If there were a god, it would be obvious to everyone in the same way that gravity is obvious to everyone. And no one would argue about it, anymore than people argue whether or not gravity exists.
@mikefromwa If God doesnt exist then why are there clear moral standards in our earth and where were our emotions derived from did we evolve into a emotional being
@xxboelstler5xx: "If God doesnt exist then why are there clear moral standards"
1) There aren't "clear moral standards". What you call "moral standards" varies wildly among different cultures and countries, in case you hadn't noticed.
2) "where were our emotions derived from"
People have emotions naturally, there isn't any magical being in the sky who is pushing the buttons.
Correct, while there may not be "clear" moral standards, everyone has at least some concept, however small, of what is right and wrong. But how could anyone possibly know the difference between right and wrong without someone to set that sort of standard into motion? If you are an atheist and believe that no one initially set up a moral standard, then raping and murdering someone on the side of the road should not be a big deal to you because right and wrong does not exist for you.
Lets go back to "compassion" that you mentioned. If you believe yourself to be someone that is truly and atheist then why should compassion be something you enact in your life? As an atheist you believe the earth and life on earth (including people) are random acts of cosmic gases coincidentally colliding. Correct? Because of this, people have no value-we are here by accident. So why should compassion matter? When it comes down to it, we are nothing more than gases and particles
@xlleighx7: "why should compassion be something you enact in your life?"
Because I'm human and care about people. Why is this such a mystery to you believers?
"Because of this, people have no value"
Maybe to you "people have no value", but they have value to me. Why in the world would you think that atheists believe people have no value? That's ridiculous.
"we are nothing more than gases and particles"
Why would that mean we cannot care about people? Your thinking is very odd.
If I am correct in my knowledge of atheist beliefs, they believe that life on earth happened as a random collision of gases, molecules, a big explosion, etc, etc. That fact that life evolved was a complete accident as a result of coincidental conditions. If this is true, and life is nothing more than an accident, then why should the way in which you treat human life matter? If you truly believe that the explosion of life into existence was a result of accidental circumstances...
@xlleighx7 ...and humans are a result of such an accident with no intelligence, purpose, or meaning behind it then why should you concern yourself with how you treat others? You can not say it is from "common sense or logic" because there ultimately had to be someone who put that common sense/logic of morality into the human's mind to begin with. I believe that someone who created and gave humanity that common sense/logic of morality is my everlasting and eternal God.
"I care about how I treat others because I'm human, have feelings, and care about people."
You seem to be talking in a circle. What I am trying to get at is what is your BASIS for the care you have towards others? I treat others with morality because I believe they have high value in the eyes of the God who created them. I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?
Also, you are very correct in saying that without my belief in God, I wouldn't care about how I treated others. This is because I believe that God gave humanity, myself included, the knowledge of morality in how to treat others. If he had not vested that knowledge in humanity from the beginning of time, a right and a wrong would not exist. That is pretty much the basis of the Moral Argument. Thanks for proving my point.
@xlleighx7: "I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?
I told you, but you either don't believe me or can't understand what I'm saying.
I treat others with morality because as a human being, I have feelings and empathy for others. My feelings and empathy don't come from any god, they come from my own emotions and experiences. What part of that is so hard to understand?
@xlleighx7: "I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?"
Let me ask you this: why would it matter how I think the universe began? Why would or should it make any difference in how I treat people?
You seem to think that if there's no god, then we should have no reason to be good to other people or care for them. Is that really what you believe??
IF it is true that the universe was not intelligently created with a purpose and that human life evolved by a complete unvaluable accident, then humans ultimately have no value/soul/purpose so why should you treat them like they do? Many children are conceived by an accident and very often, mothers deem those children unvaluable so they abort them. They do not see anything wrong with that. The same idea applies. The earth and humanity are ultimately an accident....
@xlleighx7 ...so there is no reason to treat the earth and humanity like it has a purpose or value. Without an intelligent designer to invest value into humans and to give a reason for treating humans morally, morality would not exist. There would be no right or wrong-the concept of it simply would not exist.
@xlleighx7: "then humans ultimately have no value/soul/purpose"
No, that's YOUR take on it. Lots of us feel we have a value and a purpose without having to believe in some invisible guy in the sky. Why does it matter how the universe was formed? Can't you like and care for people without the existence of a god?
"mothers deem those children unvaluable so they abort them"
No. I mean to say that all people have intrinsic value because they were created with a purpose by The Lord. That's where I believe a person's intrinsic value comes from. Where do you?
@xlleighx7: "That's where I believe a person's intrinsic value comes from. Where do you?"
I consider a person's value to come with them by default, as a human being. I don't believe a person's intrinsic value needs to be attributed to an invisible telepathic sky-daddy or any other imaginary being.
@xlleighx7: "If I am correct in my knowledge of atheist beliefs,"
You are not correct. Atheism has nothing to do with cosmology, evolution, or how life began. It's simply a disbelief in god.
"then why should the way in which you treat human life matter"
Because we're human and we have feelings. I care for people, and I don't need an invisible buddy in the sky to make that happen. Why is this such a shocking concept for you to understand?
@mikefromwa There arent clear moral standards? So do you walk up to anyone you want and hit them across the face? NO You have morals and where do these moral come from? Of course God
No, there aren't. If you ever stepped outside your hovel, you'd realize that.
"You have morals and where do these moral come from? Of course God "
No, they don't come from god. They come from me, my experiences, and my judgement. They come from my ideas of what's right and wrong in the context of my society. They don't come from an invisible telepathic sky-buddy.
I am curious of your opinion in regards to the first theft. Do you think that the first human who had something stolen by another human, felt a desire to react by seeking revenge, retribution or justice? If so, would that desire be a confirmation of a wrong? Do you think that desire was immediate as if innate? Or, do you think it was logically thought through and reasoned as a preventative measure against future theft? Or, do you think there was no desire to react with any kind of justice?
@ianmackenziedavis: "Do you think that the first human who had something stolen by another human, felt a desire to react by seeking revenge, retribution or justice?"
I have no idea, and I don't pretend to know.
I'll put it to you simply: I care for others because I'm human and have feelings. The way I treat people doesn't depend on whether or not I think there's an invisible magic god. It comes from my innate humanity, not an imaginary super-being.
I guess my point is whether you consider your innate humanity a learned trait, or a trait that has genetically evolved in humans out of logic/reason, versus a trait that has always existed and did exist in the very first humans. I accept an "I don't know answer", because no one truly does know. However, isn't an I don't know answer an admission that compassion and humanity along with self awareness and certain specified moral laws came not from humans?
@ianmackenziedavis: "is whether you consider your innate humanity a learned trait, or ..."
I think it's a combination of both. Humans seemed to have developed a more complex and beneficial sense of their humanity as time has gone by (a learned trait) but the basic behaviors between humans probably have a basis in biology.
In the end, I don't know and don't claim to know, but I also don't see ANY reason to attribute our humanity to any deity. It assumes facts not in evidence, for one thing.
Interesting clip, but I think your point #1 especially misses what WLC is getting at; that is, moral ontology. He is saying that nothing on pure naturalism provides a ontological basis or foundation for morally objective values--'oughts' and ethical duties--not that herd morality cant exist without God. For certainly herd morality does exist.
"a pair of buttered skis perched atop a slippery slope leading directly into the valley of anything goes" WOULD quite understandably trouble many - and this 'trouble' - or more accurately, the desire to avoid it, is strong evidence stacked against those whose minds would conjure up a savior to protect them.
‘god’ ‘writes’ ethics on our ‘hearts’ (Rom 2:14-15, Heb 8:10), including an instinctual revulsion to murdering & eating one’s children. it uses this reflexive revulsion to cannibalism as the source for psychological punishment to those who engage in polytheism, forcing them to eat their own children (LE 26, DT 28, EZ 5, IS 49, LA 2, JE 19). Since it doesn’t mind intervening in human affairs & revoking free will, it could have as easily inculcated an instinctual aversion to polytheism. Objective?
@ProfMTH umm prof i think you made mistake i don't think MrPostivekarma was saying you censor i think we was talking about CarlosMarti123 because on the second page of the comment section CarlosMarti123 accuses atheists of censorship and MrPostivekarma accused him of being a hypocrite for having comment approved on his page not you
My oh my how Christians love to victimize themselves and play the victim card whenever they feel even the remotest threat against their little delusion bubble.
We're the mindless drones? You people can't even wipe your own ass without some ancient text telling you how to do it. You admit to be sheeple and even say you're proud of it. Stop projecting, stop distracting with ad hominem attacks from the actual issue at hand and try discussing that for a change. If you dare.
Post a video mocking Dawkins. Just mocking, nothing else. Watch the ratings. Then post a video mocking Craig. Just mocking, nothing else. Watch the ratings. Notice a difference?
@tadpoleposition "Imagine a homosexual refuting a moral argument, then watch the video. It's like a cow refuting a vegetarian's diet. It's soundly "progressive"."
Here's some free advice: get your head out of your ass, look up the "ad hominem" fallacy, and then try to learn to resist using it in future. Peace.
@ProfMTH My "partner" Wikipedia opined, "...it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." It would be naive to assess the reality of factual statements and accept them knowing an "incentive to lie" existed due to vested interests. Circumstantial or not, directing an argument at an idea rather than an individual is perfectly acceptable. Class dismissed! Oh wait, that's your line. Peace!
@tadpoleposition "It would be naive to assess the reality of factual statements and accept them knowing an "incentive to lie" existed due to vested interests."
Of course for that to apply, you would have to do some work, i.e., demonstrate that I've lied. Since I haven't, that's an impossible task. However, given what I've seen of your shtick, even if it were possible, you wouldn't make the effort. All you do is utter platitudes & baseless claims seasoned with nonsensical Quran quotations.
