Friday, September 7, 2012


Ok, I’m throwing down the gauntlet. I cannot see any rational grounds for the idea of morality without the idea of God. As far as I can tell, the two ideas are intrinsically linked and cannot exist without each other. I’m offering $25 to the first person who reads this post and can prove me wrong.
The idea of morality is based on the idea of “should.” We should be nice to each other. Personal property should be secure and not liable to theft or destruction. The innocent should not suffer, and the evil should not prosper. Children should be able to be children; they should not be molested, have to go without food, or die from preventable diseases. I think we would all agree on these; but, why? How do we know what should and should not be?
We would all agree that serial murder is wrong; but how do we know it’s wrong? It seems to me that the idea of should inherently implies the idea of design. There is no should if there is no ideal which the should not deviates from. Without some sort of design, then there is no way of discerning or delineating what should be from what should not be. In other words, serial murder should not exist because it deviates from the utopia of peace and security to which we aspire.
The idea of design then inherently implies the idea of a designer. A design cannot be random, it is the antithesis of randomness, and anything which is not random is intentional. Anything which is intentional must be established by intent, that is, by an intellect.
Another way of saying this: a standard of morality must be defined either subjectively or objectively. I will use the ideas of symbols and of rocks to illustrate the difference between subjective and objective definition. A symbol means whatever the person who established the symbol wants it to mean. So, red lights mean stop because our society says that they means stop, we could just as easily redefine them to mean go any time we wanted to. A rock, on the other hand, is always a rock no matter what anybody says or thinks about it. You can use any word you want to signify the idea of a rock; but a rock by any other name is still a rock. Morality, then, if it exists, must be either subjectively defined, like symbols, or objectively defined, like rocks.
If morality is subjective then it is defined by each individual person or groups of people concerned. There is an inherent problem with this, however. If morality is subjective, then I cannot tell you what is right or wrong for you. Just like with symbols; if you and your best friend decide on a secret handshake, then I can’t tell you that you’re doing it wrong. If morality is subjectively defined by the individual, then no one individual has any business telling any other individual what he should or should not be doing. If you decide that you’re going to cheat, then that’s your business and I have no right to tell you what to do. If you want to lie to your spouse, then that’s your decision. If you want to molest children, and morality is subjectively defined by each individual, then I have no moral authority to tell you that you’re wrong or stop you in any way.
The same scenario is at work even if morality is subjectively defined by groups, nations or cultures. There are tribes around the world that buy and sell girls to become child brides. Just because their culture says it’s ok, does that mean it is? There are cultures that penalize women who have been raped by executing them. Is that ok? In the 1930’s and 40’s, an entire nation decided that it was a good idea to round up Jews, send them to death camps and murder them with less dignity than a herd of cattle. Was that ok? No? Why not? If morality is subjectively defined, then morality does not exist except as an individual opinion, and it has no universal authority. That is to say, if morality is subjectively defined, then it does not actually exist, it’s something that each person fabricates for themselves out of thin air.
So, what if it’s objectively defined? What if it’s more like gravity or the laws of thermo-dynamics? Ok, so we discover natural laws and principles through scientific experimentation. How do we discover the “Laws of Morality”? You can’t put justice in a test tube. If morality exists in the same objective way that gravity does, then it is meaningless to us because we do not have the means to discover its reality. All we would have is individual subjective interpretations of that objective reality, which gets us no further.
But let’s go back to what I said before. Should inherently implies design, which implies intent, which implies intellect. An objective standard of morality that is discoverable to us in any meaningful way can only exist if some intellect established that standard and revealed its nature to us. But wouldn’t that make morality subjective? The only scenario that gives morality any real and meaningful significance is if it is established by an intellect that transcends all of humanity and has the authority to impose its will upon us. Then its standard of morality would be universal and unique.
The only intellect that meets such a requirement is God.
Therefore, if God exists, He, and He alone, defines morality; if God does not exist then morality has no meaningful existence, which is, experientially, the same thing as saying that morality does not exist.
If morality does not exist, then child molestation is not wrong.
Additionally, ideas like justice hang off the idea of morality. If there is no right or wrong, then you can’t wrong me, and I can’t demand justice for being wronged. And, if there is no God to define human rights, then what other authority has the right and the standing to define them? You have the right to free speech? Says who? The government? And if it didn’t exist or it changed its mind? Justice, human rights, and morality do not exist in an atheistic universe. The only way these can possibly have any meaningful existence is if they are defined and sustained by a transcendent and authoritative intellect, a.k.a.  God.
Now, prove me wrong, I dare you.
Here’s how: post your rebuttal in the comments. I will, of course, discuss your answer with you and if you are the first person to prove me wrong, I will give you $25.
Good luck!


