Why Atheists cannot account for Objective Moral Truths

[kyredneck]

I merely asked a yes or no question of whether sin is self-destructive or not.

It blows my mind that this seems to be a hard question for BBers to answer.

Romans 3:21-26 doesn't support penal substitution

What happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned?

 

[Alan Gross]

I merely asked a yes or no question of whether sin is self-destructive or not. You wrote a lot but didn't answer the question. Think more, write less.

It blows my mind that this seems to be a hard question for BBers to answer.

The yes or no question has to be defined to be clear on how to answer.

Is sin destructive? Yes.

"You reap what you sow."

Is it self-destructive? No.

The act of sin does not include the second act involved in the two aspects of 'cause and effect', in "you reap what you sow."

Sin does not contain self-actuating-destructive within itself.

There is the act of sin that is the cause that takes place in the act of sowing sin which is simply the breaking of God's Law
and there is a second act from outside of sin that is the effect of that sin of breaking God's Law, in reaping, where the destruction takes place that is The Activity of God responding to the initial act of sin.

There are two aspects of 1.) cause and 2.) effect, 1.) sowing and 2.) reaping, and 1.) the act of sin and 2.) the act that brings destruction.

Sin does not have the two acts of cause and effect self-contained inherent within itself, as if 1.) = 2.) and, therefore, sin is not self-destructive.

1.) Sin does not equal 1.) + 2.) self-destruction.

1.) ≠ 1.) + 2.)

God always is Active in 'lifting His Finger', per the Natural Law Morality statement in the comparison chart of it with the Divine Command Theory; https://www.baptistboard.com/data/attachment-files/2023/08/9651_e4d083b15ea5a5e398e7ff7d879e54ba.png

"If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would destroy sinners" is an untrue, shortsighted, statement they make there, for part of their 'Morality'. It is an attempt at denying the existence of God that does not work.

'Morality' and the destructive results of sin, as the second axiom in the equation of cause and effect, are both Activities of The Providence of God and proofs of God's existence with their unchanging and predictable operation always taking place in reality as we know it.

 

[Arthur King]

The yes or no question has to be defined to be clear on how to answer.

Is sin destructive? Yes.

"You reap what you sow."

Is it self-destructive? No.

The act of sin does not include the second act involved in the two aspects of 'cause and effect', in "you reap what you sow."

Sin does not contain self-actuating-destructive within itself.

There is the act of sin that is the cause that takes place in the act of sowing sin which is simply the breaking of God's Law
and there is a second act from outside of sin that is the effect of that sin of breaking God's Law, in reaping, where the destruction takes place that is The Activity of God responding to the initial act of sin.

There are two aspects of 1.) cause and 2.) effect, 1.) sowing and 2.) reaping, and 1.) the act of sin and 2.) the act that brings destruction.

Sin does not have the two acts of cause and effect self-contained inherent within itself, as if 1.) = 2.) and, therefore, sin is not self-destructive.

1.) Sin does not equal 1.) + 2.) self-destruction.

1.) ≠ 1.) + 2.)

God always is Active in 'lifting His Finger', per the Natural Law Morality statement in the comparison chart of it with the Divine Command Theory; https://www.baptistboard.com/data/attachment-files/2023/08/9651_e4d083b15ea5a5e398e7ff7d879e54ba.png

"If God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would destroy sinners" is an untrue, shortsighted, statement they make there, for part of their 'Morality'. It is an attempt at denying the existence of God that does not work.

'Morality' and the destructive results of sin, as the second axiom in the equation of cause and effect, are both Activities of The Providence of God and proofs of God's existence with their unchanging and predictable operation always taking place in reality as we know it.

When sinners exchange God for that which is not God, is that an act of disorder? Yes or no?

When sinners exchange God for that which is not God, are they replacing their true source of happiness with something that is not their true source of happiness? Yes or no?

If Bob commits the sin of suicide by putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger, it sounds like according to your theology, the pulling of the trigger is the sin, and then the bullet going through his brain is God's special act of punishment upon Bob, but there is no causal link between Bob pulling the trigger and the bullet going through his brain. Is this what you are arguing? Sin is not self-destructive, right?

 

[Alan Gross]

the bullet going through his brain is God's special act of punishment upon Bob

Have you ever heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

God made that.

Cause and effect.

What did you think the bullet was going to do? Grow Bob a new arm?

there is no causal link between Bob pulling the trigger and the bullet going through his brain.

"Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause."

For you to say that there is a 'link' between the two, being the bullet and brain in your little story, indicates that there are two facets to the relationship between cause and effect.

The first cause is 'sin', then the effect, second is 'Brain Damage'

Pulling the trigger resulted in damage, didn't it, to the brain?

So, changing the word 'damage', into the word 'punishment', in this particular puzzle makes the result sound more Personal, doesn't it, and rails an accusation at God that He added extra speed behind the bullet to also immorally execute a judicial sentence in the form of pain and torture by punishment, on poor innocent Bob, right?

And that God thinks He would have time to think about Bob having pulled to trigger, to decide what to do about it, and then to corporately over-'punish' Bob.

Is this what you are arguing? Sin is not self-destructive, right?

I'm sorry that that is in your head about 'Sin is self-destructive', along with the 'God not having to lift a finger' assertion as if the two combined together overwhelmed your good sense about things, to buy these lies.

Is 'Sin is not self-destructive' what I am arguing?

Looks like it to me.

You get an 'A' for the day.

 

[The Archangel]

There is a very clear debate going on here. See the attached chart for a refresher.

Actually... there isn't. You're not actually engaging in a debate. You're demanding others answer your questions while totally ignoring theirs. That's not a debate.

Also, while I find the chart interesting, I'm wondering if this chart is something that you've invented (ie. it's your summary of the positions) or are you referencing someone else's work? Why? Because there are things in the Divine Command Theory that seem to mis-state what the Bible actually says. Similarly, there are problems in the chart's understanding of natural law. If the chart is your own work, which I'm assuming it is likely to be, there are definite errors present.

And... speaking of natural law... you have some apparent lack of understanding there. Natural law has to include

(1) The deep structure of practical reason, classically called synderesis... (2) the sheer designedness of human beings, along with what follows from this fact; (3) the details of this design, along with the purposes and meaning embedded it it; and (4) the idea that "the natural consequences of doing wrong, always recognizing that an intrinsically evil act would still be evil even if no evil consequences ensued." (J. Budziszewski, The Line Through The Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2009), 200.)​

As Budziszewski argues, the evil act is evil in and of itself. This is what you seem to be missing. Natural law, then, is not based on apparent or inherent consequences. Perhaps you're trying to argue this, but are just mucking it up. Perhaps you're opposed to such an idea. Whatever you're position might be on Budziszewski's thoughts might be are not apparent in your argumentation because you're begging the question at every turn. In any event... natural law is "natural" because the world was created by God and, as such, certain things are inherently evil, no matter what consequence they bring to any given community or person.

One more thing here... It would be fruitful for you, perhaps, to read Budziszewski at length. The book I quoted, The Line Through The Heart, would be an excellent place to start to help your understanding of Natural Law.

"Happiness is not an objective truth."

