C
Cosar!
Guest
...existence of a God? Please justify your answer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is morality proof for the existence of our external environment OR proof for the...
P
Pink Glossy
Guest
of course it is, lots of things are proof of the existence of god. Good is what prevails in this world, it is what people strive to be, that is what is admired, and it has always been instilled within us, in our consciousness by god or whoever created us from the time we are born, it's in our blood to be and do good..
theo the cod BTFH
New member
Proof that we are social animals and can only continue to exist as long as the majority follow sets of rules that allow that society to function.
M
Muskrat
Guest
What is morality? It is merely standards that people create by which they judge their own conduct and the conduct of others. Standards of conduct do not, in themselves, prove the existence of anything.
However, I would argue that the existence of the human conscience does imply the existence of God. Every human has in them a guiding force, which shows them what is right and what is wrong. And while people's consciences differ in some respects, most people's consciences agree when it comes to significant moral issues.
So the fact that people have an ingrained moral compass that follows somewhat universal standards does indicate the existence of God. Why else would they have it?
However, I would argue that the existence of the human conscience does imply the existence of God. Every human has in them a guiding force, which shows them what is right and what is wrong. And while people's consciences differ in some respects, most people's consciences agree when it comes to significant moral issues.
So the fact that people have an ingrained moral compass that follows somewhat universal standards does indicate the existence of God. Why else would they have it?
daniil the cavejew
New member
morality only exists in a society because without it, a society would not exist. We would be constantly killing and stealing until the society collapsed.
Z
Zzguitar13
Guest
No because morality is just belief on what is right. That's no proof of God. Morality existed before Christianity existed. It proves nothing.
Dear Dogma
New member
Not to a relativist, but for a moral objectivist, morality is a definite sign that a God may exist.
Basically individuals come from one of two camps of thought regarding moral acts. The first camp Moral Relativists, consider all morals to be relative. They assert that morals are merely human constructs that have been developed by man through out time, that they change in regard to the times and the individuals that retain them. On the other hand, the second camp, Moral Objectivists submit that there are actual truth values ie; good/bad associated with moral acts. That charity is in fact "good to do" and that we "ought" to do it...That stealing is "bad to do" and we "ought not" do it. That this truth value is unchangeable and permanent and that circumstances and intent affect only the moral culpability of the individual...they do not make a good moral act bad or vice versa. While both are beliefs and can not be proven with certainty one way or the other, it seems there are actually fewer flaws in the objectivist opinion. Although acceptance of it requires a guiding force outside of man's rationale... a huge stumbling block for some.
Relativists are required to accept that moralities can't improve per say only change..in order to judge two moral codes to see which was better would require a standard outside of both which relativism can not accept. Most people seem to think we have moral progression, relativism can make no sense of this.
In opposition to the objectivist stance proponents of relativism rightfully point out that what we witness in reality is that morals seem to be relative as different societies and individuals have different perceptions of what is or isn't moral. While this is true the objectivist does not claim that an ultimately good moral code has necessarily been revealed to all only that it exists outside of all, in addition objectivists point out that we are free to refuse to acknowledge any objective moral truth.
What does seem apparent is that regardless of the position one accepts to believe, is that all people seem to be drawn to do good and avoid evil regarding moral acts.
Basically individuals come from one of two camps of thought regarding moral acts. The first camp Moral Relativists, consider all morals to be relative. They assert that morals are merely human constructs that have been developed by man through out time, that they change in regard to the times and the individuals that retain them. On the other hand, the second camp, Moral Objectivists submit that there are actual truth values ie; good/bad associated with moral acts. That charity is in fact "good to do" and that we "ought" to do it...That stealing is "bad to do" and we "ought not" do it. That this truth value is unchangeable and permanent and that circumstances and intent affect only the moral culpability of the individual...they do not make a good moral act bad or vice versa. While both are beliefs and can not be proven with certainty one way or the other, it seems there are actually fewer flaws in the objectivist opinion. Although acceptance of it requires a guiding force outside of man's rationale... a huge stumbling block for some.
Relativists are required to accept that moralities can't improve per say only change..in order to judge two moral codes to see which was better would require a standard outside of both which relativism can not accept. Most people seem to think we have moral progression, relativism can make no sense of this.
In opposition to the objectivist stance proponents of relativism rightfully point out that what we witness in reality is that morals seem to be relative as different societies and individuals have different perceptions of what is or isn't moral. While this is true the objectivist does not claim that an ultimately good moral code has necessarily been revealed to all only that it exists outside of all, in addition objectivists point out that we are free to refuse to acknowledge any objective moral truth.
What does seem apparent is that regardless of the position one accepts to believe, is that all people seem to be drawn to do good and avoid evil regarding moral acts.