Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

I must say thank you though KFunk, you're really making me think this through properly.

No problem dude. Thanks for engaging with the debate.

Yeah, of course, the agents choices will be influenced by rationality in the decision making process. However this does not take away from the fact that is was the agent who personally made that choice - whatever it was. Hence the agent is still responsible for the choice they made because they were the ones that made it.

You probably wrote this as I wrote my previous response, but if you look to (2) you'll see that my conception of free will (i.e. will which is relevant to who one is as a person) is compatible with this kind of repsonsibility - i.e. that one is responsible for an action if it is made in accord with who they are as a person (taking into account beliefs, desires and values). For reasons explained above I don't see any reason for including a truly free will in the picture (and in fact see it as incoherent with our concept of self).

 

[KFunk]

Even if you are not responsible for who you are as a person?

Certainly. It seems inevitable to me that we are largely shaped by our parents and other social forces (interacting with our genes of course) and so it makes a kind of sense to introduce an attenuated form of responsibility.

By my logic it does not depend on how rationality is defined - it only matters that the individual believes one choice is rational and the other irrational. By your logic it is impossible for them to choose to carry out what they believe is the irrational option.

I can't give a simple answer to this, because sometimes people will recognise a decision as irrational in one sense - e.g. gambling money in a casino is economically irrational - whilst possessing an overriding desire, e.g. they may get a thrill from gambling large amounts of money. In a broad sense of rationality which takes into account such desires (and the like) I would suggest that we can only make what appears to be the rational decision. Note: further complications may arise in cases of psychopathology.

 

[BradCube]

Certainly. It seems inevitable to me that we are largely shaped by our parents and other social forces (interacting with our genes of course) and so it makes a kind of sense to introduce an attenuated form of responsibility.

By your reasoning earlier, where you not suggesting that all of our decisions we make are free of any personal responsibility since we don't control the conditions which lead to the choice process?

I am confused as to where you believe any personal responsibility is introduced if this is the case. Also, I am interested then in where you believe this cut off point is. What do you regard as your responsibility for the choices you have made, and that which is outside of your responsibility?

 

[KFunk]

We're talking about two different types of responsibility - a strong form (S-responsibility, say) and a weak form (W-responsibility). S-responsibility requires absolutely free will and so, on my account, we lack S-responsibility. The concept of W-responsibility holds one responsible if their actions are caused by who they are as a person. It's simply a plausible alternative notion of responsibility which could be introduced.

There will be no clear cut off. It is not a binary 'responsible' OR 'not responsible' situation. Rather, there will be grades of responsibility involving a lot of grey area (e.g. is one responsible for one's actions after 1 beer? 3? 12?... similarly for age - is a person responsible at 3 months? 2 years? 5 years? 16 years?).

(P.S. ducking off to office works - will remake my general case more clearly when I get back)

 

[BradCube]

of course 100% is unlikely because beliefs arent only based on location (and everything that the location may encompass). however 99% is a high enough correlation to suggest a significant influence on ability of choice.

99% isn't high enough to prove that we have no ability for choice. All it shows is the result based on the ability to chose and the factors in that given country or condition.

think about the following situation from a christian perspective:
a person is 10 years old and unable to see "right from wrong". he's riding his bike on the road, hits a bump and lands under the wheel of a car and dies. if god is a fair and just god he will go to heaven right? ...now, what if that same kid missed that bump and survived that day, and went on to live to 80, however turned atheist at 18? would god then send him to hell knowing that he could have gone to heaven if he did in fact hit that random bump at 10?

Okay, so this scenario has a few issues in it. Lets assume just for the example that the age that all people are able to recognize right from wrong is exactly when they turn 10 as is proposed here. Under those conditions, it means that a child under the age of 10 has no ability to chose right from wrong - and hence no ability to take responsibility for decisions or lack thereof at that point in their life regarding morality.