Humanity is an objective, definable thing. If what brings long term holistic pleasure and survival to humanity is an objective order of behavior, then that constitutes an objective morality. I can merely make the case as a hypothetical to prove my argument that God is not necessary for there to be objective morality. Objective morality just means a purpose that exists regardless of someone's opinion of what it is.

Again... you're mixing categories here. You're holding-up "happiness" and "pleasure" but, you're not defining what happiness and pleasure is. And, as I've stated before, you need to prove your argument rather than just assume its truth. You're "begging the question," logically speaking.

It is worth mentioning, again, that you try to discuss a morality without any definition of what right and wrong is; right and wrong are simply assumed. Again, this is problematic for you and your arguments on many fronts.

What you're also missing is that we do not need to argue for the existence of God. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above shows His handiwork." (Psalm 19). Additionally, in Romans 1, Paul writes:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23 ESV)
​

Notice: It is God's wrath revealed against the unrighteousness of men; they are not simply suffering "natural consequences," but I digress. What is plain here is that God has revealed Himself and what is knowable about Him is plain to see, because God shows Himself. Humanity's problem is that he "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness."

So, your argument for the existence of God is unnecessary, and your argument is poor to the point that you're actually making the waters more muddy rather than less muddy.

"So, you are a greater authority on humanity than the psychopath?"

"Authority" does not define humanity. Humanity is what humanity is. "Authority" does not define what a tree is. A tree is what a tree is.

A tree would not have inherent "tree-ness" if it weren't created by God to have it. God defines what humanity is. Again, that is biblically plain, no matter how much you choose to ignore it.

Again, the objective perspective asks "what is" not "who says."

This, which you've written to another here, is pretty funny. You're seeking to eliminate any questions against you so-called "theory" in an a priori manner. Again, that's not debate. What this statement and incumbent strategy shows is that you're not interested in a real debate, and, most likely, you're probably not capable of one anyway.

That a trans person is "wrong" about himself is biblically defined morality.

An atheist can easily see that a trans person is wrong about himself. And many atheists do! See Richard Dawkins.

Reference my previous discussion about God making humans "male and female" and the chromosomal make up of males and females.

Is there a "natural" consequence to Cain's sin? Biblically, the answer is no. God imposes a consequence.

Okay, so when a person sins, and exchanges God for that which is not God, are they committing any act of disorder? Yes or no?

Also, since God is the source of happiness for humans, when humans rebel against God, are they not rebelling against their own happiness? How would such an act not result in unhappiness?

I merely asked a yes or no question of whether sin is self-destructive or not. You wrote a lot but didn't answer the question. Think more, write less.

Perhaps you should read more... and more deeply. First, your question (a yes-or-no question) is logically problematic since it seems to provoke the false dichotomy fallacy. So, in essence, your question is not an honest question. Rather, it is designed to pigeon-hole the one who answers into one of two options when, in reality, there are other options. So, your "debate" at this point is logically fallacious in more than one way.

Second, I did answer the question. Sin does have consequences, but those consequences are imposed by God. We are told "the wages of sin is death" but that is derivative of God saying to Adam and Eve that in eating the fruit they will "surely die."

Also... I can't help but notice that you--again--did not interact with any scripture that I referenced. Again, it's probably because the scripture itself disproves your theory, and rather than admit that, you just ignore scripture... which is dangerous to do. Furthermore what you're offering here is more of a "theosophy" rather than anything resembling theology. Assuming biblical norms to be true, you're making philosophical arguments for things that are taking you away the truth and worldview of scripture. Now, having read some of your other posts here, it is likely that you need sin to have it's own consequences and for God to have no real role in punishing sin, for that is the only way to deny a penal-substitionary atonement. But, at this point, that's another debate topic.

Suffice it to say it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertions, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Instead, you just repeat them, assuming them to be true.

The Archangel

 

[Arthur King]

Have you ever heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

God made that.

Cause and effect.

What did you think the bullet was going to do? Grow Bob a new arm?



"Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause."

For you to say that there is a 'link' between the two, being the bullet and brain in your little story, indicates that there are two facets to the relationship between cause and effect.

The first cause is 'sin', then the effect, second is 'Brain Damage'

Pulling the trigger resulted in damage, didn't it, to the brain?

So, changing the word 'damage', into the word 'punishment', in this particular puzzle makes the result sound more Personal, doesn't it, and rails an accusation at God that He added extra speed behind the bullet to also immorally execute a judicial sentence in the form of pain and torture by punishment, on poor innocent Bob, right?

And that God thinks He would have time to think about Bob having pulled to trigger, to decide what to do about it, and then to corporately over-'punish' Bob.



I'm sorry that that is in your head about 'Sin is self-destructive', along with the 'God not having to lift a finger' assertion as if the two combined together overwhelmed your good sense about things, to buy these lies.

Is 'Sin is not self-destructive' what I am arguing?

Looks like it to me.

You get an 'A' for the day.

The point of the illustration has nothing to do with the justice or injustice of Bob's death. You are just adding variables that have nothing to do with the illustration.

The point is that obviously Bob killed himself. Bob's own sin killed Bob. Bob's own sin was self-destructive.

For you to argue that "sin is not self-destructive" you would have to make the absurd analysis that Bob's pulling of the trigger has no direct causal link to the bullet going through Bob's brain. For you to argue that "sin only brings harm because of God's punishments" means that Bob's pulling the trigger on a loaded gun in his mouth only caused him harm because God intervened with a special act of punishment on Bob. But that is a ridiculous analysis. Obviously, Bob's own sin destroyed Bob.

Sin is self-destructive.

I ask AGAIN:

When sinners exchange God for that which is not God, is that an act of disorder? Yes or no?

When sinners exchange God for that which is not God, are they replacing their true source of happiness with something that is not their true source of happiness? Yes or no?

You keep avoiding these simple yes or no questions.

 

[Arthur King]

Actually... there isn't. You're not actually engaging in a debate. You're demanding others answer your questions while totally ignoring theirs. That's not a debate.

Also, while I find the chart interesting, I'm wondering if this chart is something that you've invented (ie. it's your summary of the positions) or are you referencing someone else's work? Why? Because there are things in the Divine Command Theory that seem to mis-state what the Bible actually says. Similarly, there are problems in the chart's understanding of natural law. If the chart is your own work, which I'm assuming it is likely to be, there are definite errors present.

And... speaking of natural law... you have some apparent lack of understanding there. Natural law has to include

(1) The deep structure of practical reason, classically called synderesis... (2) the sheer designedness of human beings, along with what follows from this fact; (3) the details of this design, along with the purposes and meaning embedded it it; and (4) the idea that "the natural consequences of doing wrong, always recognizing that an intrinsically evil act would still be evil even if no evil consequences ensued." (J. Budziszewski, The Line Through The Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2009), 200.)​

As Budziszewski argues, the evil act is evil in and of itself. This is what you seem to be missing. Natural law, then, is not based on apparent or inherent consequences. Perhaps you're trying to argue this, but are just mucking it up. Perhaps you're opposed to such an idea. Whatever you're position might be on Budziszewski's thoughts might be are not apparent in your argumentation because you're begging the question at every turn. In any event... natural law is "natural" because the world was created by God and, as such, certain things are inherently evil, no matter what consequence they bring to any given community or person.

