William Lane Craig - Where do Objective Morals Originate in the Universe ?

[Balaganow]

Lane Craig only plays with words. Objective morality can not be given by god. Let's look at definition of the word 'objective'. "Free of bias and independent". It can only be given by a person less being. So, if Christian god creates everything, His morale would be ACTUAL but definitely not objective. So he certainly can not say if god made a morale code and by definition, it becomes true and objective.

[trippygraffiti]

This is an argument from ignorance. There are better explanations for objective morality than god. Instincts and evolution are better explanations because there is evidence that those things exist. There is no evidence that god exist. Craig claims "if god does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist." One would be more reasonable to say "if evolution does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist."

[TouchOfGreatness]

The problem is. there is nothing Yahwey COULD have done for Craig to consider immoral - for Yahwey did EVERYTHING most of consider evil, and yet, apologists consider him "all that is good"

[EnjoiningKnowlege]

Would you mind telling me the exact date (year) of this lecture (or was it a debate)? I would like to include it in the bibliography of a paper I am writing. Thanks!

[iHAVE1j]

Finally take Japan.. a country that is over 60% atheist or agnostic. They have nearly the lowest violent crime rates, lowest recidivism rates for prisoners, staggeringly low divorce rates and one of the highest life expectancies of any country. Objective morals DO NOT work.. nor are they desirable. Like Socrates said "the good is knowledge, and evil is ignorance."

[iHAVE1j]

Craig is a smart enough guy.. has very strong points for theistic belief, intelligent design, etc. Unfortunately he can't quite make a personal god or "objective morals" seem reasonable. That is a point of faith. Look at the US being founded on objective morals, still having one of the highest pop's of Christians, and having the most violent crime and almost the highest divorce rates of any country. Afghanistan has objective morals, and the worst heroin addiction around.

[Marduniya]

@iHAVE1j Your examples are gross over generalizations because you ignore all the socioeconomic, historical, and political factors involved in crime. Saudi Arabia is an ardently Islamic nation with very low crime rates. Would it be reasonable to say Saudi Arabia enjoys low crime rates only because they adhere to a moral law?

Objective morality is a necessity for every single human society. Voltaire, Kant, and Nietzsche understood this very well.

[iHAVE1j]

@Marduniya

Saudi Arabia's judicial system still recognizes Islamic law. Only recently were women allowed to drive cars in Saudi Arabia, and the religious police recently arrested a woman for doing so. I'd say more crimes, repression and atrocities are committed by the government than the citizens there. They constantly invade people's personal liberty for the sake of superstition. And I'm overgeneralizing using Japan as an example?

[Marduniya]

@iHAVE1j If you do not accept objective morality...where do these notions of repression, atrocities, and general "wrongness" that you are espousing even come from? Secondly, William Lane Craig's argument is not that you must believe in God to be morally good. Rather, the non-existence of God leads towards moral relativism. You can be a moral relativist and still be good, although your goodness is based on nothing.

[iHAVE1j]

@Marduniya

It's a rather desperate philosophical argument to say nothing is real without the objectivity of religion. To say repression, atrocities and wrongness don't exist without it would be the same as saying the ideas of politics, economy, beauty, reality or any idea can't exist without it. Why not go a step further and question whether the idea of objectivity even exists?

I think what you're asking is whether morals have to be axiomatic. I don't think "good" morals can be.

[Zentz29]

@Marduniya Even if there is an "objective moral standard", only the "creator" of that standard could possibly know it. No human being knows what is "objectively moral". Humans NECESSARILY have to use subjective reasoning wether or not a god has a perfect/objective standard.

If an "objective standard" exists, it is useless to anyone unless you know what is objectively moral. Wether or not a god exists, human morals are subjective.

[itheemartian]

@Zentz29 "Wether or not a god exists, human morals are subjective." I could not have said it any better.

[kenpca]

@itheemartian Do you believe the murder, rape and child molestation are always wrong regardless of one's personal or cultural belief? If so, then you also believe that at least some moral values are objective. Unless you believe that rape, murder or child molestation are not always wrong depending upon one's personal or cultural beliefs. So what would you say about raping little children? Is there a circumstance that it is morally acceptable? If not...then you also believe in objective morals

[itheemartian]

@kenpca While I believe there are universal laws, I don't believe there are moral laws. If by objective, you mean have a purpose, then yes; though, not granted from a supreme being. Though I don't think murder, rape or molestation is right, doesn't make it wrong. To a person committing the act, it may not be either of those. It may just be the acting out an instinct. How can I tell someone their instinct is wrong?

