Prove me wrong by actually discussing the topic and refuting the thread's claim rather than going on about a weird version of the Euthyphro Dilemma where it's basically the exact same thing as the Euthyphro Dilemma but you pretend it isn't

"No it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma is "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?". I'm not asking that. I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers is good."

Okay, you got me. It's a slight variation of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

"The whole basis of what you're saying here is the Euthyphro Dilemma.
— Ram

No it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma is "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?". I'm not asking that. I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers is good.

well they'd be wrong. if I say Alaska is in Africa, Alaska is still not in Africa.

So you're saying that an objective morality is inconsistent with secularism because a proposed secular objective morality is false? That's a non sequitur. It may be a fact that Kantianism is false, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a secular objective morality.

Or is it that you do understand that conception and you are rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma? I already said I'm not looking to debate Euthyphro Dilemma.
— Ram

No, I'm still not talking about the Euthyphro Dilemma. I'm asking you how it is that the existence of God entails objective moral facts."

Most of your post is just rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma.

"No, I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers isn't immoral. If you had an objective moral obligation to kill blasphemers, as established by God's natural law, would you kill blasphemers?

In this situation it would be immoral to not kill blashphemers."

The whole basis of what you're saying here is the Euthyphro Dilemma.

"Kant (and those who support his view) would say that Kant discovered the categorical imperative."

well they'd be wrong. if I say Alaska is in Africa, Alaska is still not in Africa.

"An all-powerful, all-knowing, creator deity? How does that entail a "natural law" (i.e. objective moral facts)?"

Don't worry about it. If you don't understand the conception of God that I'm referring to and that the majority of the world's population is familiar with then don't worry about it. Or is it that you do understand that conception and you are rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma? I already said I'm not looking to debate Euthyphro Dilemma.

"You need to study up on philosophy before you start trying to engage us in philosophy."

Well if you've studied up on philosophy then you know this is ad hominem.

I remember when I was 13.

I'm referring to a conception of God that pretty much every major religion is familiar with. If you don't know what I'm talking about, so be it.

How can you prove I need to prove my claim? Do you have any science experiments to prove that I need to prove my claim?

No, Kantianism is not objective. It's what some person named Kant came up with.

"now if God.... THE God told me to follow OT laws...... you are arguing whether it would be right to follow even though supposedly God says to do something immoral...... well.... the Euthyphro Dilemma is another topic. I'm not interested in debating it. I haven't really looked into the Euthyphro Dilemma and I'm not looking to debate it

"I didn't say that you did. I asked you if you would obey if it were it true.

You say I asserted rather than argued. Okay, we can suppose I just asserted then. It doesn't make a difference. Either way I'm not seeing any disproof of my claim.

You're shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim. It's your job to show it to be true, not my job to show it to be false.

But I did allude to an example of an objective, secular morality: Kant's categorical imperative."

look, the claim of this thread is there is no secular objective morality. thus far, no one has disproved that claim because to do so is impossible. Kantianism is not objective. No more so than utilitarianism, fascism, whatever arbitrary ideology

Existence of God (as in God with capital G) would entail natural law.

You cite "gods" and there being alleged evil "gods".

God with capital G is different than these alleged "gods".

Your argument is not really this big "checkmate" argument. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, even Yoruba religion all recognize one God who would be roughly analogous to the Abrahamic God. Islam uses the term "Allah," Hinduism uses "Brahman" or something like that. Taoism refers to the Tao. Is that news to you?

What do I mean by believe in? I don't know, I'm not a dictionary. I'm not webster.

I believe there is a natural law. Do you believe there isn't one? Whether we do or we don't- neither of us can prove our position with a test tube or whatever other scientific instruments. It's weird that people on a philosophy forum are so into scientism. If you go all the way with that, you shouldn't even be interested in philosophy. Probably 90% of philosophy isn't based on empirical science. If we really followed that logic, we would throw philosophy out entirely. Philosophy is based on abstract arguments, not on empiricism.

As for definition of "believe", I don't know, I don't care. Either natural law objectively exists or it objectively doesn't- independently of what anyone believes.

"Yes, I said it was impossible based on an Absolute definition."

Okay, wonderful. We agree. We don't need walls of text rather than just stating the truth bluntly.

