PHILOSOPHY - Religion: God and Morality, Part 2

[@WirelessPhilosophy]

Sorry about the delay! We really appreciate you engaging so deeply with our material. Thanks for creating a response!

[@WirelessPhilosophy]

Hi AntiCitizenX! I'm not sure you watched this video so carefully. This video is not about an argument for the existence of God. It is about whether God's existing (which we're just supposing for the sake of argument), and it being true that we should follow God's commands (again, just assumed) entail the Divine Command Theory of morality. Darwall is saying they do not.

[@TruthUnadulterated]

+wireless philosophy If you know anything about AntiCitizenX, you'll notice that he is overly bent on trying to get people to not believe in God. So it's not surprising that his mind went there. He is in such rebellion to God and it's very obvious.

[@beniadang5982]

the video just a straw man

[@pdoylemi]

Another objection I have to divine command as a basis for morality is quite simple - the simple act of following commands cannot be moral in and of itself. By that theory, a housebroken dog is more "moral" than one that isn't because it understands and follows its masters commands. In such a situation the dog is not a moral actor, but an amoral actor simply doing as it has been told. Under divine command theory, no act is inherently immoral as long as it is sanctioned by god.

[@WirelessPhilosophy]

Thanks so much, aulus6. Feedback like this means a lot to us. You know some philosophy, yes?

[@GainingUnderstanding]

Wireless Philosophy I don't know of any Divine Command Theorist that follows God's command because of epistemic reasons. The reasons are purely ontological. It's not that God knows best and hence we should follow him. The Good isn't outside of God and hence why God commands it, and it isn't the case that it's merely whatever God says that makes The Good good. Rather it is because God IS The Good. God is not merely perfectly good; He is the locus and paradigm of moral values. God’s own holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions are measured. Crooked lines are inconceivable if there are no straight lines, and crooked people are inconceivable unless there is a perfect person (God). This is what contemporary Divine Command Theory seems to suggest. To learn more, check out this lecture from Dr. John Hare from Yale Divinity School: John E. Hare - "Divine Command Theory" (Plantinga Fellow Lecture) Part 1

[@jpchevron]

+Gaining Understanding You just proved his argument. If someone follows a god because he is good, then goodness doesn't stem from a god.

[@GainingUnderstanding]

+jpchevron I didn't say that at all. I specifically talked about how God is The Good, not that he is merely good. If God is The Good then God is the locus and paradigm of moral values and following God is doing the right thing.

[@franciscofuentes8916]

Gaining Understanding the problem is that there are lots of other beliefs that do not include the Christian God and yet believe in right and wrong in a very similar way

[@GainingUnderstanding]

+Fransisco Fuentes That's irrelevant to what I'm talking about and hence no problem. What people believe is irrelevant to what is actually real. God would still be the locus and paradigm of moral values independent of belief. That's what it means to be objective.

[@markangellotti9807]

Even if God exists, human beings are not obligated to obey God's commands. For example, if God were to command Jim to kill an innocent infant, Jim is morally obligated to ignore God's command. But if God were to command Jim to not kill an innocent infant, Jim would be morally required to obey God's command.

[@nathanaelink]

While I appreciate that between the two videos he lays out the assumptions he makes and defines his terms clear, from which his logic follows. However, few people have a view of any god-like being that is not also the creator of the universe. To say the Law is independent of Him is kind of a misnomer, for to say that I exist independent of God, or a rock exists independent of me, is highly ambiguous as to what exactly we mean by "independent." In the case of the myself and the rock, we share lots of things, like the same universe, the same sorts of atoms, and so forth. To what extent do we mean "independent"? I think to escape his conclusion we need only add a few words to his original presentation of his opponents position. We might say: if the creator of the universe is God, therefore He also created moral law. In this way His "commands" inform us of something which He himself created, it would therefore follow that if He had not created them they would not exist. I feel like he attacks a straw man here, and applies pressure to the words "morality IS Gods command" which they were not designed to withstand. I'm not saying he has any terribly gap in logic whatsoever, nevertheless I think its apparent what he means to do here, and in doing so he's demonstrably misrepresented the theistic position.