The atheist at 18 however is fully aware and able to make decisions. They then are held accountable for those decisions that he/she makes. Asking whether God would still send them to hell because if they died at a young age when incapable of making moral decisions they would go to heaven, seems ridiculous:

1. If they are 18 then they never did hit that rock and die.
2. If they did hit that rock and die it was a result of the young persons decisions when they were riding. (ie the decision to be riding, the decision where to ride, where to turn etc) Keep in mind also that these decisions are morally neutral decisions. This is why the 10 year old is able to make these decisions without invaliding the whole scenario.
3. The same thing could be said about any person - ie how could God send anyone to hell if when they died young, they would have gone to heaven?

if people who are born in afghanistan have a 99% chance of being muslim, there must be something which is significantly influencing them. if god is just he also has to take into consideration "brainwashing at young ages", "brain disorders" etc. if you were me... had the exact brain, had the exact up bringing as me, was positioned in the exact same way, you would be atheist. simply because i am atheist. i think and interpret information in the way my brain lets me (if i was born female, or retarded, or from different parents, i would have a different shaped brain and think different thoughts etc). im limited completely by my genes and brain, external influences etc.

You are correct here, and I would also be the one who made the decision to be an atheist. I would also know that I had and still have the ability to choose otherwise.

can you 100% say that if you were born in afghanistan you would be christian? is it possible that you are just "lucky" that you were randomly born in australia and have the exact initial conditions which shaped you a christian?

Of course I cannot say 100% that I would be a christian if born in Afghanistan. Nor can I say that I would be 100% sure that I would not be a christian. I would however have the same ability to choose what I believe.

are you able to just simply stop going to church and reading your bible? are you able choose to suddenly not believe in god? if yes, then i challenge you to do so.

Of course I have the ability to choose not go to church and to stop reading my bible. The reason I do not is because I have reasons not to. This however has no bearing on my ability to choose either option.

if you do have the ability to "seek out other information" it is also largely influenced by external conditions eg: youre not born blind, wealth, access to a computer or resources, being taught what type of information to value, brain capacity and how to interpret information, or having a certain way of thinking (due to brain structure) in that information needs to be sought.

Sure, but what you're getting at here is a different issue than that of free will. At least I assume you are pointing to the fact that not all people have access to same information that we do. Therefore how can a loving God punish them for what they do not know? I am happy to discuss this if you wish, but I'll leave it at that for now since I don't want to get it off-topic unnecessarily.

its not that i choose to be atheist (its not the best feeling knowing that when you die its all over). but to me its right because my brain says so; my brain simply has a different way of understanding and valuing different information. if i was born in a different country, for example, things could have ended up differently...

Don't know if I agree with that. I would think that you have still made a decision to regard yourself as an athiest - just as I do in regarding myself as a christian. I would think also that you know that you have the ability to change this decision if you found reason to.

 

[KFunk]

Ok, I'm going to try and remake my case for rejecting free will - apologies for length. One thing I want to make clear at the outset is that I don't think that the responsibility issue is relevant in this argument. Certainly, it will be affected by the outcome of the free will debate but the fact that responsibility carries moral importance for us does not mean free will must exist, unless we allow wishful thinking to dictate truth to us (I trust I don't have to explain why this would be silly). Anyhow, with that out of the way:

Lets use the following diagram to get a grip on the general situation -

World ---- (?)----> Will ----d_n----> Bodily Action

It seems to me that both of us want to keep the Will in the debate (i.e. versus making us Will-less automatons) and so we have two possible directions of causation. They are World-Will causation, where the world (which may include one's mental contents) causally determines what one's Will is, and Will-Body causation where the Will affects a bodily change (which may include things like kicks, speech acts and mental calculations). 'd_n' is used, like in my other post, to represent a decision chosen from a decision set D = {d₁, d₂,...} which represents possible decisions, constrained by logical and physical possibility.

The question I then want to ask is: why is d_n chosen from amongst the other logically available alternatives?

(1) We could assert that we have truly free will and that World-Will causation plays no part in what decision is arrived at. In this case no world factor (beliefs, desires and values included) are able to constrain the Will, since we have rejected World-Will causation. But then we either have a completely random Will (which makes no sense given how orderly human behavior is) or a Will which somehow has constraints built into it. The latter case seems similarly unlikely to me given that our Will is extremely responsive to World factors such as one's environment, social upbringing and mental states. You thus need to allow for some degree of World-Will causation in order to explain how it manages to be so receptive to these factors.

In other words randomness is not enough to explain the correlation between World events and our Will. Even if the Will had information available regarding the state of the world and how best to achieve certain ends it's choice would still be random unless it had reason to make one decision over another. Information alone is not enough to eliminate the randomness of the Will - you need some kind of World-Will causation.


