Interesting!

I am new to it forgive me, from wikipedia:

"Divine command theory (also known as theological voluntarism)[1][2] is a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God. The theory asserts that what is moral is determined by God's commands and that for a person to be moral he is to follow God's commands."

So it seems it leaves wriggle room? The actions that are not directly commanded by God are allowed to be non-moral, and that would presumably include denying God's existence?

God has also not communicated his commands clearly to us! Ideally, we could have done with some sort of user manual: 'Welcome to your new universe! Here is how to use it'. That would have been nice!

So the lack of clear communication could mean:

- God has no commands for us
- We are meant meant to work out what God commands using our own intellect

First off most atheists don't deny god's existence, they just don't believe in him, so really there is no action to be judged. Second I'm not trying to ascertain whether or not it could be moral to not believe in a god, I'm trying to determine whether or not not believing in god is tantamount to denying god's commands after granting that divine command theory is infallible. I totally agree that there is nothing out there good enough to have been made by an omnipotent, omniscient creator as far as books go. Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Sorry, had to make an important edit. I should have said in my first post that I'm referring to merely not believing in god.

I suppose that if I change it to "doesn't believe in god" then it makes it a lack of belief in revelation instead of a denial; it's more agnostic.

I'm trying to determine whether or not not believing in god is tantamount to denying god's commands after granting that divine command theory is infallible. — Aleph Numbers

Divine command theory could perhaps have two interpretations:

1) Everything that happens is explicitly commanded by God
Or
2) Somethings that happens are explicitly commanded by God

Could you say which one (or elsewise) you prescribe to?

I don't prescribe to either, I'm merely attempting to reconcile a claim of amorality within the epistemology of divine command; and I think that divine command only causes events insofar as people believe a god's moral disclosures and act on them. I think we might be talking over each other a little. Divine command theory just makes morality objective, but still arbitrary. All of the existing moral facts would be derived from a supernatural source. The question you pose has little to do with ethics it seems to me, but, once again, I could be wrong.

Oh yeah I meant moral commands, I think that might have been confusing. Sorry.

Consequently, is it true that if one says that another is amoral for denying judeo-christian values, which are revelation, then it follows that they would be amoral for merely denying god's existence because, once again, to deny god's existence is to deny revelation? — Aleph Numbers

Maybe we have to define amoral? I know my definition and it is certainly not 'not believing in God'. But let's go with that definition for now.

I'll try paraphrasing what you say above, sorry if I have it wrong:

Is it true that if one says that another is amoral for denying God, then it follows that they would be amoral for denying god's existence because, once again, to deny god's existence is to deny revelation?

Who is the 'they' in the above? - I've underlined it. It could be 'one' or 'another'.

to deny god's existence is to deny revelation — Aleph Numbers

wouldn't denying revelation (the moral disclosures made by god, which would be moral facts if god existed, albeit arbitrary moral facts) be equivalent to not believing in god — Aleph Numbers

You mean to say that denying revelation is to be an atheist and to be an atheist is to deny revelation. Revelations are essentially serve as proofs of god's existence, the morality bit is only incidental to that primary function. So, yes, if one denies revelation, one is, in essence, denying the existence of god. The other half of the issue is that if one is an atheist then one denies the existence of god and that entails the impossibility of revelations. So, yes, you're right on both counts. No revelation, no god. No god, no revelation.

Divine command theory is Risible.

It falls immediately and irredeemably to the Euthyphro.

Yeah I know it's a crap theory, I'm just presenting something from the point of view of someone who subscribes to divine command theory.

Sure. But take care - trying to see the world from the perspective of such a twisted view might do permanent damage. :wink:

lmao. Yeah it bothers the crap out of me but it's necessary sometimes. Like Slavoj Zizek says:

it is precisely if there is god, that everything is permitted to those who not only believe in god but who perceive themselves as…direct instruments of the divine will. If you posit or perceive or legitimize yourself as a direct instrument of the divine will, then of course all narrow, petty moral considerations disappear. How can you even think in such narrow terms when you are a direct instrument of god?

One of my favorite quotes

Just realized something: revelation, if it exists, would be objective under divine command theory, and, thus, would exist as fact regardless of whether or not someone believes in it. That is the literal definition of objective. The existence of god is also independent of the atheist's belief. Furthermore one could make the claim that to the atheist any morality would be subjective (in the framework of divine command) because of their denial of god's existence, and, thus, objective revelation. And what if an atheist adheres to a religious morality and god exists? Does that make them moral?

I think it can be shown that any morality the atheist might take up is subjective within the framework of DCT: DCT makes two important claims:
Claim one: revelation is received from god and is objective.
Claim two: if revelation is objective, god authored it (and thus exists).
Thus, the next two claims:
Claim three: If revelation would be objective and would also be authored by god if god existed, to not believe revelation is objective is to vacate god’s existence.
Claim four: If revelation would be objective and would also be authored by god if god existed, to not believe in god is to vacate the objectivity of revelation.
Thus, the atheist is doomed to subjective morality within DCT's framework. But I still don't know what to make of the atheist who follows god's commands.

:up: