If GOD does not exist, then everything is permissible.

[Keith&Co.]

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God.

Seriously, there's no act so evil that God will come down and stay the evildoer's hand. Sure, he'll burn in boiling douche-suds later, but the act was permitted.

And it's even permitted if it's done 'in the name of God' or 'name of Jesus' or 'name of the holy spirit.' It's just difficult after that to get people to acknowledge that the evildoer was not an atheist.

The bleevers LOVE to point to the evils of Stalin, while distancing themselves from Crusades, witch hunts, the Osmonds. But even if there's a god up there jotting down every crime for later punishment, everything's permissible.

So, it's not much of a counter to 'I see no reason to believe in your skybuddy.'

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Antinomianism. The idea that if you are saved by grace of God, no matter what you do you cannot lose your salvation.
If you are from the beginning of time chosen to be one of the elect, anything goes. If God by his plan, his eternal providence creates your actions, you are forced to do that. Anything goes if God makes you do that in a fully determined Universe. Calvin. All that happens happens because God wills it. In one of his writings, Calvin states that if a Christian traveler is set up by thieves and is robbed and savagely beaten, God made that happen. With God, anything goes. All that goes happens by God's doing. Luther, "Bondage of the Will" Free will is impossible. How can it be then many are evil? God is inscrutable.

 

[Atheos]

If certain versions of the christian god exist, not only is everything permissible but the eternal consequences of even the most atrocious behavior will be nullified by getting saved. A serial child-rapist who had a penchant for dismembering his victims once he grew tired of them gets eternity in paradise if he accepts Jesus into his heart while serving out life without parole.

With that version of god it isn't important what you do it's only important what you think. IOW if you believe in Jeebus you get the goods. The only crime that dooms one to the eternal lava-bath is skepticism.

Of course there is that one pesky exception: If you call the Holy Ghost a self-fornicating assmunch who couldn't get laid if he was waving a fistfull of cash in a 3rd world whorehouse you can't be forgiven.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

But it is only an argument about what is morally permissible to his god. He then assumes that those moral guidelines also applies to a society and society would have no morals without that direction. It doesn't. A godless society could well have much more stringent moral guidelines that his imagined god's.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

So, if there is no god, no god will judge my behavior.

That seems kind of self-evident.

But this was offered as a rebuttal to atheism. So, how would the world LOOK if 'everything is permissible?'

We might have more than one religion claiming the right to kill dissenters.
We might have slavery. Hate crimes. Racial intolerance.
People willing to take a life over what stall another person wants to piss in.
People wanting to piss in a stall where they won't get shanked for what color the blanket was in their crib.
Crusades. Jihads. Witchhunts.
Justin Bieber concerts.
Dogs and cats, living together.
Multiple and conflicting Superman reboots being made while Firefly is taken off the air.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But it is only an argument about what is morally permissible to his god. He then assumes that those moral guidelines also applies to a society and society would have no morals without that direction. It doesn't. A godless society could well have much more stringent moral guidelines that his imagined god's.

No, in the argument, the word "God" is either supposed to have some sort of meaning shared by competent English speakers, or is defined as something like "The greatest conceivable being", or "an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being", or "a supreme being worthy of worship", etc.
Moreover, the argument is not about any specific moral guidelines. It's a metaethical argument. It is an argument to the conclusion that if God did not exist, everything would be morally permissible, or if you like, the referent of "immoral" would be necessarily empty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, if there is no god, no god will judge my behavior.

No, that's not the claim the argument is meant to support at all.

Rather, the claim is: If God did not exist, nothing would be immoral.
It has nothing to do with whether someone will judge your behavior. It has everything to do with the referent of "immoral", "morally wrong", etc.
The claim is (roughly; there are similar formulations) that if God did not exist, those words necessarily would fail to refer.

 

[skepticalbip]

But it is only an argument about what is morally permissible to his god. He then assumes that those moral guidelines also applies to a society and society would have no morals without that direction. It doesn't. A godless society could well have much more stringent moral guidelines that his imagined god's.

No, in the argument, the word "God" is either supposed to have some sort of meaning shared by competent English speakers, or is defined as something like "The greatest conceivable being", or "an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being", or "a supreme being worthy of worship", etc.
Moreover, the argument is not about any specific moral guidelines. It's a metaethical argument. It is an argument to the conclusion that if God did not exist, everything would be morally permissible, or if you like, the referent of "immoral" would be necessarily empty.

Then it is only defining god as the ethos of a society. This is pretty meaningless. Why not just stay with societal ethos? Why the need to anthropomorphise it?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, in the argument, the word "God" is either supposed to have some sort of meaning shared by competent English speakers, or is defined as something like "The greatest conceivable being", or "an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being", or "a supreme being worthy of worship", etc.
Moreover, the argument is not about any specific moral guidelines. It's a metaethical argument. It is an argument to the conclusion that if God did not exist, everything would be morally permissible, or if you like, the referent of "immoral" would be necessarily empty.

Then it is only defining god as the ethos of a society. This is pretty meaningless. Why not just stay with societal ethos? Why the need to anthropomorphise it?