(2) 'Alright' you might say 'I concede that some World-Will causation takes place but I also maintain that the most important World factors are mental states, such as beliefs and values, which I take to be partly established by the Will, leaving room for freedom'. My response is that at some point the chain of '...-->World-->Will-->World' has to bottom out. If you bottom out with the Will you have randomness at the outset and then determinism later on as the causal chain determines what each subsequent Will decides. For similar reasons to above I still think that it is silly for our initial act of Will to be purely random - we are to World-responsive for that. It makes little sense to say that visual input of certain objects received by a baby has no effect on whether it forms a belief that they exist, leaving the belief up to random chance. This seems to leave initial World-Will causation as the better option.

(3) Finally, I think independent arguments can be made to suggest that important World factors which affect the will, such as beliefs (, desires, values, etc.), have their roots in World factors (some of which have been touched on by 3unitz and myself) like social environment, parenting, brain structure and genes. If these things are to affect the Will (which I think they must if we are to explain the orderly and World-relevant nature of our actions) then we have to concede that we are largely determined by the World, construed as above.

On a final note, Ockham's razor would suggest that we reject the metaphysically suspect, supernatural, causally isolated object that is Free Will in favor of a naturalistic, world-constrained will.

 

[mOmEnTuM]

"If you believe in something that's not real in the end; you have nothing to lose.
But if you don't believe in something that is real in the end; you have everything to lose."

 

[veloc1ty]

"If you believe in something that's not real in the end; you have nothing to lose.
But if you don't believe in something that is real in the end; you have everything to lose."

Rather than point out the flaws in Pascal's Wager as hundreds have already and hundreds more will, I offer you this:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

 

[BradCube]

Okay, I now see where our differences lie. To illustrate, I would like to make a variation on your diagram:

World ---- > Reason ----> Will ----d_n----> Bodily Action

It would seem far more logical to me that our will and reasoning are not a combined entity. Rather the will is the method in which is final decision is made and then the action will be carried out. In this way, the will is entirely able to carry out any action (hence it is free) - It is the reasoning that will postulate which action is the best to carry out.

It is because we have the reasoning process that the will, while being free, is not simply random.

One thing I want to make clear at the outset is that I don't think that the responsibility issue is relevant in this argument.

The responsibility argument seems entirely relevant in my opinion, because if your theory of free will is true then it flies in the face of many peoples deepest moral convictions. We are then left with the choice that either our moral convictions are completely false, or something is wrong with your theory. Of course neither option conclusively answers the problem, but its not something that can so easily be dismissed when the ramifications are so great.

On a final note, Ockham's razor would suggest that we reject the metaphysically suspect, supernatural, causally isolated object that is Free Will in favor of a naturalistic, world-constrained will.

I'm a little lost as to what Ockham's razor has to do with this at all. No one has suggested an unnecessary supernatural reasoning so far in regard to free will. All we are trying to do is explain what we both currently observe (or at least believe to observe)

 

[BradCube]

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Ha ha, that's interesting. I have never seen that before - it does have just as many flaws as pascals wager though you realise?

1. If you knew God didn't exist there would be no logical reason to make the world a better place unless it positively benefited you in some way. In fact, it would be a waste of time.
2. If there is no God then there is no moral truths - hence what is regarded a "better" could be substantially different to what we believe today.

 

[veloc1ty]

Ha ha, that's interesting. I have never seen that before - it does have just as many flaws as pascals wager though you realise?

Pascal's Wager has far more flaws than 2.

1. If you knew God didn't exist there would be no reason to make the world a better place unless it positively benefited you.

Doesn't helping others make you feel good?

2. If there is no God then there is no moral truths - hence what is regarded a "better" place would be very different to what we think of today.

I can certainly imagine and strive for a better world then the one we are in today.

I suppose you want to argue that theists are morally superior to atheists and that all atheists, according to what you think, should be out looting and murdering right now because there's no afterlife or moral truths?

I ask you as well, to provide a starting point, where do you obtain your moral truth from... the Bible?

 

[BradCube]

Pascal's Wager has far more flaws than 2.

Ha ha, yeah, I just wrote down two quickly that I thought of

Doesn't helping others make you feel good?

If helping someone else makes you feel good, then you have simply agreed with my point because it has had a positive benefit for you.

I can certainly imagine and strive for a better world then the one we are in today.

And what would this better world be like? What would you change in particular?

I suppose you want to argue that theists are morally superior to atheists and that all atheists, according to what you think, should be out looting and murdering right now because there's no afterlife or moral truths?

