The Madness Of William Lane Craig: The Moral Argument

[zarkoff45]

Not a bad analysis. Have you seen Craig's debate with Sam Harris?

I covered a bit of it here:

watch?v=b6qTfIQf5ZM

[finxoner]

what a douche...

[Sudhish86]

You don't have to believe in God to believe in morality, but God still has to give you the sense of it...

Morality is obviously not of us, since we are carnal (observe any newly-born), and discipline HAS to occur at SOME point for us to accept the existence of morality.

God is as obvious as the inference of everything else. Do you play video games and not believe it's the creation of someone just because, based on the direct observations from the game, you can't NECESSARILY prove it? stupid.

[ITTutorCanada]

My friend... I'm not sure why you decided to venture down this path. Perhaps you're angry at God, perhaps you saw that youtube atheists get a lot of attention (mostly negative but who cares right! It's attention!). Whatever the issue is, I just want to say that you don't need to do this, you don't need to present yourself as something you're not. God loves you and whatever issue you have with Him, try praying it out. Ask God to reveal himself to you (earnestly) and stop this nonsense.

[Sudhish86]

@ITTutorCanada, atheists aren't angry at God, but angry at the concept, because of how imperceptive and utterly dumb they are. God's love only applies to those who know He exists. they don't believe, because they still think rationalism actually plays a role in "knowing" something...

We know things before we conclude anything about them. how else can we have premises?

[ITTutorCanada]

@Sudhish86 Do you read what you're typing before you post it? I think not. Please feel free to tell me what part of the Kalam Cosmological Argument you find to be irrational. It's an extremely simple argument so if it is indeed irrational, it should be trivial to show this. I'll await a reply that doesn't change the subject or launch more ad hominems, but I won't hold my breath.

[itzahazylife]

@ITTutorCanada

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

This argument is for the existence of God. THAT'S the part that's irrational. HOW is that an argument for the existence of God? The cause of the universe could be ANYTHING. What about the fact that the universe has a cause suggests it was the Christian God?

[ITTutorCanada]

@itzahazylife That's ridiculous. Just because you don't like what an argument implies, it doesn't mean you get to make a baseless accusation that the argument is irrational. Also the universe cannot simply be "anything", we can deduce some the of the qualities of this origin easily by looking at what we know about the universe itself and also other rational arguments like "why is there something rather than nothing" which implies a personal cause.

[ITTutorCanada]

@itzahazylife Your statements tell me that you have not understood even the most basic implications of these arguments. I suggest watching william lane craig present his arguments without your ears plugged.

[Sudhish86]

@ITTutorCanada, did you mean itzahazylife?

[itzahazylife]

@ITTutorCanada

Are you being serious? I didn't call Craig's argument irrational because I don't like it. I called it irrational because it's irrational! Craig is basically saying that because the universe had a cause, that it was the Christian God. Explain to me how that is AT ALL logical?

[StopSpamming1]

Wow! It so funny to see how theists rack their brains trying to understand atheism - and are unable to do so.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@StopSpamming1 Explain.

[ITTutorCanada]

@StopSpamming1 Wow! What's even funnier is watching atheists squirm when they're put under pressure to explain their own position. Allow me to summarize:

Modern cosmological theory is showing that regardless of weather there is a multi or universe, there is an absolute "mother of all beginnings" from which all things came, from nothing.

Human beings might have 1% of all the possible knowledge to be had. The list goes on but:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO GOD.

... rofl

[StopSpamming1]

@ITTutorCanada

Atheists squirm? Explaining their position? Wow! You are even more deluded than the average, run-of-the-mill deluded theist.

"Modern cosmological theory"???? WTF???

1. Theists make claims, atheists don't

2. Theists need to prove something

3. Cosmology arguments are for a cause, not a god

4. This video is about moral arguments

5. If you want to talk Kalam, talk here: watch?v=rgwGMe5yxHE

[ITTutorCanada]

@StopSpamming1 "There is no God" - That is the very definition of atheism. "There is no God" is an ASSERTION. Since you can't even wrap your head around that, I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore since you just made my case and point for me all in one incredibly stupefying display.

[StopSpamming1]

@ITTutorCanada

Oh goodness, don't you have just a thread of reason in you?

NO!!! That is NOT the definition of atheism. But worry no more: just for people like you I made a definition: watch?v=42SIMslxIvA

[ITTutorCanada]

@StopSpamming1 hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... short break.. hahahahaahhahahaha. Do you understand basic english? A-THEISM. THAT IS... an absence, devoid of any or all beliefs which may point to any theistic implications. I love it. Every insult you've hurled at me today is false when applied to me, and 100% accurate when applied to yourself. I can only imagine what wonders there would be if you listened to your own self speak for once instead of regurgitating the beliefs of your mentors.