[itheemartian]

@kenpca If I were to say that there is a circumstance in which something like raping a child is morally acceptable implies that there are preexisting morals, thereby entrapping me to the idea. I will say this in response to your latter question: if a person who commits that crime doesn't feel like he or she has done wrong, then that is an example of a circumstance in which it is morally acceptable. If there is a society that were to exist that believes its okay, is another.

[Marduniya]

@iHAVE1j In your comparison of Japan and Afghanistan, there is no way of objectively comparing the two if you believe morality is subjective and relative. In conclusion, objective morality is not the foundation of good - it is the criteria of differentiating good and evil.

[iHAVE1j]

@Marduniya

I think my comparison of Japan with Afghanistan was fair. I would even compare Japan with Saudi Arabia, and based on the ideas of repression and government misconduct alone I would say Japan is a freer, happier place to live. I lived in Japan for 2 years growing up and I can tell you firsthand, there are few places with more warmth, acceptance and general intelligence. I'm just asking how a modern country could be primarily atheist and better off than most others.

[iHAVE1j]

@Marduniya

Btw, I think it is an interesting argument, and I don't claim to be completely sure about objective morals being destructive. You made a good point. Didn't mean to come off like that. ; )

One thing you may want to consider is the psychological tenet of conventional and post-conventional morals. As an example, "I won't steal" and "I shouldn't steal, but I would to save a life" seem to be the difference between objective and relative morals to me. The objective stance seems wrong.

[topgear3]

Again i don't think this is a valid point,

[topgear3]

I think this is a little misguided and a little demeaning to humanity that an invisible man in the sky had to tell us that rape is wrong.

We have evolved socially, however somewhat more complex and advanced than animals. You can see just how far we've come from when the bible was written. from the conflictions to its teachings to current day ethics, too many people gloss over the darker ones and focus on the ones that are acceptable in today's world.

[orlibonurb]

@topgear3 Yes, a long way indeed. Just in the last 100 years we had two world wars, and we are going for the third. Very ethical indeed. Humanity is actually devolving, the more we abandon the true and living God, the worse society gets. Crime is going rampant these days at all levels. Current day ethics ? Just look at television, hollywood, and everything that is mainstream. Look at the internet itself ! Oh the pornography, oh the pornography ! Destroying marriages and families left and right !

[orlibonurb]

If there is not a true and living God telling you what is actually RIGHT and WRONG, what is the authority then ? Man ? If there is no God, rape can not be considered morally wrong, for the atheist / materialistic view, there is no such thing. You say "we have evolved socially", well ... then which society has the "right" morals ? Nazi Germany perhaps ?! If not, then why not ?

[topgear3]

@orlibonurb I'm not sure exactly how you can use WW2 as an example when there are so many examples of genocide in the bible. Yes man defines what are ethics because they evolve. Unfortunately sometimes they go backwards. The only way we can go forward is by reason and logical thought. I'm an Atheist and i don't have a 'materialistic view', i think alot of theists don't understand that an Atheist is just someone that doesn't believe in the existence of a God. Our view on things are-

[topgear3]

@topgear3  separate

[kly45]

@orlibonurb That's a slippery slope fallacy. Society is and has been brutal in the past. You think things are bad now? Just look at the violence in medieval times. No pornography back then.

Yes there is no such thing as absolute morals. If that were true, and you were christian then it was and still IS morally right to stone disobedient children.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Are you saying it is absolutely morally wrong stoning children for the fun of it ?

When answering, remember what you said: "Yes there is no such thing as absolute morals". Feel free to answer my question now.

According to your "random chance" worldview with no absolutes (a self refuting view by itself), tomorrow may very well be A-Okay to stone your entire family to death - what will you say then ? Will you laugh with everyone else at your families disgrace ?

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Now you're using loaded language and emotive wording, when really you should just answer the question I asked first, pathetic. And yes I stick with my argument, under the right conditions this could be seen as right. What if the child had committed mass murders and was about to do it again in front of you? It may be seen as "right" by some people. I don't understand why you brought it up, if you believe in absolute morals and the bible then you're in the exact same position as me

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 And what do you mean by "being fallacious" ? Are you trying to be logical ? Laws of logic are universal, immutable and IMMATERIAL, so what basis do you have since all is MATERIAL according to your worldview ?! Stop borrowing from the Christian worldview to support your illogical & irrational one.