[@beached1093]

The reason why he is always talking about "morality is God's command" is because that is what the divine command theory posits. I believe your argument at the end falls under the 5th category, because if God creates these "morals" for us and we must follow them, then they are really no longer morals, they are commands. And that simply falls back to the 4th argument, for God to have authoritative command over human morals there must be an independent moral establishing that it is right to obey God's authority. The 4th one was honestly the most difficult to understand, but it is based on the premise that for one entity to have authority over another there must be something independent of both to require it. So there must be a moral seperate from God that tells us we must obey God, otherwise why would we. From my own personal opinion this would be our own man-made morals that command us to follow God. Religion was not created by God, there's no such thing in the eyes of God. Man was only given the word of God and it is by our own free will we choose to obey it. Religion and faith is therefore a tool for humans to create the foundation on which God has authority over humans.

[@danielboone8256]

Couldn’t you just say God is the good and God’s commands is Goodness extrapolated to do duties? “Why should we do what God commands?” “Because God is the good and His commands are good.” I suppose you could ask why we should what is good, but it seems the answer is fundamental in that we understand goodness and that it’s right; it seems intrinsic to us.

[@pdoylemi]

Thanks - I thought that was the gist of it, but wanted to be sure. It is an element of the debate that I have brought up in different ways, but I think your presentation hits the core issue better than I have in the past.

[@Jacob-ry3lu]

I’m not sure that I follow the analogy about the friend who knows about state laws. Couldn’t there be someone who is knowledgeable about something they themselves created? If, for the sake of argument, the friend in the example was a lawmaker who independently created those laws and as a result was also knowledgeable about them, wouldn’t that imply that it’s possible that God is the creator of the moral code and is knowledgeable about it as a result? If my reasoning is faulty, please someone correct me.

[@sihlemafanya6174]

Your reasoning is NOT faulty. These analogies are faulty. The analogy that if one obeys GOD because you pove Him also means that you must obey everyone you love. That is also faulty because, are the people you love all-knowing ? These analogies are very faulty & dangerous.

[@beached1093]

So saying God knows the law because He created it, it would fall back into arguments 4 and 5. He created it meaning He has authority over morality. However then it stands to question where does this authority and need to obey it come from? There must be something independent of God's commands that tells us it is right and moral to obey them. And if the argument is because God himself commands us to obey his commands, then logically his commands are no longer a concern of morality. There is nothing morally right or wrong about following commands. It is not the act itself that is moral, it is the intentions and willingness behind it, otherwise we are no more than actors following a script and have no real moral value within ourselves. At least this is what I've gathered from my understanding

[@Tasarran]

God commanded me to watch this video; now I'm not sure why I did it... XD

[@pdoylemi]

This was very well put. I'm not 100% sure that I understood your rationale on point #2 though. Were you suggesting that divine command theory does not establish a basis for god's authority, thus the idea that following his commands is moral cannot be shown unless we can show a reason for him to hold that authority in the first place?

[@jgilgorri]

I'd like an explanation of the last line. Why is it impossible for Morality to result from Force?

[@jpchevron]

+Julio CG Because then you wouldn't be doing something because it's the "right" thing to do.

[@GourmetBurrito]

+Julio CG Most people would agree moral responsibility (like all sorts of responsibilitiy) needs free agency. If I strapped a bomb to your chest and told you to rob someone else, the belief is that you should not be held responsible for the robbing--that is, you shouldn't receive blame. Likewise, you shouldn't receive praise if instead of robbing another person I forced you to donate to charity.

[@heatherswanson1664]

These are some of the most hideous speech bubbles I've ever seen, it looks like the animators just stretched and rotated one speech bubble without regard for line thickness or curvature.

[@emirkirmic1753]

I have got a question. We talk with the informations we learnt from a data source. That's ok. But if god is real and it created everything, it makes sence that god knows everything best, doesn't it? For example I invented a smartphone. If you want to make commends about it, you have to learn it from a machinist or somthing(or from me lol). But as the inventor, I don't have to learn it from a diffrent source because I invented it:D So divine command theory is not false as you say?