I hardly want to argue that theists are morally superior to atheists - what an arrogant viewpoint. I would far rather argue that I believe atheists too have moral convictions.

I ask you as well, to provide a starting point, where did you obtain your moral truth from... the Bible?

My conscience. You can begin to argue about lack of moral truths as much as you would like, but until you can tell me sincerely that there is nothing wrong with rape, murder and pedophilia I won't believe you.

 

[veloc1ty]

Ha ha, yeah, I just wrote down two quickly that I thought of

Fair enough.

If helping someone else makes you feel good, then you have simply agreed with my point because it has had a positive benefit for you.

Haha, I can't believe I didn't notice that. Well then, I turn the question around for you: if you knew a god existed, why would you have reason to make the world a better place even if it didn't benefit you?

And what would this better world be like? What would you change in particular?

Too many things to list, most of them simply not feasible. A good starting point would be ending war and reallocating the spending from that to health, education, development etc.

I hardly want to argue that theists are morally superior to atheists - what an arrogant viewpoint. I would far rather argue that I believe atheists too have moral convictions.

My sincere apologies, a bad assumption on my part.

What do you mean exactly by "moral convictions" though? Doesn't everyone have those to some degree? There's nothing to argue. :S

My conscience. You can begin to argue about lack of moral truths as much as you would like, but until you can tell me sincerely that there is nothing wrong with rape, murder and pedophilia I won't believe you.

Oh ok, so you agree there can be moral truths without a god? I've completely misunderstood what points you were trying to make.

Out of interest though, can you elaborate on "my conscience"?

 

[BradCube]

Haha, I can't believe I didn't notice that. Well then, I turn the question around for you: if you knew a god existed, why would you have reason to make the world a better place even if it didn't benefit you?

Well that very much depends on the God I believe in. If it was the christian God that I currently believe in then it would be because I want to emulate the character of that God. ie - I want to do good simply because it is the right thing to do (right, again coming from the character of God).

Too many things to list, most of them simply not feasible. A good starting point would be ending war and reallocating the spending from that to health, education, development etc.

The problem I find with this reasoning is that without a God and no sense of morality then war is neither good nor bad, health is neither good nor bad. In fact inflicting pain upon someone has no moral value at all. I wonder then, if any sort of real morality does not exist (as would be the case in the absence of God) what would be better about a world without war, rather than a world with war?

What do you mean exactly by "moral convictions" though? Doesn't everyone have those to some degree? There's nothing to argue. :S

By moral convictions I am referring to what a person regards to be morally right and wrong. ie most would agree that giving a starving person food is a morally right thing to do. Conversely, most would agree that raping a child is a morally wrong thing to do. A world without morality means that neither of these things are right or wrong - they simply are just events without any moral value.

By your response, "Doesn't everyone have those to some degree" kind of proves my point. Although often times we may not like to admit it - we know based on our moral convictions what is right and wrong.

Oh ok, so you agree there can be moral truths without a god? I've completely misunderstood what points you were trying to make.

No, quite the opposite, I believe that without a God there are no moral truths whatsoever. Without a God there can be no moral truths because everything is simply just matter.

Out of interest though, can you elaborate on "my conscience"?

Sure, here is the first definition from dictionary.com:

1. The inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:to follow the dictates of conscience.

So I would say that my conscience and your own conscience is what dictates to us what we regard as right or wrong.

Now I realize that this is a pretty controversial topic with a lot of different opinions. For example I realize that some people believe that evolution dictates what we regard as right and wrong. ie - it is wrong to murder because this reduces the survival rate of our species. Before you post simply stating this I would ask you what you make of your moral convictions that would have a positive benefit on the population of our species - ie rape, adultery etc.

Hope this sheds some light on what I was sharing veloc1ty

 

[BradCube]

Great response 3unitz I am happy that you can at least understand what I am saying now. I am a little concerned about all of the sad faces at the end of your post though...

In all honesty, I completely sympathize with what you are saying. Indeed the conditions in which we are raised have significant influence on the choices we have made and continue to make today. Now while I do sympathize with this I am still compelled to believe that ultimately the responsibility for making those decisions lies with the individual - since they were the ones who made them.

Having said that, I would like to point out one verse in the bible to you that deals with this specific issue. That being people who have not heard of Christianity and everything that goes along with it. I would also like to mention that I wouldn't normally be quoting bible passages in a thread debating Gods existence. I will in this case however, as you seem to be issuing this question directly in relation to the Christian God I believe in.

