That’s not how I read it at all. Actually I think the very idea of the Big Bang is extremely mystical. When LeMaitre first published his theory, it was resisted by many scientists exactly because it sounded far too much like the Creation.

'While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

Wikipedia entry on Sir Fred Hoyle

'While many of us may be OK with the idea of the Big Bang simply starting everything, physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God,” Hawking told the meeting, at the University of Cambridge, in a pre-recorded speech.;

Why Physicists can't Avoid a Creation Event, New Scientist.

Certain cosmological arguments favored by Protestant natural theologians like William Lane Craig seem to employ the premise that "nothing" existed "before" the Big Bang, since time began with the Big Bang. There are a number of problems with this. One is that it misunderstands the nature of the Big Bang, which is technically a singularity, a term physicists use to describe the breakdown of their equations. The Big Bang is therefore the accepted term for our ignorance of cosmic origins, not our certitude about them, and doesn't permit one to conclude that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang or that time began with it or anything else.

What such cosmological arguments ultimately attempt to prove is a God of the gaps. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, therefore God did it. Any argument premised on certain contingent scientific theories, however, is easily falsified when those theories are modified or abandoned, which the history of science attests is not out of the ordinary. It could well be that an infinite multiverse exists and that two colliding bubble universes caused the Big Bang. Well, then, so much for the apparent "nothingness" that made it seem as though the Big Bang pointed to creation! Classical cosmological arguments, such as those given by Aquinas, begin with basic concepts like motion, not with contingent scientific theories. This is why they are still lively debated today: they cannot be falsified by any scientific theory.

Sure. Far be it from me to argue for the existence of God based on science. But if you wanted a slam-dunk case for the non-existence of God based on science, then Big Bang cosmology isn't going to give it to you. Hence the quote from Hawkings. My understanding is that the very fact that a meaningful universe arose from the singularity, and not simply chaos, is a general argument in favour of natural theology. A lot of people aren't going to like that, simply because of today's entrenched anti-religious animus, but I think those who argue it (I'm thinking of Alisdair McGrath and Keith Ward, rather than Craig) have a perfectly reasonable case.

Furthermore, such arguments ought not to be regarded as scientific hypotheses - they're metaphysical conjecture made on the basis of abductive inference. I can't see why those kinds of arguments are necessarily in conflict with the Thomistic-Aristotelian arguments.

Morality is man-made. Things are now permitted that were once not morally correct.
It was once immoral to divorce someone. It was once immoral to have children if you were not married. It was once immoral to be homosexual.
Who decided that these once immoral things were now acceptable? God or mankind? Has God grown more tolerant and accepting or has mankind?

All of those things could still be immoral. Such changing cultural mores prove neither moral relativism nor some version of moral realism to be true.

But if you wanted a slam-dunk case for the non-existence of God based on science, then Big Bang cosmology isn't going to give it to you. — Wayfarer

True, it works both ways. The atheist ought not to employ contingent scientific theories to prove his atheism just as much as the theist ought not to employ them to prove theism. Alas, the majority on both sides don't seem to heed this advice.

I can't see why those kinds of arguments are necessarily in conflict with the Thomistic-Aristotelian arguments. — Wayfarer

I'm not saying they're in conflict. I'm saying they're a different kind of argument, since they're based on different premises, and I think such arguments are bad for the reason I gave. Aquinas's cosmological argument is going to be of perennial relevance, whereas some Kalam cosmological argument predicated on the Big Bang is likely not and, unlike the former, ends up with a God of the gaps.

The gaps keep getting bigger, if you ask me. :-d

Slam dunk case for the non-existence of God?

Within reality we can reach, it is impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that God exists.

But it is possible to calculate almost 100% chance that God exists based on available measurements. The more measurements about our reality one uses in calculation, the closer to 100% chance that God exists it gets. It's ironic.

At the same time, issue about evidence for God, case for God, proof for God, is either honestly mistaken one or purposefully misleading one, since no human can provide an evidence that God exists to another human.