[ITTutorCanada]

@StopSpamming1 Here you go kiddo, since you need to brush up on grade 3 english as well as your own world-view. merriam-webster(dot)com/dictio­nary/atheism AND I QUOTE:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Go get some rest kid. I realize you're probably quite flustered right now, since you just realized you've been living a lie. By your own admission you don't subscribe to a belief that there absolutely is no God, so you're not an atheist! Oh dear..

[ITTutorCanada]

@StopSpamming1 Oh and one last thing, thanks again for proving my point 100% for me. Your comments are stuck here forever (unless you're a coward now and delete them) and show that when your beliefs were questioned, you "squirmed" as I put it and tried to re-define the meaning of atheism in order to escape conclusions about your beliefs that you didn't want to face up to.

[StopSpamming1]

@ITTutorCana

I know I can't expect someone with your education level to know what epistemology is, but maybe just try and understand 10%. It will help vastly in letting you look less embarrassing.

If you look at the definition on that page you will see the discussion over that mistake.

They will change it as soon as the religious members there will allow this.

Oh and maybe check: I am not the one hurling insults. I don't need to.

And don't flatter yourself, I'm not squirming :)

[itzahazylife]

@ITTutorCanada

You don't even know what the hell an atheist is. Atheists don't claim there absolutely isn't a god. We just don't BELIEVE there is a god because there is no evidence at all for a one existing, let alone evidence that a god created our universe.

[itzahazylife]

@ITTutorCanada

"Modern cosmological theory is showing that regardless of weather there is a multi or universe, there is an absolute "mother of all beginnings" from which all things came, from nothing."

That source could be anything. We have no idea how to define it, describe it, or even perceive it. You just slap the word God on it, and claim you believe in something we don't. When it comes to this source, we speculate and claim we don't know, while you claim it's a god entity.

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada " Modern cosmological theory is showing that regardless of weather there is a multi or universe, there is an absolute "mother of all beginnings" from which all things came, from nothing "

- Eeergh, no it doesn't. It shows that the expansion of the universe most likely had a beginning. It doesn't say anything about coming from nothing, or an absolute beginning.

[ITTutorCanada]

@Roper122 bbbzzzzzzzzzzzt nope you're egregiously wrong and you're just plain bad kiddo. /watch?v=Z79FGmh50Xo&t=5m18s - The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. Learn something before you come riding in to save the day without a plan and... without even knowing what the hell is going on around you as well, apparently.

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada " The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem. Learn something before you come riding in to save the day without a plan "

- Yup.. what about it?

Q: " Does your theorem show that the universe must have had a beginning ? "

A " No. " Alexander Vilenkin.

Not sure what part of that you don't understand...

I'll be over here on my horse if you need me.

[ITTutorCanada]

@Roper122 rofl did you even watch the video?

watch?v=-aemfYmusSY&feature=g-­user-u

QUOTE:

"...would engender the possibility of there being other beginnings, but I think you and some others have shown that ultimately there had to be some, original, the "mother" of all beginnings"

"Uh yes that's right."

I'm done talking to you. Obviously your delusion is beyond help if you can watch a video that clearly states a fact, and come out believing it states the polar opposite of what it really says.

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada .... Are you serious? The full quote was..

" Um yes that's right, those issues are still a little unclear, I wouldn't say that those things are shown beyond doubt "

and

" that doesn't mean that that beginning was necessarily the ultimate beginning of all reality "

These are from the same video

And this is your evidence???

You're making it too easy for me.

But yes.. I suspect you are done.

I'm still happily on my horse.

P.S. Don't believe everything Dr Craig tells you

[ITTutorCanada]

@Roper122 "there had to be the mother of all beginnings"

"Uh yes that's right, those issues are still a little unclear so I wouldn't say that those things are shown beyond doubt, uh but with REASONABLE assumption, one could show that even within

the context of inflation with many bubbles forming, there would still be somewhere, an ultimate beginning."

I see the problem now. You don't understand even basic english.

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada " You don't understand even basic english. "

- Phew.. for minute there I thought I didn't understand physics... oh right, that'd be you.

Sorry, but if that's a paragraph that proves anything, then your logic is as bad as your physics.

So with " assumptions " you " could show " ... but it's " not clear " ...or " beyond doubt ".. and " doesn't mean "

Gee, pretty firm proof... I can see why you're convinced.

Do you even understand what he's talking about there?