One more thing here... It would be fruitful for you, perhaps, to read Budziszewski at length. The book I quoted, The Line Through The Heart, would be an excellent place to start to help your understanding of Natural Law.



Again... you're mixing categories here. You're holding-up "happiness" and "pleasure" but, you're not defining what happiness and pleasure is. And, as I've stated before, you need to prove your argument rather than just assume its truth. You're "begging the question," logically speaking.

It is worth mentioning, again, that you try to discuss a morality without any definition of what right and wrong is; right and wrong are simply assumed. Again, this is problematic for you and your arguments on many fronts.

What you're also missing is that we do not need to argue for the existence of God. "The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above shows His handiwork." (Psalm 19). Additionally, in Romans 1, Paul writes:

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23 ESV)
​

Notice: It is God's wrath revealed against the unrighteousness of men; they are not simply suffering "natural consequences," but I digress. What is plain here is that God has revealed Himself and what is knowable about Him is plain to see, because God shows Himself. Humanity's problem is that he "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness."

So, your argument for the existence of God is unnecessary, and your argument is poor to the point that you're actually making the waters more muddy rather than less muddy.



A tree would not have inherent "tree-ness" if it weren't created by God to have it. God defines what humanity is. Again, that is biblically plain, no matter how much you choose to ignore it.



This, which you've written to another here, is pretty funny. You're seeking to eliminate any questions against you so-called "theory" in an a priori manner. Again, that's not debate. What this statement and incumbent strategy shows is that you're not interested in a real debate, and, most likely, you're probably not capable of one anyway.



Reference my previous discussion about God making humans "male and female" and the chromosomal make up of males and females.



Perhaps you should read more... and more deeply. First, your question (a yes-or-no question) is logically problematic since it seems to provoke the false dichotomy fallacy. So, in essence, your question is not an honest question. Rather, it is designed to pigeon-hole the one who answers into one of two options when, in reality, there are other options. So, your "debate" at this point is logically fallacious in more than one way.

Second, I did answer the question. Sin does have consequences, but those consequences are imposed by God. We are told "the wages of sin is death" but that is derivative of God saying to Adam and Eve that in eating the fruit they will "surely die."

Also... I can't help but notice that you--again--did not interact with any scripture that I referenced. Again, it's probably because the scripture itself disproves your theory, and rather than admit that, you just ignore scripture... which is dangerous to do. Furthermore what you're offering here is more of a "theosophy" rather than anything resembling theology. Assuming biblical norms to be true, you're making philosophical arguments for things that are taking you away the truth and worldview of scripture. Now, having read some of your other posts here, it is likely that you need sin to have it's own consequences and for God to have no real role in punishing sin, for that is the only way to deny a penal-substitionary atonement. But, at this point, that's another debate topic.

Suffice it to say it is incumbent upon you to prove your assertions, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Instead, you just repeat them, assuming them to be true.

The Archangel

I don't know how you have missed my clear definitions of terms that I have said over and over.

Again... you're mixing categories here. You're holding-up "happiness" and "pleasure" but, you're not defining what happiness and pleasure is.

Happiness is long-term holistic pleasure. I don't know how many times I have defined this in this discussion - it has to be a lot. Holistic meaning it involves your whole self, properly ordered. For example, eating a thousand Starbursts would be pleasurable in the short term for one part of you, but it would not be in accordance with happiness, for you would feel sick and be sick and unhealthy as soon as the moment is over.

you try to discuss a morality without any definition of what right and wrong is; right and wrong are simply assumed.

No, I have defined this over and over again. I don't know how you are missing this. "Good and Evil" is the same as "Right and Wrong." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. A purpose is a type of desire. Objective purposes can be located in the universal bedrock desires of human nature, for things like life and happiness (long-term holistic pleasure). Acts that violate such goods are intrinsically evil. There is a harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and the external world that is conducive to producing such goods. To violate that order is to do wrong.

and for God to have no real role in punishing sin

God absolutely punishes sin. But if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still destroy sinners. To deny this is to fail to take God and sin seriously.

Romans 1

God punishes by giving humans over to their own sinful destruction. God couldn't punish sin with sin if sin itself were not intrinsically destructive, right? I don't know why you would want to reference Romans 1, that is an argument for my side. Thanks!

Sin does have consequences, but those consequences are imposed by God.

Okay, so on your view, if God did not impose such consequences, sin would be an alternate true path to happiness? God really is replaceable as a source of human happiness - is that what you are saying? Sin would be happy, fun, and fulfilling if God did not impose consequences? Sin has no inherent disorder? There is no inherent disorder in exchanging God for that which is not God? Is that what you are arguing?

My view is that God is the only true source of happiness. To rebel against Him is to rebel against our own happiness.

My view is that God is not merely a king who punishes behaviors He dislikes. He is the Creator, and when we rebel against Him, we rebel against our own design, necessarily resulting in self destruction in the act itself. Only the Creator says "this is the way I have designed you, to disobey is to violate your own design." God can say that on my view. On your view, He does not have that power. On your view, he can only say "Well, you would be really happy and fun and joyful in that sin, and you would really be happy and fulfilled replacing me, unless I come in and punish."

 

[The Archangel]

I don't know how you have missed my clear definitions of terms that I have said over and over.

I've read your definitions... I've understood them... I just disagree with them. The definitions you give are your definitions of things, not biblical definitions. Therefore, your definitions of these terms are "subjective," which is to say the definitions give are "according to you," not according to scripture.

I've got some things to attend to. More to come....

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

Is it self-destructive? No.

Wrong. Anytime one does something that they know to be harmful it is self-destruction. That's just common sense or should be.

 

[The Archangel]

I don't know how you have missed my clear definitions of terms that I have said over and over.

Again... you're mixing categories here. You're holding-up "happiness" and "pleasure" but, you're not defining what happiness and pleasure is.

Happiness is long-term holistic pleasure. I don't know how many times I have defined this in this discussion - it has to be a lot. Holistic meaning it involves your whole self, properly ordered. For example, eating a thousand Starbursts would be pleasurable in the short term for one part of you, but it would not be in accordance with happiness, for you would feel sick and be sick and unhealthy as soon as the moment is over.

you try to discuss a morality without any definition of what right and wrong is; right and wrong are simply assumed.

No, I have defined this over and over again. I don't know how you are missing this. "Good and Evil" is the same as "Right and Wrong." "Good" means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. A purpose is a type of desire. Objective purposes can be located in the universal bedrock desires of human nature, for things like life and happiness (long-term holistic pleasure). Acts that violate such goods are intrinsically evil. There is a harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and the external world that is conducive to producing such goods. To violate that order is to do wrong.

There is no need to comment further on these things as you're simply repeating yourself without explanation or development of thought. I could either repeat or repost what I've already said, too, but you'd just ignore it--as you've been doing all along. You're simply repeating your assertions, assuming they're true, and moving on. That's not discussion, and your inability to explain yourself more deeply is... interesting and quite telling.

and for God to have no real role in punishing sin

God absolutely punishes sin. But if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still destroy sinners. To deny this is to fail to take God and sin seriously.

Your conclusion is an unsupported assumption. And, this assumption displays that your understanding of the nature of sin is quite lacking. Let me ask you to do this: Define what sin is.