@ProfMTH Noam Chomsky bases his work on thinkers like Rene Descartes who theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of faith. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah..." The Arabic word "fitrah" means precisely what Rene theorized some 1,000 years later. My initial argument was based on the audience imagining, forming an idea. This method doesn't warrant an "Art of Debate" violation. Peace!
@ProfMTH Noam Chomsky bases his work on thinkers like Rene Descartes who theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of faith. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah..." The Arabic word "fitrah" means precisely what Rene theorized some 1,000 years later. My initial argument was based on the audience imagining, forming an idea. This method doesn't warrant an "Art of Debate" violation.
@MauricXe Care to explain my "ownage"? Also, please share with the rest of us what you understood from the video. I accept ProfMTH's argument as being, as he put it, more plausible than Dr. Craig's without a doubt. I'm a Muslim, by the way. Christian apologetic's arguments rarely meet the standard we may use in debating. Your argument is so "gay". Don't bother dialing up the "argumentum ad hominem" police.
@ProfMTH " Here's some free advice: get your head out of your ass, look up the "ad hominem" fallacy "
- Perfect response.. as usual.
Thing that struck me was... cow's are vegetarian, a cow refuting a vegetarian argument is ironic, not self serving. If he's assuming that homosexuals are immoral ( an odd assumption anyway ) then what's his point? His analogy doesn't follow.
@Roper122 The analogy was self-explanatory. Why do you think ProfMTH replied with such vengeance? He did have to bite his tongue when it came to my freeing myself of any tilt misdeed.
@Roper122 Conflicting personal convictions would raise doubt in the critic's objectiveness. In this case, Mr. Craig, a known opponent of homosexuality, is critiqued by ProfMTH, a known homosexual. Anyone with foreknowledge of this fact couldn't help but to think one side or the other is being slanted and would conclude biases and hidden agendas were given precedence over objectivity.
@Roper122 I said, "imagine", which means to form an idea. It's not a personal attack and is free from meriting any violation of discourse. The analogy was an idea (veganism) that directly opposes the critic (cow). Just like an immoral homosexual, according to Mr. Craig, ProfMTH, criticizing Mr. Craig's ideas on the moral arguments for God's existence. What business does a cow have criticizing veganism? What business does a perceived immoral homosexual have criticizing a moral argument?
@Roper122 "oh, implying someone is immoral..is a personal attack.. so you're wrong there to"
Again, directing an argument at the idea of a perceived immoral homosexual, according to Dr. Craig's personal convictions, criticizing a moral argument of his (Craig's) doesn't constitute an 'argumentum ad hominem' violation and makes as much sense, or not, as the symbolism of a cow encouraging a vegetarian to eat meat. I didn't imply anything.
@tadpoleposition " Why do you think ProfMTH replied with such vengeance?"
You mistake my frankness for vengeance. Don't flatter yourself. You've said nothing that inspires vengeance. What you *have* managed to do is further persuade me that interacting with you is a waste of time. So that will likely be coming to an end *very* soon.
@ProfMTH That ridiculously awesome comment about Rene Descartes being outdone 1,000 years earlier by an illiterate caravan merchant Arab. You know, one the most influential thinkers in human history. I'm referring to Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, of course. I know, more apologetic platitudes with a sprinkling of religious doubletalk. Hold the pepper! Your fellow rainbow warrior, MauricXe, gets props for bending over backwards to fully explain himself.
@ProfMTH There clearly was relevancy. Since you leaned towards Noam Chomsky's 'Universal Grammar' being more plausible, I thought you might want to know he bases it on Rene Descartes among others. Actually, I wanted to thank you for leading me in that direction. It's just another mega proof in my favor. Peace!
Oh, I suspect you regard just about everything as "proof in [your] favor." True believers, regardless of the particular religion they happen to be an adherent of, tend to view most (if not all) things as confirmation of their belief set. This is why true believers can be so difficult to deal with: they've shielded their beliefs from the scrutiny of reason, replacing it with the insulating wall of faith.
@ProfMTH No, I don't regard everything as proof in my favor. You have to admit it's pretty amazing how such an incredible thinker's theory was precisely theorized some 1,000 years ago by Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon Him. There's good reason atheists and the like mainly use a Judeo-Christian criticism and avoid Islam. Granted, Hutchins and others hint at certain aspects of Islam, they avoid the main idea of the unique oneness of God, which is exclusive to Islam alone.
@tadpoleposition They actually don't avoid Islam, they have addressed Islam but to a smaller degree. There are some reasons why you see less Islam literature and none of which you have hit on.
(1) They may not be as familiar with Islam (2) They live in Christian nations and thus have a larger audience (3) They believe knocking down Christianity knocks down all variants of the Abrahamic god.
Also, Judaism teaches oneness of God so its not unique to Islam.
@tadpoleposition "There's good reason atheists and the like mainly use a Judeo-Christian criticism and avoid Islam."
Yet more confirmation bias from you. I'm bored. You offer nothing of substance, but merely blather on and beat your chest about your religion, and your prophet, and your holy book. You demonstrate nothing. You enage in fallacious reasoning. And, you won't be doing ANY of that on my channel any more. You've wasted MORE than enough of my time. Have a nice life.
@tadpoleposition "fellow rainbow warrior"? Really? How old are you?
What is left to explain? ProfMth called you out for your attack, just the same as Roper122 is doing. There isn't anything to add now nor was there then; I would be repeating what has already been said.
In response to their claims, you have yet to show us any evidence of Prof's lack of objectivity.
@MauricXe As ProfMTH loves putting it, 'That proved zilch." The burden of proof lies with the accuser. According to you, I was owned. i'm not looking to satisfy my ego, just would like confirmation of my "ownage".
@MauricXe ProfMTH cited me for violating an 'Art of Debate' code of conduct. I proved I didn't. You say I was owned and compounded my 'ownage' with future statements irrelevant to your initial claim. You popped a zit that became a permanent crater.
@tadpoleposition You raised the claim, or 'idea' as you say in your backpedaling, that a homosexual lacks objectivity in a refutation of a moral argument. However, we have yet to see why this claim, or idea, has any merit.
You didn't prove anything. Furthermore I said nothing that was irrelevant; rather impossible since I didn't add anything to that argument. I referred you to ProfMth and Ropert122's statements.
You present no sound argumentation on why the moral argument fails and only subjective criticisms on the presentation of Craig's argument.
"Most of us think we apprehend a realm of OMV's" is hardly part of his argument for God's existence via morality, but a generalized statement on the convergence of theistic/atheistic minds -- he is simply arguing that you cannot concede 'objective' morality without transcendence, which you have failed miserably to refute.
Now having said that. The beauty of this argument is that it forces one to decide. Either right and wrong exists for everything. Or right and wrong only exists and is dictated by oneself to oneself. Who are you to say rape is wrong? Whats wrong to you is right to another. Species and survival has nothing to do with free choice. So either be a true atheist and say there is no morals except what i make for my own. Or say there is something that can make and hold accountable absolute morals.
The moral argument does not prove the existence of the christian God. It only proves that there are either absolute morals or subjective morals. So if morals are subjective then a child rapist is doing what he thinks is right and you merely disagree. It is only human opinion versus human opinion. Now if absolute morals exist then an absolute moral law giver also exists. So it boils down to humans just disagreeing on ideas, or there is something beyond ourselves that defines right and wrong.
God is not moral.Man had morals without God.Man created laws before God's laws and His morality law However,man can not keep his own personal morality or the law of morality that God gave in the old testament.God is not moral He is by Bible definition perpetual Virtue exceeding moral laws of His own making.God revealed powerless morality in law. Christ came to give fruit of Spirit virtue free of morality law and better.Christians live fruit of Spirit virtue not morals better or are moral men
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
Everything IS permitted. But condemnation of immoral behavior is also permitted, and most people adhere to moral values that promote mutual respect and condemn harm. Belief in gods is also permitted for those who want to justify their actions without a legitimate rationale.
For the argument to be valid, both premises would have to have the capacity to be independently verified, and they would have to lead to the conclusion. Per the first premise, it is impossible to prove the second premise without referencing god. If one proves the second premise without referencing god, then the first premise is false. Therefore, the syllogism is structurally invalid. This is easily the worst argument I have heard given by a professional apologist in a formal debate.
Decent attempt ProfMTH, you certainly are well knowledgeable with logic. Howerver, thankfully as other people have pointed out, your arguments are in fact invalid. Hopefully you have now come to understand that we do in fact apprehend a realm of objective moral values, and that for this morality to be objective, it must come from a transcendent being.
@IceKnight366 Heya. I had a convo with gmh1206 recently on this vid. I went over this topic there. I think it would be best if you read that. I'm not too interested in restarting the argument lol.
@IceKnight366 "it must come from a transcendent being"--Looking at the physical world to prove the metaphysical? Logic fail, our morals are developed in our brain. Prove that objective morals MUST come from a higher being first then prove morals are subjective. Remember, it was once ok to kill people who work on the Sabbath, a moral from God. If a higher being did exist, these morals would be subjective by definition because they are given to us by another's bias.
@IceKnight366 "... that we do in fact apprehend a realm of objective... morals."
A bit late to the party. I'm not entirely sure where you get your arguments/reasons for "apprehending a realm of objective moral values" - Marc Hauser perhaps? None of his findings are conclusive and they all develop from a very real flaw: none of his studies include children under a certain age (somewhere around 8 if I'm not mistaken). This is a very real problem for the argument of objective morality.