A formal fallacy, viz., affirming the consequent.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. — cincPhil

Premise (1) is doubtful. Why is the existence of God necessary for there to be objective morals and values? Why has naturalism been ignored (not saying I'm a big fan of naturalism), and why does non-naturalism require the existence of God to be coherent?

The first premise is false, so the argument is unsound. The second premise is also possibly false, and lacks sufficient reason to be accepted as true.

It's a valid argument. See:Modus Tollens.

P1 defines the existence of god as necessary for the existence of objective morals, and since P2 states that they exist, we can deduce that God also must exist.

The argument is valid, but the premises themselves are terrible. Neither God nor objective morals are defined, and using various mixes of definitions for these two concepts, I cannot find any appealing or persuasive combination that makes the premise seem intuitively or otherwise true.

Premise two is an extension of the assumptions made in premise one (in addition to not being defined whatsoever). If we're going to just assume that objective morals exist why don't we just also assume that god exists and not bother with these supposedly useful deductive arguments for it's existence?

Why not assume God exists and use then modus ponens form to deduce that objective morals exist instead?

Maybe objective morals exist but God does not, or maybe objective morals do not exist but God does. Why is God required for "objective morality" (what's that?) again?

If you can define and substantiate your premises with evidence, that would go a long way to making your argument more persuasive, but proving that "objective morals" require a "god", or that "objective morals" exist is quite the tall order. As it rests your argument is too facile to be taken seriously and hence is unpersuasive to almost everyone.

From what I gather, the argument missing from the opening post is something like:

Lions are not murderers, and I have some very strong moral beliefs. Therefore, objective morality. Therefore, God.

It's still not very convincing.

From what I gather, the argument missing from the opening post is something like:

Lions are not murderers, and I have some very strong moral beliefs. Therefore, objective morality. Therefore, God.

It's still not very convincing. — Sapientia

I got pretty much the same impression: "I can see no objective moral source for my strong and herein un-examined beliefs other than God".

Next he will be deducing the various attributes of god using his own objective moral positions as a starting point...

CincPhil,

I disagree with your first premise. Objective moral values and duties do not have to revolve around God or belief thereof. If this were true, then would those that are not yet informed of theism or maybe don’t believe in it, have no moral values or duties? Would these moral values be a specific faith base (Christian?), because if so- not all the people on Earth are informed of the exact same religion or same God or Gods. How does the appearance of objective moral values and duties connect with the presence of God? Why does God specifically create these things that would determine whether or not they were here?

I’d argue that many moral values and duties are humanly created and implemented. Would this mean that the God themselves was putting these ideas into the humans minds? If that were the case, then every single example of a moral value or duty would have to be accredited to God. Is this what you mean?

Interested in learning more.

To say that a moral value or duty is objective is to say that it is true or binding irrespective of human opinion (regardless of what anyone thinks). For example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that even if the Nazis had succeeded in winning WWII, and brain-washed or exterminated everyone who disagreed with them, so that everyone in the world believed that Naziism was right, it would still be wrong. — cincPhil

I am Jewish, but I deny that the Holocaust was objectively wrong because of a moral principle. It was wrong for the Jews, it was a crime against humanity, it was wrong as a possible pilot project for future genocides; but I deny that the Holocaust, as inhumane as it were, broke some moral rule. THE HOLOCAUST WAS BAD. IT WAS A HORRIBLE CRIME. I wish it had never happened, and many of my past relatives suffered and / or died in this horrible experience. But not morally wrong according to some objective moral principle.

If there is or was indeed an objective moral principle that you, @cincPhil, can name that the Holocaust violated, then please I ask you to name it.

What part of the argument are you having trouble with?

Are moral values really dependent on human beings? It seems to me that would make them subjective. If they are objective, as many philosophers think they are, then they must be independent of human beings; in other words, some things are bad or wrong even if people are oblivious to them. — cincPhil

Being bad for an oblivious human being is not being independent of an oblivious human being.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. — cincPhil

How about no.

Invalid argument.