[@aulus6]

I love the series, and particularly the animations. Thinking in Hartian terms, the distinction made at the end would, perhaps, be emphasized if it was between "being obliged (through force)" and "having an obligation (by morality)"

[@glenliesegang233]

If God is truly good, and his laws are perfect, meaning, to break them causes greater suffering "for all concerned" AND He values free will over threat of punishment, then the true consequences of the punishment deserved for not doing what is good must be hidden. The commandment is there ,but the freedom to disobey without visible consequence is required. So, obedience out of respect that He is the absolute standard of good is different than being commanded to be good, or else.

[@glenliesegang233]

If a line is said to be straight, there must be a concept of a perfectly straight line against which to check it. If there is a possibility of perfect goodness, then all goodness can be compared to it, rather than human decision of what goodness is.

[@jhljhl6964]

"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted. " -- Dostoevsky.

[@BerishaFatian]

What you're describing is the Euthyphro dilemma. Which says: Is something good because God commands it, or does God commands something because it's good? Christians philosophers say this is a false dilemma. There's a third option which says: Something is good because God is good. In other words God didn't invent morality, or God doesn't obey morality, God IS the standard of morality.

[@damienschwass9354]

How do we know this god is good?

[@BerishaFatian]

@@damienschwass9354 The bible says so on a few verses. Also if God is not good, good wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't know what good is. Because we're made in his image, we know what good is.

[@killer4hire]

Exactly. The force you mentioned is the force of survival. This explains why we have social and moral behaviours, they just work in social animals like us. No divine explanation needed. As no divine explanation is needed it is not justified to invoke one as it builds on completely unproven and unexplained attributes while existing knowledge can already account for everything.

[@charmendro]

I think a common position from Catholics is that Morality originated from God because He is goodness itself. There is not such thing as Evil, rather there is a lack of goodness. And goodness is that which is oriented toward God. Since God is the supreme being, He is what we call Goodness Itself and that which is good is whatever is closer to being like God.

[@charmendro]

BluckKraken I at this point we’d just end up playing semantics. Though I’d be interested in your explanation for thos

[@MrJZ367]

I think it's because if you ARE forced to do something good, then it is independently true that is moral to begin with. As in, I can force someone to do something because it is moral. But forcing someone to do something...period...isn't moral by itself. Which again means if God is forcing us to do moral things...then those things are moral independent of God's commands/force. If that's true, why would we need to be forced anyway? It is apparently moral already.

[@chrishodgson3567]

It's my opinion that true morality doesn't really exist and what we perceive as moral is simply a cultural understanding.

[@wild7goose]

From the Christian worldview, none of these uphold to the theological understanding of God. What has been presented here are examples and subsets of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Biblically speaking, the Christian God is believed to be the moral standard set for humanity because God is by nature the ultimate/perfect good. Philosophically, these examples of moral standards work for the deities of other religions, but not for orthodox Christianity.

[@vashthestamped7653]

The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. True dilemma is A or non A But the Euthyphro Give you option A and B but maybe there is a C there and yes there is And that is God is the standard there is no standard beyond him.

[@theinsekt]

Why can't morality come from force? In fact if we evolved then morality comes from force. Do this or you or your offspring won't be as successful. Follow the group or you or your offspring won't be as successful. Work for the group or you or your offspring won't be as successful. etc. All these are external pressures (forces) that eventually lead to the human morality that we are born with (this inbuilt morality is then adjusted by experience, thought, other people etc).

[@aulus6]

I mostly deal with the philosophy of law, but I enjoy the discipline in general.

[@EAANThe]

I think the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Divine Command Theory ( www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ ) has a better introductory grasp of what the theory really says in its different forms, and has better interaction with advocates or defenders of aspects of the theory (e.g., William Alston or Robert Adams) and major criticisms. Read that brief article, then come back to this video and see if you think it's being fair.

[@russjalichandra5491]

Although this is quite interesting, you might as well mention that God here is God of monotheism religions only. Not all Gods in this world preach or impose morality.

[@theinsekt]

If morals where independently good why do different creatures have different morals? There are even some behavior in humans that help breed morality, such as the urge to punish immoral behavior. It makes it so that it's more costly to be immoral and therefore makes it more advantageous to be "good".

[@MrSiddthecampionite]

I did not understand the last 2 arguments. can anyone help?

[@looneydrew]

Last time I checked, a legislator is not above a citizen in the same was a sergeant is above a private. The legislators work for the people, not the other way around. The government is meant to be OF the people and FOR the people. Not IN CHARGE of the people. We fought a war to get away from that type of government. Maybe this is what is wrong with our education system. They need to teach basic American Government to people...

