*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.
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....
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.
Occasionally watching a good 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.
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.
I concede nothing.
You cannot, and I think you have failed (so far to address it sufficiently)
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.
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".
Maybe, but who says all humans SHOULD be happy?
True:
Some people are atheists.
Most atheists and some Christians believe that atheism can truly account for objective moral truths.
But, they cannot.
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.
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.
I am saying instead that the Universal thriving of human beings is not a uniform and universal desire of all persons.
But if it were, that would constitute an objective moral standard, right? The hypothetical is all I need to prove my argument. You argument is "Without God, objective moral values do not exist." So if I show that objective moral values merely could exist based on human nature alone, that is enough to prove my argument.
But the other criticism I would say of this statement is again that it seems to deny a universal human nature - that is, deny that there is a definition for "human being."
Some would rather it not be case, and would be happier and more fulfilled if humans did not universally thrive.
"Some would rather it not be the case" because they are objectively wrong about their own human nature.
Again, my argument is sufficient to say "IF there is a universal bedrock desire within human nature for life and happiness, that constitutes an objective moral standard."
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.
But that isn't even the biblical worldview, let alone the atheist one. The biblical worldview is that all humans are designed to find their ultimate happiness in God. Sin is idolatry - that is - the replacement of God with something that is not God within the human heart.
So to say that there are some people who actually find happiness in being sadistic is to forsake the biblical worldview entirely. The biblical view is that sadists are trying to satisfy their desire for God and his ways with acts of sadism.
As God defines sin in Jeremiah 2:13 - "My people have committed 2 evils, they have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, to build broken cisterns that can hold no water." What do we truly desire? God, the fountain of living waters. What have we tried to replace Him with? Broken cisterns that can hold no water. What happens to people who do that? They die of thirst - due to their own actions. It is not that we actually build another working fountain that can actually give us water, and so God is mad and then kills us for it. No - the death comes from our own act of forsaking God.
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.
I agree that the atheist has no good explanation for where the universe or universal human nature comes from. But that is a different argument. What we are allowing is that the atheist acknowledges the universe exists and has order, and that there is a universal human nature. My argument is that those two things that the atheist believes in are sufficient grounds for objective moral facts.
If you are going to take a step back and say "well, the atheist cant explain where the universe came from in the first place" then I am completely in agreement with you.
The question is whether morality is located in God's creation or in His commands. Genesis 1 says that goodness is invested in the created order.
Maybe, but who says all humans SHOULD be happy?
Universal human nature does.
But again, the way you are asking the question assumes the premise you need to prove. That is like saying "who says E=mc2?" It is not a matter of "who says" but "what is."
If there is an objective order of human behavior that produces life an happiness for all, then that is sufficient to establish an objective moral standard. Again, morality means objective purpose, and a universal human nature absolutely can have an objective purpose - a universal bedrock desire that is objectively X and not Y.
and his creation is a reflection of his nature....
I win. Thanks!
Angels...
God certainly desires all angels to be happy with Him forever. He has not provided redemption for them as He has done with humans, so far as we know, although we will be judging angels, so who knows what kind of judgment our perfected selves will bring them under and what faculties of mercy we will be able to afford them.
But not all angels accepted God's design for them. Some rebelled and became demons.
But the point is that even on Christianity, you cannot separate morality from human life and happiness.
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.
But then the question arises of whether we would even be human beings at all, if we were designed/purposed a different way. I would argue at that point we wouldn't be humans.
"Divine Purpose and Design" theory.
That's Natural Law.
T
hey are not moral facts...
A moral fact is simply a "purpose fact." A fact about a thing's purpose. A purpose is a type of desire, and it is a type of desire that can be found in a universal human nature.
I enjoy the dialogue as well.