Romans 1

God punishes by giving humans over to their own sinful destruction. God couldn't punish sin with sin if sin itself were not intrinsically destructive, right? I don't know why you would want to reference Romans 1, that is an argument for my side. Thanks!

You're missing the point of Romans 1... It isn't that their sin has its own consequences... It is that God gives them over to it as a judgment. Why I included it in the first place is because Paul tells us that God has made Himself plain to mankind and yet mankind suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Paul goes on to explain why they suppress the truth in unrighteousness--to pursue their sinfulness, because (obviously) they find happiness in their sin. Is it destructive? Yes. Does God bring the judgement outside of those so-called "natural" consequences? Yes. But, what is it that makes this thing or that thing wrong? It is that God has defined it as wrong.

Sin does have consequences, but those consequences are imposed by God.

Okay, so on your view, if God did not impose such consequences, sin would be an alternate true path to happiness? God really is replaceable as a source of human happiness - is that what you are saying? Sin would be happy, fun, and fulfilling if God did not impose consequences? Sin has no inherent disorder? There is no inherent disorder in exchanging God for that which is not God? Is that what you are arguing?

No, I am in no way arguing that sin is an alternate path to happiness. However, sinners find happiness in their sin. Any "happiness" in sinfulness is what Proverbs 9 refers to as a "banquet in the grave." However--and this is really important--only the believer knows that God is the source of true happiness. The Atheist "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness," and therefore is incapable of pursuing happiness in God.

To the sinner, sin is fulfilling, happy, and fun. To the Atheist, they don't care about a greater happiness that they are ignorant of. Pursuing pleasure in sin is a sign of the disorder of the fall; it is not it's own inherent disorder.

For the believer, however, to pursue happiness in sin is to miss-out on pursuing happiness and satisfaction in Christ alone. But--and again this important--the believer (because he or she is a believer) then knows better and finds no real satisfaction in sin. This is Piper's point in his Christian Hedonism. Piper's "Christian Hedonism" cannot apply to the Atheist.

My view is that God is the only true source of happiness. To rebel against Him is to rebel against our own happiness.

For the Christian this is true, but it is not true for the Atheist.

My view is that God is not merely a king who punishes behaviors He dislikes. He is the Creator, and when we rebel against Him, we rebel against our own design, necessarily resulting in self destruction in the act itself. Only the Creator says "this is the way I have designed you, to disobey is to violate your own design." God can say that on my view.

It isn't simply that God "dislikes" sin. It is that God decrees what is right and what is wrong. And, all sin is ultimately against God and, in some way, seeks to violate His holiness. Our rebellion against God is what sin is, not a rebellion against "our own design" because He is the one who is the Designer! To rebel against God's design is to ipso facto rebel against God. So, you're thinking here is wrong because it separated the creation from the Creator who made it. What is more, you're still ignoring the Fall and its catastrophic consequences for us and our humanity.

On your view, He does not have that power. On your view, he can only say "Well, you would be really happy and fun and joyful in that sin, and you would really be happy and fulfilled replacing me, unless I come in and punish."

False. Your assumption here is that I am an adherent to the "Divine Command Theory" as you define it.

The Archangel

 

[Arthur King]

There is no need to comment further on these things as you're simply repeating yourself without explanation or development of thought. I could either repeat or repost what I've already said, too, but you'd just ignore it--as you've been doing all along. You're simply repeating your assertions, assuming they're true, and moving on. That's not discussion, and your inability to explain yourself more deeply is... interesting and quite telling.



Your conclusion is an unsupported assumption. And, this assumption displays that your understanding of the nature of sin is quite lacking. Let me ask you to do this: Define what sin is.



You're missing the point of Romans 1... It isn't that their sin has its own consequences... It is that God gives them over to it as a judgment. Why I included it in the first place is because Paul tells us that God has made Himself plain to mankind and yet mankind suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Paul goes on to explain why they suppress the truth in unrighteousness--to pursue their sinfulness, because (obviously) they find happiness in their sin. Is it destructive? Yes. Does God bring the judgement outside of those so-called "natural" consequences? Yes. But, what is it that makes this thing or that thing wrong? It is that God has defined it as wrong.



No, I am in no way arguing that sin is an alternate path to happiness. However, sinners find happiness in their sin. Any "happiness" in sinfulness is what Proverbs 9 refers to as a "banquet in the grave." However--and this is really important--only the believer knows that God is the source of true happiness. The Atheist "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness," and therefore is incapable of pursuing happiness in God.

To the sinner, sin is fulfilling, happy, and fun. To the Atheist, they don't care about a greater happiness that they are ignorant of. Pursuing pleasure in sin is a sign of the disorder of the fall; it is not it's own inherent disorder.

For the believer, however, to pursue happiness in sin is to miss-out on pursuing happiness and satisfaction in Christ alone. But--and again this important--the believer (because he or she is a believer) then knows better and finds no real satisfaction in sin. This is Piper's point in his Christian Hedonism. Piper's "Christian Hedonism" cannot apply to the Atheist.



For the Christian this is true, but it is not true for the Atheist.



It isn't simply that God "dislikes" sin. It is that God decrees what is right and what is wrong. And, all sin is ultimately against God and, in some way, seeks to violate His holiness. Our rebellion against God is what sin is, not a rebellion against "our own design" because He is the one who is the Designer! To rebel against God's design is to ipso facto rebel against God. So, you're thinking here is wrong because it separated the creation from the Creator who made it. What is more, you're still ignoring the Fall and its catastrophic consequences for us and our humanity.




False. Your assumption here is that I am an adherent to the "Divine Command Theory" as you define it.

The Archangel

"There is no need to comment further on these things as you're simply repeating yourself without explanation or development of thought."

You said I didn't define certain terms (happiness). So I was reposting the definition that you seem to somehow have missed. Now you are complaining that I am repeating myself. Haha, I don't know what you want from me.

"Define what sin is."

Sin is disobedience against God, which necessarily includes violation of God's created order. This violation of God's created order is necessarily self-destructive, as it is human rebellion against the human's own design.

A person cannot disobey God without disordering themselves in the act of disobedience itself.

In the atheist worldview, the natural law (what we would call created order) exists without having been created by God. My argument is that the natural law itself is sufficient as a basis for objective moral truth claims.

"It is that God gives them over to it as a judgment."

Why is it a punishment for God to give humans over to sin, if sin itself is not intrinsically destructive or harmful?

"what is it that makes this thing or that thing wrong? It is that God has defined it as wrong."

God defined it as wrong when He made the universe and humanity in it in the first place - and the order of the universe and the order of human nature is sufficient to see objective right and wrongs. An atheist, who does not believe in God, still sees the order of human nature and the order of the universe, and can therefore see when certain actions are a violation of the order of human nature.

God could not suddenly change the rules of His created order in terms of morality. For example, God could not say that rape was somehow not sinful tomorrow. That would violate His own created order. God could not say "abortion is fine from now on." That would violate His own created order.

"To the sinner, sin is fulfilling, happy, and fun. To the Atheist, they don't care about a greater happiness that they are ignorant of. Pursuing pleasure in sin is a sign of the disorder of the fall; it is not it's own inherent disorder."

No, see, you are adopting a morally relativistic and subjective view, in which humans have the power to define and create their own happiness, and therefore their own humanity. You are giving humans power only God has. And you are claiming that God is replaceable as a source of human happiness. This is such a low view of God.