[@yuhansungscoffee]

this was the bomb

[@sihlemafanya6174]

I find it strange how you equate GOD with the people in your analogies. It's almost as if the same law that governs logic must be applied equally to GOD as with the people in your analogies which is very dangerous & detrimental in any effort to know GOD.

[@damienschwass9354]

God is not logical, got it.

[@vixr9557]

trying to explain supernatural with human logic

[@hallboy5]

I would argue that your conclusions on points 1 and 2 do not necessarily follow. Might it be possible that God knows what he is talking about- not because he is an expert on morality (as your friend who is an expert on the laws of Missouri knows what they are talking about), but because he created morality and defined what is moral (as, say, a friend of yours who actually created and passed a law in Missouri would know what they are talking about)? In that case, God would not be subject to some greater concept of law and the divine command theory would not be false. For 2, I would posit the possibility that God does know what is best for us- because he made us and the universe- and thus, as creator, he is not subject to some greater concept of what is better for us. He knows it because he made it that way, in the same way that the engineer of a refrigerator knows best how to operate and care for that refrigerator because he made it. He is not subject to some greater, more ultimate concept of operating fridges. Thus, the divine command theory still holds as a possibility.

[@sirrodrickgeorgemcberryjoh9509]

But how do we know he knows best? We on Earth listen to many people. Let's say that you and I lived in a country ruled by a dictator and the dictator said that we weren't allowed to wear a red sweater in the country and he claimed because he thought it was for the best and otherwise we'd be sent to prison or a concentration camp. How can we trust that wearing a red sweater is actually bad? Yes we'd be punished for it but does it still make wearing a red sweater bad? The dictator claims he knows best because he created the laws, the country, and the prison and is in charge of it. And we can't actually do anything because he has authority over us.

[@hallboy5]

@@sirrodrickgeorgemcberryjoh9509 The problem with your analogy here is that the dictator didn't create us. Sure, he has total authority and has placed down rules to tell us what to do, but he cannot have done that from a position of omniscience, and so some of those rules are going to be flawed (such as a no-red-sweater rule, which you and I already know would be a poor moral law because we have the moral law written on our hearts). The concept of God necessitates that he knows what is good and bad for us- that's included in omniscience! And it makes total sense that he would know that because he made us, which also gives him total authority over us.

[@sirrodrickgeorgemcberryjoh9509]

@@hallboy5 No it doesn't make total sense, whether the dictator "created" us or did not doesn't matter because he created the country, the laws, the military, and the punishments therefore from his point of view he knows "best" because he invented the consequences. In the view of Christianity, god created us, created the laws, the planet and also the punishments. Both have absolute power and unlimited knowledge in comparison to the rest of us. Which is actually part of the reason we actually had kings back in the day. The kings were chosen by "god" therefore they knew what was best for us. The Church was LED by "god" as well therefore they knew what was best for us. And we as humans can still argue what is right or wrong. And we do, that's how we evolved. Inspite of religion, great minds have disagreed with their beliefs and made new views which gave us human rights. In Christianity god created the rules, but he also created the consequences, Hell. Which that begs an entirely new question to the debate. Do the consequences of disobedience justify the punishment? is it justified of the dictator for him to send you for the rest of your life in a concentration camp because you wore a red sweater? Is it justified for any of the sins in Christianity for us to be sent in eternal damnation? Even in today's society we have agreed as a people that severe punishments such as concentration camps and torture is wrong. Therefore we have prisons ( which have there own problems ). Even deathrow and the ways of "humanly" killing someone has changed. That wasn't religion that changed that. That was years of moral evolution and debates. I believe if there was a god or gods that if anything they set just a few simple guidelines and the rest just let us evolve our morals as we gained knowledge and wisdom. I don't believe that any god in any faith is omniscience because that would mean that although they have knowledge of what is good, they also have the knowledge to PREVENT evil. In our world we learn from evil to expand our good morals. But god has already decided for us what is right or wrong therefore there is no need for evil for us to learn from. And that just creates a paradox.

