Kwalish Kid wrote:

You presented nothing of the sort, you buffoon.

Incision wrote:
One thing seems to be an obvious problem. "God" is defined as "the Being that is eternal, omnipresent, aseitic, the locus of morality and possesses infallible and supreme authority." But this isn't how people normally define "God": it's missing crucial attributes such as personhood, disembodiment, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect freedom and being the creator of the universe.

Incision wrote:
I also think there is a (less serious) problem with the definition of "authority." "Power to impose prohibitions and obligations" is just the sort of rough, commonsense definition you'd get from a dictionary.

Incision wrote:
But bearing this in mind, we can ask whether the argument proves that if there are objective moral truths then there is a being that is eternal, omnipresent, aseitic, etc.

Tisthammerw wrote:
In this thread I wish to discuss the argument from morality. For a full description of my view one can click that link, but it's quicker just to read this post.

Part 2: Without God, who or what says how we ought to behave?

The existence of God provides a clear answer to the question of "Who or what says how we ought to behave?"

But what does atheism have?

Suppose for instance the answer to this question is "nothing." Unless one is an adherent of moral nihilism (which says there is nothing morally wrong) this encounters problems. If there is literally nothing that says how we ought to behave, then there is also nothing that says Hitler ought to have behaved differently when he decided to slaughter millions of Jews.

So we're back to the question at hand for the atheist. If God does not exist and moral principles are binding independently of whether we believe them to be so, who or what says how we ought to behave?

Interestingly enough, it seems almost self-evident to both the theist and the atheistic moral objectivist that objective morality is a fundamental part of reality. In the case of classical theism, God is the fundamental reality from which all existence and moral truths originate. Atheism faces a bit of a challenge however. Since moral statements are not analytic (true by definition, e.g. "hairless men have no hair"), it's more difficult for atheism to explain why morality exists so fundamentally, because in that case what would be morality's metaphysical basis? Let X be the basis of objective morality. X does not seem to be confined to any particular time or location. If we cut out any tiny space-time segment of the universe and destroyed the rest, morality would still exist in that segment.

So, the basis of morality is in some sense present at all places at all times. On the atheistic view, this X also doesn't seem to depend on anything in the universe for its existence.

Morality would still exist if we took away cars, mountains, stars, and even entire galaxies. In other words, the basis of morality would be aseitic. In this sense at least (being eternal, omnipresent, and requiring an aseitic basis), morality seems to be a fundamental part of reality.

What about humans? One interesting idea is that it is the existence of humans that somehow causes moral truths to exist, and if we took away humans moral truths would not exist. Upon closer examination however this does not appear to be the case. Take for instance the necessarily true statement "all bachelors are unmarried." This claim would hold true even if there were no bachelors, because what the statement is essentially saying is, "If there was one or more bachelors, any such bachelor would be unmarried." Similarly, the moral statement "It is morally wrong for a man to torture an infant just for fun" essentially means "If there was a man and an infant, the man should not torture the infant just for fun." Would this if-statement hold true in a universe without humans? It would appear so, because if we started with a universe without humans and the if-statement wasn't true, then even if we inserted a man and an infant into this previously uninhabited universe the statement "the man should not torture the infant just for fun" would not be true. This would mean "It is morally wrong for a man to torture an infant just for fun" is true without humans in the same way that "all bachelors are unmarried" is true without bachelors. But if that is the case, then the basis of objective moral truths cannot be the existence of humans.

The basis of morality would have a number of other interesting characteristics as well. Whoever or whatever it is that says how we ought to behave, this X must possess the following attributes.

Supremely transcendent authority. It is one thing to merely say what people should do, but X (the basis of objective morality) must be authoritative in that people really ought to obey it. Suppose for instance a Nazi commands a subordinate to kill Jews. Is it the case that the subordinate ought to obey the Nazi? No, the subordinate ought to obey the dictates of morality instead, because the dictates of objective morality ought to be obeyed over the orders of any human. The basis of morality must transcend the authority of other people's behavioral commands if its ought-statements are to be objectively truthful. This would include, for instance, transcending the authority of dictators who would order torture and genocide. Otherwise people ought to obey the dictator instead of morality. So the basis of objective morality not only says how we ought to behave but also does so with supremely transcendent authority (transcending e.g. Hitler's authority).

So what could this X be? What are we left with as the metaphysical basis for objective morality if nothing in the universe will do? Especially if the basis of morality exists at all places at all times? At the end of the day we have a mysterious fundamental entity that just happens to be eternal, omnipresent, aseitic, the locus of morality, and commands our behavior with infallible, universally binding, and supreme authority. It is as if atheist has intuitively sensed the necessity of a God without realizing it.

The existence of God would provide the foundation for objective morality as the eternal sovereign entity that everyone ought to obey. The problem for the atheistic moral objectivist would be trying to find a reasonable basis for objective morality that fits the above characteristics (e.g. eternal and omnipresent while being the supreme authority in the universe) but cannot reasonably be called God.

The most straightforward prospect perhaps lies in the realm of the abstract, such as logic and mathematics. Theorems of math and logic are analytic and therefore are unconfined by time and space while apparently being aseitic.

Moral statements being analytic would thus solve the atheist's problem here. But because moral statements are not analytic, the challenge of finding a basis for moral truths is rather troublesome, particularly since the foundation of objective morality must be some type of eternal, omnipresent entity with infallible and supreme authority over everyone. It may be then that God is required as a transcendent anchor point for objective morality.