He never really defeats the morality stemming from evolution argument. For one, should the morality of god be applied to other animals as well? Second, humans evolving differently to have different morality seem paradoxical as morality is what makes us human. Plus considering the universe is deterministic for almost all the time, humans will always evolve the same way. Also, 'specism(?)'. Lol
Does this mean that God does/allows evil things? As a Christian this is a serious question, and I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt) but there are times when he commands the Israelites to ahnialate everything that breathes, mainly when taking the promised land, and fighting tribes like the philistines and amalekites. If God commands people to do things that wouldn't be normally good, does that make him evil? and does is make a difference?
@conraddoavil Ok, rewind. You said, and I quote, "...I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt)". How in the world can you say that isn't infanticide? Don't forget killing all the babies during the flood. I simply don't see how anybody can read those stories in the bible and not conclude that this Yahweh character is a monster. Care to explain why, in the light of these two examples, for instance, you don't consider him to be in favor of it?
You are absolutely correct sir. There is no objective right or wrong. However, we live in a world where the things you listed as right and wrong are subjectively put into those categories. Are you saying that your belief in god is the only thing keeping you from going out and raping little children, and if you were proved wrong you would do just that?
Oh this old argument again. WLC, there are no objective moral values. An objective moral value is just a rule. Even God changed those in His book. Real subjective morality actively considers how we should treat others. That's why it improves over time.
God's morality is one of the following. Pick one that feels good.
1. Might is right.
2. Do as I say, not as I do.
3. Father knows best (so woman shut up and get back to the kitchen and kids, respect me for no other reason than I made you).
@babertron Hmm. What do you mean? I don't understand a single one of your rebuttals or how they're relevant to my comment. Perhaps you'd care to expand a little?
(Don't bother with the "cleaver trick" part. You don't need to explain that one, although I'm not quite sure what a rectangular-bladed kitchen knife most commonly used to hack through bones has to do with my original comment.)
Wow, you can't even understand how the definition words change based on their context. This is going to more difficult than I thought.
Let me spell it out for you =)
You avoided answering to the impact that the absence of objective morals has on rational society... that, without it, Justice does not exist objectively...
You misrepresented what theists believe. I believe that God is the good. that the Good acts are performed by those who obey the commands given to them.
Lastly God being the objective good does not change. A change between commands given to one group of people in the past related to all people in the NT is not a sign that Objective morals have changed... no not at all, It simply shows that the purpose God has deemed the commands given in the OT fit for that purpose given the context of the situation time and place.
its hilarious how many of the things he started listing at 2:16 are things god did in the bible (many times), and even more hilarious that the things he started listing at 2:28 are things christians tend to not do.
5.The ability of moral views to change when people like MLK Jr. or Gandhi work hard enough to change them by changing society or culture is a strong point of my argument. If there was objective morality, there wouldn't have been any need for people like them.
2:05 onwards: Of course there is no single person who can be the source of morality, if morality is, as you brilliantly postulated, a socio-cultural construct. Societies and cultures are things that require groups, after all. However, we are not isolated singular persons, instead we all live in a society and we all have culture, so we actually can make the judgements you said we can't based on the moral values of our society and culture just fine.
This "cultural relativism" is weak for a number of reasons:
1) Suppose Iran wants to destroy Israel, and the United States does not want them to. What should we do, because, according to this view, both moral views are equally true.
2) Actually, you can't make moral judgements because, according to this view, all moral systems are equally valid.
@THEEVANTHETOON 1.Unless the cultures and societies dictating the moral views don't change, Iran should seek to destroy Israel and USA should seek to prevent this from happening. Moral systems that are okay with killing don't tend to last, though.
2.Yes you can, you just can't expect every other person who ever lived to agree with you.
3.I'm making a claim about what kind of constructs moral systems are. That's not a moral norm.
4.Which of these moral values do you adhere to the most?
...I'll quote an article by Francis J. Beckwith: "The supporter of cultural relativism maintians that there are no objective and universal moral norms and for that reason all individuals ought to follow the moral norms of their own culture. But the cultural relativist is making an absolute and universal moral claim--namely, that individuals are morally obligated to follow the moral norms of their own culture. So, if this moral orm is absolute and universal, then...