This does not refute Craigs moral argument. Craig is not appealing to belief. He is appealing to proper function of our cognitive faculties. He is not appealing to consequences either, because he even admits himself that the world would probably be the same without a moral ground, he is just asking why anything would be actually wrong and not an illusion by evolution. And the no true Scotsman fallacy is also wrong because everyone clearly does apprehend morals.
Look. His argument isn't "most people believe it, it must be true!". Rather his argument is based on proper function(cognitive faculties generally produce true beliefs in a proper envirment, ect) and are properly basic perceptual beliefs.
You aren't claiming that God doesn't exist because Dr Craig's moral argument is not a good one, are you? By pointing out shortcomings in an argument for the existence of something, you in no way prove something doesn't exist. You just prove its a poor argument for the purpose for which it was created.
For example, if I said the sky is blue because leaves are green, you could show that I made a poor argument for the sky being blue, but would not prove that the sky is not blue.
I'm still waiting for a reply Prof. There's enough crap on youtube for a video response, plus I've made my comments clear and to the point. Enough of the stalling tactics and please reply.
@ProfMTH Well that's just pathetic. You have an awful lot to say for yourself, but can't defend your opinion? At the end of the day the chest beating and arrogance I see in your videos, plus the safety in numbers of your supporters does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of god. Present a sound argument and defend it!
@ProfMTH Chest beating? I'm only talking to you and I've raised my points in a civil manner. I don't have a youtube channel and I don't preach my beliefs or my lifestyle to the multitude. Obviously I have watched your video and have disputed your case. I've raised my points and you have as yet not responded. Simply saying go read a book is not a response. Saying "nothing in your reply merits an answer" is not a response.
@ProfMTH You have said nothing about my response to the common belief fallacy. You ARE committing the genetic fallacy and the no true scotsman is simply weak. Furthermore, you have misconstrued the argument to validate the "appeal to consequences" contention. Nowhere in Craig's argument does he say atheism will lead to a moral-less society. He clearly states that atheism has no foundation is saying what is absolutely right or wrong. In fact he would believe that atheists ARE endowed with -
@ProfMTH absolute morals, as do I. This is pretty simple stuff to follow. So rather than ignoring me or brushing me aside, take a few minutes to reply! Cheers
@gmh1206 "I don't preach my beliefs or my lifestyle to the multitude."
"Lifestyle"? I love it when believers try to be coy by using buzzwords.
In any case, I have responded to your points. Clearly, you're not satisfied with the responses. Well, that's unfortunate. Your stomping your feet like a child and demanding that I say more is not going to get you anywhere.
@ProfMTH No coyness there mate. Doesn't take the average viewer to figure it out as you advertise it proudly in every second video. This despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the argument. I've gone through your replies and I don't see any rebuttals to any of the arguments I've presented. All I see is stalling tactics. e.g. "I don't waste time rebutting mere claims. In your case, it wasn't even a claim, but merely a question" Seriously....
@ProfMTH No coyness there mate. Doesn't take the average viewer to figure it out as you advertise it proudly in every second video. This despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the argument. I've gone through your replies and I don't see any rebuttals to any of the arguments I've presented. All I see is stalling tactics. e.g. "I don't waste time rebutting mere claims. In your case, it wasn't even a claim, but merely a question" Seriously....
@ProfMTH Further to the no true scotsman fallacy, If a realm of objective morals exists then the NTS is null and void. So in reality you should be arguing against objective morals not the NTS fallacy.
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that the person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" The NTS courtesy of Richard Dawkins.
@MauricXe If you can't see where Richard Dawkins used the NTS fallacy in the quotes I can't help you.
It takes reading a whole book to reply to a single line question by me? You have got to be kidding! If every debate can be answered with "go read a book" then there would be no open forums such as these.
Perhaps you should read through the discussion and see if you can answer where Profmyth wouldn't/couldn't
@gmh1206@gmh1206 Ah, so instead of defending your statement by explaining yourself, you just condescend and say "I can't help you." Interesting.
Actually, it isn't uncommon to refer someone to another source, in this case book. Before you enter a discussion, its important that you come with facts about both sides of the argument. ProfMTH is correct in that you are not familiar with the work on the other side of the argument. continued..
@gmh1206 thus you should educate yourself on the material. However, I can see your point if you are someone that likes to throw around their uninformed opinion. How dare he tell you to verify your uninformed opinion by reading scholarly text? How dare he not hang simply hand his hat on his opinion? Shame on ProfMTH!
@MauricXe So we agree then. If involved in a debate you should use quotes and references to book X and not just tell your opponent to read the whole of book X. Are you seriously interested in the discussion or are you just trying to shout me down? If you are interested then don't you think that Profmyth is misrepresenting Craig's argument when he raises his appeal to consequences fallacy? Read through the comments...
@gmh1206 So we agree then? We agreed on nothing haha. You said that ProfMth should reference the book....he did...in the video. Furthermore, you clearly demonstrated that you have no grasp of the arguments on the other side. By saying things like: "evolutionists [just] 'believe' the moral voice of our species is hard wired" you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge for their arguments.
I don't think ProfMth has misrepresented Craig. I think he hit the nail right on the head.
@MauricXe It is clear from your comments that you have not followed the argument at all. Example "Evolutionists believe the moral voice is hard wired..." this is the argument of Prof not mine AND it commits the genetic fallacy.
"I don't think Prof has misrepresented Craig"
Craig's argument - Atheism has no basis for determining morality
Prof's misconstrued representation of Craig - Atheism leads to immorality.
Can you spot the strawman or are you completely blind?
@gmh1206 I didn't say that was YOUR argument. It's a shame you misread that. What I did say, which is what ProfMTH said b4 me, is that one you dismiss the belief of evolutionist without an actual argument and second you think they believe it without a strong argument. In response to that, ProfMTH did the right thing; he pointed you to an adequate source. I'm sorry you arent interested in scholarly work. I also don't think you know what the genetic fallacy is...continued...
@MauricXe Yes he gave the one reference in his video (which commits the genetic fallacy), but to my objections he gives no rebuttal other than recommending a whole book. Read through the whole argument if you don't believe me! Why else should you feel the need to defend him, when he should be doing it himself.
@MauricXe Did you pay attention to the video between 5:08 and 6:40? By quoting David Hume ".... but it is not certain an opinion is false because of its dangerous consequence..." and Craig himself "Everything is permitted" the strawman argument is that Atheism leads to immorality and is therefore false.
But if you follow Craig's argument he is saying that there is no foundation to morality under atheism. Under atheism, morality carries as much weight as you personal preferences.
@gmh1206 I was hoping you would quote this section. Prof NEVER says that it leads to immorality. He says EXACTLY what you just said, and more importantly, what Craig says. If you watch the part where he says: "If it put mankind on buttered skies...into the valley of anything goes" Is NOT saying we would be immoral. It just says that there is no good or evil because there is no objective foundation. So it would seem you misinterpreted Prof.
@MauricXe "it" being atheism? Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to immorality hence the appeal to consequences fallacy. Craig does nothing of the sort. That is the very reason he gave the David Hume quote: to show up Craig's non existent fallacy.
No good or evil? Do you truly believe that? Do me a favor and watch three short youtube videos titled "Atheist's goofy morality" and tell me if you can agree with the atheistic conclusions.
@MauricXe To say "rape is wrong" is on par with saying "I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream". Prof admits as much in his other videos. So yes, this is a strawman argument.
Can you be moral without God? Of course you can! I never claimed Prof said this. He just cannot explain why we all have these morals. His best effort was the now famous book whereby he seems satisfied that the moral voice of our species came about by random copying mistakes.
@gmh1206 as for the book, as I explained in my first post to you, Prof does NOT claim that objective moral values are justified by our innate moral voice. What Prof does claim is that our experience of a moral realm is NOT supernatural and has a simpler natural, and more plausible, explanation. This does NOT say that we have therefore justified the existence of objective morals. It only refutes Dr. Craig's claim that we can only apprehend a moral realm if it is supernatural.
@MauricXe Prof doesn't believe in objective moral values so what is your point? He is substituting a materialistic origin for our moral realm in place of a transcendent God. And yes describing HOW the innate wiring came to be through mutations says nothing for WHY certain actions are right or wrong hence the genetic fallacy.
@gmh1206 Lastly, he doesn't commit the genetic fallacy because he does not make a claim for the source of objective morals. In fact, he only makes a claim about our supposed apprehension of such a realm. That is to say, "why do we think objective morals exist" NOT "I have a basis for objective morality"
So it would seem you have been arguing a strawman this entire time.
@MauricXe I know the arguments that you tried to use are typical theist arguments. e.g. there is no difference between ice cream flavors and hitler or "roll the dice" and get a different morality. The problem is, that you can't be too quick to copy and paste them. You actually have to know when they apply.
@MauricXe You really are not following the argument. Whether Prof says that our objective morals arose through mutations or our apprehension arose through mutations is besides the point. The point is he has no basis for saying WHY certain behaviors are wrong. Do you understand? Saying HOW this MAY have arose does nothing for WHY certain actions are right or wrong. This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.
@gmh1206 You continue to offer strawmen arguments.
"Whether Prof says that our objective morals arose through mutations [Why something is wrong] or our apprehension arose through mutations [Why we THINK we know something is wrong] is besides the point."
This IS the point. WATCH the video. Prof only makes the latter case NOT the former. You are arguing against the former NOT the latter. This is why your arguments against THIS video are strawmen.
@MauricXe Copy paste arguments? You know it looks like that to you because theists can in unison agree with the origins and explanation of objective morals . Ask 10 atheists however and you'll get 10 different opinions.
