I act in a way that seems right to me, based on a combination of moral intuitions and moral reasoning.

wagenweg responded:

You do what “seems” right??? Seriously?

Yes, and so do you. It seems to you that the Bible is the word of God, and it seems to you that you ought to follow God’s edicts.

Let me repeat my original question:

Suppose that a god exists and that he commands you to behave a certain way. How do you decide whether to obey him?

wagenweg:

so your answer is that you throw a dart with a blind fold on at a board of morality and hope you get it right?

Not at all. My moral intuitions are not random, and neither is my moral reasoning.

Christians go to the author of morlaity.

Christians claim to derive their morality from a book that they believe was directly inspired by a deity they believe they should obey.

In reality, most Christians use their own moral intuitions and reasoning to decide which parts of the Bible to obey (“thou shalt not kill”) and which to ignore (“neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee”).

The reason we know that God’s moral law is good is because it is evidential.

Please explain.

Where did your moral intuitions come from?

A combination of genes, culture, and careful reflection.

And as you have asked me, how do you know they are good?

I don’t know that they’re good in an absolute sense, just as you don’t know that the morality of the Bible — even if it is the word of God — is good in an absolute sense.

On a different note, YOu asked me, “How do you know that God’s standard is good?” I ask you, how do you know his standard isn’t good?

I don’t know whether he exists at all, much less what his standard is. How could I possibly know whether it is good, then?

You do what “seems” right???
Seriously? so your answer is that you throw a dart with a blind fold on at a board of morality and hope you get it right?

Christians go to the author of morlaity. That’s why when we go against this moral code. it’s called sin. The reason we know that God’s moral law is good is because it is evidential.

Where did your moral intuitions come from? Were they self made? Were they genetically encoded into you? And as you have asked me, how do you know they are good?

On a different note, YOu asked me, “How do you know that God’s standard is good?” I ask you, how do you know his standard isn’t good?

It’s called the Bible.

If you don’t like what Gil said all you have to do is provide the DATA that refutes him..

Clive Hayden:

…if he arbitrarily cut away pieces with nothing in mind, we wouldn’t call him a sculptor.

Selection isn’t arbitrary.

Jim:

Morality prescribes “ought,” yet within a wholly material universe there can be no “ought;” there can only be “is.”

Suppose that God exists. That’s an “is”. Suppose that God wants you to behave a certain way. That’s also an “is”. How do you get an “ought” from an “is” and an “is”?

Yes I have asked.

And as expected the answers are always subjective jibberish.

I would add to Pelagius’ unanswered question; how do you know what God’s standard is?

I quite agree. Atheists can live essentially moral lives, but their worldview provides them with no reasons why they should.

That might be true (I dispute it, but that is despite the point). So they live a moral live without their worldview telling them a reason. So what?

They’re participants in a moral order that their worldview did nothing to construct and does nothing to sustain. Within a godless universe – a universe where everything is either matter or reducible to matter – morality is a senseless concept. Morality prescribes “ought,” yet within a wholly material universe there can be no “ought;” there can only be “is.” On the atheistic worldview, human beings are merely unintended beings that arose from the endless, aimless becoming of matter. “Ought” (or morality) is a senseless concept within that materialistic conception of human existence. “Is” is all there can be.

Here we have that whole ‘ought’ vs. ‘is’ concept. Yet, again, if you ask an atheist, they will tell you that they actually DID arrive at an ought. And they claim to do so (actually, there is evidence that they do so) without the help of a deity. What a conundrum.

Morality is a meaningful concept only with respect to beings whose existence has inherent and ultimate meaning (or value).

Ah, you mean like a human? A fly? So morality has a meaning even to an atheist.

It is quite meaningless, for example, to speak of morality with respect to cockroaches.

So you are saying that the life of a cockroach to you has neither inherent or ultimate value?

Within the atheistic worldview, it is equally meaningless to speak of morality with respect to human beings.

Again, it’s quite funny that if you do ask theists about it, they still speak of morality with regards to humans. Again, all without any reference to a deity.

Morality is meaningful only if human beings are made in the image of a moral God who endowed them with those things that matter alone could never give them, namely, the inherent value that makes morality a meaningful concept and a moral sense that allows them to know right from wrong.

That is your claim. You have no evidence to support it. Yet, millions of atheists (and theists who have significantly different beliefs than you do) would actually be powerful counterevidence.

Although they deny his existence, atheists can be moral beings precisely because God does exist.

And this is exactly what I said. Atheists (and all those other theists) live moral lives only because of that one deity– no matter what they say or believe.

I’m demonstrating the absurdity of GilDodgen’s statement:

Natural selection does not “fashion” anything; it only throws stuff out. How can this not be obvious?

…by applying his logic to marble sculpture and showing that it leads to the absurd claim that the sculptor isn’t “fashioning” anything:

Sculptors don’t “fashion” anything; they only throw out marble chips. How can this not be obvious?

Surely you’re joking. A sculptor has in mind a fashion, and that is what he is doing, adding a face by subtracting the chips (addition by subtraction in essence); if he arbitrarily cut away pieces with nothing in mind, we wouldn’t call him a sculptor.