Romans 1:18-20

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Wow what a ridiculous arrangement of words. So apparently it's only possible for christians to be logical? Are you crazy? Logic is an abstract, materialism does not mean I do not believe in abstracts you fool. And by that logic the invisible pink unicorn is immaterial so do you believe in that as well? I study ethics, among other things at a russell group university, so don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Moron

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 No, of course you can use logic - because you, too, were created in the image of the living God. But you as an atheist / materialist have no BASIS for such thing as the laws of logic, which are IMMATERIAL. Materialism says ALL is material - again, another person who does not even understand his own belief / faith (you).

I enjoyed how you finished your comment. Sucks when you have to resort to ad-hominems because you don't even understand your own faith and have to be corrected.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb You're making a very bad job of understanding what an abstract is. Abstracts are based on physical constants and physical laws. The difference between abstracts and spirituality is that abstracts have real physical effects that can be verified by the constant it was based on. Say a building collapses, we can understand that with mathematical abstracts. But we couldn't say "god did it" because although it is a possibility, there's no apparent logical connection we can make.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Laws of logic as an example, are immaterial / abstract. Immaterial laws do NOT have any real impact on anything that is material / physical.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic, as he (you) believes that everything that exists is material - part of the physical world. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities.

Thank you very much and have a very pleasant atheistic day (lol).

[kly45]

@orlibonurb hence spirituality is not the same as an abstract. The whole point makes no sense anyway, how would materialism ever have became a philosophical position when it's proponents couldn't justify it by the logical methods of philosophical argumentation? Ad hominem? lol are you serious? Ad hominem is short for argumentum ad hominem. It means "Argument against the man". Since when did I say, "you are wrong because you are a moron?" I made an argument THEN called you a moron.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb typical misunderstanding from a layman trying to use rhetoric to win an argument

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance."

So, as I said, atheists / materialists have no FOUNDATION whatsoever to account for IMMATERIAL, universal and immutable laws, such as the law of logic. Now, I am a biblical christian, so I CAN account for that.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb "So, as I said, atheists / materialists have no FOUNDATION whatsoever to account for IMMATERIAL," yes and as i've said, abstractions are based on the composition of material interactions.

"you don't even understand your own faith and have to be corrected." Actually it's not faith or a belief, faith and believe are things you "accept" without evidence. The material world is all that is evident to us, so why assume there is more?

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "The material world is all that is evident to us, so why assume there is more?"

Yes, exactly (sarcasm), such as the immaterial / abstract laws of logic, science and mathematic.

Atheism is a faith, you have faith that all is material, that there is no God whom you will be accountable for your actions, such all the lies you have said in your life, your stealing, your adultery, your lust, your pride, your blaspheming to the God who created you, and on and on it goes. Love that sin.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb "Yes, exactly (sarcasm), such as the immaterial / abstract laws of logic, science and mathematic." I've already explained to you that abstracts are part of the material world. Even so, these abstracts are evident to us, God is not. "you have faith that all is material" no i don't, it's my lack of belief that makes me a materialist, if I see evidence of spiritual realms i will accept it.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 lol........ laws of logic are immaterial / abstract, they are NOT part of the physical world. That is what ABSTRACT means. You can not stub your toe on a law of logic.

The thing that you, as a materialist / atheist, has to justify is, WHY do universal, immaterial, and immutable laws of logic do exist. They shouldn't if your worldview were to be correct, but they DO exist, therefore atheism is self refuting.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb well first of all, atheists and materialists are not the same thing. Buddhists are atheists yet believe in spirtuality, same with many "new age" people. So if what you said were true (which it isn't) it would only prove materialism to be self-refuting, not atheism. I've explained over a million times already, they exist because they are based on concrete objects. The definition you put up was right, abstracts are not concrete, but they are BASED on concrete observations.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Noone is talking about spirituality. We are talking about IMMATERIAL and MATERIAL concepts here.

Atheism embraces their daughters, materialism and evolution has it denies everything that is not material.

Buddhists are NOT atheist, that's an incredibly display of ignorance concerning Buddhism. Buddhism is not atheism just because they don’t believe in a personal God. It's more like pantheism where there is a impersonal force. "All is one", which the New Age movement embraces as well.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Yes and abstractions are based on material concepts. It doesn't mean materialists do not believe in abstractions.

