Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
OK - this is actually quite interesting (I think) so I want to try and explain.

I should start by saying that "The Arbiter" is one of Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" for the existence of God.

the argument runs like this:

Moral systems assume there is a difference between right and wrong, and that this difference is absolute, black and white.

In order for a moral truth to be real it must be universally applicable, i.e. killing is always wrong, in all cases, at all times.

In order for there to be a black and white morality, with a line that has "good" on one side and "evil" on the other there must be someone to determine, with infallability, what goes on what side of the line.

As God is the only perfect arbiter He is a necessity for a moral system.

If you aren't talking about absolute right and wrong then personnal preference has intruded into the system and then you are merely talking about "preferable".

To put it bluntly - if you want to believe in right and wrong as actual things and not matters of taste then you have to believe in some infallible Higher Power, what we commonly call "God".
To put it bluntly back at ya, maybe YOU have to believe in some higher power to believe in right or wrong as actual things. And by the way, how can "right and wrong" be "things"?

To rape an infant to death is for me wrong, it is a clear "black and white" case where no one can ever convince me that there were reasons excusing the action. I have reached that conclusion from my intuitive gut feeling, as well as from a logical stand point. "God" has nothing to do with that what so ever.