[ITTutorCanada]

@Roper122 LOL man, it's like talking to a wall but technically the wall display more intelligence, because it can reverberate my own words back to me. He is saying in conclusion that weather we live in a multi or a universe, ultimately there was a beginning from which all things must have come from. This is easy to understand, if you were not an idiot. The universe is finite, that is the point. We do not live in an eternal realm. Everything, including our universe is a borrowed-lender. Get it?

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada " it's like talking to a wall but technically the wall display more intelligence "

- Displays... more intelligence.

" that weather we live in a multi or a universe "

- whether we live

" ultimately there was a beginning from which all things must have come from. "

- No actually he's not... he's saying that he may have mathematically proved that if we extrapolate into the past, there must be a beginning to inflation, especially with regards to the multiverse.

Get it?

[ITTutorCanada]

@Roper122 hahahahah your arguments have degenerated into correcting my typos. Good job, you proved that I make typographical errors. You beat me! You win! You must be the enlightened one of us. As far as your final statement, which was your last feeble attempt to argue with the blatant truth, well what can I say? It's there in plain english, and you keep coming up with statements that are not anywhere to be found. I actually had to check that I sent u the right link, that's how bad u are.

[Roper122]

@ITTutorCanada " your arguments have degenerated into correcting my typos. Good job, you proved that I make typographical errors "

- Well.. normally I wouldn't, but you did call me a wall...

" You beat me! "

- Actually I beat you because you don't really understand the physics behind what you are trying to quote.. you just take Craig's word for it.

" you keep coming up with statements that are not anywhere to be found "

- Except in the entire interview from which that clip was taken.

[TheIceIsSlippery]

oh my... what a loony nut. This guy is conceited, fancies himself as an elitist intellectual, and most importantly, is completely unaware of his delusion.

[TruthUnadulterated]

I should have said as well. If the "subjective morals" are not identical to the greater (especially the greatest) objective morals in (2),then the use of the word subjective is akin to the word "relative" but can still be seen as a "lesser goodness,"which of course means that it is not ACTUALLY morally good.So it is not morally good in the most accurate, technical sense. Btw, Jesus says, "there is none good but God." Genesis says God created "and it was good." Bible always seems to be right on.

[TruthUnadulterated]

There are other ways to demonstrate this as well. But inevitably morals can only ULTIMATELY exist absolutely and objectively or theu ULTIMATELY do not exist!

[TruthUnadulterated]

It means then that they are either 1) already fully and ultimately objective or 2) objective within a subjective all within still a larger objective.

Therefore objective morals still exist!

[TruthUnadulterated]

Sorry for the late reply. There is simply so much that I could say, but to be brief (hopefully). You said, "of course they [subjective morals] can exist without there being a god. They [sm] could even exist [i.e. outside ourselves (not subjective)] looking for us objective as a species but that doesn't show that they are universally objective. We might only be a subset of organisms [with om] that all think the same way about certain aspects.But that doesn't mean they are objective.My answer...

[TruthUnadulterated]

Okay. I appreciated it to. see you later. But look over what you wrote (slowly) to me in the paragraph "Of course they can . . ." You only proved my point there. Best of luck in your philosophical seeking concerning the branch of philosophy called ethics.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated Thank you.I don't see how I proved your point there.Please specify.Till then.

[JoeyStewart1990]

Since when have there ever been objective moral values? You're not born knowing that peeing on your dog is morally wrong, society creates the environment for you to realize for yourself that peeing on your dog is wrong (if it really is or not is subjective).

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

Is morality objective or subjective; this is a basic question that has humanity itself in the weighing, so? If only subjective there is no true evil and all moral standards are mere opinion.

1. Throwing babies into a fire to reduce overpopulation and stay warm. (objectively or subjectively wrong?)

If all things are merely subjectively wrong this "subjectivity" itself is the root cause of what we call evil and good!

What is "humanity" but a fairytale if our morality can never be objective?

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN It comes to my mind if there is a god then objective morals are impossible.They must be subjective because god (a subject) is themoral giver.That makes it somehow subjective right?

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

Morality is very objective if there if there is God, it come from His intent and essence of one's soul which makes morality objective in two ways. First, intent in your life and second an instilled right and wrong and purpose to one's life in regard to others. Objective morality is fact as proven by all worlds justice systems. All give credence to individual culpability in one's choice in actions via free-will. Free-will is only derived from one having a free-will agent (soul).

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN Well that doesn't make it objective taht still makes it subjective as it is merely gods opinion on what is right or wrong.well I think I am a bit on wordgames here but this moral comes from a mind and so is not objective but subjective.Oh and free will is another topic that seems to me problematic for god to be able to be accountable for.I think he can only create the illusion of a free will for us but not real free will.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

God does not choose good over evil. He is pure good in essence and absent any evil. God did not create evil, it is the absence of His pure good that leaves evil for man has fallen from the Grace of God. This is understood as the Sun can't be blamed for cold. Cold does not even exist as something caused, it is merely the result of the absence of heat. God does not invent what is good as you may think. We are made in His image to understand morality but we have freewill and fell..