Theism - Belief in god. A - without. Atheism - WIthout belief in god.

" The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.". Not all atheists are evolutionists and vice versa. Raeliens are atheists yet religious. Deists believe in God yet not religion.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Yes and abstractions are based on material concepts. It doesn't mean materialists do not believe in abstractions.

Theism - Belief in god. A - without. Atheism - WIthout belief in god.

" The Buddha explicitly rejects a creator,[4] denies endorsing any views on creation[5] and states that questions on the origin of the world are worthless.". Not all atheists are evolutionists and vice versa. Raeliens are atheists yet religious. Deists believe in God yet not religion.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb admit murder can be wrong. You admit that stoning disobediant children is ALWAYS right

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Can be wrong? Is it absolutely morally wrong or is it not?! Make up your mind.

I didn't say stoning disobedient children is right, what I am saying is that I have a FOUNDATION for the existence of absolute moral laws (given to us by the living God, written in your heart: Romans 2:15), and you do not have a FOUNDATION for such thing, therefore you'll fall for all sorts of moral relativism, where killing "can" be wrong (your own words) - "it really depends". It's all "opinion" based. Sick.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb I have made up my mind and explained to you several times, the question is a false dichotomy. Sometimes it is morally wrong, sometimes it could be morally right, as I have said, what if by killing someone you save the lives of 5 people. Then it may be considered morally right. You have no foundation, you've asserted that you have a foundation because the bible is correct. You can repeat it all you like, a circular argument is a circular argument. My foundation that morals are not

[kly45]

@orlibonurb absolute is because I am a materialist. The reason I am a materialist is that I see lack of evidence of anything immaterial that exists.

I'm not saying it's all opinion, it depends on the situation. Is killing still absolutely morally wrong if you killed the terrorists who crashed into the world trade centre?

[kly45]

@orlibonurb No you have to say stoning disobediant children is morally right. If you believe in the word of the bible you have to believe that the word is just and fair as it comes from an omnibenevolent god. Stop making excuses

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 But is there a problem with YOUR worldview in which stoning children to death is wrong ?

You talk as if it's an absolutely wrong thing to do, with what BASIS do you say such thing ?! I'm not the one making excuses, on the other side, you are the one talking as if it's a bad thing in your random chance world with no absolutes. Thank you very much.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb No, I say that there may be certain situations in which stoning disobedient children may be considered morally right, there may be situations where it is considered morally wrong. You say it is always morally right despite being in a situation which could make it wrong. Why do you keep saying "thank you" you don't have the audacity to be that smug

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 That being said, the true & living God (the one you want to avoid at all costs) has always acted righteously throughout history - and YES, that includes the Old Testament.

In the end, all sinners who reject His offer of salvation will go to eternal punishment in hell. Righteousness will win. You, as an atheist, who say that killing "can be" wrong (not that it IS wrong) has no right whatsoever to talk about stoning children to death, because - according to YOU - that "may only be wrong."

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Why do you think I want to avoid him? As I have said, I am open to the idea of god, I just see no proof or relevance for him at this time. And you can hardly blame me, the three times you've been able to justify yourself is by using circular logic. How does it feel to accept something for fallacious reasons? Yeah yeah "blah blah blah, accept this idea without any supporting reasons other than me threatening you." And you didn't answer my question about 9/11. is it right or wrong?

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "you've been able to justify yourself is by using circular logic"

Give me one example of circular reasoning.

You are the one who is actually avoiding most my questions. It's hilarious how you then turn the issue around. Yes, 9/11 is wrong, yes killing is wrong, not just wrong, but absolutely morally wrong, as moral values transcend man, given to us by God, written in our hearts. Same law you and me have transgressed over and over again (sin).

[kly45]

@orlibonurb When have I avoided my questions? I answered your question twice, you just keep repeating yours. and I told you to go re-read my comments. You still haven't answered calling my uni communist, and I had to ask you twice for you to even mention the 9/11 question so don't pretend I'm avoiding anything. You've used circular reasoning twice in a row. allow me to demonstrate.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb "what I am saying is that I have a FOUNDATION for the existence of absolute moral laws (given to us by the living God, written in your heart: Romans 2:15),"

"That being said, the true & living God (the one you want to avoid at all costs) has always acted righteously throughout history - and YES, that includes the Old Testament."