  1. Ah, you've been reading Bentham (or perhaps Kant, but I recon he is in your past). I don't want your money, but you should come to our teen class at church, as we were just discussing this issue last week.

    The answer is in your argument: subjectivity. See, the problem with your conclusion is that you have applied to g(G)od the attributes that you feel are necessary to ensure an objective morality without allowing for additional conclusions. The concept of God, however, cannot be objectively defined any more than the concept of morality itself.

    One could argue that, through evolution or perhaps by nature, humans have a need to survive which manifests into a deep seeded desire to act in a way that is best for all humans. Evidence of this can be seen in our world -- it is not only Christians who act "morally." In fact, in most societies (and naming exceptions will not prove me wrong) the desire to do what is right for the majority is held in high regard. Atheists and non-Christians do not, in large majority, spend their days murdering babies, robbing grocery stores, or other acts of immorality. No, they, as well as the rest of us, act in a way that is best for everyone (for the most part). And they act in this way without a (conscious) relationship with g(G)od.

    If you want to attribute morality to g(G)od, then you are subjectively making that connection based on your desire for that reality to exist. However, I can (subjectively) make the connection that morality is based on the desire to act in a way that is most likely to continue the human race.

    Hitler, then, did not act in a way that was best for humanity. You may say that he acted against g(G)od, and that is fine, but he actually/also acted against the best interest of humanity. This, whether or not there is a
    g(G)od who defines morality, is immoral -- assuming we define morality as conducting oneself in a way that is best for humanity.

    1. “the problem with your conclusion is that you have applied to g(G)od the attributes that you feel are necessary to ensure an objective morality without allowing for additional conclusions.”
      Your argument is valid as you have stated it; however, I feel that you have misinterpreted what I said. I did not apply to God the attributes I feel are necessary to ensure an objective morality without allowing for additional conclusions; I applied God to the attributes I feel are necessary to ensure an objective morality and am now asking for people to give me additional conclusions. The former statement A) makes me sound really arrogant (), and B) argues from an assumed definition of God down to a necessary correlative idea of morality, e.g. God is such and such and therefore morality can exist. The latter statement starts with an assumed definition of morality and argues backwards to conditions that are necessary for that reality to exist, a transcendent intellect, and label that reality as God. At this point, my idea of a definition of the word “God” would have similarities to Tillich. I define God as the Eternal, as the defining, foundational principle of the Universe, as that in which all things cohere. The reason why I think that only God can fit the requirements of the transcendent intellect is because only this defining principle truly transcends humanity.
      “If you want to attribute morality to g(G)od, then you are subjectively making that connection based on your desire for that reality to exist.”
      I am making this argument based on a desire for morality to exist objectively. That is true. However, the bent of my argument is in a search for what can adequately ground that objective morality. As far as I can tell, God is the only reality that can do so. I welcome other conclusions that I may be missing.
      “However, I can (subjectively) make the connection that morality is based on the desire to act in a way that is most likely to continue the human race.”
      Yes, you can, but I still don’t think that that would work. How do I, you, or anyone else know what is best for humanity. You can say that there is a way to behave that is objectively best for humanity (Assuming we can come to an agreement as to the definition of “best”), but no one person or group of people has access to that reality. We cannot hold each other accountable for not doing what is best for humanity, but only for not doing what we think is best for humanity. In other words, “what is best for humanity” is still not a standard by which we can hold one another accountable for our behavior or discern what is actually good or right because each individual’s interpretation of “what is best” will be different.
      To illustrate, the Spartans, fulfilling your assertion that “in most societies the desire to do what is right for the majority is held in high regard” would abandon babies whom they thought were too weak to contribute to their society; and, one could make a solid argument that they actually were doing what was best for humanity by weeding out genetic defects and making us stronger and healthier as a race. But I don’t think we would say that infanticide is ever justified even if it does objectively help the species. This is because we generally hold that the needs of the group do not necessarily supersede the needs of the individual.
      Or again, go back to Hitler. Because no single individual’s idea of “what is best for humanity” can be authoritative, no one has the authority to define that standard or identify deviants based on what is actually “best for humanity.” All we can do is hold each other accountable for doing what we think is “best for humanity.” In WWII many Germans thought that the Jews were seriously dangerous for individuals, for Germans, and for the world. They honestly thought that genocide was the best thing they could do for society as a whole. They thought of it as chemotherapy on a societal level. So, we cannot morally condemn Hitler or the Nazis if morality is defined as “doing what is best for humanity.”

