[ATLian]

TM,

your argument is a fallacy, called the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" which I'm just too tired to type about now.

There's also a major problem if you say god is the source of all morality, and this problem is known as "Euthyphro's Dilemma". We discussed this issue of god and morality a while back on the post

http://www.mashada.com/forums/index/...0300/index.php

and I argued that god is a terrbile choice as a guide for what is and what isn't moral. Let me repost what I wrote then:
_____________________________________________

I don’t know if you’re into Philosophy, but if you are, go read about “The Euthyphro Dilemma”. It's a discussion between Euthyphro and Socrates which touches on the issue you address above.

In a nutshell, there’s a maxim that goes something like “what is good to god is good, and what is not good to god is not good”, a maxim which Euthyphro strongly believed in, but Socrates didn't. Therefore, Socrates asked Euthyphro “Are morally good acts willed by god because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by god?” This is what is called Euthyphro Dilemma's, which is also expressed in many other ways, like “is the holy approved by the gods because it’s holy, or is it holy because it’s approved?”

The issue this dilemma brings about is it shows that god should NOT be the basis of morality. Let me see if I can explain it without getting too muddled up.

If you argue that “Act X is morally obligatory because god commands it”, then it shows that Act X is good only because god said it was good. If an act is good only because god says it’s good, then it’s impossible to say god is good. That’s because any command he makes, whether good or bad, would be defined as good. This means that if he turned into an “omnipotent fiend” and only did bad things, then even those bad things would still be classified as good. E.g. if he commanded us to hate, instead of love, one another, then hatred would now be right. So the statement "god is good" is a void statement that cannot hold water, and therefore cannot be the basis of our morality.

Also, with this argument, it seems like god's commands are arbitrary and therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that one day god might decree, like Catskill85 says above, that “It is ok to kill and fornicate.” That would change our perception of morality, since it shows that morality, as we know it, is all redundant since it is based on the whims of god, who can change it whenever he wants to suit him and his current purposes. So however you look at this side of the argument, it strongly hints that god is an unsuitable foundation on which to build our morality.

If on the other hand you argue that “god commands Act X because it is morally obligatory”, then you are saying that god’s commands are actually based on what is good independent of him. Which then implies that there is a greater moral standard out there to which god himself must also conform, and that god is but an executor of this law which is superior to him. Therefore, killing and fornicating are immoral in that superior law, and god cannot wake up one day and declare that “It is ok to kill and fornicate”. If that’s the case, then it is redundant to worship god as our moral standard, since there is a greater standard out there to which god subscribes, and to which we should then worship!

TM (and other believers), I’d love to hear what your take on this is. When it comes to your moral values, are those morals right because your god commands them or does your god command them because those morals are right? And PLEASE be objective and don't revert to dogma.