I don't believe in Leviticus. I'm simply arguing that secular objective morality isn't possible. You say I asserted rather than argued. Okay, we can suppose I just asserted then. It doesn't make a difference. Either way I'm not seeing any disproof of my claim.

You don't need that many paragraphs to say objective secular morality doesn't exist.

Uh, yeah. I'm not on a forum all day. And which religion exactly am I promoting on this thread?

What is there for us to argue about? I claimed objective secular morality is impossible. You agreed. Unless you want to change that position, we both agree.

I mean I guess I could also send you a giant series of texts too long for you to read and claim I won an argument. It wouldn't prove anything, though, and neither have you.

I mean the fact is.... all I was arguing was that secular objective morality isn't really possible. And my point stands.

It is? So you've found the Holy Grail? Well show it then. Spill the beans on your discovery.

I believe in an underlying natural law. It's not something specific to Abrahamic or Eastern religion. I've studied both.

Whether you're Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.- all these groups believe in an underlying natural law. The only dispute is over the details but the existence of an inherent natural law is a premise that is common to all of them.

You cannot possibly prove that there is no such thing as an underlying natural law that exists. For you to deny its existence is just an assertion without proof. You cannot disprove its existence anymore than a theist can prove it's existence.

Without a basis in natural law, it may be subjective or arbitrary- but as arbitrary or subjective as what you proposed.

What the people here seem to be proposing is simply "well yes but objective morality isn't even possible". If that's so why not just say it directly instead of covering it up to hide the inherent dangers of secularism?

so in other words you admit that secular objective morality is impossible but you say objective morality isn't even possible anyways and so we should just give up on morals being anything other than objective?

It is like for a chicken to support me? Chickens have little to worry about from me. I prefer beef.

Well I guess if you look at it from a very immoral perspective. If you want to be a moral person than morality has to be an end in itself.

If science and math have a monopoly on truth then this forum has no business existing and all of us should stop being interested in philosophy and get on with mechanical drudgery. For philosophers to deny the transcendent is like for a chicken to support KFC.

"Fascism denies the equation: well-being = happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten, thus reducing them to a vegetative existence pure and simple."

-The Doctrine of Fascism

I agree with the Doctrine of Fascism on that point. I think the proposed warrior ethos is a lot more noble and fulfilling for human beings than the "mere animals" alternative that is criticized.

I'm neither endorsing nor attacking fascism. Fascism is a completely different discussion. But I agree with the above-quoted point.

If there is a God then there is a natural law.

(to give an example of secular alleged moral frameworks really just being a smokescreen- "bringing freedom to Iraq" or "bringing Freedom" in general to countries like Libya, Syria, etc. it is utterly just a smokescreen for imperialism)

Seeing something in a dream then seeing it in real life the next day.

Not as a euphemism for atheism.

That's the type of merely assertion I'm talking about. You don't actually show your claims to be truthful.

Their texts show otherwise. Sartre asserts an objective morality based on the objectivity of reason and human freedom. His ethics are somewhat similar to Kant's in this respects. He uses what is essentially the Catergorical Imperative to identify our responsibility to each other as agents of freedom.

de Beauvoir argues we ought to recognise how humans are free agents who make choices. In this space, she talks about the significance of humans actions towards each other, forming a space in which actions have objective significance to each other and a range of ethical consequences.

Nietzsche is dedicated to the objectivity of values. One of the major parts of his analysis is how states and actions of the world are characterised by meaning. His primary target is exactly the sort of nilhism which claims life had no value or meaning.

This is partly why he attacks religions so harshly. He identifies the religious move of saying "God must be there to give the world meaning" is premised on an initial idea that the world is without meaning . God only needs to be there to add meaning to the world if it lacks meaning in the first place. Thus, the malaise of "meaningless" didn't begin with atheism, but actually has far older origins that lie at the base of much religious thought.

It is factually wrong to assert these thinkers are relativists. They hold objectivity to meaning, ethics and value. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Mere assertion? Your post is utilizing mere assertion. Where are your proofs?

If you've never read Sartre and don't understand Existentialism, you're free to think what you want. Sartre was not remotely a Kantian. That you would even say that is bizarre. You are so dedicated to your agenda that you are willing to twist things. Furthermore, you don't characterize Nietzsche in an objective way either: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1u1up8/was_nietzsche_a_moral_relativist/

de Beauvoir was blatantly a relativist.