You're justifying your belief in absolute morality by the bible, because the bible says absolute morality exists. Circular logic.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb So, do you say it's wrong to kill the hijackers and avoid killing the people inside the towers? Then you have yourself allowed people to die, more people in fact, which means more people have died as a result of your action/non-action which means, even by absolute standards, you are worse off, killing the trade center workers rather than only killing two hijackers. Absolute morality must then, lead to a contradiction.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 But what exactly is the problem with more people dying since according to your own words, murderers are not absolutely moraly wrong ?! What exactly is the problem with letting more people die then ? It's just mere statistics in your relativistic world.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Yes, they're not absolutely morally wrong because instead of letting a number of people die, you've done the right thing by murdering two people. Hence it cannot be ABSOLUTELY wrong to murder. Look at it like this; God says that killing is absolutely wrong, pressumably because it is against your rights to take their life away and nobody should do that accept God, who has all rights. Correct? Let's say every kill represents 1 unit of "badness". So yo have the option, kill two people

[kly45]

@orlibonurb or let many die? 2 units of badness is better than 2+ units of badness, so it follows then, in that situation, that it is more right, to kill both of the terrorists. Yes?

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 I'd still like to understand why are pedophiles, murderers and rapists wrong according to your worldview.

In a random chance world, what is their fault ?!!? It's a chemical accident, their DNA dictated that they'd be pedophiles, murderers and rapists. Please account for this in a random chance universe.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Why do you insist on never answering my questions and moving onto new subjects. Do you at least have the decency to acknowledge my point? Is it still wrong to murder the two terrorists? Yes or no? In answer to your question, it's pretty simple actually. People are born with random genetic mutations and common traits from their parents. So it is true that people who rape or find children attractive have it in their dna,

[kly45]

@orlibonurb ...funnily enough though, it's worse for you to account for that, as you would believe that God made pedophiles and murderers himself rather than them being acts of nature. Anyway, if there are certain mutations that don't work then the individual won't reproduce as much and the trait won't be passed on. This is how morals work too. Humans are social animals, as you can imagine, murdering doesn't help our survival, so we see it as immoral. Pretty simple isn't it?

[kly45]

@orlibonurb And I'll just go into detail about some of those examples. Murder may have been considered right during wars in the ancient world. Pedophilia HAS been considered right and wrong through various cultures (look up "pederasty). As for rape, that goes with murder too. And again if you believe the bible has absolute morals then why are you getting on the moral high ground here? (Deuteronomy 20:10-14), (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT), (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT),(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

[kly45]

@orlibonurb All those passages support rape and murdering other tribes by the commandment of God. If this is absolute morals, then no wonder you have a hard time understanding why rapists and murderers are wrong!

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Oh, no no no. According to MY worldview I know they are wrong. I want to know why on earth they are wrong according to YOUR worldview.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Um yeah... I JUST TOLD YOU. If you missed it, here's the brilliant thing about text; you can go back and re-read it. Also, the bible quotes I provided only prove that your worldview is inconsistent. God Commands people to rape and murder, and this is absolute? So this would only prove that God thinks murder and rape are also absolutely right. You're comments are getting very evasive. What a joke!

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Your unbelievable awful lack of biblical knowledge is self evident by your constant copy/paste atheists remarks. You either have never studied the Scriptures carefuly or even worst, probably never even read it from cover to cover even once. You people are so good at quoting one verse without even trying to see the whole context in which the verse (you randomly quoted to try and prove a point - a really bad one, refuted countless times) is based on. (cont...)

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Now that I have showed how you are nothing but a parrot, copy/pasting same old atheist dumb arguments, let's continue. You guys love to pick Deut 20:14 as an example - but what about going back to verse 10 and see the CONTEXT. Oh no, that does not count, right ?! Numbers 31:18 is another favorite of yours, but how about you actually continue reading and see the context - verses 19 & 20, ensuring the HEALTH of the soldier AND war captives. If a man was interested in a woman (cont...)

[kly45]

@orlibonurb "probably never" then "Now that I have showed" lol when did you make that connection? You're not even consistent in your own comments. Well I just quoted what the bible said, I didn't add anything, so I'll go through it just to check if it's less immoral. Okay let's see.

1. Before you take a city offer peace

2. If they accept, the citizens are your slaves (lolwot?)

3. If they refuse, kill them

4. Take any woman, children or livestock as you please

[kly45]

@orlibonurb 5. Do this to the cities that don't belong to the nations nearby

6. "However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

Oh i'm SO terribly sorry. I see the errors of my ways. I now see that invading foreign cities and giving them the option to become slaves or be killed is MUCH better moral judgement from God. What a joke!