No, if they define "God", it's not as the ethos of a society. It's one of the definitions I mentioned, or otherwise it's based on an assumption of a shared meaning, which would apply to all societies of English speakers, and moreover, other societies would allegedly have a word with the same meaning in their language (at least, many others; they usually don't clarify that).
Regardless, if they do give a definition (rather than make that assumption), it will be something like one of the definitions I gave, not the ethos of a society.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, if there is no god, no god will judge my behavior.

No, that's not the claim the argument is meant to support at all.

Well, it's meant to support a conclusion that at least one god exists.
But what morals we can identify vary. They even conflict.
There's not one single moral code, thus there can't be one single god that sources all morality.
So either there are other gods, or morals can be made without the input of god.

 

[abaddon]

Why not just stay with societal ethos? Why the need to anthropomorphise it?

I don't think they're aware that they write the societal ethos upon the cosmos. They want to get past the human to something more absolute, and let the cosmos establish that some actions are sacred and others actions are evil. That way there's no question, no arguing it. No one asks "But, why is that evil? Why should I believe you that such-n-such is evil?" Which is exactly what they perceive atheists as doing.

Even if the attempt at an objective ethics fails, because this culture's god says this and that culture's god says that, surely the desire is understandable. After all, without God or some sort of intelligible cosmic order that establishes some things as sacred, I know of no reason to not slaughter people other than that it’s “mean” and that society will retaliate. It's not inherently wrong if it's only humans that say so. It’s only wrong from the viewpoint of those that agree with each other that it is wrong.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then it is only defining god as the ethos of a society. This is pretty meaningless. Why not just stay with societal ethos? Why the need to anthropomorphise it?

No, if they define "God", it's not as the ethos of a society. It's one of the definitions I mentioned, or otherwise it's based on an assumption of a shared meaning, which would apply to all societies of English speakers, and moreover, other societies would allegedly have a word with the same meaning in their language (at least, many others; they usually don't clarify that).
Regardless, if they do give a definition (rather than make that assumption), it will be something like one of the definitions I gave, not the ethos of a society.

No. His argument is that without god there are no morals, a totally bull shit argument. I know no atheists who do not have and live by their own moral codes.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Seems like a strange argument to make if you already believe that nothing can exist without god.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, it's meant to support a conclusion that at least one god exists.

I'm not sure what "a god" means, but it's meant to support the conclusion that God exists, where the word "God" is understood as I've been outlining. If there are problems with the definition (and there may well be), so be it.

But what morals we can identify vary. They even conflict.
There's not one single moral code, thus there can't be one single god that sources all morality.
So either there are other gods, or morals can be made without the input of god.

I'm not sure what you're saying, but the sort of rationale they're using is meant to support things like:
1. If God did not exist, no behavior would be immoral.
2. If no behavior were immoral, it wouldn't be immoral for people to rape other people purely for fun.
3. It is immoral for people to rape other people purely for fun.
C: God exists.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, if they define "God", it's not as the ethos of a society. It's one of the definitions I mentioned, or otherwise it's based on an assumption of a shared meaning, which would apply to all societies of English speakers, and moreover, other societies would allegedly have a word with the same meaning in their language (at least, many others; they usually don't clarify that).
Regardless, if they do give a definition (rather than make that assumption), it will be something like one of the definitions I gave, not the ethos of a society.

No. His argument is that without god there are no morals, a totally bull shit argument. I know no atheists who do not have and live by their own moral codes.

But the claim is not that atheists don't have their own moral beliefs, etc.
What they're saying is that if God did not exist, those atheists - and theists, etc. - would be mistaken in their belief that some behaviors (like raping people purely for entertainment) are immoral.

It's a really bad argument, but you're getting it wrong.

 

[bilby]

Seems like a strange argument to make if you already believe that nothing can exist without god.

Yeah, it is exactly and precisely as good an argument, in that case, as 'If GOD does not exist, then there wouldn't be bananas'.

And yet, nobody* makes that argument.














*OK, perhaps Ray Comfort. But nobody else.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Seems like a strange argument to make if you already believe that nothing can exist without god.

You might try an objection along those lines (I would have to see it developed to comment in more detail), but in philosophy discussions, people generally do argue about what would happen in situations they take to be metaphysically impossible (like theists believe the nonexistence of God is), they consider scenarios they take to be counterpossible, etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. His argument is that without god there are no morals, a totally bull shit argument. I know no atheists who do not have and live by their own moral codes.

But the claim is not that atheists don't have their own moral beliefs, etc.
What they're saying is that if God did not exist, those atheists - and theists, etc. - would be mistaken in their belief that some behaviors (like raping people purely for entertainment) are immoral.

It's a really bad argument, but you're getting it wrong.

No, that isn't what they are saying. That is what you are saying. And it is still a logical fallacy of begging the question, asserting that for there to be morals there must be a god... there are morals therefore god. It's similar to Bilby's example of saying that for there to be bananas there must be a god... there are bananas therefore god.

 

[fast]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

You beat me to it.

By the way, how do I know when to tag on "meta" like you did when you said, "metaethical?"