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN But god created everything(all of course if he exists)So either evil is a trait of god and his perfectness or god created evil.Even if people creted evil then god created people able to fall and create evil.And he knew that this would happen.So evil does not exist its just the absence of good?How can an allpowerfull allcreative and allknowing infinite entity be absent anywhere?

Well still god says what is good(his rules) so it is still subjective to the opinion of god^^

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

God did not create Himself, so no, God did not create everything. He created all mater, time, space and our souls in His likeness. Does cold have a scientific cause other than the absent of heat, do you blame the Sun for coldness? If you understand science you can understand this. God's commandments are based on His will based on His being. God can't return to us if He never left. All these doctrines are 2,000 years old and the questions you ask are as well and long ago answered.

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN well of course not himself but everything but himself which doesn't contradict the arguement.

I ask you again how can his goodness be absent when he is infinite and created eveything(but himself)."God can't return to us if He never left"-so how can he (and therefore his goodness) be absent?either that or evil is a part of gods perfectness.

But that doesn't in any way discredit the subjectiveness of morality if god is accountable.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

If the very essence of God is Goodness God did not create that goodness in Him, it is Him. God's goodness is not absent you, just absent the world around you and some choose to do evil over good when it's clear they know what is right and wrong. God came down to mankind as Jesus and die for our sins then rose again on the 3rd day and that He will "return" which means He can't be here now if He will return. Look, is math objective, does 2+2 always =4, why? For this morals are too!

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN how can gods goodness be absent in his creation while god is infinite?Eitehr god is not or evil is part of god.

Morals are different from maths.Maths derive from the physical rules of the world.Morals may also be a construct of human species.They are no logical part of the universe.Morals can only be there if life is there.In a universe without life morals can not exist.Maths can and still apply.So if of if not god existmorals are not objective.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

You ask; "how can gods goodness be absent in his creation while god is infinite?

Why not? Infinite is related to time, not space.

You also state, "Eitehr god is not or evil is part of god."

?, Not sure what you are staying here...

Math does not "derive from the physical rules of the world". Math is a sole construct of mind. Math is not "a logical part of the universe" either. Math does not exist without a conscious mind so a "world without life" would not have math either.

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN no timeless regards to time infinite belongs to space.

Oh maths have to be logical.Of cours maths do exist without a mind.One part of a substance and a nother part still give two parts of that substance.Its just nobody there noticing it.

Morals can't exist without life.

Bt tht still doesn't make morals objective.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

Mathematics can't exist without a mind and for you to say that math exists in a world with no life when math is a sole product of mind is like saying English words like red exists without a mind. I don't want to debate facts, you have your rights to your own opinions but not to your own facts. For you to say morals can not exist without mind but math still could is a misunderstanding of products of minds. How could any product of mind exist without any mind/life?

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN Huh?No as shown they don't need a mind.two pieces of a kind are still two pieces of a kind regardless of a mind.No words a are a product of a minds concept to get along with what our sensory system show us.That'S completely dependant on mind and therefore of life.

[WILLTHEWGMAN]

@gastarbeiter1

Numbers are a product of mind. 2 does not exist without a mind. I would rather not have to debate facts with you. Numbers are a sole product of mind, this is fact. Can you name one place in which numbers exist other than mind? I am really done debating facts with you and should not be expected to, the Internet is right in front of you, please use it.

[gastarbeiter1]

@WILLTHEWGMAN numbers but not the objects represented by numbers.The things of a kind don't stop existing without a mind.Numbers are not a sole product of the mind.They are a representating concept of physical objects.So I wasn't on numbers.Even without a mind when there are two things of the same kind then there are two things of that kind regardless of a mind.Or do you think that reality ceases to exist when there is noone watching?

[rumblefishism]

You look like McLovin

[richp860]

I can't think of a single high-level debate Craig has had in which his opponent denied belief in objective morality. Because YOU don't believe in it certainly does little to refute Craig's argument and I'm quite sure Craig is aware of argumentum ad populum. Craig uses this argument to show that you simply cannot have objectivity in these matters without transcendence. Which is a simple truth that argues well for theism due to the vast majority of people who accept objective morality.

[gamesbok]

@richp860 Can you support the contention that the vast majority of people support objective morality?

[TheMirabillis]

@Void890123

2. You believe in objective morality [in the sense] that WLC is talking about it.... otherwise... you would not be doing the video. You believe he is saying something objectively morally and intellectually wrong..... is the sense he is "really" wrong.  you attempt to take the intellectual & moral high ground when on athiesm there is none to take.