So the basis of "relative morality" is what the local culture is? You said something about the culture of the UK. I didn't see that post.
— Ram

It doesn't have to be relative in that sense. It's a broader position than that. It could be relative to a culture, a group, or an individual.

Okay. So you say the "basis" of "morality" for the moral relativist is whatever is accepted in the local culture.
— Ram

It can be, under moral relativism.

So if you live in a culture where human sacrifice is okay- then human sacrifice is okay?
— Ram

Relative to that culture, yes. But personally, I wouldn't approve of that aspect of that culture, as it clashes with my own sense of what is right and wrong. — S

What? So if you live in a society where human sacrifice is accepted, you would be against it? It clashes with your own sense of what is right and wrong?

So very strangely, I don't think you are actually a moral relativist. I think you clearly believe in an objective morality- which is inconsistent with your atheism.

I'm saying you've just asserted there is a big problem with materialism. You haven't show why that is true or logical conclusion. Everytime you are challenged, you just return to the initial assertion there is a big problem.

This is what others meant when accusing you of "begging the question." Everytime you are challenged, you return to just the assertion of the "big problem" as you justification for your position. You don't address the objections in terms of how opponents mistaken or logically flawed. You just return to asserting there is a "big problem." — TheWillowOfDarkness

There is a "big problem"? Where have I blindly referred to a "big problem"? I said there is a hole in materialism but I don't know where I've referred to a "big problem". You've used the phrase "big problem" a number of times and you are the first person who has used the phrase. The only time I've used the phrase "big problem" is where I said "Also, I don't think "the Problem of Evil" is a big problem for Christianity either.". Besides that, I haven't used that phrase.

Don't act like you're not guilty of playing word games. Whims and fancies? Trying to trivialise a position you disagree with? Anyway, it depends on what it's relative to. I've already provided the answer and given an example in a previous reply. The example I gave was the culture of the United Kingdom, which is certainly not that anything is permissible. We don't look approvingly on rape, murder, and so on. — S

So the basis of "relative morality" is what the local culture is? You said something about the culture of the UK. I didn't see that post.

Okay. So you say the "basis" of "morality" for the moral relativist is whatever is accepted in the local culture.

So if you live in a culture where human sacrifice is accepted- then human sacrifice is okay?

Then you'd just need to demonstrate that morality under moral relativism has no basis, which isn't possible without stretching the meaning of "basis" out of all proportion. But good luck with that! What did you call it? Logical gymnastics. Morality under moral relativism has a basis in whatever it is relative to, obviously. — S

Word games. What is the basis of "morality" for moral relativism? One's whims and fancies? That is the "basis"?

Clearly you haven't read the people you talk about: Sartre, de Beauvoir and even Nietzsche think morality and values are objective... just true on the basis of the meaning of the world itself, rather than granted or added by a realm beyond it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've read all three of them. They were all moral relativists (except maybe Nietzsche... with Nietzsche I think it's complicated and debatable).

If "without God this world is one of injustice and there is no justice for people", then the theodicy problem is about how the world can be considered just *with* god. And so that question remains open. (And I beg you not to try to answer it in a post--at least not before checking against the existing literature that your answer is not a repetition of an existing attempt and that it does not have any serious weaknesses; in which case you are more than welcome to submit it to an academic publisher, as it will be genuinely appreciated by the community.)

*edit*
I did not take your post as an attack on anyone. Rather, that was the impression that I had about how you might perceive atheism. Forgive me if I was mistaken. — ivb

Say man (or woman), I enjoy discussing with atheists as long as we're both respectful. If I'm rude to you, let me know. I don't want to be rude.

As far as academic publishers, I don't care about academic publishers. The universities are run by a bunch of godless leftists. Religious conservatives have lost the culture war in the universities a long time ago. I don't care about what those institutions think because I don't believe in their legitimacy. A huge segment of the population is with me on this.

Truth is truth regardless of what the institutions claim. Besides, aren't the universities pushing postmodernism these days? Or at least selectively.... grand narratives are untrue according to them... unless they are the ones pushing the grand narrative.... according to them.

Anyways, let me look up theodicy. I think it's "problem of evil". Ah- I was right.