    2. If, suddenly, you found out there was no God, would you then start to murder everyone? We don't not murder because of God -- there are many other reasons. I take it back, by the way -- I'll take the $25.00.

    3. No, I wouldn't start murdering everyone, but not because murder would still be immoral, but because I would know that I wouldn't get away with it, that if I start just indiscriminitly killing people, that eventually other people would decide to kill me. In other words, self-preservation. Of course, I also wouldn't murder people because I don't want to. So, lack of motivation + lack of means (I'm a pretty small guy) + desire for self-preservation = I'm not going to make murder a standard practice even without God; but without God, I can't think of a reason to label it morally wrong.

      Also, with reference to your earlier comment, in an atheistic universe, why should I do "what is best for humanity"? What should compel me to care about humanity as a whole more than my own individual desires?

      And, you can't have the $25 until you earn it. I rebutted your argument; you haven't pinned me yet.

    4. "desire for self-preservation" - I think you pretty well summed it up there. This extends to the community, your offspring, your species, the health of your environment, etc. So why would I care about anyone else, seems self evident to me.

      To throw something else in. I'd like to reword your challenge slightly to "prove that there is absolute morality without a god". So of course, you can't prove a negative - or however that goes, so nice challenge. Prove to me that we (you and I autonomously) exist. Anywho - I'd like to retort with "prove that there is absolute morality with God". In other words, God is a fabrication - a layer on top of existence. Unless you're saying that god is existence itself. God created morality. Therefore, it is as much of a fabrication as morality defined by a community from an atheistic standpoint. I imagine I'm hitting on some well tread subjects here, so point me to the text if need be. It might be more absolute than the ever changing whims of society, but it still isn't an absolute. Carbon might be absolute. Matter. Gravity. I suppose. Unless God created it. Then its not absolute.

      Long and short, as almost everyone here seems to agree, there is no such thing as absolute morality. Or meaning, while we're at it.

    5. a)I don't think a desire for self-preservation is sufficient to ground any kind of system of morality. You seem to be saying that a desire for self-preservation works on a societal level, so that I should care about society because what is best for society is best for the individual and vice-versa. I disagree. I think that sometimes what is best for the individual is what is wrong for society and vice-versa (like being put in quarantine when you're not sick). Additionally, if a single individual engages in murder, molestation, theft, etc. society as a whole will not suffer. If I go out and steal something, society is not going to collapse; so if I can get away with it, and I want to do it, and my life will be better off for it, then why shouldn't I do it?

      b) I like the re-wording of the challenge; but I don't think that it's asking you to prove a negative. Proving a negative is impossible because we aren't omniscient. Ex. you can't prove that unicorns don't exist because you can't be all places, seeing all things at the same time, so there's always a possibility that the unicorn could be in that one place where you couldn't see. At best you can prove that things are unlikely, but not impossible. My challenge is asking you to prove a positive, that something does exist, that it is possible. Your re-wording does reveal the crux of my argument, though. Trying to hold onto an objective system of morals and atheism at the same time is to deny the absolute while trying to hold onto an absolute.