[TheMirabillis]

@Void890123

3. If you believe what your saying.... then whats the objective basis for it and what objective standard do you measure what your saying by ?

[IloveYOUviruses]

If you correct someone who makes fun of wisdom, you will be insulted. If you correct an evil person, you will get hurt.

Do not correct those who make fun of wisdom, or they will hate you. But correct the wise, and they will love you.

Teach the wise, and they will become even wiser; teach good people, and they will learn even more.

-Prov 9

Just ignore this guy

[RetSquid]

It's sad that your argument is based on personal insults. You admit failure from the start by doing that.

FAIL!

[Blackmark52]

I'm flabbergasted that anyone could even consider WLC's moral argument logically compelling. You've made the point, but just because someone finds it easy to accept the premises doesn't make them true, and most assuredly both premises are completely unfounded as truth statements: if objective morality existed, it could not be shown to be contingent upon a god unless said god were first proven to be responsible for that morality, and there is no reason to believe objective morality exists.

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 You've got it completely backwards -- if you demonstrate objective morality to be true (which most people accept anyways without demonstration) you invoke God as the objective moral lawgiver, thus God exists necessarily.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860 There’s no reason an atheist couldn’t accept the notion of objective morality. God and objective morality actually have an untenable relationship. If god can define morality as he sees fit, it isn’t objective, it is his opinion on the matter; if god has no choice but to see good as good, and bad as bad, then morality exists without god. A millennia old dilemma that believers in god and objective reality still don’t seem be to able to come to grasps with.

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 I'll assume you're kidding. The Euthyphro Dilemma is easily negated if I posit that things are moral because it is inherent in God's nature and not outside of Himself but that they exist necessarily. This is a simple refutation of this 'dilemma' which non-theists cannot seem to grasp. Transcendence is a word in which you should seek a clear definition of, my friend.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860 Easily negated if you resort to nonsensical jargon. What the hell does "inherent in God's nature and not outside of Himself but that they exist necessarily" mean? Whatever it is, it doesn't address the issue of whether God's nature is good because he adheres to good morals or because he says so. If you are trying to teach me that transcendence is the ability to justify any belief regardless of inherent paradox, then you got me good.

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 You completely misunderstood my point. The ED is negated if any other options are available and the option I gave you is certainly plausible. Or do only things that suit your worldview gain any credence within your ability to reason? And what about my statement was so confusing?

Are things good because God will's it?

Does God will them because they are good?

OR

Does God will morality because HE is good and it is simply part of His nature.

The ED holds no water, sir.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860 “God will[s] morality because HE is good”

Unintelligible rhetoric is not plausible and mere assertion holds no water. How is God good? More to the point, your response says nothing about why good is good. God can obviously do things that would condemn any human as evil. What then is the nature of good?

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" You still haven’t answered the question.

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 Umm.. are you serious?

Because another scenario is atleast possible and/or plausible, the ED is NEGATED. It simply doesn't offer all possibilities to the nature of morality.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860 You decide your "scenario is plausible" and therefore negates the dilemma. But your first effort was incomprehensible, and your second failed to address the dilemma at all. So how is that plausible?

The question is to the nature of good, not your claim as to the nature of god. What we need to know is how good and bad are determined. Emulating God's behaviour would surely commit us to hell. It seems some things are only good if God does them. How Is that objective?

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 The fact that it is atleast possible that God both exists and has dictated morality to mankind, my argument stands as completely plausible and logically coherent. That is what you're not understanding and you're basing your entire argument on the gross assumption that God either doesn't exist or he does exist but hasn't said a peep about morality. The Euthyphro Dilemma really is no dilemma, sir.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860 It is not “logically coherent” to conclude the possibility of God (…) is an “optional” answer that negates ED when ED assumes the existence of God within its argument. It only highlights that you aren’t addressing the question in ED at all. But that’s no surprise, you have yet to address any of my questions.

[richp860]

@Blackmark52 I'm almost at the point of having an ice cream headache here. The possibility I presented NEGATES your false dichotomy and the inference is obvious that neither of your questions are even valid or have any plausibility in the matter. It looks good to keep saying I'm 'dodging' your questions but I'm not. My answer to the questions of the ED would be NEITHER.

God is good because it is His defining characteristic and not because He wills it.

Nor does He will it because it's good.

[Blackmark52]

@richp860

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Where in there does it ask whether the nature of god is good, or ask about god at all? You only come up with the answer of neither because you don't answer the question. Since you have shown yourself incapable of anything but repeating the same irrelevant statement for your last three posts, it has become evident that you don't even understand the point being made in ED.