(3) does not follow because (1) contains a hidden premise: 'objectivity presupposes (undefined term) God' and (2) has not been demonstrated.

Read Kant's CPrR. :eyes:

There are plenty of people who think both that (a) objective morality exists, and (b) God does not exist.

In fact, some people became quite famous based primarily on their views about this.



It's not a view I agree with, but many people are going to balk at the first premise, "If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."

And even though I disagree with Objectivism a la Rand, even though I'm an ethical subjectivist, I also think this first premise is false logically. God is not logically necessary for objective morality to exist. (And in fact, if God literally has a mind and morality is a product of his mind, then even with God existing and issuing moral edicts, morality is not objective. Objectivity has to be independent of minds, period, not just human minds.)

Obviously as an ethical subjectivist I think that the second premise is false as well.

It's weird that we get someone to come to the board, post an argument like this, post back and forth about it for a bit, then leave the board for good.

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists. — cincPhil

The premise 1 equals if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. If so, objective moral values and duties are necessary for God’s existence. For now, I admit that they are necessary for God’s existence. Given that they are necessary, it’s still questionable how the existence of moral values and duties can entail the existence of God. In other words, their existences are not sufficient for God’s existence. There are plenty of other reasons in total which justify or are sufficient for God’s existence.

Consider the following two arguments:
Argument One
1. If my parents exist, then I exist.
2. My parents exist.
3. Therefore, I exist.
My parents’ existences here are necessary for my existence. Here, my parents’ existences are necessary but not sufficient for my existence. They had to make a decision to have me and other reasons would have to be take into account.

Argument Two
1. If my body exist, then I exist.
2. My body exists.
3. Therefore, I exist.
Here the existence of my body is necessary but not sufficient for my existence, supposed that dualism is true. The fact that my body exists cannot entails I exist, given that my body is not the only part of my personal identity.

To conclude, premise 1 is false. Therefore, the argument is not sound.

I believe the topic opener just falsely abused the argument propositional form as any argument could seem to be valid according to the form but illogical.

I'll try to provide the alternative argument for this based on the instances of religions in particular Judaism and Christianity.

(1) If God exists, God provided moral values and duties to humans
(2) Humans wrote canonical texts based on God's instructions
(3) Canonical texts demonstrate the moral values and duties provided by God (1,2 HS)
(4) People shared the canonical texts to spread the moral values and duties provided by God
(5) These canonical texts, moral values, and duties exist now (3,4 HS)
(6) God exists now (1,5 HS)

This argument can work for God's existence as well as the problem of evil goes against the existence of God. Moreover, the argument is extremely vulnerable to religious pluralism as it uses religions as the foundation and many religions and their denomination have emerged in different time periods. Hence, I hope the arguments is just one of the arguments for God's existence.

(1) If God exists, God provided moral values and duties to humans
(2) Humans wrote canonical texts based on God's instructions
(3) Canonical texts demonstrate the moral values and duties provided by God (1,2 HS)
(4) People shared the canonical texts to spread the moral values and duties provided by God
(5) These canonical texts, moral values, and duties exist now (3,4 HS)
(6) God exists now (1,5 HS) — Beoroqo

That is not formal logic and the none of the consclusions follow. And, to top it all of, (2) is just circular. You might as well just say:
1) If canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist, then God exists.
2) Canonical moral texts supposedly written based on God's instructions exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.

The premise 1 equals if objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists. If so, objective moral values and duties are necessary for God’s existence. — KrystalZ

Nope. This is not "Objective moral values and duties exist.⟺ (iff/if and only if) God exists." Those are different things. Let us examine the first premise again:
"If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist."
Let's say "God does not exist" is "P" and "Objective moral values and duties do not exist." is Q.
Since this is an "if" statement, we have the following truth table:

Possible Truth Values
P: 1 0 0
Q: 1 1 0

If this statement is true, you could not have "God does not exist" to be true and "objective moral values do not exist" to be false at the same time but the other possibilites can still be true. That is literally what this statement tells you. You could have God exist but objective moral values can still not exist.

