No, humans cannot be happy outside of communion with God. That is precisely the argument I use for God's existence. Please see my previous posts.
I agree that no human can be truly happy outside of a right relationship with God. This is now the third time I've stated such.
That you're using this as a proof for God's existence is the problem. The argument is not valid because humans in their fallenness do not define happiness the same way God would, the same way scripture does, or the same as each other. Happiness is not an objective truth. The seeking of happiness may be objectively true, but--again as Pascal says--the happiness is not found in the same thing. So, again, your conflation of these two things negates the argument itself.
So, you are going to claim, then, to define what happiness is for the psychopath? You're going tell a psychopath that the actions he claims to be satisfying (hopelessly horrific as they are) are not satisfying?
Yes. He is not the authority on his own humanity. His humanity is what his humanity is. Just like I am going to tell a man who says he is a woman that he is wrong about himself. You wouldn't? Just like I am going to tell someone who thinks they belong in a marriage to someone of the same sex that they are objectively wrong about what will make them happy.
See, it is you who are adopting the morally relativistic and morally subjective worldview, in which each individual is the authority on their own happiness. It is your view that says "morality is grounded in a powerful authority who will punish behaviors they dislike" rather than the created order, that provides the environment where statements like "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" becomes tolerable. Because there is no objective order to the universe. Just the punishments or rewards of a deity.
So, you are a greater authority on humanity than the psychopath? The problem with your thinking here is that you're relying on scripture (which God has given to us) as the definer of morality and happiness. That a trans person is "wrong" about himself is biblically defined morality--God created them male and female. In this instance science follows. Male is objectively definable as an XY chromosomal makeup while female is objectively definable as an XX chromosomal makeup. To state that a man who thinks himself a woman is wrong is defensible both scripturally and scientifically. To define happiness as a "substance" or a "thing" has to be done in the same way--and you're not defining it that way.
The problem here, again, is your undefined "happiness." You want to be the definer of happiness and you suggest such is attainable by the atheist, but the problem is that scripture defines for us what true happiness is: Right relationship with God. The Atheist does not have scripture, nor does he care about it. So, therefore, he or she cannot know what true happiness is and, as such, he or she cannot attain it.
WIth the same-sex marriage example... I agree that they are not pursuing true happiness, but the several same-sex couples I know would never claim themselves to be unhappy. In fact, they would claim to be very happy. At this point, your argument is opening a ton of holes... For example, if you stop the trans person from being trans or you convince the same-sex attracted person to be straight, what have you gained? Nothing. Salvation is found in God alone, not in your definition of happiness. If you "convert" the same-sex attracted to straightness, he or she might find greater personal fulfillment, but they won't have found Christ.
I am in no way, shape, or form adopting a relativistic and morally subjective worldview just because I disagree with your poor and illogical arguments. It is preposterous of you to suggest such a thing. In fact, for you to suggest such a thing suggests you are putting yourself in place of God. This is demonstrated by your idea that you're free to tell anyone they're wrong, but no one seems free to tell you you're wrong.
I would argue there is order to the universe because God made it so. The sun, moon, and stars, for example, have predictable movements because God created an ordered universe. The same God who created the universe, as Creator, gets to define what is good, evil, real, and true--and He has done so in His word.
What gives you the authority to define happiness for that person?
The same authority that allows me to say that 2 + 2 = 4. It isn't a matter of authority. It is a matter of truth.
Where in scripture is 2 + 2 = 4???? Again we have the conflation of issues. You can say 2 + 2 = 4 because it is scientifically provable. But that simple equation is not found in scripture. The science of math here does not contradict scripture (because scripture is silent on the issue). So you can apply "scientific authority" to hold someone else to a definable standard. But, notice, that standard is not created by you as you are neither the inventor of nor definer of mathematics. You are applying an outside, objective scientific standard to the denier of 2 + 2 = 4, while denying that scripture is that standard that defines happiness.
You are assuming "morality has to do with human nature." Again, you have neither explained nor defended this assertion in a logically consistent, or even competent, manner.
Yes I have. See the original post. Morality means good and evil. Good means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. Purpose is a type of desire, and can be grounded in either the desires of God or of a universal human nature. If there is an objective human nature, and if that objective human nature has universal bedrock desires (goods) like life and happiness, then those goods constitute objective moral values.
Tell me where is my misstep.
No, you have not. Morality may be definable as "good" and "evil" but you need God to tell you what is "good" and "what" is evil. That's the point you're ignoring. Similarly you can say that humans have a purpose, but you haven't defined that purpose. Of course, as scripture would say, (and I'm borrowing Piper completely here),: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him for ever. And, to state it unequivocally: I agree with Piper. But, where Piper argues his point from scripture, you're trying to argue your point philosophically, and you're doing a poor job with it.
Your misstep is essentially this: You're making "happiness" your God and suggesting that everyone worship it. Scripture alone defines happiness. Again, the atheist does not care about scripture. To expand on Piper for a minute... Happiness is the
result of a right relationship with God, it is not the one-and-only cause of it. If you have read Piper and think he's arguing that mere "happiness" is the goal, you've gravely misunderstood him.
Question for you: if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, or he delayed for a thousand years, would sin itself still plunge sinners into destruction and misery?
This is the part where I remind you that you've ignored every statement of scripture I've asked about... More on that in a minute.
But, what is sin? Is it it's own thing? No. Sin is rebellion against God. Like darkness is the absence of light (and therefore not it's own "thing"), sin is the absence of obedience to God.
What you're trying to argue for is what Lewis referred to as a "Square Circle;" it is something that is a no-thing--something that cannot be. God does punish sin and that punishment is stated as a consequence of disobedience before that disobedience occurs. As a result of the sin, curses are given to the snake, to woman, to man, and to creation. But, it is clearly God who brings the punishment. When Cain kills Abel, to whom does He appeal that his sentence is too harsh? It's God. Is there a "natural" consequence to Cain's sin? Biblically, the answer is no. God imposes a consequence.
If you were correct that sin is it's own punishment why would Paul need to write: "Now the law came in to increase the trespass... ? (Romans 5:20) Clearly, Paul's argument here is that law defines what sin is and the law was given to increase sin. If you were correct that sin is it's own punishment, Paul would have no need to write such things. If you were correct that sin is its own punishment, God would not have imposed consequences on Cain.
Perhaps your more grand misstep here is that you are arguing a philosophy while ignoring what scripture says while assuming scripture itself. So, in a sense, scripture for you--in your argumentation--is merely borrowed capital. That borrowed capital gives you your worldview but you argue that worldview from philosophy, not scripture. In this case, however, you have to do so since scripture so clearly and plainly renders your argument wrong.
The Archangel