[lifeandphilosophy]

lol. You cannot deny both premises. You cannot deny the existence of morality and say the morality exists on atheism. Nor can you say that morality exists on atheism but deny morality. wtf? lol. "popular opinion". We are talking epistemic justification my friend, not ontic justification. I can't watch any more of these...

[Void890123]

@lifeandphilosophy It's a disjunction. I'm saying that it's consistent to deny the existent of morality, and it's also consistent to say that atheism is compatible with atheism. Either one of those is sufficient to invalidate Craig's argument, (I lean towards the second myself).

[lifeandphilosophy]

@Void890123 You said, quote, "I don't believe either of those premises(2:49)." Again, you cannot deny both premises at the same time. Anyhow, In context, Craig's point about people generally accept both premises is an epistemic argument for those who do, unbeknownst to them, accept both premises-not an in general ontic argument. Your "crazy counter" seems to go up the more you misunderstand elemental points in logic and disrespect those more educated than yourself.

[Void890123]

@lifeandphilosophy Really, such personal attacks are uncalled for. Now, the premises I deny.

1. Morality is incompatible with an atheist view.

2. Morality exists.

Surely it's not inconsistent to say that even if something doesn't exist, it's existence would be compatible with a philosophical view.

[lifeandphilosophy]

@Void890123 The reason I have responded with such vehemence is only in response to your grossly inaccurate name calling of academics.

Even if atheism entails the contingent fact that morality does not exist, it still means that atheism entails moral nihilism. P1 holds true as long as objective morality does not exist on atheism and objective morality would exist if theism were true.

So, you still have not shown how one can rationally deny both premises of the moral argument.

[Void890123]

@lifeandphilosophy I never claimed that atheism entails that morality doesn't exist. I claimed that it does NOT entail that morality does not exist. In other words, you can be and atheist, believe that morality exists, and not be inconsistent.

Let's consider a hypothetical atheist called Bob. Bob believes that morality exists. I disagree with Bob on this matter, but I don't think he's being inconsistent.

Atheism is perfectly compatible with morality.

[lifeandphilosophy]

@Void890123 It's getting hard for me to explain myself in 500 characters. If it's okay with you, it's best we continue through PM.

[richp860]

@Void890123 Atheism can only concede subjective morality and this is quite a simply truth to grasp. THAT is the moral argument for theism and not your misunderstood version of "atheists can be moral" banter. Watch Dr. Craig's debate with Dr. Shelley Kagan to see the grandest display of utter nonsense touted by you amazingly smart skeptics. The "social contract" in which Dr. Kagan rambles about is my favorite part of his incoherence.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@Void890123 Patrick, I am one who believes in God and so you might think that I am eager to show you the error of your ways. But actually, just as a human being (whether I was an athiest or not), I feel embarrassed for you. You really didn't think these things all the way through, did you? You just inadvertently affirmed what Craig believes. Who just told lifeandphilosophy that the category called "Atheism" is perfectly compatible with morality, but you categorically denied it. . . .

[TruthUnadulterated]

@TruthUnadulterated ...If hypothetical atheist Bob believes that morality exists and you disagree (and rightly) thinking it to be inconsistent, then it means that if you are RIGHT, and Bob is WRONG. This means that the category called "Atheism" DOES entail that morality does not exist.Bob's belief then is not one that follows and belongs to the category called "Atheism"; instead he perhaps unknowingly, maybe through societal conditioning, adopted this belief in objective moral values from...

[TruthUnadulterated]

@TruthUnadulterated a Judeo-Christian worldview or some other. Or perhaps, as it is sometimes suggested, all people intuitavely know that it really is objective and not up to any individual person's beliefs or even collective beliefs. If the majority of people believed it was ok to kill millions of people in the Holocaust or one person believed this to be ok, it still does not make it ok. It's wrong regardless of whether any human thought this way or not.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@TruthUnadulterated To sum it up. If morality can be said to be NOT objective, then one cannot even speak of ANY kind of subjective morality because it presupposes an already objective standard for comparison, for which there would be none. That is to say, "Subjective" is merely "sub-objective." We can speak of "subjective emotions" because they are sub-objective with respect to the rational mind. Subjective emotions are objective realities within a greater objective category.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated "it still does not make it ok."..and what if everybody on earth think it to be okay?Where do you draw the line of objective and subjective here?Maybe there is one person taht knows what is objectively wrong and everybody else doesn't know that.Is then that one person objectively right?Who sets the status objective morality?We as (most humans) agree on certain things to be wrong.But that doesn't show that those are objectively wrong.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated Maybe they are just on our species level wrong.Maybe on another planet an alien race thinks quite different of right and wrong and also thinks that this is objectively wrong.