Read Ecclesiastes. It is all about a guy who has all the pleasures the world can offer, and yet his soul is unsatisfied because He is not finding his pleasures in God.

Pursuing pleasure in sin rather than God absolutely is its own inherent disorder.

God is objectively the true source of human happiness. God is not the source of human happiness only if we choose Him as the source.

Someone who tries to find ultimate happiness in something other than God is objectively trying to do the impossible.

 

[The Archangel]

"There is no need to comment further on these things as you're simply repeating yourself without explanation or development of thought."

You said I didn't define certain terms (happiness). So I was reposting the definition that you seem to somehow have missed. Now you are complaining that I am repeating myself. Haha, I don't know what you want from me.

No... I said you didn't define your terms objectively. You're giving your own subjective definition of these terms and ignoring the biblical definitions.

"Define what sin is."

Sin is disobedience against God, which necessarily includes violation of God's created order. This violation of God's created order is necessarily self-destructive, as it is human rebellion against the human's own design.

A person cannot disobey God without disordering themselves in the act of disobedience itself.

In the atheist worldview, the natural law (what we would call created order) exists without having been created by God. My argument is that the natural law itself is sufficient as a basis for objective moral truth claims.

Sin is not simply "disobedience against God." While sin certainly includes disobedience against God, it is far more than that. Because we are created as image bearers, we represent God to the creation--His reign, His rule, His will, etc. God as the Creator gets to define what is good, evil, real, and true. When we sin, we literally (from Genesis 3) decide for ourselves what is good, evil, real, and true. So, sin is a treasonous rebellion against the rule of our Creator. Again, as Judges says, sin is the doing of what is right in our own eyes.

Your "argument" isn't really an argument. You're making many assertions, but you're not arguing them. Like the tourist who doesn't speak the local language, when a local to whom you are speaking doesn't understand what you're saying, you simply repeat yourself louder. So, you're asserting that" natural law is sufficient as a basis for objective moral truth claims," but you're not explaining yourself well. And when you're challenged, you only repeat yourself without delving deeper into the topic. Further, Natural Law is a product of what is called "General Revelation" and is related to God's common grace. So, Natural Law will manifest itself in most societies and people. But, as you ignored in my previous post, Natural Law must recognize that certain actions are inherently evil, not merely that they produce less than desirable outcomes. Your assertions make no sense in this way because your "objective morality" (which, again, isn't actually "objective") only deals with consequences, not the inherent evilness of something that is wrong.

"It is that God gives them over to it as a judgment."

Why is it a punishment for God to give humans over to sin, if sin itself is not intrinsically destructive or harmful?

Grammar. God (subject) gave (verb) them up... The result is that they pursue lust, etc. And it degenerates into total anarchy. The problem in your reasoning is that you ignore the human heart's role in pursuing (and finding happiness) in sinfulness. Clearly, Paul's argument in Romans one is that the foolish, darkened, sinful human heart finds its happiness outside of God. That a society that begins with idolatry degenerates into anarchy is a result of God's active judgment against sin, not simply a consequence of the violation of Natural Law.

"what is it that makes this thing or that thing wrong? It is that God has defined it as wrong."

God defined it as wrong when He made the universe and humanity in it in the first place - and the order of the universe and the order of human nature is sufficient to see objective right and wrongs. An atheist, who does not believe in God, still sees the order of human nature and the order of the universe, and can therefore see when certain actions are a violation of the order of human nature.

God could not suddenly change the rules of His created order in terms of morality. For example, God could not say that rape was somehow not sinful tomorrow. That would violate His own created order. God could not say "abortion is fine from now on." That would violate His own created order.

Again... You're assuming God just picks things to declare wrong... perhaps things He might find to be "icky." God's law is a reflection of His character. Stealing is wrong, for example, because to steal is to doubt God's provision for you. Stealing is to put yourself in the place of God and to provide something for yourself that He has chosen not to.

So, God will not declare rape (to use your example) right at some point in the future because to do so would violate His own character, which He cannot do.

Also, God does not give all the law at once. In fact, the only command given in the Garden of Eden is not to eat from the tree. Until Mt. Sinai that's the only Law that God gives. In that time we see Humanity devolve into the sinfulness that causes the flood (which God brings; it's not a consequence of Natural Law) and Babel (again, a consequence that God brings, not a consequence of Natural Law).

When we see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, we see a society that has been given over to the anarchy described in Romans 1. When the men of the city pursue the angels who arrive to rescue Lot, they are not conflicted--they are seeking their happiness in the rape of these men. But, according to what has said in the surrounding passages, the evil was great and it took an intervention from God to end it. What that means is that the "natural consequences" of their sinfulness didn't materialize as you suggest they would.

"To the sinner, sin is fulfilling, happy, and fun. To the Atheist, they don't care about a greater happiness that they are ignorant of. Pursuing pleasure in sin is a sign of the disorder of the fall; it is not it's own inherent disorder."

No, see, you are adopting a morally relativistic and subjective view, in which humans have the power to define and create their own happiness, and therefore their own humanity. You are giving humans power only God has. And you are claiming that God is replaceable as a source of human happiness. This is such a low view of God.

Read Ecclesiastes. It is all about a guy who has all the pleasures the world can offer, and yet his soul is unsatisfied because He is not finding his pleasures in God.

Pursuing pleasure in sin rather than God absolutely is its own inherent disorder.

God is objectively the true source of human happiness. God is not the source of human happiness only if we choose Him as the source.

Someone who tries to find ultimate happiness in something other than God is objectively trying to do the impossible.

Again, what you're missing is that there is a difference between a Christian and an Atheist. My view is in no way morally relativistic or subjective. That you think it is such shows a great deficiency in your own thinking. What I'm doing is that I am observing that the Christian's highest pleasure is found in Christ alone. However, the Atheist cannot and will not pursue that pleasure. There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is that the Atheist "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness."

Can the Atheist find his pleasure in God? No. Can the Atheist who has been redeemed and has become a believer in Christ find his pleasure in God? Absolutely. But, notice, there is a categorical difference between the Atheist and the once-Atheist who has been converted.

The Archangel

 

[HeirofSalvation]

One tip: in a conversation about proving the objectivity of something, you don't want to ask the question "says who?" That question shows that you are presupposing a morally subjective and relativistic framework. The objective framework asks "what is" not "who says."

I don't know who believe you are talking to....But, I need zero "tips" from you about how to debate philosophy, and how it pertains to Religion specifically.
I'm not ignorant of this topic.
When I said: "Says who???" that was in response to your assertion that:

Your own happiness is something you seek all the time no matter what. And so the goal is to align your pursuit of happiness with what objectively will make you happy.

I, (quite reasonably) asked you the question: "Says who?"

You have not answered the question.

This isn't true,

It's absolutely true..."purpose" requires an intelligent mind...that's what "purpose" is...Otherwise, we can't even talk to each other.

but even if it was, then human beings would qualify.

Assuming they're God...sure.
Who says human thriving is something to be sought after at all??

Human beings have intelligent minds.

And according to the enviro-cultists....we are the most destructive species on this planet, and this planet would thrive much more if this human species were wiped out.

Understand this: That is a set of moral principles they assume.