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Now that I have showed how you are nothing but a parrot, copy/pasting same old atheist dumb arguments, let's continue. You guys love to pick Deut 20:14 as an example - but what about going back to verse 10 and see the CONTEXT. Oh no, that does not count, right ?! Numbers 31:18 is another favorite of yours, but how about you actually continue reading and see the context - verses 19 & 20, ensuring the HEALTH of the soldier AND war captives. If a man was interested in a woman (cont..)

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 he was to, 1. Provide her with housing; 2. Allow her one month to mourn, 3. THEN, they could get married, and if - later on - they decided to divorce, she was to go free while never, ever being mistreated (Deut 21:10-14). No rape at all anywhere, I could go on and on and on with parrots like you, who are too prideful & ignorant to engage in an intelectual and honest talk.

Now, I still want you to answer - how do you account, as an atheist, account for the existence of absolute morals?!

[kly45]

@orlibonurb that's still immoral. Kill her parents, and if YOU find a pretty woman you can take her as your wife despite what she says. Only allow a MONTH for mourning until she is allowed to live the rest of her happy life with the murderer of her parents that forced marriage with her (oh boy! She should be so lucky!). It says in 21:14 "if you are not pleased with her", it has nothing to do with her consent, rather, your pleasure/displeasure.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "Um yeah... I JUST TOLD YOU. If you missed it, here's the brilliant thing about text;"

And NO, concerning my question "how do you, as an atheist, account for the existence of absolute morals - which DO exist", you have provide any good (not even close to being decent) answer. And remember you are also to provide an answer as for how, you - as an atheist - account for the existence of immaterial, universal & immutable laws of logic, science and mathematics. Thank you very much.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb The reason I can't provide a good enough answer for you is because it's a loaded question. You've already assumed you are correct. The real issue is; do absolute. morals exist? Yes or no? I say no, you say yes, we both put reasons towards our arguments. Instead you simply claim you are correct in the question which means I won't be able to answer satisfactory. It's like me asking you "if you don't believe aliens exist then why are there ufos?". There is still dispute whether there

[kly45]

@orlibonurb are absolute morals or not. i have given examples of when child-man relationships were considered acceptable, which shows a subjective morality based on society. You, instead, proved your point twice via circular logic, you asked why it was circular, and I quoted what you said "absolute morals exist because god created absolute morals". We've been over this and I'm disapointed that I have to continuously repeat myself

[kly45]

@orlibonurb " as an atheist - account for the existence of immaterial, universal & immutable laws of logic, science and mathematics" I've already put that to bed many times now. It's really pathetic that you keep bringing it back up as though you have trumped me.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb No replies? Thank you very much. There's yer dinner pal!

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Replies to what ? lol... I don't even remember what your last reply was lol..... I do have a job, a life, a family, my birthday tomorrow. I'm not paying that much attention to you ....

I already refuted the pitiful worldview of atheism countless times. Not going to spend any more time here when you simply refuse to see it due to your pride / sin.

Jesus (who rose from the dead) loves and can save you my brother. That is all it matters for now. Have a great day.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb lol keep telling yourself that. Happy birthday by the way

[kly45]

@orlibonurb

"You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode.

So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today." Lawrence Krauss

[kly45]

@orlibonurb where's your justification for calling my university communist and for the argument that absolute morals exist?

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 Let's see, if someone were to rape your entire family in front of you for the fun of it, would you - as a materialistic atheist - consider it to be absolutely morally wrong ?!

[kly45]

@orlibonurb You know fine well what my position is, we've already cleared this up, it's morally wrong but not absolutely. I didn't ask you for an extreme example of my position, I asked you to prove your position to be sound. If you aren't going to do that then I won't bother replying, getting quite sick of your repetition

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 @kly45 The Christian worldview is the only one who can account for the existence of absolute morality. It's not my fault that you can't even understand such simple concept - and you wonder why I call your university, and all other government controlled universities, which are well known for creating zombies serving the state who will murder and enslave them the next day ?! When you can't even admit that it is absolutely morally wrong to KILL ?! "Morally wrong but not absolutely" ?! Sick.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb So the proof that absolute morals exist is that because only the christian worldview can account for absolute morals? Hmm yep, that's circular logic, nice try though. "It's not my fault that you can't even understand such simple concept" So just because I ask for an argument to support your position it's suddenly my fault for not being a mind-reader? "and you wonder why I call your university" No, read the comments instead of creating straw men. I specifically asked you (twice) to

[kly45]

@orlibonurb justify calling my university "communist". "are well known for creating zombies serving the state who will murder and enslave them the next day" what on earth are you talking about? How can someone be murdered AND enslaved the next day? What a stupid, fallacious point. If we're zombies then how come we've been protesting about tuition fees for the last 6 months or so? Looks like you can add politics and current affairs next to philosophy in the list of things you know nothing about

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "I study ethics, among other things at a russell group university, so don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about."