...cultural relativism is false. But if this moral norm is neither absolute nor universal, then cultural relativism is still false; for in that case I would not have a moral obligation to follow the moral norms of my culture".
4) We belong to multiple cultures. Say that I'm a lawyer who lives in an upscale Hollywood neighborhood and I attend a conservative Christian Church. In my neighborhood, scandalous affairs are supported and viewed as "enlightening". My Church...
...strongly condemns adultery, while my law firm is neutral on it. What should I do, as all the "cultures" I am part of have a different view on this subject.
5) Finally, as I have pointed out, the cultural relativist must view Gandhi and MLK Jr. as evil and view Hitler as good. "Good" and "evil" has no meaning on this view.
@THEEVANTHETOON Of course, I personally find those actions disgusting and would kill nazis for pleasure, their actions have caused me to view their lives as worthless so there is nothing morally wrong with killing hitler. This illustration should serve to expose how subjective morality really is.
This avoids my question. Do you honestly believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler are both morally equal? Do you honestly believe that throwing a baby off of the roof and giving money to charity are morally neutral acts? If so, why?
Besides, I have a question: Let's say that Jeffrey Dahmer wants to murder a baby and I don't want him to. What should we do, since both of our moral views are equally valid?
According to this view, "evil" is defined as doing something against social norms. So I guess you believe social reformers such as Gandhi and MLK Jr are evil? After all, they did rebel against social norms.
Besides, do you seriously believe that the terrorists who crashed their planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were morally equal to the fire fighters who risked their lives to save the people in the towers?
@THEEVANTHETOON You should do what you find morally acceptable (of course!), intervene. Your moral stance happens to also be that of the majority of human beings, including human institutions such as law, so obviously your/our side carries more weight. I view things mathematically (math being perhaps the one "true" absolute) one can deserve death.
The notion of human right is not shared by all, it is a concept, concieved by humans. Valued only by those who value life, quite subjective.
Suppose I'm Adolf Hitler. Should I still do what I find morally acceptable?
"Your moral stance happens to also be that of the majority of human beings..."
While mathematically this works, it does not in real life. Take Nazi Germany, for example: the majority of the culture believed that it was right to kill Jews. Does that mean they were doing the right thing? A minority, such as the Confessionalist Church, believed...
...that the Holocaust was wrong. Were they being evil because they were rebeling against society?
As Dr. Craig argues, a moral relativist cannot condemn Nazi morals because they were internally consistent. He writes: "...[B]ecause of its coherence and internal consistency, the Nazi ethic could not be discredited from within. Only from a transcendent vantage point which stands above relativistic, socio-cultural mores could such a critique be launched. But in the absence of God...
...it is precisely such a vantage point that we lack".
"The notion of human right is not shared by all"
Differences in moral opinions by no means disrove objective morallity:
1) Differences do not mean that there is not answer. Suppose I think the earth is flat (I don't), and you think that it's round. Should we conclude that there earth is shapeless because there is disagreement?
Moreover, I think there are objective moral values. You don't. If you are to remain...
...consistent, you should abandon moral relativism because there is disagreement.
2) Disagreement is overrated. Take abortion for example: both the pro-life and abortion choice positions think it is wrong to murder a human. They just disagree over whether or not an unborn fetus is a human at all. While morals appear to be different, when you carefully study them, the principles behind them are the same.
3) Absurd consequences result from moral relativism. You are forced...
...to say that the terrorists who crashed their plane into the Twin Towers are morally equal to the firefighters who risked their lives to help people afterward .
Futhermore, suppose Jeffrey Dahmer wants to kill a baby, and I don't want him to. What should we do, as both positions are, according to you, morally neutral?
I have much more to say about the weakness of moral relativism, but I will save that for another post.
@THEEVANTHETOON Im not forced to say anything because I do not speak from an objective standpoint, im a human. What I find to be wrong is what I will label "evil". Its not as if the universe is watching that I make the right choice, it is internal.
You dont seem to understand that the fact that there are no absolute "good/evil" has no bearing on what I(or anyone else) find acceptable nor our ability to act. Terrorists think their actions to be gods work, and that theyll be rewarded, I disagree.