So thanks for giving validity to human nature being a basis for objective purpose!

Unless the planet is of greater moral value than human thriving...
Manh humans think it is, and you have shown no objective reason why they are morally wrong.

Atheism ends in unguided and purposeless rote facts: It arrives at no moral facts.

That was me...it's true... you haven't answered that objection at all.

Why can we not ignore human happiness?

That was me... and I give you credit that you tried...

Read this from Pascal: “All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

”
That adds nothing to the conversation really..
Pascal was a Theist who believed in objective moral truths...
But, that doesn't answer my question:
My question is why SHOULD humans be happy?
You have never answered tha.
Who says humans should be happy?

Again, you committed the mistake of asking "who says." And again, can you imagine a world in which all human beings everywhere are experiencing everlasting joy and call it "evil"

Explain why the question "says who"? is wrong: You do not.
Man up and answer the question I ask you:

Why should humans be happy?
Why should humans be happy?

You don't answer the question because you don't know how to.

 

[Alan Gross]

And the motive behind all this is...?

Now, having read some of your other posts here, it is likely that you need sin to have it's own consequences and for God to have no real role in punishing sin

Wrong. Anytime one does something that they know to be harmful it is self-destruction. That's just common sense or should be.

Sin has consequences but it doesn't have its own consequences.

The destructive consequences are defined and established within the word 'consequences'.

'Consequences' is "a result or effect of an action or condition".

Is sin self-destructive? It would seem to be at first blush from common sense, like you said, KY.

However, does sin carry its own consequences of destruction within itself or does sin have the consequences of destruction as "a result or effect of an action or condition"?

In other words, does sin as an action also cause destruction by itself, alone, as still one act,
or does sin as one action cause the result of that act of sin which is then the second action required which is the act of destruction (by the Activity of God).

That's where 'self-destructive' could just be a cunning or skillful act of sin, in its own right, to push a scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone using a trick in the terminology.

Like Archangel said:

I've read your definitions... I've understood them... I just disagree with them. The definitions you give are your definitions of things, not biblical definitions. Therefore, your definitions of these terms are "subjective," which is to say the definitions give are "according to you," not according to scripture.

 

[Alan Gross]

A tree would not have inherent "tree-ness" if it weren't created by God to have it. God defines what humanity is.

BY JOYCE KILMER
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.

 

[Arthur King]

I don't know who believe you are talking to....But, I need zero "tips" from you about how to debate philosophy, and how it pertains to Religion specifically.
I'm not ignorant of this topic.
When I said: "Says who???" that was in response to your assertion that:

I, (quite reasonably) asked you the question: "Says who?"

You have not answered the question.

It's absolutely true..."purpose" requires an intelligent mind...that's what "purpose" is...Otherwise, we can't even talk to each other.

Assuming they're God...sure.
Who says human thriving is something to be sought after at all??

And according to the enviro-cultists....we are the most destructive species on this planet, and this planet would thrive much more if this human species were wiped out.

Understand this: That is a set of moral principles they assume.

Unless the planet is of greater moral value than human thriving...
Manh humans think it is, and you have shown no objective reason why they are morally wrong.

That was me...it's true... you haven't answered that objection at all.

That was me... and I give you credit that you tried...
”
That adds nothing to the conversation really..
Pascal was a Theist who believed in objective moral truths...
But, that doesn't answer my question:
My question is why SHOULD humans be happy?
You have never answered tha.
Who says humans should be happy?

Explain why the question "says who"? is wrong: You do not.
Man up and answer the question I ask you:

Why should humans be happy?
Why should humans be happy?

You don't answer the question because you don't know how to.

Why should humans be happy?

The answer is the same for the Christian and atheist: Because that is the deepest desire of human nature.

The difference is that the Christian believes God is the ultimate source of happiness and therefore He is the deepest desire of human nature.

But Christianity does not divorce our ultimate purpose from human happiness. The new heaven and earth is human beings living in happiness forever.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Why should humans be happy?
The answer is the same for the Christian and atheist: Because that is the deepest desire of human nature

Assuming that is a Universal for human nature...(andI do not grant that).That still says nothing about what "ought" to be. That is merely a description of what is. You cannot derive and ought from an is.
Assuming unguided evolution, this is merely a biological or psychological phenomenon, which presumably assists in Natural Selection. It is not a moral fact.

Also, I would argue that many would disagree. Some (many in fact) genuinely believe a "moral" truth that human populations should be greatly reduced to the point of nearly proposing mass execution/death.
Prince Philip: ‘I’m Tempted To Ask For Reincarnation’ as a ‘Deadly Virus’ To Reduce World Population - The People's Voice (thepeoplesvoice.tv)
The late Prince Philip expresses a genuine sentiment that he wishes he could reincarnate into a killer virus. This is, in many ways, a moral fact to him. There's a reason the British kept him locked up and muzzled like Joe Biden most of the time.

But Christianity does not divorce our ultimate purpose from human happiness. The new heaven and earth is human beings living in happiness forever

.
And that is only morally relevant if God's purpose/design for mankind is that this occurs and he has so ordered the Universe (or issued commands as provided in Divine Command Theory) that we are compelled to seek after that same goal. God's purpose for mankind could have nothing whatsoever to do with human happiness and it would still bear the burden of objective moral truth.

 

[Arthur King]

No... I said you didn't define your terms objectively. You're giving your own subjective definition of these terms and ignoring the biblical definitions.



Sin is not simply "disobedience against God." While sin certainly includes disobedience against God, it is far more than that. Because we are created as image bearers, we represent God to the creation--His reign, His rule, His will, etc. God as the Creator gets to define what is good, evil, real, and true. When we sin, we literally (from Genesis 3) decide for ourselves what is good, evil, real, and true. So, sin is a treasonous rebellion against the rule of our Creator. Again, as Judges says, sin is the doing of what is right in our own eyes.

Your "argument" isn't really an argument. You're making many assertions, but you're not arguing them. Like the tourist who doesn't speak the local language, when a local to whom you are speaking doesn't understand what you're saying, you simply repeat yourself louder. So, you're asserting that" natural law is sufficient as a basis for objective moral truth claims," but you're not explaining yourself well. And when you're challenged, you only repeat yourself without delving deeper into the topic. Further, Natural Law is a product of what is called "General Revelation" and is related to God's common grace. So, Natural Law will manifest itself in most societies and people. But, as you ignored in my previous post, Natural Law must recognize that certain actions are inherently evil, not merely that they produce less than desirable outcomes. Your assertions make no sense in this way because your "objective morality" (which, again, isn't actually "objective") only deals with consequences, not the inherent evilness of something that is wrong.



Grammar. God (subject) gave (verb) them up... The result is that they pursue lust, etc. And it degenerates into total anarchy. The problem in your reasoning is that you ignore the human heart's role in pursuing (and finding happiness) in sinfulness. Clearly, Paul's argument in Romans one is that the foolish, darkened, sinful human heart finds its happiness outside of God. That a society that begins with idolatry degenerates into anarchy is a result of God's active judgment against sin, not simply a consequence of the violation of Natural Law.



Again... You're assuming God just picks things to declare wrong... perhaps things He might find to be "icky." God's law is a reflection of His character. Stealing is wrong, for example, because to steal is to doubt God's provision for you. Stealing is to put yourself in the place of God and to provide something for yourself that He has chosen not to.