[@hallboy5]

Sir Rodrick George McBerry John Henry Johnson of House Quinton Joe It does matter that God created us, man. The creator of a fridge knows automatically how a fridge functions best- what is good for it and what is bad for it. Like I said, this dictator analogy is awful- a human dictator is not omniscient or omnipotent or purely good and loving, and all of those play into God establishing morality. Plus, your dictator isn't making things right or wrong- he is making them legal or illegal. "Great minds disagreed with religion and gave us human rights" That's laughable. You realize that, if humans aren't made in the image of God, then we are no more valuable than animals, right? And there's no reason to help the poor or needy or outcast, because that's just natural selection at work? And plenty great men that you revere are probably religious- men like Newton and MLK and C.S. Lewis. Don't act like religion is some primitive thing that is holding us back. Then you jump to a whole new argument: "What sin could deserve eternal punishment in hell?" Glad you asked! The answer is any. There are two aspects to a crime: what was committed and who it was committed against. If I slap my friend, he will probably forgive me. If I slap the president of my University, I could get expelled. If I slap the president of the United States, I would probably get put in jail. Since God is perfect and holy, the slightest offense is deserving of eternal punishment. It's a poor analogy to compare God's punishment for our sins to capital punishment wrongs against humans, because humans are not infinity valuable or perfect, as God is. The last issue you bring up is the problem of evil- "God cannot be omniscient and good because evil exists". But this is wrong as well- God could rid the world entirely of evil right now (and he will do this eventually), but he has his reasons for not doing it. And it's not hard to imagine that- surely you have experienced suffering once and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and overall better because of it. Let the evil you see in the world open your eyes to the sinfulness of humans and accept Jesus'sacrifice to save yourself from the consequences! My goal is not to prove you wrong- my goal is that you would be saved. Seek God. Read the Bible, and see if he speaks to you. Humble yourself and honestly consider what it says. If God isn't real, then you will understand Christians better! If God is real, you may very well find the greatest treasure in the world- a relationship with the One True God, bringing you salvation and purpose and community and joy and peace and hope. I beg you, seek God and find out if he is real!

[@sirrodrickgeorgemcberryjoh9509]

@@hallboy5 I don't really think that a fridge really compares to religion but okay. "You realize that, if humans aren't made in the image of God, then we are no more valuable than animals, right?" Being an animal is a bad thing? Since when? I think it's wrong to think we are superior or lesser then anything or anyone. Sure we could wipe entire species in seconds if we wanted but that doesn't mean we should be arrogant and consider us different from animals. They're our cousins after all. This point of view of animals is exactly why racism has existed. And I would argue that religion is holding us back because it has in the past. Cause the death and suffering of many. Many great minds were indeed suppressed by religion. Look at Galileo for example, he was a devote Christian however was suppressed and prosecuted by the Church. It's exactly the same reasons why immigrants came to America, they wanted freedom. "Let the evil you see in the world open your eyes to the sinfulness of humans and accept Jesus'sacrifice to save yourself from the consequences! My goal is not to prove you wrong- my goal is that you would be saved. ' "Since God is perfect and holy, the slightest offense is deserving of eternal punishment. It's a poor analogy to compare God's punishment for our sins to capital punishment wrongs against humans, because humans are not infinity valuable or perfect, as God is." I'm glad you openly agree with horrendous torment that even we humans are incapable of. That's EXACTLY why we have dictators in our world, either chosen by a divine or by force. We use lies and excuses to justify the very definition of "sin" for our own selfish and cruel gains. And there's another thing wrong with your beliefs. I would agree that we have no value at least in the grand scheme in the universe otherwise I believe all life has value. However, as for "god" I don't believe there's any reason to believe that he is perfect. Far from it in fact. Perfection is impossible, not even a circle is perfectly a circle if you look close enough. Look bud, I'm not religious I probably never will be no reason for me to believe in any religion as there lacks evidence. I've studied dozens of religions, I've read a lot of them and I've studied science. I've come to the conclusion that I don't think we humans have the necessary knowledge or experience to really know what or who created us. The universe is far bigger then we could EVER imagine so I don't personally believe currently there's anyway of knowing. Especially since every religion makes the same claims and out of simple probability cancel each other out. Because I don't believe we're special, or the "chosen ones here to be saved by a white knight crusader!" Those are things of fantasy. Reality is, we're insignificant at any moment we could be completely erased from existence by a rogue star, a black hole, or even aliens if you believe in that stuff. But we do have each other, our memories, our journey and our love for our planet, it's species and ourselves. We've learned so much yet know so little. You might think that it's depressing but I guess that's your point of you, if you want to believe in a reassuring fable go ahead, that's your choice. I made my mine.

