge, perfect morality, intentionality for humans, the power to override the laws of physics, etc.
The problem is that saying 'god did it' just pushes the same question back a level.
A god created the universe. Ok, where did that god come from, and where is/was that god, if not 'inside' the universe? Some kind of 'metauniverse?' Where did that 'metauniverse' come from? And if god needs no place or time of origin and can be said to have always existed, why can't that same line of thinking be used in regards to the universe itself?
Scientific theories result in questions that we don't have answers to- yet. Creationism results in those same questions, just with another degree of separation, and the idea that said questions can never be answered.
Saying that the timelessness of God works equally well when applied to the universe in a scientific view, doesn't say much for the scientific view.
The problem with the multi-verse theory, is that it isn't a theory. It is as unfalsifiable as God.
Scientific theories result in questions that we don't have answers to- yet.
As well as some that there may never be answers to. To a Christian, all can be known in the hereafter. Creationism answers many metaphysical questions in a simpler way than does science, which apposes the point of the initial post.
Saying that the timelessness of God works equally well when applied to the universe in a scientific view, doesn't say much for the scientific view.
How do you figure? The scientific view of the 'origin of the universe' is more concerned with the 'origin of the universe as we know it.'
Matter and energy themselves being timeless is in accordance with the observations we call the laws of thermodynamics. The modern big bang theory, as one example, frames it as a cyclical phenomenon, wherein there is a quick expansion immediately following the big bang, eventually slowing down, stopping, and beginning to collapse in on itself due to gravity, eventually once again forming a single point (or close enough) causing another big bang.
As well as some that there may never be answers to. To a Christian, all can be known in the hereafter. Creationism answers many metaphysical questions in a simpler way than does science, which apposes the point of the initial post.
It can only be said to answer those questions in a simpler way than science does if the answers are taken as that; 'god did it,' and no further questions are answered. In other words, it's only simpler if you stop asking questions. Best case scenario, creationism is equally simple- but simpler? Nope.
This is a different topic entirely, but modern theory has a dark energy problem which suggests no cycle, but rather the end of the universe in a "big freeze"
I'd prefer to debate the issue rather than each one in detail, so hopefully we can just concede that there are some and discuss from there, but examples are available if necessary.
The objectively moral action to take is inaccessible to us. If you put several extremely pious people in separate rooms with a list of moral dilemmas – they will come to disparate conclusions based on varied (subjective) reasoning. The existence of this site is evidence that moral questions still exist that have no objective answer.
The idea that moral answers are inaccessible to us does not mean that they do not exist, or that they will never be accessible. The Christian God is mysterious according to Christians. This then supports the findings that many aspects (though not all as you seem to claim) of morality are also mysterious.
As with the interpretation argument, this mostly goes to our disconnectedness from such objective morality. Though it does raise the question: does God judge us based on a morality that we cannot access?
On the whole, I agree with you that No, the Christian God is not the ontological source of morality. I further do not believe in objective morality at all. These clarifications are only to nit-pick a few aspects of your reasoning.
Morality in the bible presupposes that witches/sorcerers/necromancers really exist
Numerous people these days believe that witches and the like do exist. This is not limited to Christians, and there are entire other religions built around the idea that witchcraft is a thing. I offer this not as proof that witches exist (in the sense of those actually practicing 'magic' of some kind) , but merely noting that there are some who will claim to be witches that claim to be able to perform some form of magic, some of whom will be able to make some kind of performance that is convincing (at least to a subset of the audience), some of whom will attempt to exploit that either directly or indirectly for personal gain.
No actual magic is necessary for 'witchcraft' to be perceived as a problem by the early church, or to serve as an affront to the god in question (should said gods existence be assumed, that is).
and that infirmities are caused by demons
This implies that the bible assumes that ALL infirmities are caused by demons, which is never (to my knowledge) asserted. The assumption that demons exist and can cause various infirmities in an individual does not imply that an individuals case of influenza or rabies specifically is caused by a demon.
No actual magic is necessary for 'witchcraft' to be perceived as a problem
I think that is a valid argument regarding the verses that say people should not consult mediums, etc., but not against the verses that say a person should not be a medium, etc.
This implies that the bible assumes that ALL infirmities are caused by demons
"And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.""
I think that is a valid argument regarding the verses that say people should not consult mediums, etc., but not against the verses that say a person should not be a medium, etc.