So, God will not declare rape (to use your example) right at some point in the future because to do so would violate His own character, which He cannot do.

Also, God does not give all the law at once. In fact, the only command given in the Garden of Eden is not to eat from the tree. Until Mt. Sinai that's the only Law that God gives. In that time we see Humanity devolve into the sinfulness that causes the flood (which God brings; it's not a consequence of Natural Law) and Babel (again, a consequence that God brings, not a consequence of Natural Law).

When we see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, we see a society that has been given over to the anarchy described in Romans 1. When the men of the city pursue the angels who arrive to rescue Lot, they are not conflicted--they are seeking their happiness in the rape of these men. But, according to what has said in the surrounding passages, the evil was great and it took an intervention from God to end it. What that means is that the "natural consequences" of their sinfulness didn't materialize as you suggest they would.



Again, what you're missing is that there is a difference between a Christian and an Atheist. My view is in no way morally relativistic or subjective. That you think it is such shows a great deficiency in your own thinking. What I'm doing is that I am observing that the Christian's highest pleasure is found in Christ alone. However, the Atheist cannot and will not pursue that pleasure. There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is that the Atheist "suppresses the truth in unrighteousness."

Can the Atheist find his pleasure in God? No. Can the Atheist who has been redeemed and has become a believer in Christ find his pleasure in God? Absolutely. But, notice, there is a categorical difference between the Atheist and the once-Atheist who has been converted.

The Archangel

You're giving your own subjective definition of these terms and ignoring the biblical definitions.

So show me where my definitions of terms are unbiblical.

Sin is not simply "disobedience against God..."

In this paragraph, you are just saying the same thing I said in different words. Not sure of any relevant distinctions here. I said that sin was disobedience against God that violates His created order. There are infinite numbers of ways to describe those two principles, as the created order is vast.

The chief distinction for purpose of our discussion is the source(s) of destructive outcomes. I am arguing that evil acts are intrinsically destructive, and that God also punishes evil acts. As Revelation 11:18 says, God "destroys those who destroy the earth." With our sin, we destroy the earth. Our sin is destructive in and of itself. And God also punishes sin, but if even if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, sin itself would still destroy sinners.

Natural Law must recognize that certain actions are inherently evil, not merely that they produce less than desirable outcomes. Your assertions make no sense in this way because your "objective morality" (which, again, isn't actually "objective") only deals with consequences, not the inherent evilness of something that is wrong.

Correct! Natural law recognizes certain actions are inherently evil. Yes. As inherently evil, this means they are distortions of God's created order, and therefore inherently disordered. They are not just "evil" in the abstract. They are privations and perversions of God's created order. That is what evil is - a privation and perversion of the order of human nature and the order in Creation.

My argument is that you cannot have evil without destructive consequences - because evil is inherently disordered and destructive. To separate "evil" from disorder and destruction is to compromise the definition of evil.

Stealing is to put yourself in the place of God and to provide something for yourself that He has chosen not to.

Is that action not inherently disordered? Putting yourself in the place of God?

So, God will not declare rape (to use your example) right at some point in the future because to do so would violate His own character, which He cannot do.

But your argument has to go further than that. You have to argue that God's good character is not invested in the created order—that is your central argument. If God's good character is invested in the created order, then you have to acknowledge that the order of the universe and the order of human nature has a good order that is sufficient to ground moral facts.

I would also repeat my biblical argument here - that Genesis 1 says "God SAW that it was good." Meaning God SEES goodness in the created order as a property of the created order. Morality can be located in the created order. If it said "God SAID that it was good" then that would lend support to your position, that morality is located in God's commands, that is, merely what He says is good.

In that time we see Humanity devolve into the sinfulness that causes the flood (which God brings; it's not a consequence of Natural Law) and Babel (again, a consequence that God brings, not a consequence of Natural Law).

If God did not bring the Flood, and if God did not crush Babel, do you think humanity would have created a happy world for themselves? Would they have been happy with the violence and anarchy they filled the earth with before the flood? Would they be happy with the totalitarianism of Babel? You really think humanity in either case would have created a joyful utopia?

I think humanity would have created hell for themselves in either case. The hell of anarchy or the hell of tyranny. Again, I just don't think you are taking sin (and therefore God) seriously enough. You think that sin could be a path to happiness and joyful utopia if left unpunished, and that God is replaceable as a source of human happiness. Not a high view of God.

What I'm doing is that I am observing that the Christian's highest pleasure is found in Christ alone.

Every human's highest pleasure is found in Christ alone. Not just Christians. We do not define ourselves as human beings. We do not define for ourselves what makes us happy - because we did not and do not create ourselves.

 

[Arthur King]

Assuming that is a Universal for human nature...(andI do not grant that).That still says nothing about what "ought" to be. That is merely a description of what is. You cannot derive and ought from an is.
Assuming unguided evolution, this is merely a biological or psychological phenomenon, which presumably assists in Natural Selection. It is not a moral fact.

Also, I would argue that many would disagree. Some (many in fact) genuinely believe a "moral" truth that human populations should be greatly reduced to the point of nearly proposing mass execution/death.
Prince Philip: ‘I’m Tempted To Ask For Reincarnation’ as a ‘Deadly Virus’ To Reduce World Population - The People's Voice (thepeoplesvoice.tv)
The late Prince Philip expresses a genuine sentiment that he wishes he could reincarnate into a killer virus. This is, in many ways, a moral fact to him. There's a reason the British kept him locked up and muzzled like Joe Biden most of the time.
.
And that is only morally relevant if God's purpose/design for mankind is that this occurs and he has so ordered the Universe (or issued commands as provided in Divine Command Theory) that we are compelled to seek after that same goal. God's purpose for mankind could have nothing whatsoever to do with human happiness and it would still bear the burden of objective moral truth.

Assuming that is a Universal for human nature...(andI do not grant that).

What? I don't understand this statement. Are you saying there is not a universal human nature? That "humanity" or "human being" has no consistent definition?

Or that human beings can find true and ultimate happiness in different things? If so, then you would be a moral relativist.

Are you denying the existence of universals? Then that again would concede to my argument - you are a moral relativist with regard to creation.

You cannot derive and ought from an is.

Not true. I have already responded to this. Go back and read what I wrote.

Some (many in fact) genuinely believe a "moral" truth that human populations should be greatly reduced to the point of nearly proposing mass execution/death.

And they are objectively wrong. Just like people who think the earth is flat. Population reduction would not be in accordance with the life and happiness of all human beings.

That people disagree on what truth is does not mean there is not truth.

And that is only morally relevant if God's purpose/design for mankind is that this occurs and he has so ordered the Universe (or issued commands as provided in Divine Command Theory) that we are compelled to seek after that same goal.

Which is it? Are moral truths located in His creation or his commands? That is the whole debate right there. If morality is located in creation, then I win. If only in commands, then you win.

God's purpose for mankind could have nothing whatsoever to do with human happiness and it would still bear the burden of objective moral truth.