      I actually do think that God is existence. Tradition holds that infinite, eternal, omnipresent and non-contingent. The next logical step is to equate God with existence. He isn't only real, He is reality. That's why morality is absolute, because it isn't just a system of rules, it is God's nature.

      My argument is that anything less than absolute intrinsic morality is no morality at all, which is what you basically said in your last paragraph. Without absolute morality we have no authority to tell anyone what is right or wrong, or what they should or shouldn't do. At best, we can tell someone that we don't like what they're doing, that their actions are dangerous for themselves or others, or that they are hurting society, but we can't tell them that they or their actions are intrisically wrong, even in the case of the most reprehensible things like child molestation or the holocaust. That's important and has major ramifications for how our society is structured.

  2. Rick Kelsey
    A. We would all agree that serial (or mass) murder is wrong (reference: JPelton) (ex. "do no harm", consequentialism, Humanism, etc etc.)
    B. Hitler was a mass murderer.
    C. We would All agree that Hitler was wrong being a mass murderer.
    9 hours ago · Like

    1. So morality is based on what "we all agree on"?
      A) who is "we all"
      B) in Germany "we all," being German society, agreed that mass murder was fine as long as it was directed at the Jews and other undesirables.
      C)in ancient times "we all" thought slavery was fine, did that make it ok?

    2. "We would all agree that serial murder is wrong" was your statement from your blog, 3rd paragraph. I only made further induction from your own premise.

    3. I wasn't using that statement as a basis for defining morality; I was using it to set up the question of "why do we believe this?" You took the statement farther than I did by asserting that it actually is a basis for defining morality:

      me: We all agree that it is so; but why?
      you: We all agree that it is so; therefore it is so

      I never argue that morality is defined by humans, humanity, groups, nations or cultures; in fact, I specifically went to some length to point out how that is a flawed line of reasoning (para 6-7). If you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to outline how humans might actually be sufficient to define morality.

  3. Jon,

    The problem with your argument is that you are focused strictly on theoretical matters and ignoring why most people are atheists in the first place. Most people see and hear About god every day from Muslims and Christians. they constantly hear about gods love and yet are completely bombarded by instances where these godly people either murder, rape,gossip, or cheat. basically everything that these religions supposedly stand against.

    Often, and at least in my life experiences, the Christians or Muslims are the ones with what could be considered 'lower' morality. Seemingly the only time that these individuals do anything for others is when it is in the name of god and My because they have a genuine interest on improving the day of another. At the same time there are people who would call themselves atheists who genuinely care about others.. I'm not saying that's always the case, but I have known certain individuals like this and therefore believe that there are some people like this out there.

    I would argue that most that identify themselves as atheists do not do so because they simply can't fathom there being a god , but instead it is a combination of thew doubt that is inherent on all of us coupled with the consistency in which they see godly people acting immorality. they then are unable to reconcile there being a good because everything they have heard that good is runs directly in contrast to the actions and attitudes of those that identify themselves as gods people.

    So I would answer your question with a question. How is it that some athiests have stricter standards for morals than some Christians.

    I wrote this on my phone and can't re read so hope it makes sense.

    -an old friend

    1. I'm writing this one handed, so we'll forgive each other's mistakes.

      You ask "how is it that some atheists have stricter standards for morals than some Christians?"

      I ask how you can recognize strict moral standards? How do we know what "moral living" is without reference to some universal and objective standard of moral living. So, by what standard are you judging these people's actions as moral or immoraL?

      You say that many atheists are atheists because of the behavior of theists.