Romans 2:14-15 (NIV)
14.(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15. since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

I'll leave it at that because the verse seems pretty self explanatory. If you do have any qualms with it though, let me know.

im not choosing to be atheist, im more kinda "left with it". to me hell and heaven, god, spirits, simply dont exist, because my fundamental way of thinking tells me so; what i value, and how i think, eg. i value evidence over faith. (which i believe was, and still is, shaped by uncontrollable random factors).

Whilst I do understand your reasoning here, I don't think you can simply be "left with" atheism as your conclusion. If you held an agnostic position then maybe I could agree with you, but being that you regard yourself as an atheist and a man that only accepts evidence (as opposed to faith) I have to wonder how you maintain this position. Surely you must be able to show with clear evidence that there is no God?

 

[KFunk]

Okay, I now see where our differences lie. To illustrate, I would like to make a variation on your diagram:

World ---- > Reason ----> Will ----d_n----> Bodily Action

It would seem far more logical to me that our will and reasoning are not a combined entity. Rather the will is the method in which is final decision is made and then the action will be carried out. In this way, the will is entirely able to carry out any action (hence it is free) - It is the reasoning that will postulate which action is the best to carry out.

It is because we have the reasoning process that the will, while being free, is not simply random.

But the will cannot be properly free if it is constrained by reason. Either our will is essentially random or it is determined by one factor or another. If it is not random and is to be made relevant to who we are as people then it must be constrained. Reason is such a constraint and, in my view, should be put in the 'World' category (I've attached a sample .pdf which shows the kind of evolutionary explanation which might be provided to explain the development of reason/logic structures in the brain).

The responsibility argument seems entirely relevant in my opinion, because if your theory of free will is true then it flies in the face of many peoples deepest moral convictions. We are then left with the choice that either our moral convictions are completely false, or something is wrong with your theory. Of course neither option conclusively answers the problem, but its not something that can so easily be dismissed when the ramifications are so great.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. If responsibility depends on free will then that's just the way it is in my mind. It might not be fun when truth offends our moral sentiments but I think it is important to face up to it - vital even. A pet interest of mine is the evolution of moral reasoning, and a significant issue which arises is that our moral reasoning developed in small communities and, as such, may be inadequate for dealing with large scall communities or greater international society (e.g. causing deterimental decisions with regard to warfare, taxation, public health and so forth). In some cases it may be important to recognise flaws in our moral instincts so that we might avoid their effects.

I'm a little lost as to what Ockham's razor has to do with this at all. No one has suggested an unnecessary supernatural reasoning so far in regard to free will. All we are trying to do is explain what we both currently observe (or at least believe to observe)

Firstly, Ockham's razor is just the prinicple of parsimony (often used in metaphysics and the physical sciences) which states that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. The relevance is that a truly free will is required to be causally isolated in that it is not determined by physical factors. A naturalistic explanation of the will (such as I am offering) identifies the will with neurobiological structures in the brain. Of course, if the will is identified with physical matter then it must be able to causally interact with the world. To have a will which is casually insulated from the will you have to impose something akin to dualism - this is where 'spooky' supernatural substances come in. We thus have two competing explanations of human behavior (1) a naturalistic, constrained will and (2) a supernatural free will. Ockham's razor encourages us to avoid unnecessarily elaborate metaphysics (such as occurs when we introduce dualism when it is not logically entailed) and thus can be used against free will in this instance.

 

[mikesparks115]

God exists in the way that everything exists, it isn't some sort of large human who lives in the clouds as it is a way of thinking and your belief is reflected in your actions

 

[veloc1ty]

Well that very much depends on the God I believe in. If it was the christian God that I currently believe in then it would be because I want to emulate the character of that God. ie - I want to do good simply because it is the right thing to do (right, again coming from the character of God).

What reason do you have for emulating the Christian god? Because it is the right thing to do? Seems rather circular, I can't get my head around it.

How can doing something "simply because it is the right thing to do" possibly be a strong foundation for ethics?

The problem I find with this reasoning is that without a God and no sense of morality then war is neither good nor bad, health is neither good nor bad. In fact inflicting pain upon someone has no moral value at all. I wonder then, if any sort of real morality does not exist (as would be the case in the absence of God) what would be better about a world without war, rather than a world with war?

You are assuming a god is necessary for morality (see bottom of post).