It's wonderfully ironic that he essentially defeated his own argument from the outset; it follows that, in a universe without objective morality, a self cognizant species would adapt a religious system that would propose the existence of an anchor for the sake of self preservation. Because moral objectivity is appealing doesn't make it more true. And, even if there was a god or gods, it wouldn't establish objectivity, but instead another completely subjective view.
@AletheianAeon Its interesting that during argument I will raise examples of immoral acts of God from biblical accounts and im always told "Youre taking that out of context!", that would imply that that which is morally acceptable now, was/is not absolute. That gods morality adapts to social environment. In other words is completely subjective
@AletheianAeon so, then you agree that there is no objective good or objective evil. It is all relative? How about survival? Is that an objective moral value that is good - evolutionists think so - this one seems to cross all cultures, species, times. How did all species through all time in all places share this one moral value if it is really subjective?
@AletheianAeon Genetic fallacy much? You really don't understand his message though, "In the absence of God," moral values would be purely subjective, and any appearance of objective values would be an illusion created by evolution. Therefore, he concludes, the only possible way by which objective moral values could exist is if God exists. So anyone who believes in objective moral values must either accept God logically, or reject objective moral values along with God.
And that is somehow an argument? was it supposed to be? Of course good and evil do not exist. Is it evil when a lion eats the cubs of another to avoid starvation?
@VibrantNTingling Well, if you could get away with raping, murdering, or robbing, would it still be morally justifiable? This is the real question. It was "beneficial" for the Nazi soldier to follow orders and obey authority when dealing with the Jews, as it not only advanced his career but also helped his 1930s German society. So it isn't always "beneficial" to treat others well. This has nothing to do with whether the action is right or wrong though.
Morality absolutely is not objective. Even the commandments which seem rational can have exceptions. Is it wrong to kill a murdering psychopath? Was it wrong for Robin Hood to steel from King John? In fact, objective morality is incredibly dangerous when your objectives command you to burn witches and commit genocides.
@thecraziestkyle By "objective" WLC means an action is either right or wrong INDEPENDENT of whether or not people believe it to be. Or do you think acts like burning supposed witches or committing genocides is not objectively wrong? In other words, without morality having an objective source outside of human opinion, genocide is no worse than giving to the poor. If a society okays genocide, and objective morality does not exist, what made the actions of the Nazis abominable?
@mr2bmr2b The fact that we think they are. Thats what made their actions abominable. If we shared their feelings for jews we would have no problem with the genocide, its all subjective as we all experience reality subjectively. It can be argued that we are reality experiencing itself subjectively
@mehico33 So your conclusion is that "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Interesting. I don't think anyone actually believes this, but it is fun to see people try and defend this notion. So you believe there is no real difference between forcing a 12 year old girl into genital mutiliation and donating 100% of one's savings into helping her receive cancer treatment?
Also, don't be obtuse. Lions don't have the congnative ability to understand right and wrong. Humans obviously do.
@mr2bmr2b Of course, these things do happen, the universe doesnt apply any kind of justice, does not punish evil doers. We as a society have our own morality, developed over millenia via argument/discussion/experience/movements. There is no reason that rape, cannibalism, slavery etc are "wrong" other than that we do not approve of them. For instance in the dark ages it was acceptable to torture a theif on a rack, to burn a witch. Morality has developed from empathy
Rape, child abuse, torture, infanticide, and racism were only wrong for specific cultures and eras. Nothing is REALLY wrong because humanity can always veto that. Examples: Rape had been socially allowed in the context of temple prostitution. The Aztecs had a society based around human sacrifice.
I think it's more convincing to say that morality evolves according the conditions of a society. And we shouldn't do immoral things because the social consequences of our actions are grim.
You are totally misunderstanding the premise. Dr Craig didn't say that you COULDN'T be good without GOD, he is saying that what constitutes the definition of 'GOOD' would have no authority or validity or OBJECTIVITY without God.Who's to say that what YOU say is 'good' is MY defintion of what is good, therefore, we would have no foundation for declaring what is good or bad, or right or wrong...all these are merely SUBJECTIVE ideas without an OBJECTIVE entity to corroborate.
In the rape example I would ask someone why it's wrong to harm people and steal. You can probably just keep going with that line of questioning. Trying to rationally explain away feelings seems absurd to me. You can reject objective moral values on the face but nobody can put into practice that viewpoint. You affirm them when you vote for or against gay marriage or when you see the way Afghani women are treated and condemn their men for treating them that way.