      I ask how the actions of adherents can effect the objective reality of what they believe in. If Newton decided to jump off a cliff, that doesn't mean gravity isn't real. Either God exists or He doesn't; moral Christians cannot bring God into existence and immoral Christians do not kill Him. It's applying good evidence to the wrong conclusion.

      BTW, I would agree that Christians have acted and continue to act immorally. I act immorally. This lack of holiness in the church is a serious problem and must be addressed, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, and it doesn't disprove my thesis.

    2. In other words, your critique of Christian's behavior is legitimate, I just don't see how it furthers the argument. It seems like a separate discussion to me.

    3. Hi Jon,

      I actually don't argue your thesis,just your presentation. In your facebook post you insinuated that if atheist beliefs were correct that there was nothing wrong with Hitler. That is an incredibly inflammatory approach to presenting your thoughts. When you present a topic in that manner then you open yourself up to critique of your faith as well.

      I believe in god, but for you to suggest that the actions of Christians don't affect the beliefs of those who may not yet have decided is ludicrous. To your point, do the actions of Christians affect whether there actually is a god ? Of course not. But most people aren't theologians, the average man will make decisions based on his circumstances and his emotions. Both of those can be deeply impacted by the perception of those who profess to believe in God. In other words, the actions of Christians will never impact whether there is or is not a God but it will certainly impact how many believe that there is one.

      The way I think of it in my case is that I grew up in the south. I was made to believe that the cornerstone of what it meant to believe in God is to love your neighbor. if someone on my shoes were to see enough Christians bout doing this then they may draw the conclusion thatGood doesn't exist. Most people will never consider or dive into the theoretical nature off the question, they will simply base their decision on their circumstances and their emotions. This decision tree may not lead to the correct conclusion but it is the decision tree of most nonetheless.

      I am not ignoring your initial question though and I will write a little in another post on that after this one.

    4. Point taken. I worded my fb post the way I did because I would never have gotten so many comments had I worded it more politically correctly. Still, point taken.

      I agree with all of your premises; Christian behavior will affect how people view the Christian God and whether He exists or not, even though from a strictly logical perspective, it shouldn't. Humans are not just logical creatures, we are emotional, experiential and relational creatures, so Christian behavior is a legitimately serious topic for discussion. I just don't think that it has bearing in a discussion of whether or not morality exists or what defines it. I think I have simply restated what you've said, just in my own words.

      I look forward to your response to my thesis.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Jon,

      In reply to your question, I will bite and play devils advocate. Bear in mind that I have minimal knowledge of theory, so you could probably talk circles around me, but I am pretty good at logic so I will give it a shot.

      your question above was what moral standard is there judgement if there is no god. If I am understanding correctly, then what I need to prove is that morals are real in a Godless world and that Hitler was still wrong in this Godless world.

      So for this argument I am going to operate under the assumption that man evolved from nothing ness subsequent to the big bang.

      Operating under this assumption, I feel that it is actually very easy to show that there are morals in the world. Under this assumption, man had had millions of years to evolve. Specifically, man has had many years of wars, killing and other sections that would now be considered immoral. Each of these actions in some way hurts another individual. Morality has then developed over millions of year's as a result of humans learning the pain that these types of actions will cause. Humans inherent need to survive has taught us that if we want to continue our lives and not die, that certain activities should be forbidden. Evolution has also taught us how to empathize in this godless world. When pain is caused to one third party by another, we understand that pain and empathize and therefore deem these actions immoral.

      Therefore, whether there is a God or not, the actions of Hitler were immoral.

    2. This is, roughly, the same thing that Jeremy Gulley is arguing above.

      I would agree that there are certain actions that are good for our race and others that are not, and that, over time, we might come to some understanding as to a definition of what is best for humanity.

      The idea of morality is that there are actions that should or should not do. So, I ask you, in this Godless universe, why should I care about humanity as whole? What should keep me from simply looking out for me and my family regardless of how that affects our species? Why should I care how my actions cause other people pain? Why should I empathize with others?

