How do you know objective morality is based on God?

[bgiv2010]

WHOA! I seriously have problems with the mouse example! Is there anything morally wrong with the mother mouse euthanizing her children if she sensed that there was something wrong with them? Remember, mice don't have particularly advanced medical science. I think the only reason Dr. Craig's mother was appalled was because she could've done something if her child were sick; the mouse couldn't have so she ate them.

The mouse wasn't immoral, she was doing the best she could!

[Dodec84]

How does Craig explain jainism? A religion with no God?

[kevinjjfr]

@Dodec84 ....made up? xD

[Matchstick41]

@kevinjjfr Laughs*

[danny3571]

Dawkin doesnt need to jump off the empire state building to know that it hurts.....Dawkin knows that going against Craig would be like a lamb to the slaughter.

[humanistheart]

@EqualAndFree Yep, you nailed it. God based morality is subjective at best. Heck, I wouldn't even call it morality. Do what I say or else is tyranny, not morality.

[humanistheart]

@joekidd33 Dawkins has a good policy, don't debate with fools, lest you look like one. How does one debate with someone so deluded they think gods exist anyway?

[g2thaz]

i reckon dawkins would lose in a debate with craig. i'm an agnostic btw

[humanistheart]

@g2thaz How do you figure? An intellegent man, dawkins, couldn't lose to a moron that believes in a god, not really.

[g2thaz]

@humanistheart even hitchens describes lane craig as someone to take seriously. check out their pre debate conference to see. and as much as i think hitch is great, the debate against craig is the most unconvincing i've seen him. hitch really seemed to be floundering at times. also the fact that dawkins is ducking craig speaks volumes in my opinion.

[humanistheart]

@g2thaz God based morality is very easy to defeat in an intellectual debate. Look up divine command theory. Even if he were intelligent, which I see no evidence of, it would be an uphill battle for craig as he'd be representing such a fallacious stance.

Dawkins doesn't debate creationists. It's a good policy, not a 'ducking' lol.

[drcraigvideos]

@humanistheart Well, you ought to know then that Craig is NOT a creationist.

[g2thaz]

@humanistheart dawkins has debated many creationists/theologians in the past and has stated that he wants a dialogue with theists about the nature of our existance only to change his mind when the top christian philosopher comes knocking. it smacks of cowardice and it made me lose a lot of respect for him. craig is well respected by top atheists, look it up.

if not debating creationists is a good policy then you've certainly wasted a lot of time by dedicating your channel to it lol

[brantk81]

I just hope Dr. Craig can lead more of our fellow human beings to Christ!

[humanistheart]

@brantk81 There's never been a christ so how could he lead them to it?

[Pomme843]

"...I think objective moral values (and) duties DO exists, from which it follows logically and unescapably: therefore God exists."

A naturalistic fallacy?

[humanistheart]

@Pomme843 Yep.

[Pomme843]

@humanistheart It least seems so. Why does he think there such values? Because he feels, or thinks personally, that some things are good and bad? That because some actions seem repulsive, they must be ontologically wrong?

The term "objectively wrong" is like "subjectively existing" - it's an oxymoron.

[KevinVang1000]

Dawkins is a CHICKEN! BAAAAWWWK! lmao!

[humanistheart]

@KevinVang1000 That's what you tell yourself to make your kind feel better a?

[KevinVang1000]

But at least I gave a good laugh that he admitted that there is a chance of a intelligent mind who is behind all of this in Ben Stein's movie, lmao!

[Chaowdur]

it wouldnt be fair to debate dawkins... he's a horrid philosopher and representative of atheism. craig would slaughter him

[1GodOnlyOne]

@joekidd33 Good call -- wrong foul. The word is CHICKEN, not duck! LOL

[Law19157]

@1GodOnlyOne lol!

[unforgivn81]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Neither reality nor the universe care what we do. WE care, though, which is enough.

The apologist will attempt to counter by asking "well, then if we decided that murder was moral, would morality suddenly be OK?" But this, again, misunderstands what it even means for something to be moral. The morality of an act is not an intrinsic property of that act. It is a judgment made about the act by an outside observer (and thus, subjective).

[AtomicKinetic12]

@unforgivn81 Isn't it interesting how none of the apologist have responded with a counter to your post in four months.. You hit the nail on the head with this one. I'd like to see what they would come up with to argue against your point. Good job man...

[utumano]

I think DWLC has confused certain forms of relativism. Normative relativism must condone the killing of the child, seeing both options as morally indifferent. However meta ethical relativism would realise that this is a reality, though one could argue that due to our ability to empathise, a reasonable argument as to the total marginal benefit of killing the child versus the 'loving' of the child could ensure derivation of values superior to those of other derived values to (kill the child)

[fireflygirl246]

morally is subjective, question to all you christian, is it morally wrong to smash babies onto rockers?

the reason I ask is because it is this is done in the bible and it is treated as a morally righteous act because it was done to the enemy, do you think that it is ok to kill babies in war is that moral because it was back the, morals change usually for the better. Slavery as well was once considered moral but is not anymore, morals are subjective.