Tired old canard from Craig. Like so many others he treats subjectivity as though it were totally arbitrary. Even a five-year-old is developing a value system, no armchair philosophy, no metaphysics, required.
@929myohmy Dr. Craig would argue that our value system is developed because we have reliable faculties for assessing that there really are such things as right and wrong and we have an innate sense of moral duties. On Christianity this is because God has written his law on mankind's hearts so that they would have this sense of objective morality whether or not they chose to believe in Him. This is not to say that our subjective application and awareness of these values is always correct.
@milesgorey We all must take certain assumptions to be true before we can make any statements about moral 'rights and wrongs'. These are very basic, usually unproveable assumptions, such as--people generally prefer pleasure over pain; People love other people (not necessaril all other poeple) and want them to be happy; People empathize with other humans.. We can make these assumpitons because we have enough information about our species to be confident that the are practically universal.
@929myohmy They are stil assumtions, and they are not objectively verifiable. If what you write about Craig is accurate, then he is making assertions that are much less likey to be genearally accepted. God has written his law on our hearts? Tough to prove. Our facutlies are reliable, but only when we take, on faith, certan assumtions to be true. We cannot objective prove these assumpins. Does Craig maintian that we can?
@929myohmy I'm not sure Craig maintains that we can objectively prove any assumptions about morality but that we have an innate sense of their objectivity. That is the crux of using the words right and wrong. Certain things absolutely are just right and wrong, we feel, and on a deeper level than explaining them away with a few axioms. It's not enough that we feel we know what is right and wrong but most of us feel that we are obligated to do the right over the wrong thing.
@milesgorey I don't believe it's necessary to say that our innate sense is of their "objectivity". We have an innate sense of them, yes, and they are relative to our humanness, in which many things, such as I mentioned, are generally (universally) true about all of us. That's why people can generally agree on a number of moral values. If you are of the opinion that objective moral values "probably do exist" that's fine, but I can't imagine how you might demonstrate it objectively.
@929myohmy Universality is not equal to objectivity. However, it does help to illustrate that objective moral values probably do exist because people can generally agree on a number of moral values. Moreover the fact that most of us don't feel the need to prove rape is wrong (we don't explain to someone that we feel that way because 'it harms the victim, it's taking something that isn't yours...') illustrates that we have innate sense that there are indeed right and wrong values.
@milesgorey I really don't like the youtube discussion format, so just one last thing. No, universality does not equal objectivity, you're right. What I'm suggesting is that because the commonalities within the human species--biological consistencies, we see consistent views on what is right or wrong. This is confused with objectivity but it's not. It is subjective and relative to our humanness. Craid et al try to claim with without a belief in God nihilism is logical but this is incorrect.
@projectlevydelta Yes the justice system does see killing as wrong because the majority believe it to be, the government and it's departments were created to serve the people. The justice system once gave less rights to blacks, you think that was because blacks were less important so did not fit the same moral categories?? Maybe because blacks had lower rankings in God's objective moral code? Bulls**t! It sounds like you are arguing the justice system is the base of/or reflecst objective reality
@projectlevydelta I don't believe the bible no, but you'll find that my personal moral code based on relative morality is higher than many who believe their moral code to be God given.
@projectlevydelta ...if morals are relative then they depend on our understanding of the outcomes for us and all others, so obviously burning a woman for cheating is not seen as morally just as we see the negative outcome for that woman vastly outweighing the perceived crime and the negative impact of that crime. If in India the crime is equal to/or greater than the punishment it can be considered just by them, no matter what your opinion may be. Moral codes reflect the views of the majority.
@projectlevydelta ....moral judgements are mere expressions of emotion...without that emotional attachment there are no morals. Killing for land, sex with children, religious discrimination and many other horrific things have been seen in the past as just because the general populace did not have the negative emotional response of moral judgement towards them...if morals were objective this could not have been so.
@projectlevydelta So you are going down the road of pure speculation? "Without being a Christian nation we may have ended up like India" (no burning your wife is not a just act in India now). Ok so without being a Christian nation the US may also have had a greater moral code, less prejudice, no beating and killing of slaves (which was once widely seen as just), etc. You don't know what would have become of the country so stop making baseless assumptions.......