You do not know what you're talking about.

Am I supposed to be impressed that you are indoctrinated at a government ran communist / atheist university, the same type of university which is well known for creating zombies and serve that same government without questioning ?! lol....

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Ok so basically you ARE now using an ad hominem argument, you're using an ad hominem circumstancial argument, you're saying that I am wrong because everything is a big conspiracy and that obviously I "would say that". Really, well done on being so pathetic, not only do you wrongly accuse me of ad hominem, but make one yourself. and I wasn't trying to impress you, just let you know that I actually study this stuff day in day out, you're arguments suggest you do not.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "Ok so basically you ARE now using an ad hominem argument"

Am I ?

Let me quote you instead,

. "well done on being so pathetic"

. "I made an argument THEN called you a moron."

. "so don't try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Moron"

And of course, then you go on saying,

. "not only do you wrongly accuse me of ad hominem"

One word: impressive.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb I still fail to see where the fallacy lies. I never said that you acting like a moron was a reason that your argument was unconvinvcing. You spoke to me saying that I could not use the laws of logic because I was a materialist. I then explained that because I study this I know that you are wrong, and I even explained why. THEN I called you a moron. No fallacy I'm afraid. Going back to what you said, even if it WERE true that materialists could not use logic then that still would

[kly45]

@orlibonurb I still fail to see where the fallacy lies. I never said that you acting like a moron was a reason that your argument was unconvinvcing. You spoke to me saying that I could not use the laws of logic because I was a materialist. I then explained that because I study this I know that you are wrong, and I even explained why. THEN I called you a moron. No fallacy I'm afraid. Going back to what you said, even if it WERE true that materialists could not use logic then that still would

[kly45]

@orlibonurb not mean your point is not fallacious. A fallacy is a fallacy and if it were true that I did not use logic in my reasoning then you would then be justifying your response with an appeal to hypocrisy. I forgot to ask as well, how do you justify calling my university a "communist" educational facility?

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 You said: "just let you know that I actually study this stuff day in day out, you're arguments suggest you do not."

Let's see if what you say is true,

. "You're making a very bad job of understanding what an abstract is. Abstracts are based on physical constants and physical laws."

The concept of an abstract is:

. "Considered apart from concrete existence"

. "having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete"

Day in and day out ? Impressive.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 @kly45 You said: "just let you know that I actually study this stuff day in day out, you're arguments suggest you do not."

Let's see if what you say is true,

. "You're making a very bad job of understanding what an abstract is. Abstracts are based on physical constants and physical laws."

The concept of an abstract is - "Considered apart from concrete existence" ; "having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete"

Thank you.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb Sorry that is simply not true. If I have two apples and take two more apples I now have four. That is using the abstraction of mathematics with reference to real objects

[kly45]

@orlibonurb WLC may disagree with me, but he'd be ashamed of the reasoning you use. You still haven't answered my question, what's self-refuting about the fact that a random chance world view has no absolute morals? Surely a random chance universe WITH absolute morals would be self-refuting.

[orlibonurb]

@kly45 "Surely a random chance universe WITH absolute morals would be self-refuting."

Exactly, you said it yourself. That is why materialism / atheism is false, incongruent & inconsistent with REALITY. Absolute morals do exist, that's undeniable and you can not live without it. You, as an atheist, have no basis for the existence of absolute moral values (which are transcendent to man) in a random chance universe.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb But I did not say that. My position is that the universe is random and has NO absolute morals. YOU said that that view was self-refuting, I am asking how it is? It WOULD be self-refuting IF I had said the universe is random BUT has absolute morals, but that is not my position go read the comments. You cannot assert that absolute morals exist as you've not justified it with an argument yet.

[kly45]

@orlibonurb not only that, but it would still be morally right for god to have caused a genocide (noah's flood)