Okay, so if God says, "Obey my command to wear a blue shirt next Tuesday. Your reward for doing so is that you, your family, and all of humanity will be tortured in utter misery into the everlasting. If you disobey me, you will be punished with everlasting life and happiness and joy for you, your family, and all of humanity." Are you morally obligated to obey God and wear a blue shirt next Tuesday? Would you?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Assuming that is a Universal for human nature...(andI do not grant that).
What? I don't understand this statement. Are you saying there is not a universal human nature? That "humanity" or "human being" has no consistent definition?

*sigh*
No. That's not what I'm saying. I feel like you have a cursory understanding of this topic and the arguments used, but, are rather new to the conversation.
I am saying instead that the Universal thriving of human beings is not a uniform and universal desire of all persons.
Some would rather it not be case, and would be happier and more fulfilled if humans did not universally thrive.

There are Psychopaths in the Universe. They do not regard universal human thriving or happiness to be something which they consider morally desirable per se. There are some who are sadistic to an extreme and find no joy in human happiness. There are some who are simply so irretrievably misguided that they have a genuinely "moral" belief that they loathe humanity and either wish it in large part, or even entirely destroyed.
Here's the thing, in an atheistic schema that is neither right nor wrong in a truly moral sense. Some people are merely different from even the vast majority.

I am saying that your (I find it naive) assumption that the Universal thriving of humans is Universally the greatest desire of humanity is provably false. Since it is not a Universal given, than it does not have the force of an objective moral truth, but, merely a subjective moral truth.

Or that human beings can find true and ultimate happiness in different things?

No, I am saying that atheists have no grounds for insisting that your assumption of a universal desire for human happiness is shared by all, and that atheists can only think that or believe that subjectively....

If so, then you would be a moral relativist.

I am not.
I am telling you that an atheist (even though they do not tend to be moral relativists) have no good objective reason not to be. If they were consistent within their world-view, they would be moral relativists. If I embraced atheism I would be forced to accept Moral Relativism in order to remain intellectually consistent and honest with myself.

Occasionally watching a good (older) episode of Star-Trek will help you understand how, in an atheistic framework, objective Universal moral truths are hard (if not impossible) to assume. They delve into such issues. Or, rather, they did when it was worth watching (like years ago).

This is because from its inception Star Trek always assumes an atheistic worldview. Its creator assumed an atheistic worldview.

I remember a particular episode wherein our intrepid heroes encountered an alien lifeform which practiced euthanasia at a certain predetermined age in order to maximize resources for their offspring who were obviously younger and more productive (or assumed to be)....The humans hated it, and balked at the practice but their "Prime Directive" battled against interfering with it.....

It's instructive actually.
Half a Life (Star Trek: The Next Generation) - Wikipedia

Are you denying the existence of universals?

I am saying you helping yourself to that universal truth ab initio (as a Christian you can do that)...but, you want to permit the atheist to do the same.
The atheist has no grounds for helping themselves to that.
Which is why their morality is not therefore objective in nature but rather subject.

What I am saying is:
I believe the argument will fail to be either:
1.) Truly objective
i.e.
The atheist has to help themselves to a moral belief which cannot be enforceable without wrongly violating the rights of others and is therefore subjective in nature.

2.) If objective, truly a moral fact and not an incidental one.
i.e.
Mathematical truths may be universal, and the atheist is welcome to help themselves to them as truths,
but they are not then moral truths.

Then that again would concede to my argument - you are a moral relativist with regard to creation.

I concede nothing.

You cannot derive and ought from an is.
Not true. I have already responded to this. Go back and read what I wrote.

You cannot, and I think you have failed (so far to address it sufficiently)

Some (many in fact) genuinely believe a "moral" truth that human populations should be greatly reduced to the point of nearly proposing mass execution/death.
And they are objectively wrong

Given an atheist world-view, they cannot be objectively wrong.
They could be wrong about incidental facts like not understanding that the sum of 2 and 2 is 4, but, they cannot be objectively proven wrong about their morality.

.Just like people who think the earth is flat.

You used an incidental and non-moral fact to try to demonstrate that (given atheism) they can assume moral facts.
That example demonstrates what I am saying to you.
You are deriving an "ought" from an "is".

Population reduction would not be in accordance with the life and happiness of all human beings.

Maybe, but who says all humans SHOULD be happy?

That people disagree on what truth is does not mean there is not truth.

True:
Some people are atheists.
Most atheists and some Christians believe that atheism can truly account for objective moral truths.
But, they cannot.

And that is only morally relevant if God's purpose/design for mankind is that this occurs and he has so ordered the Universe (or issued commands as provided in Divine Command Theory) that we are compelled to seek after that same goal.
Which is it? Are moral truths located in His creation or his commands? That is the whole debate right there. If morality is located in creation, then I win. If only in commands, then you win.

It's in both.....perhaps more than both. Actually, I would say it's really grounded in God's nature, and his creation is a reflection of his nature....
It is not an "either/or"
They are (or at least can be, and I think they are) complimentary.

From the moment you began this conversation with your initial O.P. you made the assumption that anyone who disagreed with you must adhere to "Divine Command Theory". This has failed you, I think. That is not a good assumption. Obviously, you have a certain familiarity with this topic and arguments used in it, but, this assumption is wrong. Divine Command Theory while respectable and possessed of much truth is, I think, wholly insufficient as an explanation of objective morality.

God's purpose for mankind could have nothing whatsoever to do with human happiness and it would still bear the burden of objective moral truth.
Okay, so if God says, "Obey my command to wear a blue shirt next Tuesday. Your reward for doing so is that you, your family, and all of humanity will be tortured in utter misery into the everlasting. If you disobey me, you will be punished with everlasting life and happiness and joy for you, your family, and all of humanity." Are you morally obligated to obey God and wear a blue shirt next Tuesday? Would you?

O.k. I'll bite:
I was thinking of angelic beings when I wrote that.
It would seem to me that God seems to have little or no particular concern for them in the same way he does his "image-bearers" (which they are not).
Obviously, he doesn't torture them, and would be evil to randomly cause them unneccessary pain or torment for no reason. And yet they are clearly intelligent, powerful, and even possessed of some measure of freedom of will.
However, they are nonetheless a completely different sort of being altogether.

Morally, I do not think that their thriving or happiness is to be regarded as the goal/purpose of their existence. Their purpose is wholly different than that of mankind's.

They serve him. That is all. That is neither cruel nor wrong, and they don't simply suffer in this capacity, but their "happiness" seems if anything...vaguely irrelevant.

God's purpose then, for mankind, could have been wholly different (as it is with angels) and it would not be "wrong" of God to design them/us that way. It happens to be true that God has made us differently. Universal thriving and human happiness CAN BE accounted for as an objective moral truth in THEISM. God had purpose for us, and that was his design and the foundation of insisting that we conform to the morality which will augment that design/purpose.

This is not "Divine Command Theory"...It's more like "Divine Purpose and Design" theory.

Thus, as I said earlier....atheism cannot simply help itself to something like "purpose" for mankind ab initio. Don't grant them verbiage like that. Given atheism...humanity, its existence, and its tendencies wants/desires are mere rote facts (like 2+2=4)
They are not moral facts...
They are a descriptor of how humans happen to be phenomenologically.
It's an "is" in atheism not an "ought".

I do appreciate your willingness to take up this debate and stand your ground in it. It has been fruitful engaging and educational thus far. Thank you for your willingness to debate a meaningful topic!