      You say "You should do what's best for all of us?"
      I say "Why?"

      Answer that without resorting to the idea of God.

    3. nothing like football combined with deep thought proving questions .

      I was going to respond, but I read the thread above that you refer and I will leave it to that guybecause we seem to be making the same point.

      Hope your well, enjoy your weekend

    4. Thank you, and, you as well.

      Feel free to continue to join in this discussion. Just because Jeremy is arguing along the same lines that you are doesn't mean that you can't add something of value. Everybody looks and thinks about these things differently, and your particular viewpoint may bring something to light that none of the rest of us can see; so, please, if you have something to post, post it!

  5. I've actually had this discussion with people before. The biggest argument is evolution. That "morality" is a product of biological evolution as well as evolutionary psychology. That's why murder is universally rejected. Some cultures are ok with killing in certain circumstances, but not true murder. I could right a whole article on this but I don't think it's possible to "prove" you wrong. Also, while I find this argument fascinating, I am a Christian and therefore believe that God's finger print are all over this issue.

  6. A lot of atheists are atheists because they recognize good and evil in the world. They are atheists because they don't think a God would allow evil, wrong, or suffering. They are thus atheists by their own nature of recognizing good and evil. If they can recognize the difference between good and evil, they can state that Hitler was evil.

    R Kelsey

    1. Yes, I think you're right that atheists might recognize evil, might ask how a good God can recognize evil, and come to a conclusion of atheism. I have seen that, talked with them, and know that you're right in that factual statement. But let's go beyond the simple fact that there are atheists that believe that Hitler was morally wrong and ask whether that position is logically consistent. Many people think that murder is wrong, but how many of them understand why they believe that murder is wrong? Regardless of the fact that many people hold a position that brings atheism and morality together, I'm pointing out that when you really start to look at those two ideas and dig down into them, you realize that they are incompatible. So, I will present the challenge again:

      Ok, atheist, you believe in such a thing as moral right and wrong, defend that belief without resorting to the idea of God. By what standard do you point at Hitler and say "He doesn't measure up"?

      I don't think its possible to reconcile atheism and morality. You can make put peanut butter and pickled herring together on a sandwich, but that doesn't mean they go together. An atheist might believe in morality, but that doesn't mean that their beliefs are consistent with each other.

    2. Let me say that again, but simpler. Give me an objective definition of the words good and evil without resorting to the ideas of God or design.

    3. Ethan here...

      Good is individually pleasant or socially acceptable, Evil is not.

  7. Ethan here...

    From a materialistic viewpoint, suffering is perfectly acceptable. From a theistic viewpoint, it means that god does not care.

  8. In my experience the core of morality without God hinges on utilitarianism and the idea that the ends will justify the means; keep that in mind.
    By our own understanding (over years of evolution for example) we can see actions as either good or bad. But the very idea of good and bad derives from an innate concept of life and death, pain and pleasure. We are programmed to think death is bad because we are programmed for life. Death is an affect on all life and each organism or system relies on a cycle of life and death to survive only because it is in a state of slow decay.
    However, its initial programming is to survive and this is evident in the fact that we live first, then we die. Thus we were designed to live as death is antithetical to life. Not that life and death cannot co-exist in a dependant system, but the true concept of life and death are antithetical.
    Now, I believe that God is central to this worldview, because by way of another discussion we can see that The Spirit/Character of God is one of life/creation/movement and is essential to the very existence of all things.
    Death/destruciton/stillness, is the antithesis to that, and a counter spirit breaking the structure down. But we can see that as humans and I believe all people sense this innately. This can be deciphered through reasoning and even seems discernable form the youngest of ages via observation. We see and experience death/pain/destruction, we know it is bad.
    Thus, simply sensing the purpose of the universe (to live) and sensing the tradgedy of death (the antithesis of that purpose) we can come by a moral code. That code is that all things that assist in the purpose of life are good, all actions that create destruction are bad.
    This does not mean people can do a perfect act, because most often even our "good" deeds will have countless after affects, both good and bad, but we may know of it and what that is, without coming to the realization of God cognitively, or builing him into our framework. Ironically because God himself has programmed us to know it without us having to know him.
    Pertinent to this argument, I would like to know if indeed you can agree that this suits the challenge...because I will gladly take your money. :)