[@stephendarwall9650]

Yes, that's the idea I was trying to express: no one's authority, not even God's, could possibly be created by their command, since the legitimacy of the command would presuppose the authority.

[@Kabitu1]

The automated hand-jiggling looks unnatural and distracting.

[@Therealhatepotion]

Are we assuming that Zeus is asking us to do what he thinks is good for us or did you pick your god from a different pantheon? I choose free thinking and if their is a god I'll just tell him/her/it I wasn't as evil and hateful as most of his fan club & priests are.

[@kongatron2983]

So what is morality? Is morality the feeling of what we think is right and wrong (in simple terms?) If there's no God technically it's all a bunch of chemical reactions in our brain that spawn another chain reaction. That would make morality what it is. But I think God is the spirit/feeling of morality. (Not just the maker of it but is itself that and much more.) The push/thought that nudges us to a better way. Not about complete right and wrong but more of better and worse. (Though God would know what would be the best way.) So that would explain why we feel as if something is morally right and wrong. (Or it could be how our bodies are made to just follow morality. God being the designer or without God, that is just how it came to be after billions of years of atoms doing atomy thingy.)

[@kongatron2983]

I guess Im double downing on God's force in a sense. If we don't have God, aren't our brains forced to think because of the chemical reactions, hence morality we be forced on us. If morality is just a truth (like math where we discover it instead of us making it) could've just set the rules since the beginning of time. And lastly, if God was morality itself would that change the argument?

[@vixr9557]

I have a better video than this explaining quite opposite. Let me know everyone if needed I,ll drop the link

[@a.j.spaude8368]

So why didn't he address what would happen if God both wrote the moral law and relayed that law to us?

[@Blitzman1999]

If god wrote the moral law then that would make the morality within it subjective morality as he's not gathering it from any moral concept outside himself. Therefore one would have to believe that god is morality (because saying morality is separate from god makes morality either below or above god which both lead to contradictions explained in the video); which leads to the following contradiction: If god is morality then he can't have a free will. Since it's impossible for god to commit a wrong; even if he wanted to god couldn't commit an immoral act. God can't therefore have free will as he is forced to by his nature to always do good. God isn't choosing to always be good, if he's morality, he is logically forced to. This then means free will is not morally good since god doesn't have the attribute as all that is good is god; because if god lacked any good he wouldn't be perfect. Therefore god didn't create us will the all possible good such as free will; as Adam and Eve had free will before the "Fall". God would've had to create us with an evil trait. This leads to the confirmation of the "problem of evil" as god created the evil within us and this makes him not Omnibenevolent. The morality problem appears to always make god contradictory.

[@rohan5076]

U told in the video that just bcx it harms us we need to be nice therefore we ourselves can make our moral laws and can be nice...then why is it wrong to lie... surely it dosent hurt....and here's the greater question why r u considering humans to be more valued than any other creatures....then you have to make laws for even mosquitoes....and why is Hitler wrong in ur case just bcx he kills some men.....he is just securing himself from threats...so he first is securing himself that's all....for himself to sustain...and evn though u r trying to tell God dosent exist there's is still pain suffering ...so how do u answer that And God himself is the moral standard he just doesn't command it to do...bcx he is the moral standard therefore he commands us to be in the right path and besides why do you think ur greater to tell this and shld obey u and follow whatever path u like others to do...I want all men to die so that I can get all things for myself...what I'm just doing is surviving and being nice to myself....so how do u answer this. God exists and Jesus is the only way truth and Life

[@vixr9557]

wouldn't

[@killer4hire]

Excellent video! It really shows the moral argument only works as long as the theist is asking the questions. As soon as the theist has to defend his own position it falls apart as it is incoherent and/or meaningless. It just shows morality is complex as you would expect from a complex creature with a multitude of behaviours and motivations like humans. Atheists often make the mistake of trying to fit all aspects of morality into one theory while in fact morality is informed on multiple levels.