My snake oil doesn't have to work for someone to have a problem with me selling snake oil. Sure, the nature of the offense is one of fraud rather than one of witchcraft in this case... but there is also the fact that failing to punish even a false seller of snake oil reinforces selling snake-oil- both to the oil seller and to others who might consider selling oil. I maintain that no actual magic is necessary for the verses in question.
"And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.""
Matthew 10:1
I read this as giving the disciples authority over spirits, the ability to exorcise them, and the power of healing in addition to that. If all infirmities were assumed to be caused by unclean spirits, this would be redundant; the 'healing' portion would have already been covered by the 'casting out demons' portion. Jesus is depicted as healing someone who was blind since birth, and someone who was lame due to an injury if I recall correctly; I don't believe either of these are presented as being caused by evil spirits.
The way it is phrased does not imply that it is fraud (and there are other commandments against that), just that God does not allow it for the people of Israel.
Deuteronomy 18:10-14
10) There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.
Matthew 10:1
Yeah - I had started typing a longer response, but saw the verse and jumped on it; as soon as I hit submit I saw that it was at the very least ambiguous. In the Bible, disease is often attributed to demons, sin, or just to prove God can, etc - with no mention of bacteria or germs, etc. It took until the 1500's to get even the basics of germ theory, and once we had it, we were able to live far healthier lives - so many (if not all) attributions to supernatural causes were due to ignorance. I think this probably supports what you are saying about ALL vs SOME, but now we need evidence for the SOME.
The way it is phrased does not imply that it is fraud (and there are other commandments against that), just that God does not allow it for the people of Israel.
Deuteronomy 18:10-14
10) There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this.
There are people to this day who makes their living as mediums, performing seance rituals to speak to the dead. There are people to this day who makes their livings as fortune tellers, reading palms/casting bones/drawing tarot cards to predict the future.
The verse in question says nothing about whether or not the practitioners of these can generate results of any kind, merely that the practices are banned. This is no more inconsistent than taking issue with someone worshiping an idol, while maintaining that there are no other gods.
Consider the inability to conveniently reveal most of these as frauds in a way that is convincing to everyone, even with modern technology. Wouldn't that be exacerbated by the tech level of the time? Simpler, I think, to just say that the practice is wicked than to try and convince a dumb peasant that there's no such thing as magic (except for gods magic of course).
I've ready many versions of the bible, trust me- and I haven't read a single passage that is predicated on practitioners of magic being able to produce results beyond basic illusions.
Yeah - I had started typing a longer response, but saw the verse and jumped on it; as soon as I hit submit I saw that it was at the very least ambiguous. In the Bible, disease is often attributed to demons, sin, or just to prove God can, etc - with no mention of bacteria or germs, etc. It took until the 1500's to get even the basics of germ theory, and once we had it, we were able to live far healthier lives - so many (if not all) attributions to supernatural causes were due to ignorance. I think this probably supports what you are saying about ALL vs SOME, but now we need evidence for the SOME.
Certainly, there would be a burden of proof to call it evidence for some, and you could claim that the bible makes claims here without supporting evidence- but to call it flatout erroneous is quite a stretch beyond that. Like I said; a nit-pick to your point.
If God knew the entirety of what would happen by creating this universe and still created it thusly - a person lacks moral agency since their actions were/are predestined by God.
On the whole, I agree with you that No, the Christian God is not the ontological source of morality. I further do not believe in objective morality at all. These clarifications are only to nit-pick a few aspects of your reasoning.
Absence of free will
If God knew the entirety of what would happen by creating this universe and still created it thusly - a person lacks moral agency since their actions were/are predestined by God.
Not necessarily. This makes certain assumptions about the nature of precognition that may not necessarily be the case.
Consider the character Paul Atreides from the sci-fi series 'Dune.' This character has precognition that functions as the ability to see the many different paths the future can possibly take, and the eventual consequences of any given action. He does not see the future as one inevitable line, but as a series of branching paths with varying end results.
For a more direct example of the same thing, if I were to look up a strategy guide for one of several RPGs- say, Mass Effect- I could see the outcome of the protagonists various choices, no matter what they are. In my game, Sheppard may choose A or B (for example) freely- but I can see not only the immediate results of this choice, but also the outcome of the decision between C and D that is presented if A is chosen, or the decision between E and F if B is chosen. In practice, if Sheppard chooses A, he will never be presented with the choice between E and F- nevertheless, I can see what would happen if Sheppard had hypothetically chosen B, and then chosen F.