Coming back to the original argument, the only logical and possible moves by the atheists seem to be:
1- Showing that "God does not exist" can be true but "Objective moral values do not exist" would have to still be false. It would mean that whetever objective values exist or not does not depend on God.
2- Not accepting the second premise.
3- Showing that there is an objective moral value while assuming god does not exist.

I argue against premise 2 in your argument by claiming that objective moral values and duties do not exist, and are in fact subjective. I think it is false to claim that there are objective moral values and duties that exist in our world because morals are all based on perspective. If I can show that objective morals and duties do not exist, then that will defeat the conclusion that God exists.
One person's “good” and “Evil” might be completely different from another person's good and evil elsewhere in the world. You claim that there are objective moral values and duties that exist in our world, but I would like to see just one example of an objective moral or duty that cannot be refuted. I don't think one exist. For every evil action one could claim is objectively wrong, there could be a whole bunch of reasons and ways to spin it as not objective but simply subjective. Perhaps someone might say that murder/ death is always wrong, I agree with this but for arguements sake we can show that this is not objective. Murder seems wrong, yet we practice putting criminals to death when someone does something that we percieve as needing the death penalty. Is this wrong? Some might say that murder and death is always wrong but we have evidence that others say death is the only just and right thing to do in some situations. When looking at duties and if they exist, some might say that one objective duty is to do good or live a good life. I think that this can be refuted by claiming that there are people that don't share the action of wanting to live a good life or do good. I believe that this is evident in certain cases of psychopathy.

Hi cincPhil,
For my own sake, I am going to begin by restating your argument:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Let me start by saying that there are a lot of responses to your post and I tried to skim through as many of them as I could. Nevertheless, I apologize if I am saying something that has already been said, but I wanted to weigh in on this argument as I have just cultivated my own view on this subject.

With that being said, I take issue with this argument, especially the second premise. Upon recent personal contemplation and one response in particular that you had to someone who commented on this post, it seems to me that objective morals and values do not exist. Rather, I believe they are a human construct that does not necessarily warrant the existence of God. They have evolved through centuries of societal conditioning that has been a product of religion, yet still does not prove the legitimacy of God or Christianity. The particular response that you provided to one comment that was made on this post was about animalistic nature. You claimed, rightfully so, that when a lion kills a zebra or a whale forcibly copulates with another whale, neither of these is considered objectively morally wrong as they would be by humans who would deem them as murder and rape respectively. Therefore, it seems that, if human society and religion had not developed as it has today, we would’ve retained our animalistic nature and so-called “objective moral values/duties” would be nonexistent.

Another counterexample that I would offer against the existence of objective moral values/duties is the idea that murdering one’s slave was not considered illegal or even moral wrong in early America. Traditionally, greater society considers not killing another human being the most significant and uncontested objective moral value/duty. However, as evidenced by American history, this view has evolved over time into what it is now, indicating that objective moral values and duties are constructs of human society and organized religion.

Oh wow! This thread is still going! Let me apologize if I could have started this more carefully. May I propose that we start over? I will start a new thread similar to this one—perhaps I will simply begin with a question in the tradition of classical philosophy.

If you in the middle of an important discussion with someone here, please continue, but I won’t be checking back. Thank you to everyone who participated! I received many helpful comments. Keep seeking the truth, and be loving and kind to one another—just in case morality is objective. ;-)

thank you! I really appreciated your help

Thanks for your question. I just want to answer it, and then I'm going to start a new discussion that will hopefully touch on the subject of morality because I really like it. You asked whether I see any possibility of moral values changing over time. I do not see moral values and duties changing over time, if they are objective. For example, if the value of Liberty is objective, then liberty as we understand it–if we can both agree on a simple Websters definition–that Liberty is the same in today's world as it would be in a world in which everyone is in chains, and they all think that being in chains is liberating. Now about moral duties, let me ask, do we have a binding moral duty to protect children from those who wish to harm them? Would that duty exist in a world in which no one seemed to care about children? I look forward to more discussions with you, but I'm going to start a new thread somewhere else. Thanks again!