I think you're projecting a Western outlook on a non-Western outlook. I think you're going from a post-Christian perspective. I think the "problem of evil" is a way bigger problem for Christianity than it is for Islam. And I don't think it's this unanswerable thing, even for Christianity (although more difficult for Christianity than Islam). You've heard of Plantinga, right? I'm sure that... hopefully... I don't have to explain Plantinga's thing to you.

But anyways, that's Plantinga. From a Muslim perspective, it's pretty simple. If you really want to understand the Muslim perspective on the issue, I say read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. The "problem of evil" is not really a big deal from a Muslim perspective. It's more of an issue for Christianity.

The topic is really in-depth and it's a really long discussion. I can't even convey to you how much of a non-issue this is for Muslims. This is something which is dealt with constantly all throughout the Quran and the Hadith. Islam doesn't teach us to expect the world to be a Disney movie. The Quran tells us straight-up that humans are born into struggle. This is why the concept of jihad runs throughout Islam. I don't mean the "jihad" of ISIS- I mean the jihad against one's desires. Patience is a form of jihad.

And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient,

-Quran [2:155]

Rather than have people be naiive and expect this world to be a Disney movie, Islam tells us that Allah will test us and prepares us. So a Muslim has no business being surprised when they are tested. Also it is possible that a person is being punished for their sins. So Muslims are not really surprised when things happen- our religion teaches us to expect it. I would say Islam is sort of like Stoicism in that we're adapted to dealing with hardship. Also, dealing with hardship gets rid of one's sins. So it's actually a good thing in a way. So the "problem of evil" is not really a thing in Islam. Islam tells us straight up that humans are born into struggle and that Allah will test us... so it's not exactly shocking or a major "problem" that Allah tests us. When you have a belief system that says "you will be tested"- it's not a major shock to the belief system when one is tested. Also, I don't think "the Problem of Evil" is a big problem for Christianity either. Christians are supposed to be like Jesus (PBUH). I think it's natural that would involve facing trials.

My point was you don't support that point. You just come along and expect everyone to believe it because you say so. When challenged, you just revert to saying how the "big problem" must be true, rather giving reason why that would need to be the case.

To give you an equivalent opposing argument, it would be like if I announced there was a big problem with religious beliefs: that no religious person could be moral because God didn't know what was moral, then proceeded to just assert this was the case.

It's an argument which tells nothing because I have given no reason as to why God cannot know morality, nor any reason to say why being religious cannot act morally anyway. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What point? I made a thread called "the big gaping hole in materialism". I addressed materialism.

I already explained in another thread- I believe in God on the basis of experiences I've had (as well as some other things). I don't believe in God purely on the basis of abstract arguments. So I haven't made a thread saying "here is the 100% proof God exists" and I don't think I will. Now I've explained why. Other people haven't seen and experienced the things I've seen and experienced.

Theists tend to believe based on experiences, atheists tend to disbelieve on the basis of abstract arguments.

So I've made a thread called "the big gaping hole in materialism". I've addressed materialism. If you don't like my thread because you want my topic to be another topic... it is what it is.

I am not sure "point" you are referring to in the last word of the first sentence I quoted. I'm not really sure what your post is saying. Maybe you can explain what you are saying. Are you saying I haven't specified my argument against materialism?

↪Ram You think atheists who are moral realists are not consistent -- but the only reason you give here is that because moral realism can only come from God. That is just begging the question — Moliere

With all due respect for my fellow atheists here, I don't think you are helping the argument.

Moral realism, innate morality etc... is no real justification for morality. All i have to say to you is, like he's been saying all along, I feel/think differently, and we are back at moral relativism. Why should I put my moral beliefs aside for yours?

There is no objective morality without god, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. — ChatteringMonkey

ChatteringMonkey is an atheist too. He himself took down your premise. I think it's interesting how you took your false premise and ran with it:

That is just begging the question in favor of your position -- that it is whatever God happens to say that makes something good or not. That's not a demonstration of inconsistency, that's a statement of implausibility: you find it difficult to believe that it's possible. But, at least logically speaking -- meaning the three basic rules of logic -- there is nothing logically inconsistent about the belief that God does not exist, and there is some moral statement that is true.

So logical necessity isn't at play. So far all that I can see from you is that as long as something comes from God, then it is good.

But why should I believe that? Why should you? What supports this belief?