    1. You guys are definitely pushing me to think and rethink things.

      What many seem to be arguing is that an atheist can come by a system of morals; that they can observe pleasure and pain and build a system of morality out of it. My argument is that such a system of morality is a) not true morality, and b) any true morality is logically inconsistent with atheism.

      In my blog I said that you can define morality subjectively or objectively. Morality, objectively defined, is that absolute intrinsic right and wrong. An action is right or wrong, regardless of consequences, simply by virtue of what it is. Any system of morality built off of experience is subjective. The individual builds that system and defines right and wrong for themselves. I attack subjective, contingent morality pretty vehemently in my blog, and you'll have to address the concerns I voiced there.

      If you hold to any system of morality, and claim that it is in any way absolute, or that it holds sway over other people, then you are arguing from the position of an absolute transcendent design, i.e. God, whether you realize it or not. To do so from a position of atheism is logically inconsistent.

  9. Well, I understood that already and admitted it above. What I attempted to exploit was something called a loop-hole. Having failed in that regard I'm now going to shoot a Cannon at a Mosquito and just see if it hits it. And this is all in proper intellectual sport since I agree with you wholeheartedly but certainly like shootings things with cannons.

    Can their be morality without purpose? Since atheism leaves the question of purpose ambiguous it allows it to be subjective to the individual. Since the absolute of purpose is gone, the value of all things dissapears as well and without a hierarchy of values, a measure by which we can decide if something is right or wrong, better suited to the purpose or not, the system falls apart.
    However, we exclude the athiest argument because it is void of absolute, but existentially, so is all knowledge. The very concept of "absolute" is a construct that may or may not be accurate. As the true understanding of man is ralative to his experience, his very thoughts may vary without genuine comparison or reconciliation.
    An atheist building a morality without the construct "God" as you understand it is as simple as it is for you because both systems construct an idea of absolute with uncertainty. How can we hold anything absolute when our experience and understanding is anything but that? We can't. Thus, neither worldview has an absolute, they must construct one from their knowledge and experience base. And they must do so in order to function. (Faith Argument). But because both views accept absolutes on the same ground, they are no different.
    One believing in God is no different that one denying it since we cannot even accurately conceive of God, or have certainty we do.
    In this realization, all absolutes become meaningless. In this regard an atheist will construct his morality the same way you do, by mandatorily deciding upon his own unproven concept of right and wrong dervied from what uncertain and fabricated knowledge and understanding he has. Knowledge is not proved, it is believed. Thus, so are absolutes and so is morality.
    The conclusion: a morality without God has the same logical merit as a morality with God. Thus, you can prove a morality without God just the same as you can prove a morality with God.

    1. which means that, with or without God, there is no morality.

  10. For crying out loud, your torturing me! Do I have to argue against myself? Fine. We automatically assume certain things because we are programmed to. We assume we exist and cannot avoid assuming we do, we have faith because faith is the driving character of the universe and is synonymous with love and life and movement. Faith is the spark of movement and the very character of being itself. We have faith in our existence, then consciousness, then reason, then our senses and by way our limitedness, then a limitor, and that that limitor is only one and precedes all others. We also take for granted it is infinite and therefore fits the very concept of God. Every day every human assumes God, whether he is in a state of self denial or not. Thus, Without believing in God, no concept exists, no thought exists. To say you believe then in any absolute or defined value without holding in place that primordial creator/regulator of the universe, is logically inconsistent. There, I proved your point for you because you somehow didn't feel the need to do so. So keep your $25 and be a sissy.

    Your friend,