[drcraigvideos]

@fireflygirl246 Well, if atheism is true smashing a babies head against a rock is just matter colliding with matter. So why have a problem with that? Slavery in the Bible is not like modern-day slavery. According to the Bible it was more like servitude.

[fireflygirl246]

@drcraigvideos maybe it is just matter colliding with matter to the universe, to me its the murder of baby and its condoned in the bible I see you do not dispute that. Read my comment again where did I talk about the slavery in the bible, I was talking about it in history, do you really think slave owners thought that it was immoral to own another human being. Its not true by the way that slavery in the bible was different but its besides the point. Morality is subjective show me that it is not.

[drcraigvideos]

@fireflygirl246 @fireflygirl246 Murder in the context of bashing a baby against a stone is just matter colliding with more matter. You conceded that. So, in atheism, throwing a rock against another rock is like throwing a baby against a rock. As for the Bible and the baby I bet you don't even know what verse it comes from because you don't know the context. Look up Psalm 137:9. Also, if morality is subjective why complain about it here?

[fireflygirl246]

@drcraigvideos I conceded that to the unthinking uncaring universe that has no morality that yes a babys being smashed against a rock is just matter colliding with matter. but morality dose not come form outside of me, I decide what is valuable to me and a babies life is worth a lot to me. I decide what is right and wrong what is moral and immoral for myself, just like you do.

What context in the bible makes killing babies ok please tell me?

Because I like don't like liars like you and William

[drcraigvideos]

@fireflygirl246 And I don't like sickos like you who would not only refuse to look up the context of a Bible verse that I gave you (which you didn't even know about), but that you actually think that bashing a babies head against a rock is nothing more than matter being bashed too bits. You never showed a lie from me or WLC except just to say it without any grounds whatsoever.

[KBrimstone]

@fireflygirl246 So perhaps christian fundamentalist people forcing their beliefs on you or perhaps a modern inquisition upon all people who don't hold the views of the christian fundamentalist isn't wrong on your worldview?

[AceofDlamonds]

@fireflygirl246

are you referring to the verse about WANTING to do this to enemies? There's nothing that says God affirmed this act on the part of the Psalm writer's wishes.

You need to read the context of text before you speak.

You're calling him a liar and yet you are ignorant of this fact.

[strikenetter]

@drcraigvideos Why have a problem with smashing a babies head into a rock if you are an atheist? Because it doesn't help the survival of the species. We all wish to live in a world or society which is safe to promote our species, our survival. All animals have a sense of morality which is similar. Their actions only benefit the survival of the specie. Slavery was different in the bible? What about the selling of your daughter against her will? Is this any different from trafficking today?

[drcraigvideos]

@strikenetter Why not bash a babies head then to help your generation survive? Adolf Hitler was a fan of Evolution and assumed it as he murdered Jews, Gypsies, and Christians. He did so to bring forth the "Superman." We see species wiping out other species, so how is it any different. Slavery in the Bible was indentured servitude, genius. It isn't like Roman slavery or how slavery was in the South during the Civil War.

[strikenetter]

@drcraigvideos And your appologetics for selling a female in regards to servitude? If this form of slavery wasn't the same, why is it an awl should be driven through the ear signifiying ownership of that human being? Hitler was not a fan of evolution, he was a sociapath in need of the powertrip so many desire. What's disturbing is he used the gullible to succeed. Only an ignorant human would follow hitler. Were all Germans whom followed atheists? Hitler was a Catholic, you do know that right?

[strikenetter]

@drcraigvideos There's been many appologies for certain immoral actions within the bible such as rape. Many Christians state rape is stated to be immoral in the bible but it isn't so. Only a penalty of having to pay the father of the rape victim is seen. Does this suggest its ok to rape as long as you pay a toll? Rape was abolished by society, it was never an objective immoral action. The same with slavery. If you beat the slave, you may be punished if he doesn't get up after a few days?

[strikenetter]

@strikenetter Let me make your argument for you. You could argue that in certain adoption situations, female children are sold, parents often pay the surrogate mothers a toll for the bearing of the child which inevitably stands to reason the child is sold against her will. lol. This could be the same standing within the bible, but age isn't stated for a determining factor is it? A 15 year old against her will is different from a child of birth. What's your take on this?

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

A bit of both.

Not much good as a God if he doesn't justify these morals.

According to god of the christian faith. Slavery and stoning children for disobeying their parents is morally just. Exodus 21.

The idea that the God of the bible is an objective standard is a comeplte joke.

Craigs justification is "well god says it'smoral so it is"

So according to CRAIG we have to believe it on faith

DING no longer a valid justification Just another semantic argument as to why craig thinks he's god

[metalnecromancer]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 Actually "slavery" doesn't exist in the bible. The word in hebrew has no english equivalent, which is why some translate it into "slavery" or "servitude." What existed was"slavery" for 6 years due to financial debts, for example. If you actually read the bible hitting a "slave" was criminal and killing one led to the capital punishment of the "owner." The children thing you cite was a Moseic law and not God's law. Jesus in the NT did away with the Moseic law.

