131. What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? With William Lane Craig

[lukehase]

I am studying this argument at the moment, I love it, so simple, and the conclusion has to follows the 2 contentions! It is also amazing that people tend to try and take issue with premise 1. I love that fact! Backs the argument even more in the end.

[Mathenaut]

Premise 1 is false. Failure to substantiate why such absolutes require the christian god, and further failure to substantiate how christian god's opinion is not subjective.

Premise 2 is false, failure to substantiate the existence of said moral absolutes.

Conclusion is non-sequitir. Does not necessarily follow even if 1 and 2 are true.

[TijdTekort]

@Mathenaut I suggest watching his other video's were he has enough time to support his claims. I agree with you that a (valid) sylogism alone isn't very convincing. Even Dr Craig agrees with that(in the video 'objections so bad I couldn't have made them up').

[Mathenaut]

@TijdTekort

WLC is nothing new. I'm familiar with the expanded argument and, believe me, it doesn't help much.

What makes his case extra special is that he'll pick the most absurd of all statements thrown at him and raise those as the 'prominent' arguments against his position, while not regarding the issues he does not address well.

[TijdTekort]

@Mathenaut

He explains premise 2 in the video 'morality and social conditioning' on this channel. Name me one atheist that doesn't do the same, picking absurd arguments against their position and not regarding the real issues. In fact, dawkins starts his book 'god delusion' by ridiculing, ridiculous objections and suggesting all theist are like that.

Just because it doesn't support your biased presupposition, it doesn't mean the argument is bad.

[Mathenaut]

@TijdTekort

lols, 'biased presupposition' and Dawkins, of all people. You speak like someone who is not at all familiar with the arguments raised against their position.

His explanation on moral absolutes falls to insisting intuition, semantics, and serious emotional appeals. Murder is wrong by definition, not because of 'intrinsic morals'. Not to mention that intuition is a derived biological trait that is wholly subjective.

He also doesn't properly address objections to god's actions.

[TijdTekort]

@Mathenaut " You speak like someone who is not at all familiar with the arguments raised against their position" This is a common ad-hominem attack a lot of atheists make in debates against theists.

The attack is the best defense as they say.

Please explain 'murder is wrong by definition' how can you tell?

Also I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just interested in the subject and what objections might be and such.

[TijdTekort]

@Mathenaut I agree with you that a lot of moralist use bad arguments for their position (pro-lifers etc.) and use emotional appeals. At the same time a lot of atheist use mocking and ridiculing and ad-hominem attacks to defend their position. We might disagree with each other on some things, that's no reason for me to not respect you as a human being.

[Mathenaut]

@TijdTekort

Alot of atheists aren't really defending a position, much less what they feel is a non-position. Many see mockery and ridicule as they only means to reach people that discard rational discourse (like WLC, for example).

WLC does a bit of dishonest shifting of the goalposts with this by insisting that atheism fit his definition as opposed to the definition atheists commonly use to describe themselves. It only amounts to him beating at a strawman.

[TijdTekort]

@Mathenaut And counting the fact that people love entrainment these days, mocking and ridiculing is an effective way of convincing people in a non-rational way. Sometimes it's a valid 'reductio ad absurd-um', but not always.

There are different atheists indeed. He would do himself a favor by saying 'some atheist believe this, while other may believe this', even theists have different opinions on some subjects.

[Mathenaut]

@TijdTekort

Problem is, it isn't as easy to invoke a divisive emotional appeal by doing that. Much easier to set up and knock down the strawman. It doesn't do much to convince other people, but it does wonders to rally the base.

[WiseGuruProductions]

If this is the case, what do we make of the difference between pro-choice and anti-abortion groups? One group says abortion is neither evil nor morally incorrect, and the other says quite the opposite. As a pro-choice advocate, I can tell you that I do not find abortion to be morally ambiguous or evil. I am also an upstanding member of society, quick to help people in need, amiable, and generous with what material goods I have. This example completely disproves the idea of objective moral values

[Hufflewaffle]

umm.. hang on... intuition tells us that objective moral values exist?

Intuition?? Isn't intuition kinda subjective.

[TijdTekort]

@Hufflewaffle I agree, intuition is not objective. However, that doesn't mean everything you intuitively sense is subjective, you can sense objective things, for the same way as you can see your own subjective view on the objective reality. I'm fairly new to this subject, I apreciate you put up good arguments instead of the usual ad hominem attacks people throw at Dr Craig.

[Hufflewaffle]

@TijdTekort You're right but you have to admit its a bit mischievous of Dr Craig to strictly insist on adhering to the process of logic and rational thought in his arguments but then suddenly throw out a statement that intuition is fine when it suits him.

[TijdTekort]

@Hufflewaffle You are right about that. I don't know yet if there are really rational arguments for an objective moral, I want to find out. Do you think there is an objective moral?

[Hufflewaffle]

@TijdTekort I think the objective/subjective argument is simplistic and fairly obviously designed as a tool for apologetics rather than serious philosophical enquiry.