The point of my argument is that whatever naturalistic method Prof offers for morality, it does nothing to explain WHY actions are right or wrong. This is not a strawman but a classic textbook case of the genetic fallacy.
@MauricXe Typical theist arguments? Don't know when to use them? hahaha Watch Prof's other videos. He himself says choosing morality is exactly like the subjective task of a food critic or interior decorator. It is entirely up to the individual
@gmh1206 I truly hope you can understand the distinction. Now if you want to use your copy-paste theist arguments, go find the videos that ProfMth made where he affirms that morality is nothing more than a flavor for ice cream, and argue them there. This is not the place for them.
Lastly, Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to the negation of objective morals NOT that you, me, or anyone else would be immoral.
@MauricXe Yeah that makes sense, I'll scatter my argument across several videos. "Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to the negation of objective morals" Again you haven't paid any attention to Craig's argument. The pivotal point is that we live in a REALM of objective morals. Christians, Buddhist, Muslims & Atheists all have an objective moral foundation, or as the bible puts it "written in our hearts". No matter what you believe it isn't going to change this.
@gmh1206 I said your arguments were copy paste because they aren't being applied correctly. It seems like you just couldn't wait to use it before getting the application str8.
Prof offers a naturalistic explanation to why we think that we apprehend a moral realm. He does not offer an objective moral basis. Therefore, he does not commit the genetic fallacy. I don't think I can say it any other way lol.
Craig does believe on atheism, objective morals dont exist. Watch the vid or look it up
And I can't put this any other way either - Craig's first point is we live in a realm of objective morals i.e. everyone has them irrespective of their belief system. Secondly he says under atheism you cannot form a basis for why certain actions are objectively wrong. Key point is you cannot form a basis NOT objective moral truths don't exist at all! Atheists know that there exists objective moral truths, they either deny them or give a naturalistic explanation for them hence genetic fallacy.
@gmh1206 Arguing with you is rather pointless. You can't seem to grasp the difference between:
1) We think that we apprehend moral values (Dr. Craig 3:38) (supernatural cause vs. natural cause)
2) We can derive objective truth from a given source.
Prof is arguing against the first point NOT the second. I don't care if you can't form an objective basis from naturalistic worldview THAT ISNT THE POINT OF THE VIDEO! LOL. This is the last time I will say it. Take ur argument elsewhere.
@MauricXe And you still don't seem to understand that by giving a naturalistic mechanism, if you roll the dice of human evolution a million times you may get a million different moral standards. Hence they are all equally worthless and any moral objection you have is illusory. Furthermore Prof says the moral voice which came about through mutations determines our moral standards. Ultimately mutations determined our moral standards. This is the genetic fallacy boys.
@gmh1206 Let me make one more attempt. Answer this instead. Do you understand the difference between:
1) Man evolved into what he is today. He believes in right and wrong because of his evolutionary background.
AND
2) Man evolved into what he is today. What he believes is right and wrong can be objectively verified through the inner morals sense that he has evolved.
Do you understand that there is a difference? This is crucial. Please answer.
@MauricXe So man objectively determines right and wrong through a process which is subjective. Guess that makes it subjective then. LOL
What is the difference between 1 and 2??? "He believes in right and wrong" would be an "inner moral sense" would it not????????? You are getting yourself into knots.
Do you believe in good and evil? Third time i've asked you.
@gmh1206 Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. Hopefully you can recognize the difference and realize your arguments are strawmen.
The difference is rather simple. In the first case, man merely thinks he perceives right and wrong. It does NOT say that our moral faculties are objective. What it does say is that our moral sense emerged from natural means. Again not necessarily objective.
The second case establishes a moral basis. The objective base is our inner moral sense.
@MauricXe Again I have to explain my position to you. If you believe in a natural explanation for morality then they cannot be objective. You keep on misrepresenting my argument and then telling me I'm wrong! LOL. And again for emphasis Atheists have objective morality but under atheism objective morality doesn't exist. Where have I said that Prof believes in objective morality? Please tell me. I'm saying he HAS objective morality just that he denies it.
@gmh1206 "If you believe in a natural explanation for morality then they cannot be objective."
Prof is NOT trying to say that they are objective, as you have finally admitted. He is just claiming that there is a natural emergence of morality, again not objective, while Craig says that the emergence must be supernatural.
I am not misrepresenting your argument. I am just telling you that your argument for an objective basis is not appropriate for this video. And it would seem...
@gmh1206 Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then we can point to your error. ProfMTH has argued for a natural emergence of our moral sense. Again, NOT an objective foundation, just an emergence of our preferences. What you are arguing is that there is no natural foundation for morals on naturalism. That's good and all but Prof didn't say that there was in THIS video. Does that make sense? Hopefully that puts an end to your confusion
My opinions dont matter, second(+?) time I said that
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarlosMarti123: "Mindless atheist drones vote down any video that goes against their faith. Just look around YouTube. Take your pick."
I think you meant, "Mindless religious drones vote down any video that goes against their faith. Just look around YouTube. Take your pick."
There, fixed that for ya.
mikefromwa 5 months ago
If there were a god, it would be obvious to everyone in the same way that gravity is obvious to everyone. And no one would argue about it, anymore than people argue whether or not gravity exists.
mikefromwa 5 months ago
@mikefromwa If God doesnt exist then why are there clear moral standards in our earth and where were our emotions derived from did we evolve into a emotional being
xxboelstler5xx 4 months ago
@xxboelstler5xx: "If God doesnt exist then why are there clear moral standards"
1) There aren't "clear moral standards". What you call "moral standards" varies wildly among different cultures and countries, in case you hadn't noticed.
2) "where were our emotions derived from"
People have emotions naturally, there isn't any magical being in the sky who is pushing the buttons.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
Correct, while there may not be "clear" moral standards, everyone has at least some concept, however small, of what is right and wrong. But how could anyone possibly know the difference between right and wrong without someone to set that sort of standard into motion? If you are an atheist and believe that no one initially set up a moral standard, then raping and murdering someone on the side of the road should not be a big deal to you because right and wrong does not exist for you.
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "everyone has at least some concept, however small, of what is right and wrong."
Right, and there's no reason to believe that those concepts came from an invisible telepathic super-being.
"how could anyone possibly know the difference between right and wrong"
Gee, I dunno...maybe by using some logic, compassion, and free will? Or maybe some common sense?
"right and wrong does not exist for you"
Right and wrong exist for me, they just don't come from a magical "god".
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
Lets go back to "compassion" that you mentioned. If you believe yourself to be someone that is truly and atheist then why should compassion be something you enact in your life? As an atheist you believe the earth and life on earth (including people) are random acts of cosmic gases coincidentally colliding. Correct? Because of this, people have no value-we are here by accident. So why should compassion matter? When it comes down to it, we are nothing more than gases and particles
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "why should compassion be something you enact in your life?"
Because I'm human and care about people. Why is this such a mystery to you believers?
"Because of this, people have no value"
Maybe to you "people have no value", but they have value to me. Why in the world would you think that atheists believe people have no value? That's ridiculous.
"we are nothing more than gases and particles"
Why would that mean we cannot care about people? Your thinking is very odd.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
If I am correct in my knowledge of atheist beliefs, they believe that life on earth happened as a random collision of gases, molecules, a big explosion, etc, etc. That fact that life evolved was a complete accident as a result of coincidental conditions. If this is true, and life is nothing more than an accident, then why should the way in which you treat human life matter? If you truly believe that the explosion of life into existence was a result of accidental circumstances...
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7 ...and humans are a result of such an accident with no intelligence, purpose, or meaning behind it then why should you concern yourself with how you treat others? You can not say it is from "common sense or logic" because there ultimately had to be someone who put that common sense/logic of morality into the human's mind to begin with. I believe that someone who created and gave humanity that common sense/logic of morality is my everlasting and eternal God.
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "then why should you concern yourself with how you treat others?"
Again, I care about how I treat others because I'm human, have feelings, and care about people.
You appear to be saying that without your belief in god, you wouldn't care how you treat others.
That's kind of twisted, don't you think?
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
"I care about how I treat others because I'm human, have feelings, and care about people."
You seem to be talking in a circle. What I am trying to get at is what is your BASIS for the care you have towards others? I treat others with morality because I believe they have high value in the eyes of the God who created them. I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7
Also, you are very correct in saying that without my belief in God, I wouldn't care about how I treated others. This is because I believe that God gave humanity, myself included, the knowledge of morality in how to treat others. If he had not vested that knowledge in humanity from the beginning of time, a right and a wrong would not exist. That is pretty much the basis of the Moral Argument. Thanks for proving my point.
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?
I told you, but you either don't believe me or can't understand what I'm saying.
I treat others with morality because as a human being, I have feelings and empathy for others. My feelings and empathy don't come from any god, they come from my own emotions and experiences. What part of that is so hard to understand?
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "I am asking why you, an atheist, treat others with morality when you believe they are the result of an accidental, meaningless, un-valuable cosmic explosion?"
Let me ask you this: why would it matter how I think the universe began? Why would or should it make any difference in how I treat people?
You seem to think that if there's no god, then we should have no reason to be good to other people or care for them. Is that really what you believe??
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
IF it is true that the universe was not intelligently created with a purpose and that human life evolved by a complete unvaluable accident, then humans ultimately have no value/soul/purpose so why should you treat them like they do? Many children are conceived by an accident and very often, mothers deem those children unvaluable so they abort them. They do not see anything wrong with that. The same idea applies. The earth and humanity are ultimately an accident....
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7 ...so there is no reason to treat the earth and humanity like it has a purpose or value. Without an intelligent designer to invest value into humans and to give a reason for treating humans morally, morality would not exist. There would be no right or wrong-the concept of it simply would not exist.
