I usually use a imaginary illustration to make a point in regard of the moral argument of Gods existence. I ask : Is there a case where it could be considered a morally good thing to torture, rape, and kill babies for fun ? Obviously, the only correct straightforward answer is: no, its always wrong ( which has the implication that it would be then objectively wrong ) , and a pointer to prescriptive moral values that can only derive from God. A better illustration is this real life case :
Grandmother admits to horrifying abuse of two grandchildren while dressed as her witch alter-ego Nelda
OKLAHOMA CITY - A shocking confession from a little girl as she exposes an Oklahoma City woman's alleged child abuse scheme, which includes dressing as a witch. Geneva Robinson, 49, is in jail for the allegations. This all came to light when she took a severely abused child to the hospital, and what that little girl told the workers lead to the discovery. Police said the child was "malnourished and very thin,” her "armpits were bruised with small cut” and " "her face had scratches and whelps on it.” They also said "the back of her neck had scarring" and "along her jaw line she had whelps and bruising." Reports state the child's skin was coming off her infected ankles. Hospital workers called DHS, and the little girl told them Robinson "would dress up as a witch, wearing a green mask, and would take her out to the garage, bind her up at night and make her sleep on a pair of jeans, because she was in trouble." The child told them "the witches name was Nelda," and that "she got the marks under her arms because Nelda would take a pink dog leash and hang her in the middle of the garage underneath her arms.” The girl also said Nelda told her "the creatures in the attic were going to come and get her at tonight,” and that she was "hit with an orange and black whip.” The girl "talked about fire and being burned" and said "Nelda would use a wand knife and put it to her neck." Police showed up to Robinson's house, and they said as soon as they walked into the garage, they saw "a pink dog leash hanging with a black dog leash connected and attached to the garage door railings on the ceiling."
They also found a "horse whip" and "dagger" along with a witch hat, black wig and "hooded cloak with red eyes costume." They said the items are evidence that backs up the child's story. Robinson's home was described as a "house of horrors," the outlet reported. "What she did was horrific and what she did will forever impact this child and her siblings," assistant district attorney Merydith Easter told the judge. "She deserves the same amount of mercy that she showed this child, and that's none."
Geneva Robinson, 51, was sentenced Thursday to three consecutive life terms, The Oklahoman ( http://bit.ly/2pf0p6u ) reported. Her boyfriend, 33-year-old Joshua Granger, was also sentenced after he admitted to helping Robinson frighten her granddaughter. According to the outlet, he would dress up as a demon named "Coogro." He will serve 30 years in prison.
Could there be a situation, where we could classify Geneva Roberts behavior as morally justifiable, or even as good, or morally virtuous ? What, if we would invert our moral standard ?
The founder of an orphanage in Burundi, Marguerite Barankitse, defied death threats and witnessed unspeakable violence as she saved thousands of children from ethnic slaughters in the 1990s. She was the winner of a new prize created in memory of the Armenian genocide a century ago. 2
Could we imagine to invert moral values, set a new standard, and it would become suddenly extraordinarily good and morally desirable, and apprechiable of what Geneva did, and give the prize , which Marguerite won, to her and her boyfriend ? Imagine : " Geneva Robinson is the winner of a new prize created in memory of the Armenian genocide a century ago because of her extraordinary humanitarian achievment of torturing little children." In other words: could it depend just on someones or a societies preferences or a new determination , or simple change to introduce a new moral standard ?
Greg Koukl : That is obviously absurd. If so, you agree, that its wrong in any circumstances, then you agree that objective moral values exist. Since that is the case, this takes you to really believe much more than you might think you do. This is a very big thing that you are admitting here. I don't think you realized how big. You are saying that you are confident -- you have a reasonable certainty -- that something exists somewhere in a realm which you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. You believe something exists that you can't prove empirically. Think for a moment about a moral absolute. Where did it come from?
The implications of this fact you believe that that rule applies to everyone, in other words, it is a moral absolute, then you have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means. There is a sense of moral intuition that has a play here. If a moral absolute exists, it's fair to ask the question, what kind of thing is it? It's not a physical thing. A moral thing is not physical. It doesn't extend into space, it doesn't weigh something, it has no physical qualities or characteristics. It is a non-physical thing that really exists. It's an immaterial thing, something that you know exists but you can't get at with any of your five senses. If it seems that the moral thing exists and has moral force on our behavior, then it seems to me the most reasonable option is that Someone made that moral thing and so that moral rule is a rule of Somebody's, and it's not just a disembodied principle. When you break the moral rule, you offend the Person Who made the rule itself.
That's true for a lot of people who object to the idea of God because they can't find Him with their senses. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses. I think there is a sense of moral intuition that has a play here. But in any event, you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you.
Well, when you say that a thing like an absolute moral rule exists, you've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. In other words, a whole bunch of other beliefs are bound up in that statement.
For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things -- like moral laws which aren't made out of physical stuff -- certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then. Now this is a big step, because in the case of many atheists one of their frequent arguments against God is that He hasn't shown Himself to us. But by your own admission, it can be reasonable to believe in something you simply can't see. In other words, there are different ways to "show" things to people, ways that don't involve the senses.
Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from?
You have only a limited number of options.
1. It could have just come into existence out of nowhere. It could have just "poofed" into existence.
2. It could have self-created itself. Though if it did then one could ask how is it that an arbitrary thing like a moral rule could have any moral force? If it is an accident, if it just comes from nowhere, why would it have any moral force on me? And part of our argument is that a moral rule does have moral force. Maybe it assembled itself by accident out of available immaterial stuff floating around in wherever that world is that morals float around in. Of course, if it happened by accident then you'd still have to answer the question, how does an accidental thing have moral force? Or,
3. it could be that the moral law was made by Someone Who lives in that immaterial realm. Now, those are your options. I don't know how many other options there are, but it seems to me you are stuck with these three.
You see, you do not have the liberty of standing in a neutral place on this issue. You've got to believe something. If you refuse to believe God made moral laws, given that you admit that they are there, then you're opting for one of the other two alternatives. And if you say that they just popped into existence or that they assembled themselves by chance, you have new problems to solve. In other words, I don't think those are tenable alternatives.
My point is to look at what seems to be the obvious existence of moral absolutes and to then look and see where that observation leads us, and it seems to lead us to the existence of a God who makes those moral rules because moral rules are designed kinds of things that don't make themselves, it appears. And it seems that a very good explanation for their existence is that a God with moral character made a set of moral rules that express His character and those rules then become absolutes which are incumbent upon us
Last edited by Admin on Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:01 pm; edited 22 times in total