Is it your believe that a god exists that makes you believe objective moral values exist or vice versa?Think about it

[TruthUnadulterated]

@gastarbeiter1 The reason why you ask the question you do is because you do not know what it means for God to be God. This isn't even really a debate among philosophers. I do not have time to go into the whole explanation, but you can look into things yourself. This way you should see that there cannot be any objective values (in the most true sense) without God. Therefore there are NO morals really at all--just artificial. YOU need to think about it. There is no such thing as just a subjective.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated "be any objective values (in the most true sense) without God."...when have I argued, that they do exist without god?I don't even argue for the existance of objective moral values.I think you have to reread what I wrote and THEN think for yourself again.

To jump from there are no objective moral values to there are NO moral values is quite big.Also to go from morals that seem to us objective to there are universal objective moral values.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@gastarbeiter1 Ur right--you did not argue that they exist without God. But, correct me if I'm wrong, it does seem to me that you may believe that they can exist in a subjective way without God. Tell me if I have this correct.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated Of course they can exist without there being a god.They could even exist looking for us objective as a species but that doesn't show that they are universaly objective.we might only be a subset of organisms that all think the same about certain aspects.But that doesn't mean they are objective.

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated "no such thing as just a subjective."..So objective can exist without its opposite?That's interesting.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@gastarbeiter1 YES! That's because subjective is NOT it's opposite in the way you are thinking about it. Can there exist a truth in some place without it's falsehood. Absolutely! But one CANNOT say that there exists a falsehood without there FIRST existing the truth of which it departed! This is why, btw, God necessarily is TRUTH!

[gastarbeiter1]

@TruthUnadulterated "This is why, btw, God necessarily is TRUTH!"..if it exists.I appreciate this conversation by the way.Well I answer this more in detail later.Have things to do.

[TruthUnadulterated]

@Void890123 "Atheism is perfectly compatible with morality."

I say, you couldn't be more wrong and I am quite aware of the arguments and the history of philosophy. It's not compatible at let alone perfectly so. Look at some of my earlier posts for starters. What atheists usually do not want to admit is that Nietzsche's nihilism is all that's available for atheism, that is, the belief that no morals exist. Atheists often ignorantly borrow from another worldview and are inconsistent "athiests."

[veritaslogos]

"Evolution is independent of human opinion"; totally missing the point. I won't go into it here, partially because I think you should do some reading for yourself of the otherside, see Mark D Linville's "The moral poverty of evolutionary naturalism".

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Moral Poverty!? Evolution isn't about morality! It's about life! It's about genetic variation. Morality is a complete side issue. What's next? "The Moral Poverty of Classical Mechanics"?

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 Again, missing the point, and it seems a consistent refusal to see the other arguments is what's problematic here.

[veritaslogos]

In your words "why don't you know these vices Void?"; u dont think its a bit presumptuous to think that a professional philosopher would have such over-sight, amatuer fallacies just waiting for a brilliant rogue novice like you to snuff them out? Delusions of granduer if Ive ever seen it. You talk about taking surveys lol, but then object to the truth of what Craig said on the basis that YOU don't believe them, lol, whoopty doo kid. Your cognitive faculties are plagued by the vice of narcissism

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos No I don't. A fallacy is a fallacy, no matter who makes it. If I make a fallacious argument, it's still a fallacious argument. If Dr Craig makes a fallacious argument, it's still a fallacious argument. If the king of logicians makes a fallacious argument, it's still a fallacious argument. And the thing about fallacious arguments is that anyone can spot them with training.

The wonderful thing about logic and science is that it's not hierarchical, there is no authority save reason.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 And yet there is no fallacy at the end of the day, it's purely an invention of your misunderstanding. Never once was it said that premise one was TRUE because most ppl typically believe it, you heard what you wanted to hear to confirm the fallacy you wanted to point out.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Why is it important then? If it has no bearing on the veracity of the premise? Riddle me this.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 Wow...I'm convinced this is merely just a game of refutation for you, you're not actually contemplating whats being said to see if its true, but solely bent on disagreeing. How do I know this, BECAUSE I'VE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION ATLEAST 3 TIMES ALREADY. When composing an argument, esp. for a debate when you are tryin to connect with ppl, u not only want ur premises to be true, but also have a high degree of immediate plausibility in the minds of listeners. thats the point u miss

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos In my crass, arrogant scouting for fallacies, I noticed that the only support Dr Craig offered for the premise that god is necessary for objective morality was the exact form of the fallacious argument "Argumentum ad populum".