Goes wrong for me about 2.35. I dont think there are objective truths at all, however I do beleive that there are some actions which a very significant proportion of people think they are wrong so the people that carry out these actions are disadvantaged. Either socially or in cases which are extremely wrong by prison and other state sentences. Would have been good to hear his answer to the question though.
@idreamtofflight I reject the idea of God's morals and God's laws. They clearly reek of being man-made. Many of stories in the scriptures show that many of these "divine decrees" benefit certain people already in power.
@idreamtofflight No, I know. I'm just having discussions with multiple creationists right now across a few videos. As it turns out, most of them don't accept infinite regression as a counter-argument to God.
@projectlevydelta nope wrong, try read my original post again...it perfectly addresses your ridiculous claim wthat killing Jews must be a good thing because of a Nazi subculture......read slowly!
@projectlevydelta No, murder is bad because of the result, and because we have the abilities of fore-thought and empathy we can know it is wrong because we understand the effects. In fact without our ability to understand the impact of our actions and the validity of those actions as being called moral by the intent and outcome of our actions, the concept of morals does not exist. ....
his reasoning makes any conclusion we humans reach on our own subjective. take physics, for example. it is what we infer from our observations and completely depends on how our minds work. Craig says, unless some alien civilization confirms our equations, physics is subjective. What follows from his line of thinking is absurd. He is confusing objective and absolute. He wants absolute morality, guess what it is, and this is immoral because we improve our moral standards by conversation.
Someone should hand Mr. Lane a copy of marc D. Hauser's book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong". Science is our best approach to the truth (hint: there is no god).
What you see in these brief clips only scratches the surface of the surface of his works? Elsewhere, Dr. Craig shows how "evolutionary morality" is completely ridiculous.
if craig can use logic to say god objectively exists, why cant the atheist use logic to say morality exists (rawl's veil of ignorance and the categorical imperative)
Even with a belief in God there are no objective morals. The bible talks about slavery and stoning for infidelity all kinds of things that no one practices any more. People pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible, the same way Atheists and others pick and choose what they think is right and wrong. Religion is just dragging a little behind the moral zeitgeist.
If love, tolerance and charity are "really good" objective values, I guess you can't question whether "love" could be a selfish, excluding and sexually motivated desire, "tolerance" hypocritical cowardice and "charity" the perfect way to get a good conscience. Just an objective thought though. Or was it subjective?
He isn't making a good argument. He defines objective values as values that are independent of people's opinions. Then he says in the absence of god, values cannot be objective. How people evolved to see murder as evil is completely independent of personal opinion, fitting his definition of an "objective value", and this has *nothing* to do with god being around.
@miketgates ....our prisons and jails are filled to the max with people who consider themselves as MORALLY GOOD. Without the guidance and conviction of the Holy Spirit...most people can not see or understand what is wrong with abortion, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. Their personal moral compass is SKEWED because of their own sin.
@Keitaro2011 ...GENESIS 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” In this ONE VERSE, God establishes “His” boundaries for BOTH marriage and sex. ANY deviation from this is a perversion of His will for your life and rebellion (SIN) against Him. Of course if you reject God...then all things are permissable.
Their personal moral compass is skewed because of some combination of upbringing and genetics. Once you bring God into it, the moral compass actually becomes *more* subjective. Case in point: Do you know who also felt they had the "guidance of conviction of the Holy Spirit"? The men who crashed two 747s into the twin towers on 9/11.
@miketgates ...Do you know who also felt they had the "guidance of conviction of the Holy Spirit"?
INCORRECT. Muslims do not recognize or even understand the influence of the Holy Spirit. The men who crashed into the Twin Towers were TRYING to reach out to God to please Him and perhaps be rewarded in Heaven. God NEVER told them to kill fo Him and they are now in Hell.
There a plenty of times i the bible where murder is ok. God must be a moral relativist. How can we say slavery is wrong when it is condones in the bible?
... on the other hand, the evolution/social model better explains our moral inclination. It better explains why we have some people who don't seem to understand morality at all (sociopaths etc.) as well as why our morality as a human species has evolved over time. Who still believes it's okay to enslave people or to take women as property after a war conquest? Who still makes animal or human sacrifices? If God's morality is unchanging, how do we explain this evolution of social morality?