By moral convictions I am referring to what a person regards to be morally right and wrong. ie most would agree that giving a starving person food is a morally right thing to do. Conversely, most would agree that raping a child is a morally wrong thing to do. A world without morality means that neither of these things are right or wrong - they simply are just events without any moral value.

I agree completely. But I think atheists can have morality so this is a moot point (see bottom of post).

By your response, "Doesn't everyone have those to some degree" kind of proves my point. Although often times we may not like to admit it - we know based on our moral convictions what is right and wrong.

Of course. The difference is how we arrive at these convictions (see bottom of post).

No, quite the opposite, I believe that without a God there are no moral truths whatsoever. Without a God there can be no moral truths because everything is simply just matter.

I'll go out on a limb here and say: I agree that there are no black and white moral truths. Each situation must take everything into consideration: e.g. a moral truth might be "killing is utterly unacceptable" but some would argue that if it was to save 1000 innocents it would be acceptable to kill 1 person.

Also, even with a god, we're still decaying organic matter. What's wrong with that?

Sure, here is the first definition from dictionary.com:

1. The inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:to follow the dictates of conscience.

So I would say that my conscience and your own conscience is what dictates to us what we regard as right or wrong.

Agreed. But again, what we're interested in here is how our conscience arrives at what is right and wrong (see bottom of post).

Now I realize that this is a pretty controversial topic with a lot of different opinions. For example I realize that some people believe that evolution dictates what we regard as right and wrong. ie - it is wrong to murder because this reduces the survival rate of our species. Before you post simply stating this I would ask you what you make of your moral convictions that would have a positive benefit on the population of our species - ie rape, adultery etc.

I certainly do believe evolution has a large impact on our "gut feelings" (for lack of a better phrase). I recall a study was taken of a group of atheists and a group of theists and both were asked what they would do in certain basic situations (along the lines of murder and sacrifice) and the answers were always the same. This indicates we have a common basic groundwork, but I'll be honest and say this is not enough.

These actions (rape, adultery) that have a possible positive benefit must be taken into consideration with other things. I cannot possibly answer with such little information.




To try and thin down all these quotes, I think we've boiled down to these questions, which I will elaborate on:


Is an acceptable system of ethics possible without a god? Why/why not?
Yes, because a god is not necessary for ethics in the first place.

How do you arrive at this system of ethics?
Each person's morality is influenced by a huge range of personal beliefs and experiences. Personally, it comes down to utilitarianism (moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome) and am influenced by philosophies such as secular humanism. Many people will subscribe to a similar position, whether or not they conciously apply a label to it.


And also for you;

How does believing in a god allow you to judge individual situations correctly?


Btw, thanks for replying before and I hope you can make sense of the rather piece-meal post above.

 

[KFunk]

No, quite the opposite, I believe that without a God there are no moral truths whatsoever. Without a God there can be no moral truths because everything is simply just matter.

It seems that you might fall into the Euthyphro dillemma, which is so named because in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro Socrates asks "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" Updating this question for debates centered around Abrahamic gods we might instead ask "Is the good mandated by god because it is good, or is it good because it is mandated by god?"

If something (an action, say) is good because it is commanded by god then morality risks arbitrariness as it simply responds to god's whim (note that this is actually a form of moral relativism!). If morality is to be non-arbitrary then god must have some non-whimsical reason for favouring certain actions. Supposing that gods approval is a necessary and sufficient for goodness and that a certain kind (/collection) of reason(/s) is a necessary and sufficient condition for god's approval (as we must have in order to avoid arbitrariness) then the following reduction obtains:


(1) X is good if and only if X is approved by god

(2) X is approved by god if and only if approval of X is justified by some objective reason

Therefore
(3) X is good if and only if approval of X is justified by some objective reason


Note, then, that in order to avoid arbitrariness we have had to define the good in terms of objective reasons, seemingly forcing us onto the other horn of the dillemma - 'the good is mandated by god because it is good'. If morality is defined in terms of objective reasoning then it seems plausible that some, if not all, moral laws may be accessed by humans through reason, even in the absence of god. (Of course, I play devil's advocate here to some extent as I am a moral relativist myself).

 

[KFunk]

Also, as an addendum to the above:

You claim that "without God there are no moral truths whatsoever", but what about logic/reason? If logic/reason are able to exist independent of god AND it is also the case that god given morality is justified by logic/reason (as suggested above) then it seems to follow that moral truths must exist independent of god's existence.