A gods knowledge of the future, along those lines, does not compromise free will. Whether or not free will is a thing is another debate entirely, but a god with precognitive abilities does not in and of itself preclude the possibility of free will without making some very specific assumptions regarding the nature of precognition.
If Paul could see that if he chose to do X, then person A would end up killing person Z, but he chooses paths besides X person A would not kill person Z, does that shift the blame for the death of person Z from person A to Paul?
An interesting question, and one that the character Paul wrestles with at numerous junctures; a big thing that he is attempting to prevent is literally a jihad in his name, after his death, that threatens to encompass all of mankind in its devastation. There are numerous cases where he has to make sacrifices to ensure that he doesn't die in a way that makes him a martyr.
Not really enough information. I would say, though, at worst I would consider Paul an accessory to A's crime, and then only if A killing Z was an inevitable result of Paul choosing X. For that result to be inevitable would seem to assume that A and Z do not have free will, among other problems with the narrative.
An encounter between A and Z resulting in the deaths of one or both could conceivably be an inevitability regardless of whether X or Y was chosen, with the choice between X and Y merely influencing the outcome. What if the scenario in question would normally involve BOTH A and Z dieing, the choice X allowing A alone to survive?
I see where you're trying to go with this, but the implied accusation only holds water if free will is assumed not to exist. Remember, in the model I suggest, free will is a thing, and god simply knows every possible result of every possible permutation of choices that anyone makes, ever. This may seem like a stretch, but if you're willing to entertain the notion that a god can know the end result of all choices made for eternity (even with only one possible string of events), you're really just arguing the smaller infinity vs the bigger infinity.
Presumably precognition would indicate that the actions would be inevitable - correct? (sorry, I haven't watched Dune)
If Paul sees 25 paths that lead to A killing Z, 50 paths that lead to Z killing A, 5 paths were they both kill each other and 5 paths where A and Z never meet - then he choses the path where he gets laid by Jessica Alba, what is his moral culpability?
The movie versions of Dune haven't been executed very well and don't really delve into this topic very much- which is probably why they didn't do well, given that this is one of the core themes, but thats another story altogether.
Precognition of this type represents seeing the many different possible futures that can unfold from any given moment, the very opposite of inevitability in this usage.
Again, not nearly enough information, and the many other possible consequences of the given choice would have to be weighed as well. Those 5 paths where A and Z never meet could well lead to disaster of some form or other. 80 paths where A, Z, or both end up dead may be significantly better overall than the other outcomes. I suppose it would ultimately depend on how much of the cause-effect process is revealed to the person making the moral judgement, how the various bits of information fit into their subjective morality, and whether they feel they have sufficient information to make a judgement.
If it were up to me, I would say that there is no way to determine the moral culpability of such an individual without essentially having the same precognitive abilities. Even if his decision leads to the possibility of A or Z killing one another, it still involves choices on behalf of A or Z. I find it highly unlikely that any course of action COULD be chosen even by an omnipotent precognitive creating a universe from scratch that would preclude the possibility of any creature with free will murdering another- other than not creating any creatures with free will. Some might argue that this constitutes a limit to power, negating omnipotence, but I disagree, as this would be more of a self-imposed limit or restraint than an actual limit.
As such, if the existence of a god were to be assumed, with precognitive abilities that worked thusly, I would have to side with most theists on the notion that man really cannot judge such a god, lacking that level of perspective. Specific depictions of gods though, such as the christian one, I feel can certainly be judged based on the conflict between what is to be considered unacceptable under any conditions/an abomination/etc, what men are actually ordered to do, and what the god in question is said to have done. For a god that believes/recognizes that sometimes actions seen as atrocities are needed for the greater good to be worthy of worship, it would need to communicate that fact to its worshippers. Surely it would foresee the values dissonance that would engender further down the road, how much that would mean to some, and take some measure to address that. Because of that, I've yet to read a translation of any religious text that reflects a god that truly cares for its followers.
Precognition of this type represents seeing the many different possible futures that can unfold from any given moment, the very opposite of inevitability in this usage.
Hmm, I guess I would have to read it to know that version better. I assume at some point the precognition at least becomes actionable (doing x increases the likelihood of y?), otherwise it would seem rather fruitless.
I find it highly unlikely that any course of action COULD be chosen even by an omnipotent precognitive creating a universe from scratch that would preclude the possibility of any creature with free will murdering another
It is still a choice ("self-imposed limit") by that creator whether to create a universe with free will or not. If God can foresee all possible actions and there is no possible universe with free will that doesn't lead to immoral acts, yet he creates a universe with free will anyway, is God then at least partly culpable and therefore not morally perfect?
