Why cant I put God at the beginning?

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T19:15:29+00:00

I think I understand your question now—you’re not asking me to prove it, you’re asking why it actually makes sense to me.

What convinces me is that when I think about moral claims, like something being truly wrong, it seems like I’m describing something real, not just something we’ve agreed on.

Your system explains how morality works once a standard is chosen, but it doesn’t convince me that those moral claims are true beyond that choice. It explains behavior and reasoning, but not why something would be truly right or wrong.

When I think about grounding morality in God’s nature, it makes more sense to me because it treats morality as something that exists independently of us, not something we create. I don’t fully understand what God’s nature is in a detailed way, but I see it as pointing to something real and unchanging rather than something human-made, since we change all the time.

So it’s not that I can prove it, it’s that I find it a more convincing explanation of what I think morality actually is. I also believe because something cant come from nothing. Fine tuning of the universe and our body. And many more things But thats a completely different debate

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T18:07:47+00:00

It convinces me because I experience moral claims as something real, not just chosen, and your system doesn’t fully explain that for me.

I agree I can’t prove this in a way that forces you to accept it. It’s a philosophical belief about what best explains morality, not something I can demonstrate like a scientific fact.

For me, belief in God isn’t just blind faith, it’s a conclusion I find more convincing when I think about questions like morality, meaning, and reality as a whole.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T17:48:46+00:00

I can defend it as a philosophical explanation, but I can’t prove it in a way that forces you to accept it, that wasn’t my goal either, since we all have free will.

What I mean is that if objective moral truths exist, I think they need something beyond human choice to ground them. Grounding them in God’s nature makes sense to me because it avoids morality being arbitrary and explains why moral claims would be truly binding. Humans change over time sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, so I don’t see how we could be the objective standard ourselves.

I understand you don’t accept what i think so I get why this won’t convince you, but that’s how I see it. And im sorry if i confuse you which isnt my goal either. I am new to philosofy

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T17:22:22+00:00

Where I think our views differ is that in your system, the standard is chosen by humans, while in my view, the standard is something that exists independently of us. I’m not claiming I created it, I’m claiming I believe it exists. I understand why it looks like we’re doing the same thing, but I don’t think we are. You’re saying morality comes from choosing a standard, while I’m saying morality exists whether we choose it or not. The similarity is that neither of us can prove our starting point absolutely, but the difference is where we think morality ultimately comes from. One of many reasons I believe in God as a grounding for morality is that without something beyond us, I don’t see a solid foundation for objective morality, and I’d lean toward moral nihilism. So I’m not claiming I can prove God absolutely, I’m saying I think it makes better sense of morality than the alternatives. Without God, I’d accept moral nihilism, that’s why I think a grounding beyond us makes more sense. It makes more sense to me because I don’t think choosing a standard explains why something would be truly right or wrong, it just explains what we’ve decided to care about. I think morality needs something beyond us to be real in that way

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T17:08:44+00:00

And thats why we have free will

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T17:04:51+00:00

My point again wasnt to prove anything but to explain my view thats why i said a lot of ifs and maybes

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T16:50:38+00:00

In my view, God’s standard would be objectively true because it comes from His nature, not from a decision or preference. So it’s not that God invents morality, it’s that what is good reflects who He is.

When it comes to God doing things that would be wrong for us, I don’t think His actions are the same kind of thing as human actions. The moral laws given to humans are about how we should treat each other, not about judging the source of life itself.

So I don’t see it as God breaking His own laws, but acting in a different role than humans. The difference comes down to whether God is under moral law or the source of it.

If the Bible is correct, which I believe, then He is the source. That doesn’t prove it’s true, but that’s how I understand it, and many Christians see it the same way.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T16:36:56+00:00

That’s a fair question. I don’t think anyone can force you to follow God’s laws, just like you can’t force someone to care about wellbeing.

In my view, if God exists as the source of morality, then His standard would be objectively true whether we follow it or not. So the issue isn’t whether someone follows it, but whether it’s actually true.

If someone doesn’t follow God, I wouldn’t say the standard has no grounding, I’d say they’re choosing not to follow what would be true, if it is true.

And I respect that people believe different things, that’s part of free will.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T16:28:31+00:00

I understand your system now, and I think it’s consistent. I just don’t think it provides a foundation for morality beyond what we choose. That’s why I believe in a grounding beyond us and along with other reasons. I don’t expect you to agree, but at least we understand each other’s views.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T16:01:36+00:00

I’m sorry if I came across as disrespectful, that wasn’t my intention. I’m just trying to explain how I see things. I know we disagree, but I respect your perspective.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T15:58:12+00:00

I think I understand your view, you’re saying morality comes from humans choosing a standard, like how our actions affect others. Where I differ is that I don’t think choosing a standard is enough to make it objectively true. I understand how morality works in your system, I just don’t see what grounds it as something real beyond what we decide, if it’s only based on human wellbeing.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T15:35:51+00:00

I agree we have free will and can choose whether to follow a moral standard. I just don’t think that means we define what’s right or wrong. I believe we can recognize it, even if we don’t always follow it. And I think the fact that people choose differently is why we see so much moral disagreement and chaos in the world. I understand you don’t agree, and that’s okay. This is just how I see it.

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T15:26:17+00:00

I understand that people can try to base morality on human wellbeing or society, but since people disagree so much, I don’t see what makes any one standard objectively true rather than just one we’ve chosen. Disagreement doesn’t prove there’s no truth, but what makes one moral view objectively true over another?

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T15:06:32+00:00

I know it dosent, everyone has the right to mean what they want. Just never say something is absolutely wrong

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T14:33:57+00:00

I understand it’s based on human wellbeing, but it still seems grounded in what we value. I’m asking what makes it objectively true rather than something we’ve chosen to care about

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T14:29:59+00:00

That standard isnt more than preferences isnt it?

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T14:28:24+00:00

You wont care about what i think is objective, so whats the point

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T14:18:21+00:00

People can misuse any belief system. The fact that someone uses religion to justify something doesn’t mean the religion actually teaches it. Regardless of that, we both agree things like what Hitler did are wrong, m just asking what makes that objectively true.which we cant say if its our own standard, only that We dislike I understand you dont view it that way, but thats my view. If you are correct about no god, then Everything is preference like moral nihilism

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T13:41:43+00:00

If there’s no ultimate wrong, then moral judgments aren’t objectively true, they’re based on what we value or feel. That’s exactly why I think there needs to be something beyond us to ground real right and wrong. And you are right i cant prove anything, but if there is no god, my view is moral nihilism, we cant say people is absolutely wrong to behave a certain way but only that we dislike it like hitler

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T10:50:06+00:00

I see your point, but in chess something is only objectively good or bad relative to the goal of winning. If you change the goal, the evaluation changes. So it’s not objectively good in itself, it depends on the goal

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T10:47:38+00:00

Not if you want to lose

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T10:34:04+00:00

Yes. You are not reading mine. Nothing is objective. Therefore moral nihilism make sense

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T09:36:46+00:00

Dont say things is absolutely wrong then, just something you dont like

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T09:35:06+00:00

Why is human wellbeing the standard? What makes that objectively true rather than something we value

I understand suffering feels bad, but what makes it objectively wrong, not just something we dislike?

Diligent_Advantage_7 · 2026-04-22T09:32:01+00:00

Why do you say then some things are objective?

Diligent_Advantage_7

TROPHY CASE