William Lane Craig vs Ronald De Sousa 6/16 (York University)

[hexusziggurat]

@Omnicron777 you're right but to list that data as something of use would likely be on a case study based on like numbers or else you could list off almost everything in existence as "theists comprise the highest numbers" ...most killing...most birth...most poker players....most swimmers....most people who use the mail system....etc....it just becomes nonsensical and useless data.

[hexusziggurat]

@Omnicron777 i think the study is on a per capita basis ....take 100 atheists ...take 100 theists etc. find averages etc.

[kvash3154]

to say God did it, is to say nothing at all, or is a word that has no content?

wouldn't saying "nothing" did it, be the same thing?

[UrinationNation]

God is kind loving just, he just does not express it I guess. He's all powerful but man he was caught up watching Battlestar Galactica and it's hard to pay attention sometimes. That freedom he gave us you know so kids could get aids, or cancer and die before they get to experience anything, yeah that's and interesting way of expressing kindness, I guess he has placed the burden on us, since he's away on business

[hexusziggurat]

@UrinationNation Humanity placed the burden on ourselves. We sinned therefor we have to live out this flesh life with death to the mortal coil in the path. Thats not neglect...thats a just being. Though in His love for us, He showed us a path to return to Him. Quite nice of Him.

[AbdielAbiram]

when is the rest of the debate going to upload?

[Christianjr4]

Sometime tomorrow hopefully. Could be Tuesday. The reason why I don't have the rest up is because I lost the othe parts by accident so I'm putting them together again. I apologize for the long wait.

[BionicDance]

Objective meaning is WORSE than subjective; subjective means that life is flexible, it means we have OPTIONS.

Yes, it's more uncomfortable because it means we have to think and evaluate rather than simply act on automatic, but so what? How did THINKING become a Bad Thing™ all of a sudden?

Objective morality may be comforting, but Spanky here has no proof that it exists, he's just engaging in wish fulfillment.

[regelemihai]

No proof? So you do agree with his claim about atheism morality.

There's no proof for objective morality, thereofre it is random.

I'd say that claim, that goes against human nature, requires "proof". Not that contrary...

[BionicDance]

No, it isn't RANDOM just because it isn't objective; if anything, it's quite the opposite.

Objective morality makes the claim that certain things just ARE...which means they have no actual objective basis; they're declared by fiat. Subjective morality, however, evaluates a situation, determines what would be the least harmful action to take that is also done with the permission of those it will affect; thus, subjective morality actually has an OBJECTIVE basis.

MUCH more logical and reasoned.

[regelemihai]

You're basically saying that it is congruent with respect to the situation, time, or place; which is another way of espousing moral relativism.

Objective morals exist with the moral code of "right and wrong". That trait is embedded in our genes, along with moral altruism.

Your rationalization is not logical at all from where I stand.

[BionicDance]

Well, where you stand makes no logical sense EITHER.

Define objective "right"; define objective "wrong"; explain where they came from. You CAN'T, not without appealing to some unprovable first cause which simply decreed them.

If the trait is embedded in our genes, then it obviously came from evolution, not from on high; thus, declaring these values to be objective is foolish since nobody has the same genes...OR the same morals. Everything is subjective; QED.

[regelemihai]

Evolution doesn't account for moral altruism. So it's certainly not "obvious", far from it.

As far as defintion goes, I'm sure you can answer that one yourself.

Right and wrong may vary of the approximation to the higher standard itself, but still exist, and they're universal.

[noodles321321]

'Evolution doesn't account for moral altruism. So it's certainly not "obvious", far from it' I don't agree with your opponent here, but you are wrong on this respect. Evolution is perfectly able to account for moral altruism. All you have to do is introduce reciprocal altruism and genetic-similarity altruism from the time we lived in small communities, and then apply this to the current world, where we live in huge communities in which these traits are no longer useful.

[regelemihai]

Perhaps I should've been more explicit. It's not reciprocal altruism I was talking about(and the one you mentioned), but radical altruism which is a totallt different concept.

I admire your civility. I don't often get these types of responses from ppl who disagree with me :-P

[Recordscience]

@regelemihai

I don't think you have a sufficient understand of evolution if you don't think that there is Any behavior, period, that it couldn't account for. I challenge you to give me an example, and although you may call my subsequent explanation merely post-hoc, I personally find it much more satisfactory than to attribute it to supernatural causes.

[regelemihai]

@Recordscience Wow, this post is old. Didn't even remember I debated this topic. Well, in short, the prospect of explaining the origin of certain moral traits is not what's being debated here. Craig himself makes the distinction between moral epistomoloy and moral ontology. We debate the basis of the existance of morality.And if both atheists and theists affirm the reality of moral values,one cannot escape the question of God's existance.

[Recordscience]

@regelemihai You've evaded my question entirely.

I think as disturbing as it may or may not seem to you, it *is* possible that there is no fundamental basis of morality. Even if there was any, and if a 'God' was needed for it, then it would assume that God wants there to be morality, which is an enormous assumption and can't be proven. To say further than a God of a particular religion is right about morality, is even stranger.

But I meant to comment only on your misunderstanding of ethology.

[regelemihai]

"To say further than a God of a particular religion is right about morality, is even stranger."

The issue of a particular theology is not relevant. The concept debated here is the general ontological idea of a god. If morality is objective, which apparently you deny, then it must have aa trascendent cause. It's not a matter of what God wills--morality is grounded IN God (of course, again, that is if we grant morality exists at all).

[Recordscience]

@regelemihai Of course, you must realise that since the ontological idea of God you are referring to, though it may somehow (??) provide an objective reference for morality, doesn't logically lead to any moral CODES. Specific moral codes come in when humans claim endorsement from such gods. If you are able to show me that this god-granted morality can actually 'objectively' come out without religious interference, then you can continue that line of thought. I don't grant that morality exists

[regelemihai]

"'objectively' come out without religious interference"

Again, you're missing the point. It's about arguing how you come to discoer them, or what written doctrine unveils them. That's not the issue.

You have all your work cut out for you to prove morality doesn't exist.

[regelemihai]

*It's NOT about how you come to....

[Recordscience]

@regelemihai Um.. I'm not missing the point. It's meaningless to say that God is a reference for morality if, in practice, there is no moral code that is going to come out of that fact.

[regelemihai]

@Recordscience

You demonstrate again that you are indeed missing the point. God is not a "reference point," he is the basis of morality. The moral code is apprehended intuitively--it has nothing to do with it being written down like some sort of legilslative piece. There are divergences among cultures, sure; that doesn't mean there isn't an objective standard of morality. And yet that's what the relativist assumes.

[JoshCarley]

Everything is subjective? So, is that a subjective statement?