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "then humans ultimately have no value/soul/purpose"
No, that's YOUR take on it. Lots of us feel we have a value and a purpose without having to believe in some invisible guy in the sky. Why does it matter how the universe was formed? Can't you like and care for people without the existence of a god?
"mothers deem those children unvaluable so they abort them"
That has nothing to do with atheism, sorry.
"The same idea applies."
Only in your twisted, single-value world.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
Where do you believe that a person's value comes from?
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "Where do you believe that a person's value comes from?"
Why does it have to come from somewhere?
Do you mean to say that people have no value by default, or do they have to meet some standard of yours before they're considered to have value?
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
No. I mean to say that all people have intrinsic value because they were created with a purpose by The Lord. That's where I believe a person's intrinsic value comes from. Where do you?
xlleighx7 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "That's where I believe a person's intrinsic value comes from. Where do you?"
I consider a person's value to come with them by default, as a human being. I don't believe a person's intrinsic value needs to be attributed to an invisible telepathic sky-daddy or any other imaginary being.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xlleighx7: "If I am correct in my knowledge of atheist beliefs,"
You are not correct. Atheism has nothing to do with cosmology, evolution, or how life began. It's simply a disbelief in god.
"then why should the way in which you treat human life matter"
Because we're human and we have feelings. I care for people, and I don't need an invisible buddy in the sky to make that happen. Why is this such a shocking concept for you to understand?
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@xlleighx7: "If you believe yourself to be someone that is truly and atheist then why should compassion be something you enact in your life?"
Why shouldn't it be?
Why should how I think the universe began decide how I treat other people? That just makes no sense at all. How are these two things connected?
"When it comes down to it, we are nothing more than gases and particles"
Yes, that's basically correct. So what? Does that mean we shouldn't have compassion or care for other people?
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa There arent clear moral standards? So do you walk up to anyone you want and hit them across the face? NO You have morals and where do these moral come from? Of course God
xxboelstler5xx 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xxboelstler5xx: "There arent clear moral standards?"
No, there aren't. If you ever stepped outside your hovel, you'd realize that.
"You have morals and where do these moral come from? Of course God "
No, they don't come from god. They come from me, my experiences, and my judgement. They come from my ideas of what's right and wrong in the context of my society. They don't come from an invisible telepathic sky-buddy.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
I am curious of your opinion in regards to the first theft. Do you think that the first human who had something stolen by another human, felt a desire to react by seeking revenge, retribution or justice? If so, would that desire be a confirmation of a wrong? Do you think that desire was immediate as if innate? Or, do you think it was logically thought through and reasoned as a preventative measure against future theft? Or, do you think there was no desire to react with any kind of justice?
ianmackenziedavis 6 months ago
@ianmackenziedavis: "Do you think that the first human who had something stolen by another human, felt a desire to react by seeking revenge, retribution or justice?"
I have no idea, and I don't pretend to know.
I'll put it to you simply: I care for others because I'm human and have feelings. The way I treat people doesn't depend on whether or not I think there's an invisible magic god. It comes from my innate humanity, not an imaginary super-being.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
@mikefromwa
I guess my point is whether you consider your innate humanity a learned trait, or a trait that has genetically evolved in humans out of logic/reason, versus a trait that has always existed and did exist in the very first humans. I accept an "I don't know answer", because no one truly does know. However, isn't an I don't know answer an admission that compassion and humanity along with self awareness and certain specified moral laws came not from humans?
ianmackenziedavis 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ianmackenziedavis: "is whether you consider your innate humanity a learned trait, or ..."
I think it's a combination of both. Humans seemed to have developed a more complex and beneficial sense of their humanity as time has gone by (a learned trait) but the basic behaviors between humans probably have a basis in biology.
In the end, I don't know and don't claim to know, but I also don't see ANY reason to attribute our humanity to any deity. It assumes facts not in evidence, for one thing.
mikefromwa 4 months ago
ProfMTH, what did you think of the debate between Craig and Shook? Did Shook do well? I haven't watched it yet...
Hektor88 6 months ago
@Hektor88 He did fine.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
great job ...I have watched over 30 debates with Craig ...he is truly the professor Irwin Cory of our time
Cousinsjay 6 months ago
@Cousinsjay Indeed. Thanks.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Interesting clip, but I think your point #1 especially misses what WLC is getting at; that is, moral ontology. He is saying that nothing on pure naturalism provides a ontological basis or foundation for morally objective values--'oughts' and ethical duties--not that herd morality cant exist without God. For certainly herd morality does exist.
Oppositum 7 months ago
@Oppositum I know what conclusion he's driving at. As I've pointed out in the video, he does so in invalid ways.
ProfMTH 7 months ago
@Oppositum Cornell Realism provides an ontological basis for objective moral values and duties.
Drgamedood 5 months ago
@MrPositivekarma hahaha awesome
MauricXe 7 months ago
CarlosMarti123
if only you were not such a dismissive condeceding jerk
InquisitorDracomual 7 months ago
@MrPositivekarma
if only you were not such a dismissive condeceding jerk
InquisitorDracomual 7 months ago
"a pair of buttered skis perched atop a slippery slope leading directly into the valley of anything goes" WOULD quite understandably trouble many - and this 'trouble' - or more accurately, the desire to avoid it, is strong evidence stacked against those whose minds would conjure up a savior to protect them.
Hufflewaffle 7 months ago
‘god’ ‘writes’ ethics on our ‘hearts’ (Rom 2:14-15, Heb 8:10), including an instinctual revulsion to murdering & eating one’s children. it uses this reflexive revulsion to cannibalism as the source for psychological punishment to those who engage in polytheism, forcing them to eat their own children (LE 26, DT 28, EZ 5, IS 49, LA 2, JE 19). Since it doesn’t mind intervening in human affairs & revoking free will, it could have as easily inculcated an instinctual aversion to polytheism. Objective?
myerssa7 8 months ago
@MrPositivekarma If only you could make a comprehensible statement :)
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
and to back my point in order
@CarlosMarti123
this coming from a censor hog
comment approval lol
MrPositivekarma 1 day ago
@ProfMTH Nope.
"Mindless atheist drones vote down any video that goes against their faith. Just look around YouTube. Take your pick."
CarlosMarti123
InquisitorDracomual 9 months ago
@MrPositivekarma "your channel says comments approved"
I don't have comments on approval. You're full of shit. Don't waste my time and yours posting lies here. I'm not interested.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH umm prof i think you made mistake i don't think MrPostivekarma was saying you censor i think we was talking about CarlosMarti123 because on the second page of the comment section CarlosMarti123 accuses atheists of censorship and MrPostivekarma accused him of being a hypocrite for having comment approved on his page not you
InquisitorDracomual 9 months ago
@MrPositivekarma "comment approval lol"
And the same to you, sir.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@MrPositivekarma Yeah, sure...
Honesty clearly seems to be a problem for you atheists, too.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
My oh my how Christians love to victimize themselves and play the victim card whenever they feel even the remotest threat against their little delusion bubble.
We're the mindless drones? You people can't even wipe your own ass without some ancient text telling you how to do it. You admit to be sheeple and even say you're proud of it. Stop projecting, stop distracting with ad hominem attacks from the actual issue at hand and try discussing that for a change. If you dare.
viridismonasteriense 9 months ago
Heh I like when you say: the link is to the right.
I can't even remember the old utube layout haha
MauricXe 9 months ago
Funny how atheists Like any video that presents their view no matter how bad it really is.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Funny how your claim lacks a basis in fact.
ProfMTH 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Nope.
Mindless atheist drones vote down any video that goes against their faith. Just look around YouTube. Take your pick.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
@ProfMTH Funny how it does have a basis in fact.
Post a video mocking Dawkins. Just mocking, nothing else. Watch the ratings. Then post a video mocking Craig. Just mocking, nothing else. Watch the ratings. Notice a difference?
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
I can't believe there are so many people that just don't get this video. Makes me lol
MauricXe 11 months ago
Imagine a homosexual refuting a moral argument, then watch the video. It's like a cow refuting a vegetarian's diet. It's soundly "progressive".
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "Imagine a homosexual refuting a moral argument, then watch the video. It's like a cow refuting a vegetarian's diet. It's soundly "progressive"."
Here's some free advice: get your head out of your ass, look up the "ad hominem" fallacy, and then try to learn to resist using it in future. Peace.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH My "partner" Wikipedia opined, "...it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue." It would be naive to assess the reality of factual statements and accept them knowing an "incentive to lie" existed due to vested interests. Circumstantial or not, directing an argument at an idea rather than an individual is perfectly acceptable. Class dismissed! Oh wait, that's your line. Peace!
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "It would be naive to assess the reality of factual statements and accept them knowing an "incentive to lie" existed due to vested interests."
Of course for that to apply, you would have to do some work, i.e., demonstrate that I've lied. Since I haven't, that's an impossible task. However, given what I've seen of your shtick, even if it were possible, you wouldn't make the effort. All you do is utter platitudes & baseless claims seasoned with nonsensical Quran quotations.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH Noam Chomsky bases his work on thinkers like Rene Descartes who theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of faith. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah..." The Arabic word "fitrah" means precisely what Rene theorized some 1,000 years later. My initial argument was based on the audience imagining, forming an idea. This method doesn't warrant an "Art of Debate" violation. Peace!
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@ProfMTH Noam Chomsky bases his work on thinkers like Rene Descartes who theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody as a product of the faculty of faith. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah..." The Arabic word "fitrah" means precisely what Rene theorized some 1,000 years later. My initial argument was based on the audience imagining, forming an idea. This method doesn't warrant an "Art of Debate" violation.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition Lol u got owned. nice try.