It's interesting that this all-knowing, all-powerful being only created "objective" morals for one out of all the species of animals on the planet. Apparently, it's okay for a species to ruthlessly kill members of opposing species or even members of its own species without any fear of reprisal. But, humans are different. Yes, this God-being thrust a different kind of morality on us.
I am an agnostic (but not like agnostic agnostic, more like the Dawkins definition).
I think that Craig is right here. It is totally obvious for me that he is right. The only time I think he is right :D.
He was also right in the debate with this philosopher from Yale.
Some guy said that "If you need a divine commandment to tell you that murder is wrong then I doubt your ability to be moral". That guy clearly does not understand the issue here.
*sighs* The problem with that is that you would have no basis to shun another person if morality is only subjective. They would simply have to maintain their own moral code (of course I've yet to meet the person who has accomplished that in their life, including myself). Morality needs to be grounded in something greater than mere men to mean anything, that's the point of Craig's arguement.
Don't confuse religion with God. Man will always be fallible, but that doesn't deny the moral law. What we do and what we're called to do are most often out of sync.
@leachyau have a read of the old testament. Christian friends of mine tell me when I bring the subject up about the atrocities committed in gods name, that god was only commanding people to carry out genocide, sodomy of young boys (still happens in the catholic church) rape, murder and torture not to mention incest because he was punishing people for their sins. And they then justify this as being the old testament and that because the great on in the sky died on the cross we are all forginen
@leachyau The christians brush aside these atrocities in the old testament because they do not fit in with modern humanist morality. Human evolution has out grown the bible and its followers are just grasping at straws.
@ozzylad71 He says rape, torture , infanticide and injustice are really wrong. "
Lol someone forgot to tell the catholic church that -- ok maybe they got the message about the infanticide ( because of there stance on abortion).........
@ThomasWinkworth Sorry I stand corrected, since man created god it was man who wrote this. You should re read the old testament. God kills over 200 000 people and satin kills 10 of jobs' family. So who is the evil one.
@ozzylad71 God is. Man didn't create him. There is a immaterial cause of the universe, and that's a fact of life we have all had to accept. If you don't want there to be a God, that's your decision. But no need to lie about the Truth.
@ThomasWinkworth I was a christian from an early age god did not show himself never has never will even as a young brainwashed person. I have read the bible and that is one of the reasons I am an atheist if you want a debate bring it on.
@ozzylad71 You wasn't a christian. You may have had belief, but the second you realized that being a christian meant you cannot be God you stopped believing. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can be brainwashed yet at the same time be aware of what brainwashing is?
@ThomasWinkworth No the moment there was not a god I ceased being a christian. Youy are making these claims so where is your proof. Something that is to be proven with no evidence can be refuted with no evidence.
where is your proof that can be measured out side of your own brain
@ThomasWinkworth i am not the one claiming there is a god. There are invisible pink unicorns that live in the clouds and they have to exist because you can not prove they don't. We need to define what version of god you
@ozzylad71 I know you are not claiming that there is a God, that is why i said can you provide me of evidence for an immaterial cause of the universe other than God. So are you saying a pink unicorn? I am not disrespecting your beliefs i simply asking you what is it that you put faith in?
@ozzylad71 It is completely logical to say that something we cannot see/sense exists. The reason lies in the infinite regression problem. Without an immaterial cause it would take an infinite sequence of events to arrive at this present point in time, and therefore this moment wouldn't exist. This moment exists and therefore we know there must be a beginning to the universe.
@ThomasWinkworth The use of in finite regression is not even supported by all theists and is a circular argument were there is no evidence that has to be provided to support a claim. you still have not answered my question on what is your definition of god and you still have not provided any proof. If god really existed you would have proof.
@ozzylad71 Firstly mathematics is not circular reasoning. Infinity - Infinity = undefined, it does not equal 0. Very basic mathematics right there. Secondly my definition of God is a force which asks things of people via the Bible or via the mind. Do i have proof of this force? Well do we have proof that a force named "gravity" exists? Well we don't tangible prove that can be sensed by a human but we can see the effects of that force on material. Can we see the effects of a force like God? Yes.