So far it just seems like you're asserting it over and over again. So it would seem nothing supports this belief. It's just something you happen to believe. Which, from an outside perspective like my own, who does not accept this belief just because you said it, appears to be much like the belief of some dude making stuff up.

After all, it may be good to accept what God says. But surely it is possible that some dude just made that up. At the very least, if Allah is the one and true God, then there are religions that exist which amount to much the same thing -- since they do not submit to Allah, they submit to another God, clearly they are just following what some dude made up one time, rather than submitting to Allah.

What gives your belief more credence than what someone else is making up? Why should anyone accept it at all? — Moliere

I pointed out something obvious and it was a problem because I'm a Muslim who said it. However, atheists don't go after consistent atheists like ChatteringMonkey, Nietzsche, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, pretty much every existentialist (except Kierkegaard) and postmodernist philosopher ever when they make the same point. You even used the term "begging the question" which is a term which supposedly has to do with logic (I actually have to look the term up as I forget what that means). All that on the basis of a false premise!

Now I already said:

So obviously, I am thinking from different premises than you- or at least maybe so. I already am a believer in the premise that there is a God. Maybe you are thinking from another premise. — Ram

you used the phrase:

t will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place. — Moliere

so I got the impression you are or were trying to find some sort of common ground. How much common ground is there exactly? The both of us have to accept that the other is reasoning from a completely different set of premises. You haven't seen me prove God exists. I haven't seen you prove God doesn't exist. We both are operating from predetermined premises. Your premise, determined prior to this discussion, is that God doesn't exist. My premise, determined prior to this discussion is that God does exist.

I don't believe God exists on the basis of abstract arguments. I believe God exists on the basis of experiences I've had- on the basis of things I've seen and experienced. You haven't seen or experienced the things I've seen and experienced. You don't know what I've seen and experienced. I know atheists like to portray it as though experience is not valid and we can only go off abstract arguments. However, I haven't seen any atheists prove that experience is not valid and that a person shouldn't trust their own experiences. If you have such a proof, you're welcome to demonstrate it.

Because I believe in God on the basis of experience and things I've seen... as well as some other things... I can't convey to you why I believe in God.

I have explained elsewhere- "Reason" is used as a codeword for atheism. That which is atheistic is defined as "Reason" and that which is against atheism is defined as against "Reason".

Because many have this shallow view of what reason supposedly is, I will insha'Allah explicitly show how reasoning is being used:

1) I believe on the basis of experience and things I've seen (as well as some other things)
2) Because you haven't experienced my experiences, I can't fully convey to you why I believe in God

thus I'm not really trying to prove to you that God exists. If Allah wills, He will guide you.

The topic of this thread is not "Why God exists". The topic is there is no secular basis for morality. The problem people had is that I'm a Muslim who said it. Plenty of atheists have described the same thing and it wasn't really controversial (except with Marxists... Marxists were not too fond of it to my understanding). If an atheist said it among other atheists, I don't think it would really be controversial (except with Marxist types).

Is there anything in your belief that we should submit to Allah that makes it something more than what Ram wants? If you say Allah, then I'd submit that this isn't very convincing, at least -- not anymore convincing than the atheist who says he can be good without God in some sort of objective way without saying much more than that other than repeating himself. In which case, from my perspective at least, you're applying different standards to different claims and asking more from the atheist than what you ask from yourself. — Moliere

A lot of theists believe in God on the basis of experiences. Atheists tend to disbelieve on the basis of abstract arguments. This is a difference between the two.

I accept the fact that you believe differently. Mao said very bluntly that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. I forget the exact wording in Wretched of the Earth but Frantz Fanon said something like that power is sovereign.

Ultimately, who controls the state is who controls the state. It isn't based on one human's reasoning or another human's reasoning. The idea that I am some sort of subhuman (which I'm not attributing to you) who doesn't use reasoning is fallacious. We both use reason but from completely different premises. Your reasoning doesn't make sense from my premises and my reasoning doesn't make sense from your premises. If you run things, I am sure you will run things on the basis of your premises. If I run things, I am sure I will insha'Allah run things on the basis of my premises. We operate from different premises and I accept that.

I think you write as though I want to convince you. I believe if God wills, God will convince you. If God wills, you will, for example, have a strange experience which goes contrary to your materialist beliefs and forces you to revise your worldview.