MauricXe 11 months ago
@MauricXe Care to explain my "ownage"? Also, please share with the rest of us what you understood from the video. I accept ProfMTH's argument as being, as he put it, more plausible than Dr. Craig's without a doubt. I'm a Muslim, by the way. Christian apologetic's arguments rarely meet the standard we may use in debating. Your argument is so "gay". Don't bother dialing up the "argumentum ad hominem" police.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "I'm a Muslim, by the way. Christian apologetic's arguments rarely meet the standard we may use in debating."
LOL!
ProfMTH 11 months ago
Comment removed
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition He called you out. You lost, he won. Simple as that.
Is that so? I saw a debate with Craig and Shabir. Looked like Craig did a pretty good job ;)
MauricXe 11 months ago
@ProfMTH " Here's some free advice: get your head out of your ass, look up the "ad hominem" fallacy "
- Perfect response.. as usual.
Thing that struck me was... cow's are vegetarian, a cow refuting a vegetarian argument is ironic, not self serving. If he's assuming that homosexuals are immoral ( an odd assumption anyway ) then what's his point? His analogy doesn't follow.
I know... I shouldn't bother.
Great video by the way.
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 The analogy was self-explanatory. Why do you think ProfMTH replied with such vengeance? He did have to bite his tongue when it came to my freeing myself of any tilt misdeed.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition " The analogy was self-explanatory "
- Self explanatory and wrong.. or at least poor.
It was at worst completely incorrect and at best missed the mark.
I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt...
Feel free to clarify.
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 Conflicting personal convictions would raise doubt in the critic's objectiveness. In this case, Mr. Craig, a known opponent of homosexuality, is critiqued by ProfMTH, a known homosexual. Anyone with foreknowledge of this fact couldn't help but to think one side or the other is being slanted and would conclude biases and hidden agendas were given precedence over objectivity.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition ... You could argue that if you like.. of course unless you can demonstrate any bias then it's simply an ad hominem attack.
But it has nothing to do with cows and vegetarians.
It's not like a cow refuting a vegetarian diet at all.
If anything the opposite.
Like I said... terrible analogy.
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 I said, "imagine", which means to form an idea. It's not a personal attack and is free from meriting any violation of discourse. The analogy was an idea (veganism) that directly opposes the critic (cow). Just like an immoral homosexual, according to Mr. Craig, ProfMTH, criticizing Mr. Craig's ideas on the moral arguments for God's existence. What business does a cow have criticizing veganism? What business does a perceived immoral homosexual have criticizing a moral argument?
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition .. Wow.. you're really bad at this.
" What business does a cow have criticizing veganism? "
- None, a cow is a vegan.
" What business does a perceived immoral homosexual have criticizing a moral argument?"
- A biased one according to you. For someone who is ( supposedly ) immoral to want to refute an argument for morality makes perfect sense.
Point is.. even your analogies suck.
( oh, implying someone is immoral..is a personal attack.. so you're wrong there to )
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 "oh, implying someone is immoral..is a personal attack.. so you're wrong there to"
Again, directing an argument at the idea of a perceived immoral homosexual, according to Dr. Craig's personal convictions, criticizing a moral argument of his (Craig's) doesn't constitute an 'argumentum ad hominem' violation and makes as much sense, or not, as the symbolism of a cow encouraging a vegetarian to eat meat. I didn't imply anything.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition " as the symbolism of a cow encouraging a vegetarian to eat meat. "
- No.. it doesn't.. it's a terrible analogy. I shudder to think how bad the rest of your arguments are if you can't even understand this.
If the cow was criticising a carnivore... then it would be biased... which is what you said in a previous post.
If you didn't imply that homosexuality was immoral, there would be no point bringing up the comparison in the first place.
Sorry.
Roper122 11 months ago
@Roper122 ...neither did I have to imply anything.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition " Why do you think ProfMTH replied with such vengeance?"
You mistake my frankness for vengeance. Don't flatter yourself. You've said nothing that inspires vengeance. What you *have* managed to do is further persuade me that interacting with you is a waste of time. So that will likely be coming to an end *very* soon.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH How come that comment didn't make your uploader comments collection?
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "How come that comment didn't make your uploader comments collection?"
What are you talking about?
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH That ridiculously awesome comment about Rene Descartes being outdone 1,000 years earlier by an illiterate caravan merchant Arab. You know, one the most influential thinkers in human history. I'm referring to Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, of course. I know, more apologetic platitudes with a sprinkling of religious doubletalk. Hold the pepper! Your fellow rainbow warrior, MauricXe, gets props for bending over backwards to fully explain himself.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "I know, more apologetic platitudes with a sprinkling of religious doubletalk."
Not to mention irrelevant rambling that has nothing to do with this video.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH There clearly was relevancy. Since you leaned towards Noam Chomsky's 'Universal Grammar' being more plausible, I thought you might want to know he bases it on Rene Descartes among others. Actually, I wanted to thank you for leading me in that direction. It's just another mega proof in my favor. Peace!
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "It's just another mega proof in my favor."
Oh, I suspect you regard just about everything as "proof in [your] favor." True believers, regardless of the particular religion they happen to be an adherent of, tend to view most (if not all) things as confirmation of their belief set. This is why true believers can be so difficult to deal with: they've shielded their beliefs from the scrutiny of reason, replacing it with the insulating wall of faith.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@ProfMTH I'll hit you up tomorrow, God willing, with that reply. It's like midnight where I am at. Peace!
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@ProfMTH No, I don't regard everything as proof in my favor. You have to admit it's pretty amazing how such an incredible thinker's theory was precisely theorized some 1,000 years ago by Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon Him. There's good reason atheists and the like mainly use a Judeo-Christian criticism and avoid Islam. Granted, Hutchins and others hint at certain aspects of Islam, they avoid the main idea of the unique oneness of God, which is exclusive to Islam alone.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition They actually don't avoid Islam, they have addressed Islam but to a smaller degree. There are some reasons why you see less Islam literature and none of which you have hit on.
(1) They may not be as familiar with Islam (2) They live in Christian nations and thus have a larger audience (3) They believe knocking down Christianity knocks down all variants of the Abrahamic god.
Also, Judaism teaches oneness of God so its not unique to Islam.
MauricXe 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "There's good reason atheists and the like mainly use a Judeo-Christian criticism and avoid Islam."
Yet more confirmation bias from you. I'm bored. You offer nothing of substance, but merely blather on and beat your chest about your religion, and your prophet, and your holy book. You demonstrate nothing. You enage in fallacious reasoning. And, you won't be doing ANY of that on my channel any more. You've wasted MORE than enough of my time. Have a nice life.
ProfMTH 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition "fellow rainbow warrior"? Really? How old are you?
What is left to explain? ProfMth called you out for your attack, just the same as Roper122 is doing. There isn't anything to add now nor was there then; I would be repeating what has already been said.
In response to their claims, you have yet to show us any evidence of Prof's lack of objectivity.
MauricXe 11 months ago
I am also interested in why you think Christian apologetic arguments are subpar to their Muslim counterparts.
MauricXe 11 months ago
@MauricXe As ProfMTH loves putting it, 'That proved zilch." The burden of proof lies with the accuser. According to you, I was owned. i'm not looking to satisfy my ego, just would like confirmation of my "ownage".
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition And I responded. I told you he called you out; he was in the right. Judging from your previous comment, he still is.
MauricXe 11 months ago
@MauricXe ProfMTH cited me for violating an 'Art of Debate' code of conduct. I proved I didn't. You say I was owned and compounded my 'ownage' with future statements irrelevant to your initial claim. You popped a zit that became a permanent crater.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@MauricXe "In response to their claims, you have yet to show us any evidence of Prof's lack of objectivity."
Was he ever accused?
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
@tadpoleposition You raised the claim, or 'idea' as you say in your backpedaling, that a homosexual lacks objectivity in a refutation of a moral argument. However, we have yet to see why this claim, or idea, has any merit.
You didn't prove anything. Furthermore I said nothing that was irrelevant; rather impossible since I didn't add anything to that argument. I referred you to ProfMth and Ropert122's statements.
MauricXe 11 months ago
You present no sound argumentation on why the moral argument fails and only subjective criticisms on the presentation of Craig's argument.
"Most of us think we apprehend a realm of OMV's" is hardly part of his argument for God's existence via morality, but a generalized statement on the convergence of theistic/atheistic minds -- he is simply arguing that you cannot concede 'objective' morality without transcendence, which you have failed miserably to refute.
richp860 1 year ago
Now having said that. The beauty of this argument is that it forces one to decide. Either right and wrong exists for everything. Or right and wrong only exists and is dictated by oneself to oneself. Who are you to say rape is wrong? Whats wrong to you is right to another. Species and survival has nothing to do with free choice. So either be a true atheist and say there is no morals except what i make for my own. Or say there is something that can make and hold accountable absolute morals.
Goodolboys84 1 year ago
The moral argument does not prove the existence of the christian God. It only proves that there are either absolute morals or subjective morals. So if morals are subjective then a child rapist is doing what he thinks is right and you merely disagree. It is only human opinion versus human opinion. Now if absolute morals exist then an absolute moral law giver also exists. So it boils down to humans just disagreeing on ideas, or there is something beyond ourselves that defines right and wrong.
Goodolboys84 1 year ago
1. If objective morals exist, then God exists.
2. Objective morals exist.
3. God exists.
WLC never supports any of his premises. Especially the 1st premise which is the most important for his conclusion.
Also WLC says that belief in God isn't necessary but he will often assert that in an "atheistic" world view:
the prudential reason outweigh the moral reason.