Hmm, I guess I would have to read it to know that version better. I assume at some point the precognition at least becomes actionable (doing x increases the likelihood of y?), otherwise it would seem rather fruitless.
You would, for the most part. And yes, there is that much at play- doing a affects the likelihood of b-z, sometimes increasing the likelihood or reducing the likelihood, sometimes closing off possibilities altogether, sometimes introducing new possibilities.
It is still a choice ("self-imposed limit") by that creator whether to create a universe with free will or not. If God can foresee all possible actions and there is no possible universe with free will that doesn't lead to immoral acts, yet he creates a universe with free will anyway, is God then at least partly culpable and therefore not morally perfect?
Only as much culpability as a gunsmith has in any killings performed by a gun he built- guns being built for the purpose of killing making such a predictable enough result. Some would call the gunsmith immoral, but I wouldn't.
Then again, I consider my existence to be worth all of the suffering that made it possible, regardless of whether a god was involved or not. Someone who disagrees with that fundamentally may well consider god immoral, I suppose.
Of course, the results of creating a universe with free will may have affects well beyond that of the sentient denizens of said universe, but that's getting a bit too far into speculation for any kind of meaningful argument.
I would push back a tad on the gunsmith analogy since very many guns are never used for immoral purpose (though I know analogies are imprecise by nature).
If God has actionable precognition that creating a universe with free will will inevitably lead to at least some immoral action (path X immoral action certain, path Y no action), can God be blameless?
(before we even get into the details of getting to the humans in the first place, evolution etc.)
If God has actionable precognition that creating a universe with free will will inevitably lead to at least some immoral action (path X immoral action certain, path Y no action), can God be blameless?
Under those circumstances, no. I should also note here that while these circumstances of inevitable actions are interesting thought exercises, strictly speaking a universe with free will doesn't inevitably lead to some immoral action, as each action that would be judged as immoral is the result of choices made by individuals with free will. It's just extremely unlikely that countless people over a large span of time will always choose the most moral choice possible; no immoral action in and of itself is an inevitability, and immoral actions in general are nearly inevitable, but never completely so.
Hence my gunsmith analogy; if we're talking about someone making his or her career as a gunsmith, and producing countless of guns over his or her career, it's extremely unlikely that none of his guns would ever be used for an immoral purpose, even if said purpose is merely threatening posturing with no intent to fire decades after the gunsmiths death with a now-antique gun. There is always the chance that any of his guns could be used for immoral purposes, but those all involve choices made by the end user of the gun, so we don't hold the gunsmith culpable. And don't forget, I noted previously that in a situation where a specific action was an inevitability, such a being would be an accessory at worst, with the perpetrator still bearing the majority of the responsibility. Outside of such a contrived situation, I wouldn't attribute any culpability.
Evolution has produced several species with (and without) a tendency to perform actions we consider moral, and better explains our drive toward cooperative competition than the Bible.
(I’d prefer this to be about evolution’s impact on what is perceived as moral rather than a debate about whether evolution exists, but it seems unfair to restrict it – perhaps we can use an existing evolution debate.)
You people are crazy, God judges base on what you do with your life. He still loves you very much no matter what. You should have no doubts and stop debating wether God is real because there is no reason to debate about it. God is real, Period. And all you have to do is believe by faith. I can say all this and I am only 15 and I am adopted from Haiti at the age of 9 and I spent years learning how to please the Devil and when I got to America I went to church and I knew God was real. I needed to start pleasing him and living for him only.
No. 1:St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
No. 2: In this verse, Samuel, one of the early leaders of Israel, orders genocide against a neighbouring people:
“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
No. 3: A command of Moses:
“Do not allow a sorceress to live.” (Exodus 22:18)
No. 4: The ending of Psalm 137, a psalm which was made into a disco calypso hit by Boney M, is often omitted from readings in church:
“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
No. 5: Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:
“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)
No. 6: St Paul condemns homosexuality in the opening chapter of the Book of Romans:
“In the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:27)
No. 7: In this story from the Book of Judges, an Israelite leader, Jephthah, makes a rash vow to God, which has to be carried out:
“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)
No. 8: The Lord is speaking to Abraham in this story where God commands him to sacrifice his son:
‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.’ (Genesis 22:2)
No. 9: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)
No. 10: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)