[hayakain]

@metalnecromancer I will be saving this to use later, you summed it up very well here.

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

The claim that morality is objective is just that. It proves nothing to do with god any more than the idea that saying please and thankyou is a good way of conducting yourself.

seriously. you're going to argue that GOD is the reason you do these things.

you need it THAT much in your life you have to swamp reality with nonsense like that!?

[drcraigvideos]

@DarkKnightBob1o1 There's a difference between claiming that God is the standard of objective morality, and the fact that we do moral actions (or as you put it "do these things"). If morality is objective outside of God then prove that point. Or are you only here to troll and give cowardly drive-by comments?

[Dark1777]

The title is misleading and not exactly what he is discussing. Not a bad video but Craig has only ever asserted that if a god exists, objective morality does as well. Craig has never tried to demonstrate that a deity's existence means that the deity's preference is automatically objective. You can have a deity and its nature still be subjective if this argument is to be truly explored.

[drcraigvideos]

@Dark1777 "The title is misleading..."? Really? Gee, when someone asks how they make the connection to God and objective morality, well, by golly, I guess they aren't talking about how objective morality is based on God. You're too fast for me. It's especially curious how you think when a Deity preference is objective morality when His character is based on it. LOL! Seriously, you know very little of what Craig thinks.

[Jason29n]

@joekidd33 Would you debate someone about the flying spaghetti monster? No, why would you?

[drcraigvideos]

@Jason29n Well, then I guess Dawkins was stupid enough to debate John Lennox on God's existence (or the existence of the FSM, if you will). Thanks for the reply.

[Jason29n]

@drcraigvideos I was under the opinion that most of the leading atheist guys stopped debating on this cause they thought it was foolish. If thats not the reason im not sure why Dawkins wont do it. My guess would be that he knows Craig is a professional some would say master debater. And he is just a scientist. Im a huge dawkins fan though and one day he will be looked at as the pioneer

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

@drcraigvideos Dawkins tends to debate people with repectability and qualifications.

Graig has none of these. He's a hypocritical douche that's dishonest

[DarkKnightBob1o1]

@drcraigvideos *craig*

[D20018200]

Yes really? The morally good way to save baby mice from being eaten by their mother is drowning them? No wonder your view is distorted from reality.

[UncleVRoy]

Did he actually share any evidence that objective moralities exist, or did he just merely claim that they exist?

[UncleVRoy]

A rational good is the same as a moral good. 

[UncleVRoy]

He sure knows how to bait a hook!

Morals exist because humans naturally identify actions that cause harm vs. those that bring health. His apologist arguments have all been debunked, but he seems to keep going on anyway, ignoring the philosophical evidence and replacing reason with God.

[EvansRowan123]

"moral values are intrinsic to persons, not to things"

This is why i don't believe in objective morality. This would only allow objective morality to make sense if god was the only being to whome "morality could apply.

Otherwise, you have subjective morality that stems from every person. Which makes a lot more sense - case in point is contradictions between the morality of individuals. It doesn't make sense if there is a universal "good" or "evil".

[Purushadasa]

Good call! Unfortunately, dawkins will never agree to debate Dr. Craig.

On the bright side, his refusal is an admission of his utter defeat, before any debate ever occurs.

=)

[Purushadasa]

Just plain awesome!

=)

[Designmimetics]

good vid

[CaMediaRC]

He needs to debate Dawkins already!

[mikegrecamusic]

@CaMediaRC

Dawkins is not smart enough for him.

[humanistheart]

@mikegrecamusic You realize theists on average have considerably less education and lower IQ's than theists, don't you?

[mikegrecamusic]

@humanistheart

I think that you are merely assuming something you heard is true. I also realize that your statement makes no point, other than make a weak attempt to shame me to choose a side. A more bold comment would be to say that 'since theists are on average less intelligent/educated, God doesn't exist.' Of course that assertion would be fallacious.

[jonjon1457]

@humanistheart, "Theists" have less education and lower IQ's than theists?? If you gonna insult someone you should think about proofreading your comments first. Anyways, if you meant that theists have lower IQs than atheists you sure your calculation doesn't have anything with the fact that there are far more theists than there are atheists?

[jwmarco21]

@jonjon1457 great point lol

[MPaulHolmes]

@jonjon1457 ROFL.

[humanistheart]

@CaMediaRC Dawkins doesn't debate with fools.

[VivianJane1]

I love Dr.Craig. Can't wait to get some of his books. :]

[CaMediaRC]

Get some already! :)

[drcraigvideos]

His new book "On Gaurd" just came out. It's an excellent book.

[QuisSeperabit60]

@VivianJane1 Try the book he co-edited - god is both great and good - it has a really good collection of essays

[SLBS1234]

Excellent Video. I've been running into this problem in debates a lot recently. Now I have an amazing response. Thanks for posting.

[drcraigvideos]

You're welcome.