Which doesn't follow and seems, to my ears, that he's asserting that belief in God makes people be moremoral,whichis"not his argument."
skepticnyc 1 year ago
God is not moral.Man had morals without God.Man created laws before God's laws and His morality law However,man can not keep his own personal morality or the law of morality that God gave in the old testament.God is not moral He is by Bible definition perpetual Virtue exceeding moral laws of His own making.God revealed powerless morality in law. Christ came to give fruit of Spirit virtue free of morality law and better.Christians live fruit of Spirit virtue not morals better or are moral men
polopowers1 1 year ago
WE are God. It is possible to experience this by realising that we are not our bodies, or our thoughts. To realise this reality is to become free. It is beyond description - this is why it is usually only alluded to in parables by those who have realised. They seek to help others , who they see suffering in ignorance. If you wish to know more please check out: Douglas Harding, Sri Ramana MaharshI, Sri Nisargadatta, Mooji, etc, etc, etc. And may God bless you, dear seeker of truth.
wionbakee 1 year ago
Right on the money Prof, an excellent analysis of the rhetorical machinations of Dr. Craig's apologetic.
gadfly1235 1 year ago
@gadfly1235 Thanks a lot.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Everything IS permitted. But condemnation of immoral behavior is also permitted, and most people adhere to moral values that promote mutual respect and condemn harm. Belief in gods is also permitted for those who want to justify their actions without a legitimate rationale.
pwnUgood 1 year ago
"If Zeus doesn't exist, lightning bolts don't exist.
Lightning bolts exist.
Therefore, Zeus exist."
I proved Zeus. I'm so smart.
LepismaVideos 1 year ago
For the argument to be valid, both premises would have to have the capacity to be independently verified, and they would have to lead to the conclusion. Per the first premise, it is impossible to prove the second premise without referencing god. If one proves the second premise without referencing god, then the first premise is false. Therefore, the syllogism is structurally invalid. This is easily the worst argument I have heard given by a professional apologist in a formal debate.
TheUberBro 1 year ago
Decent attempt ProfMTH, you certainly are well knowledgeable with logic. Howerver, thankfully as other people have pointed out, your arguments are in fact invalid. Hopefully you have now come to understand that we do in fact apprehend a realm of objective moral values, and that for this morality to be objective, it must come from a transcendent being.
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "Hopefully you have now come to understand that we do in fact apprehend a realm of objective moral values...."
Nope.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 Wow...yet another person that missed the point of the objection lol. *sigh*
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe expand if you feel it necessary
IceKnight366 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 Heya. I had a convo with gmh1206 recently on this vid. I went over this topic there. I think it would be best if you read that. I'm not too interested in restarting the argument lol.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "it must come from a transcendent being"--Looking at the physical world to prove the metaphysical? Logic fail, our morals are developed in our brain. Prove that objective morals MUST come from a higher being first then prove morals are subjective. Remember, it was once ok to kill people who work on the Sabbath, a moral from God. If a higher being did exist, these morals would be subjective by definition because they are given to us by another's bias.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 *aren't subjective*
HybridD91 1 year ago
@IceKnight366 "... that we do in fact apprehend a realm of objective... morals."
A bit late to the party. I'm not entirely sure where you get your arguments/reasons for "apprehending a realm of objective moral values" - Marc Hauser perhaps? None of his findings are conclusive and they all develop from a very real flaw: none of his studies include children under a certain age (somewhere around 8 if I'm not mistaken). This is a very real problem for the argument of objective morality.
vryc 1 year ago
This does not refute Craigs moral argument. Craig is not appealing to belief. He is appealing to proper function of our cognitive faculties. He is not appealing to consequences either, because he even admits himself that the world would probably be the same without a moral ground, he is just asking why anything would be actually wrong and not an illusion by evolution. And the no true Scotsman fallacy is also wrong because everyone clearly does apprehend morals.
MrZazomy 1 year ago
@MrZazomy "Craig is not appealing to belief. He is appealing to proper function of our cognitive faculties."
He's appealing to belief *and* he is appealing to what he calls proper function of the moral sense and so on (that's the "no true Scotsman" bit).
"because everyone clearly does apprehend morals"
LOL.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Look. His argument isn't "most people believe it, it must be true!". Rather his argument is based on proper function(cognitive faculties generally produce true beliefs in a proper envirment, ect) and are properly basic perceptual beliefs.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
@lifeandphilosophy "His argument isn't 'most people believe it, it must be true!.'"
Actually, it is.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Can you tell me why? I just explained to you that in Craig's published works he justifies P2 by treating moral values as properly basic.
lifeandphilosophy 1 year ago
You aren't claiming that God doesn't exist because Dr Craig's moral argument is not a good one, are you? By pointing out shortcomings in an argument for the existence of something, you in no way prove something doesn't exist. You just prove its a poor argument for the purpose for which it was created.
For example, if I said the sky is blue because leaves are green, you could show that I made a poor argument for the sky being blue, but would not prove that the sky is not blue.
catfish77x 1 year ago
@catfish77x "You aren't claiming that God doesn't exist because Dr Craig's moral argument is not a good one, are you?"
No. I'm arguing that Dr. Craig's "moral argument" doesn't prove the existence of his god.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
I'm still waiting for a reply Prof. There's enough crap on youtube for a video response, plus I've made my comments clear and to the point. Enough of the stalling tactics and please reply.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 I've responded to you. I haven't seen anything that merits further reply. You needn't wait any longer. Thanks.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Well that's just pathetic. You have an awful lot to say for yourself, but can't defend your opinion? At the end of the day the chest beating and arrogance I see in your videos, plus the safety in numbers of your supporters does nothing to prove or disprove the existence of god. Present a sound argument and defend it!
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 "...can't defend your opinion?"
What are you talking about? I've made my case in the video and in comments. Talk about chest beating. Fuck off.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Chest beating? I'm only talking to you and I've raised my points in a civil manner. I don't have a youtube channel and I don't preach my beliefs or my lifestyle to the multitude. Obviously I have watched your video and have disputed your case. I've raised my points and you have as yet not responded. Simply saying go read a book is not a response. Saying "nothing in your reply merits an answer" is not a response.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@ProfMTH You have said nothing about my response to the common belief fallacy. You ARE committing the genetic fallacy and the no true scotsman is simply weak. Furthermore, you have misconstrued the argument to validate the "appeal to consequences" contention. Nowhere in Craig's argument does he say atheism will lead to a moral-less society. He clearly states that atheism has no foundation is saying what is absolutely right or wrong. In fact he would believe that atheists ARE endowed with -
gmh1206 1 year ago
@ProfMTH absolute morals, as do I. This is pretty simple stuff to follow. So rather than ignoring me or brushing me aside, take a few minutes to reply! Cheers
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 "I don't preach my beliefs or my lifestyle to the multitude."
"Lifestyle"? I love it when believers try to be coy by using buzzwords.
In any case, I have responded to your points. Clearly, you're not satisfied with the responses. Well, that's unfortunate. Your stomping your feet like a child and demanding that I say more is not going to get you anywhere.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH No coyness there mate. Doesn't take the average viewer to figure it out as you advertise it proudly in every second video. This despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the argument. I've gone through your replies and I don't see any rebuttals to any of the arguments I've presented. All I see is stalling tactics. e.g. "I don't waste time rebutting mere claims. In your case, it wasn't even a claim, but merely a question" Seriously....
gmh1206 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH No coyness there mate. Doesn't take the average viewer to figure it out as you advertise it proudly in every second video. This despite the fact that it has nothing to do with the argument. I've gone through your replies and I don't see any rebuttals to any of the arguments I've presented. All I see is stalling tactics. e.g. "I don't waste time rebutting mere claims. In your case, it wasn't even a claim, but merely a question" Seriously....
gmh1206 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Further to the no true scotsman fallacy, If a realm of objective morals exists then the NTS is null and void. So in reality you should be arguing against objective morals not the NTS fallacy.
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that the person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" The NTS courtesy of Richard Dawkins.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Where does Dawkins commit the NTS? Why is this relevant to ProfMth? Why are other atheist relevant to this discussion?
"Simply saying go read a book is not a response"
It is sufficient. He is telling you to do more research on the topic because he think your opinion is uninformed.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe If you can't see where Richard Dawkins used the NTS fallacy in the quotes I can't help you.
It takes reading a whole book to reply to a single line question by me? You have got to be kidding! If every debate can be answered with "go read a book" then there would be no open forums such as these.
Perhaps you should read through the discussion and see if you can answer where Profmyth wouldn't/couldn't
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 @gmh1206 Ah, so instead of defending your statement by explaining yourself, you just condescend and say "I can't help you." Interesting.
Actually, it isn't uncommon to refer someone to another source, in this case book. Before you enter a discussion, its important that you come with facts about both sides of the argument. ProfMTH is correct in that you are not familiar with the work on the other side of the argument. continued..
MauricXe 1 year ago
@gmh1206 thus you should educate yourself on the material. However, I can see your point if you are someone that likes to throw around their uninformed opinion. How dare he tell you to verify your uninformed opinion by reading scholarly text? How dare he not hang simply hand his hat on his opinion? Shame on ProfMTH!
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe So we agree then. If involved in a debate you should use quotes and references to book X and not just tell your opponent to read the whole of book X. Are you seriously interested in the discussion or are you just trying to shout me down? If you are interested then don't you think that Profmyth is misrepresenting Craig's argument when he raises his appeal to consequences fallacy? Read through the comments...
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 So we agree then? We agreed on nothing haha. You said that ProfMth should reference the book....he did...in the video. Furthermore, you clearly demonstrated that you have no grasp of the arguments on the other side. By saying things like: "evolutionists [just] 'believe' the moral voice of our species is hard wired" you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge for their arguments.