[@caughtinthevoidfloyd5821]

Not even close

[@happyguy5165]

God is neither above or below the law... God is the law. The concept of God is that He is perfection, to be in line with Him is to be in line with perfect morality. In short God=perfection, perfection=perfect morality, perfect morality = moral law (perfect code of conduct) therefore God=the moral law.

[@TheBlidget]

see section 5

[@karl5722]

@@TheBlidget So what? That is a much more and a better way to solve it. He said the moral law I say to be more precise God=The Good.

[@TheBlidget]

@@karl5722 I'm assuming you're just creating the same problem with the same word just based on the comments here. But i haven't watched the video since i first commented

[@karl5722]

@@TheBlidget Secrion 5 is a way to solve which I find it hard to agree with it. I am saying accepting God is the Good is far better than accepting this. Also what problem?

[@TheBlidget]

@@karl5722 ok but by what reasoning is god good.

[@ramaraksha01]

The hands of philosophers are covered with the blood of innocents - they have ignored the hate & division that their religions preach

[@killer4hire]

Morality is used in so many cultures and places that the word does really seem to have a meaning. Try to ask a theist to accurately define the meaning and enjoy. They will be in trouble because as soon as they provide a meaningful definition they expose their position as question begging or they refute their own position all together.

[@catherinereaburn223]

I have never before heard such intellectual garbage in all my life. Sometimes trying to be smart makes us look really confused and unwise.

[@vixr9557]

hope there's no God cause I would want to be when you face him

[@SuchingYan]

Your analogy isn't helpful....????? Coz that lady isn't God who exists outside the time and space and who is good....? So you are saying....could God be a devious creature? HE COULD. Or is God that powerful and competent??? MAYBE NOT. omg why make it so complicated

[@ctvtmo]

Wow, five straw men set up and knocked down with the unproven assumption of the (religious) dogmas of individualism and self autonomy. How about the real reason? Morality exists because God is moral. Why is stealing wrong? Because God isn't a thief. There is no morality above God, but morality reflects the very nature of God. How in an atheistic/secular universe is there universal, transcendent, objective morality?

[@lugus9261]

ctvtmo atheism=/= naturalism. You can still believe in Plato's forms and other metaphysical ideas without being a theist

[@ctvtmo]

But can you believe in Plato's forms and be an atheist?

[@lugus9261]

ctvtmo well, yes, look up iris murdoch

[@ctvtmo]

Hmm, I will have to look that up, thank you for the reference.

[@Blitzman1999]

If god is morality then he can't have a free will. Since it's impossible for god to commit a wrong; even if he wanted to god couldn't commit an immoral act. God can't therefore have free will as he is forced to by his nature to always do good. God isn't choosing to always be good, if he's morality, he is logically forced to. This then means free will is not morally good since god doesn't have the attribute as all that is good is god; because if god lacked any good he wouldn't be perfect. Therefore god didn't create us will the all possible good such as free will; as Adam and Eve had free will before the "Fall". God would've had to create us with an evil trait. This leads to the confirmation of the "problem of evil" as god created the evil within us and this makes him not Omnibenevolent. The morality problem appears to always make god contradictory. P.S. Although if your argument is that god is moral then that puts morality above god (I aware you claim otherwise) BUT if morality exists because god is moral then that is therefore saying that god is morality as it wouldn't exist without him (because saying otherwise would make morality and god separate). Although even if that wasn't the case saying that god is moral and then saying that morality isn't above him then logically leads one to have to say that god is morality or vice versa. Which is where I would state the same things as above.

[@karl5722]

Another suggestion that proves the Divine Command theory is that God is Goodness. "God is Love". We avoid these problems by saying that God is the Good and that these commandements do not come from outside.

[@VESANG]

Such a nonsense ranting ... It's hard to watch how supposedly "smart" people would be so foolish in their reasoning in public ...this fool equates God with men in his reasoning... unbelievable . Sorry for being too polite ...

[@karl5722]

Yes and no. I trust these people more than some other channels. For example the school of life offers narrow views of philosophers. These responses are not all of them. It is because of lack of knowledge that they find only these possibilities

[@vixr9557]

100% agree bunch of nonsense ranting that's what it is

[@vixr9557]

I wonder who made this fool professor 😂