And so, in a fit of godless madness, I thought that this was worth commenting on, especially when I disagree with the premise. If you think this makes me closed minded, so be it. I'd rather be an arrogant atheist than a credulous fool.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 And yet Craig never said the premise was true because alot of people thought so. This is such an obvious oversight by you it's just shameful. For goodness sake read your own citation "what makes this COMPELLING...is that people generally believe both premises". Surely you know compelling and true are not synonyms and i've already exhaustively explained the salient difference between veracity and cogency in an argument. There's a reason this isn't getting thru to you.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 Maybe this elementary logic explanation will make it plain. If WLC committed the ad populum fallacy, then he asserted that X was true (not merely compelling) because many people believed it.

He didn't claim X was true because many people believe it, therefore He did not commit the ad populum fallacy. There's deduction for you.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Well, it's the only justification he offers for the premise, and he claims the premise is true. Forgive me for putting two and two together. If we grant the premise that William Lane Craig is an inarticulate bullshitter, then we just substitute one fallacy (ad populum) for a worse one (bare assertion). At the end of the day, it's still a crappy argument. And it's a false premise, because as I pointed out. There are systems of morality that do not involve god.

[veritaslogos]

Void, if you take yourself to be at some level a studier of philosophy, you would do yourself a favor by stuyding virtue. Your crass handling of this argument shows you started out denying the truth of the conclusion long before you investigated the premises. How else do you explain such sloppy analysis? Craig never argued ad populum, he was speaking of the compelling nature of the 1st premise, meaning that it tends to resonate with people on a prima facie level and in debate thats important.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Using my mighty powers of deductive reasoning, I will address your argument in as crass a manner as I can get away with.

The first premise allegedly resonates with "most people". You claim that this is important to the debate. What things are important to the debate? Things that impact a premise's truth value. So you are making (along with Dr Craig) the implicit assertion that a premise resonating with the majority is evidence of truth, which I believe is known as ad populum.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 No, this the very error I'm speaking to. When making arguments in public debate, part of cogency is giving premises people readily identify with, that's different than saying because everyone believes them, therefore they're true. There is no implicit assertion being made that premise one is true because many people will agree with it, rather to most it has a prima facie appeal, and that is part of what makes it a good argument.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Well, yes, of course I started out denying the conclusion. I'm an atheist. I was an atheist before I ever heard of Dr Craig, and certainly before I read his arguments for the existence of god.

The whole point of an argument is that it's supposed to persuade someone who might disagree with the conclusion. Why would you argue about something if the other guy already agreed? What would be the point of such an activity?

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 Well Void, are you a fundie? It is the fundie that says no matter what, just as long as the argument concludes with "therefore God exists", the premises are necessarily false, a priori, no question about it. If you recall I said that you denied the conclusion before even considering the premises. It's this kind of close mindedness that has led to your shabby analysis and naivity. Humility will serve ur efforts in knowing quite a bit.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos Deductive reasoning time!

A fundie is one who says "no matter what, as long as the argument concludes with "therefore god exists", the premises are necessarily false."

Patrick Robotham has never said this.

Ergo, Patrick Robotham is not a fundie.

I never claimed that the premises are necessarily false, as any astute observer could tell you. I go in reading the argument denying the conclusion, if the argument is effective I will change my mind. It wasn't so I didn't.

[veritaslogos]

@Void890123 A rejoinder

I never said you did say those things, it was a question offered to spark your own self-reflection. Nor does it follow that simply because the words never came out of your mouth, that you're in fact not a fundie. Really the claim implicit is that you're manner is what leads one to conclude you're a fundie, not your verbatim testimony to the fact. "ergo", simply pointing out that u never said these things about urself doesn't prove ur not in fact a fundie.

[Void890123]

@veritaslogos So do fundies think the premises of an argument with a conclusion they disagree with are necessarily false or not? You claimed they did two posts ago, but you backpeddle the instant I apply this claim to show that I'm not a fundie.

What I am, is a person who evaluated Dr Craig's arguments logically, and found them wanting. This doesn't make me a "fundie", it doesn't make me "closed minded" and it doesn't mean I wouldn't change my tune if he gave a better argument.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

This is a terrible argument that Craig uses because morality is completly subjective. This is why treatment of other people is acceptable in one country and acceptable as something completely different in another country.

[ebaltrace]

"God is love" 1John 4:8 But God endorses slavery, polygamy, genocide, and the murder of homosexuals and heretics. God treats women as second class citizens and God is prejudiced against the handicapped. This is not Love. God also intends to burn Billions of people in Hell for all eternity. This is not Love.

There is a contradiction between what God's word says and God's action. Therefore God does not exist. God cannot be love and unloving.

Atheism is accurate, logical and reasonable.

Ebal