I don't think ProfMth has misrepresented Craig. I think he hit the nail right on the head.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe It is clear from your comments that you have not followed the argument at all. Example "Evolutionists believe the moral voice is hard wired..." this is the argument of Prof not mine AND it commits the genetic fallacy.
"I don't think Prof has misrepresented Craig"
Craig's argument - Atheism has no basis for determining morality
Prof's misconstrued representation of Craig - Atheism leads to immorality.
Can you spot the strawman or are you completely blind?
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 I didn't say that was YOUR argument. It's a shame you misread that. What I did say, which is what ProfMTH said b4 me, is that one you dismiss the belief of evolutionist without an actual argument and second you think they believe it without a strong argument. In response to that, ProfMTH did the right thing; he pointed you to an adequate source. I'm sorry you arent interested in scholarly work. I also don't think you know what the genetic fallacy is...continued...
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Yes he gave the one reference in his video (which commits the genetic fallacy), but to my objections he gives no rebuttal other than recommending a whole book. Read through the whole argument if you don't believe me! Why else should you feel the need to defend him, when he should be doing it himself.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 "Prof's misconstrued representation of Craig - Atheism leads to immorality."
LMAO...so you accuse Prof of constructing a strawman and you made one yourself. Well done.
I'm gonna let you tell us exactly where ProfMth claims we are immoral without God. This should be interesting.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Did you pay attention to the video between 5:08 and 6:40? By quoting David Hume ".... but it is not certain an opinion is false because of its dangerous consequence..." and Craig himself "Everything is permitted" the strawman argument is that Atheism leads to immorality and is therefore false.
But if you follow Craig's argument he is saying that there is no foundation to morality under atheism. Under atheism, morality carries as much weight as you personal preferences.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 I was hoping you would quote this section. Prof NEVER says that it leads to immorality. He says EXACTLY what you just said, and more importantly, what Craig says. If you watch the part where he says: "If it put mankind on buttered skies...into the valley of anything goes" Is NOT saying we would be immoral. It just says that there is no good or evil because there is no objective foundation. So it would seem you misinterpreted Prof.
As for the book...continued..
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe "it" being atheism? Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to immorality hence the appeal to consequences fallacy. Craig does nothing of the sort. That is the very reason he gave the David Hume quote: to show up Craig's non existent fallacy.
No good or evil? Do you truly believe that? Do me a favor and watch three short youtube videos titled "Atheist's goofy morality" and tell me if you can agree with the atheistic conclusions.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@MauricXe To say "rape is wrong" is on par with saying "I prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream". Prof admits as much in his other videos. So yes, this is a strawman argument.
Can you be moral without God? Of course you can! I never claimed Prof said this. He just cannot explain why we all have these morals. His best effort was the now famous book whereby he seems satisfied that the moral voice of our species came about by random copying mistakes.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 as for the book, as I explained in my first post to you, Prof does NOT claim that objective moral values are justified by our innate moral voice. What Prof does claim is that our experience of a moral realm is NOT supernatural and has a simpler natural, and more plausible, explanation. This does NOT say that we have therefore justified the existence of objective morals. It only refutes Dr. Craig's claim that we can only apprehend a moral realm if it is supernatural.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Prof doesn't believe in objective moral values so what is your point? He is substituting a materialistic origin for our moral realm in place of a transcendent God. And yes describing HOW the innate wiring came to be through mutations says nothing for WHY certain actions are right or wrong hence the genetic fallacy.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@MauricXe How is this not committing the genetic fallacy? I'll let you explain this. This should be interesting :)
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Lastly, he doesn't commit the genetic fallacy because he does not make a claim for the source of objective morals. In fact, he only makes a claim about our supposed apprehension of such a realm. That is to say, "why do we think objective morals exist" NOT "I have a basis for objective morality"
So it would seem you have been arguing a strawman this entire time.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe I know the arguments that you tried to use are typical theist arguments. e.g. there is no difference between ice cream flavors and hitler or "roll the dice" and get a different morality. The problem is, that you can't be too quick to copy and paste them. You actually have to know when they apply.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe You really are not following the argument. Whether Prof says that our objective morals arose through mutations or our apprehension arose through mutations is besides the point. The point is he has no basis for saying WHY certain behaviors are wrong. Do you understand? Saying HOW this MAY have arose does nothing for WHY certain actions are right or wrong. This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 You continue to offer strawmen arguments.
"Whether Prof says that our objective morals arose through mutations [Why something is wrong] or our apprehension arose through mutations [Why we THINK we know something is wrong] is besides the point."
This IS the point. WATCH the video. Prof only makes the latter case NOT the former. You are arguing against the former NOT the latter. This is why your arguments against THIS video are strawmen.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Copy paste arguments? You know it looks like that to you because theists can in unison agree with the origins and explanation of objective morals . Ask 10 atheists however and you'll get 10 different opinions.
The point of my argument is that whatever naturalistic method Prof offers for morality, it does nothing to explain WHY actions are right or wrong. This is not a strawman but a classic textbook case of the genetic fallacy.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@MauricXe Typical theist arguments? Don't know when to use them? hahaha Watch Prof's other videos. He himself says choosing morality is exactly like the subjective task of a food critic or interior decorator. It is entirely up to the individual
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 I truly hope you can understand the distinction. Now if you want to use your copy-paste theist arguments, go find the videos that ProfMth made where he affirms that morality is nothing more than a flavor for ice cream, and argue them there. This is not the place for them.
Lastly, Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to the negation of objective morals NOT that you, me, or anyone else would be immoral.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Yeah that makes sense, I'll scatter my argument across several videos. "Prof claims that Craig says atheism leads to the negation of objective morals" Again you haven't paid any attention to Craig's argument. The pivotal point is that we live in a REALM of objective morals. Christians, Buddhist, Muslims & Atheists all have an objective moral foundation, or as the bible puts it "written in our hearts". No matter what you believe it isn't going to change this.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 I said your arguments were copy paste because they aren't being applied correctly. It seems like you just couldn't wait to use it before getting the application str8.
Prof offers a naturalistic explanation to why we think that we apprehend a moral realm. He does not offer an objective moral basis. Therefore, he does not commit the genetic fallacy. I don't think I can say it any other way lol.
Craig does believe on atheism, objective morals dont exist. Watch the vid or look it up
MauricXe 1 year ago
And I can't put this any other way either - Craig's first point is we live in a realm of objective morals i.e. everyone has them irrespective of their belief system. Secondly he says under atheism you cannot form a basis for why certain actions are objectively wrong. Key point is you cannot form a basis NOT objective moral truths don't exist at all! Atheists know that there exists objective moral truths, they either deny them or give a naturalistic explanation for them hence genetic fallacy.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Arguing with you is rather pointless. You can't seem to grasp the difference between:
1) We think that we apprehend moral values (Dr. Craig 3:38) (supernatural cause vs. natural cause)
2) We can derive objective truth from a given source.
Prof is arguing against the first point NOT the second. I don't care if you can't form an objective basis from naturalistic worldview THAT ISNT THE POINT OF THE VIDEO! LOL. This is the last time I will say it. Take ur argument elsewhere.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe And you still don't seem to understand that by giving a naturalistic mechanism, if you roll the dice of human evolution a million times you may get a million different moral standards. Hence they are all equally worthless and any moral objection you have is illusory. Furthermore Prof says the moral voice which came about through mutations determines our moral standards. Ultimately mutations determined our moral standards. This is the genetic fallacy boys.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Let me make one more attempt. Answer this instead. Do you understand the difference between:
1) Man evolved into what he is today. He believes in right and wrong because of his evolutionary background.
AND
2) Man evolved into what he is today. What he believes is right and wrong can be objectively verified through the inner morals sense that he has evolved.
Do you understand that there is a difference? This is crucial. Please answer.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe So man objectively determines right and wrong through a process which is subjective. Guess that makes it subjective then. LOL
What is the difference between 1 and 2??? "He believes in right and wrong" would be an "inner moral sense" would it not????????? You are getting yourself into knots.
Do you believe in good and evil? Third time i've asked you.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Ah. Now we are getting somewhere. Hopefully you can recognize the difference and realize your arguments are strawmen.
The difference is rather simple. In the first case, man merely thinks he perceives right and wrong. It does NOT say that our moral faculties are objective. What it does say is that our moral sense emerged from natural means. Again not necessarily objective.
The second case establishes a moral basis. The objective base is our inner moral sense.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Again I have to explain my position to you. If you believe in a natural explanation for morality then they cannot be objective. You keep on misrepresenting my argument and then telling me I'm wrong! LOL. And again for emphasis Atheists have objective morality but under atheism objective morality doesn't exist. Where have I said that Prof believes in objective morality? Please tell me. I'm saying he HAS objective morality just that he denies it.
gmh1206 1 year ago
@gmh1206 "If you believe in a natural explanation for morality then they cannot be objective."
Prof is NOT trying to say that they are objective, as you have finally admitted. He is just claiming that there is a natural emergence of morality, again not objective, while Craig says that the emergence must be supernatural.
I am not misrepresenting your argument. I am just telling you that your argument for an objective basis is not appropriate for this video. And it would seem...
MauricXe 1 year ago
@gmh1206 Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then we can point to your error. ProfMTH has argued for a natural emergence of our moral sense. Again, NOT an objective foundation, just an emergence of our preferences. What you are arguing is that there is no natural foundation for morals on naturalism. That's good and all but Prof didn't say that there was in THIS video. Does that make sense? Hopefully that puts an end to your confusion
My opinions dont matter, second(+?) time I said that
MauricXe 1