@ThomasWinkworth Infinite regression does not justify any particular god or concept of god outside what you claim to experience. A moslem could use your reasoning to justify their god, and so too can any religion.
You still have not provided any evidence that your particular god exists.
@ozzylad71 Firstly i didn't realize you wanted me to prove my particular God since you never said "my particular God". Nevertheless if you are an atheist then you have just proved to me that you do infact believe in a God, you are just unsure about which one, which would make you deist/theist. There are many reasons why Jesus is God and not "Allah", one simply being that Christianity is a more widely spread. Now your a deist/theist you can search up for yourself why Jesus is God and not Allah.
@ThomasWinkworth i used the term your particular god is because there are so many interpretations of god
and providing an explanation that because christianity is more wide spread is not evidence that "your god exists."Think crusades when at a time christians were reclaiming holy land against moslems, jews and even Greek orthodox christians. Mass murder of people and killing them spread christianity that is why it is so why it is so widely spread.
@ThomasWinkworth because more people believe in a particular religion does not prove anything. you still need to provide evidence other than blind faith. What do you mean you did not know which particular god of course i mean yours, who else?
@ozzylad71 You said, prove the existence of God not prove the existence of a specific God. God is God, do you not know what God is? I don't think you do seeing as you asked me what the definition of God was earlier. God is an immaterial force and we know that immaterial forces exist. Therefore God exists. Like i said, if you believe that God exists then why do i have to prove to you why Jesus is God? I could give you many links to why Islam is false. But then you could research that yourself.
@ThomasWinkworth you have not provided any proof that your god exists and why the claims of your religion is true. I am not asking you to disprove other religions just prove your claims. It is that simple it, would be great if you could grasp that. Instead of making assumptions about me please please please answer the question as this debate is going no where
@ozzylad71 I have already given you evidence why God exists. God exists because immaterial forces which define God exist inside the universe. For example God created the heaven and earth = Gravity. God created the different elements which make up cells = nuclear force within the atom. God created man = Information within DNA. God asks people to do things = billions of people preaching the gospel, printing Bibles, building churches. Mary had a virgin birth to the son of God = The time-line begun.
@ThomasWinkworth That is still not evidence you are only making more claims to justify a previous claim. You still have not proved gods existence in the first instance
@ozzylad71 I am not making more claims to justify a previous claim. I had no previous claim. I simply stated that God exists because constant forces which have not been intentionally caused by material, exist. That is not making more claims to justify a previous claim. Making more claims to justify a previous claim is saying "we know A because of B, and B because of A". Immaterial forces are forces which you cannot see, you can only see the effects they have on material. For example "gravity".
@Toggen62 This is kind of my point, my point was more directly addressing the fact that everyone believes in an immaterial power, due to the existence of gravity. There is still a Nobel Prize waiting for the person who can find out why gravity exists. Gravity simple shouldn't be there.
@ThomasWinkworth Sir what is your definition of god since there are over 1000 denominations of christianity which suggests you do not need evidence just faith.
All of the bad thins he lists as wrong are straight out of the Bible as behavior ordered by God of his chosen people, the only evil ordered by God that he missed was Slavery. How somebody who claims to have studied the bible cannot see the hypocrisy in this statement is beyond the realms of probability, the conclusion is that Dr Lane Craig is knowingly lying to promote his particular point of view. The question is why? I can only think that it must be Mamon at the root of this deception.
Nowhere in evolutionary literature is there place for "herd evolution"; natural selection doesn't operate on a species, it operates on the individual and their genes. Get evolutionary theory right and then give this discussion another swing, Craig.
y does he need there 2 b an objective right & wrong anyway? Wot is the specieism in humanity coming up with its own ideas of whats good & bad,according 2 wot works and causes less suffering. It does not make us any better than other animals,merely that we as a species have basic morality built into us,which in no way applies to other species. We have the ability to think and see things from others perspectives. Our basic right and wrongs are merely subjective in relation to other species.
I am skeptical of evolution theory as well but it is people like this buffoon that is a disgrace to the human species. Well, guess he has to make a living so he pedals out nonsense.
Why does Dr. Craig feel that objective morality is truly necessary? I can subjectively say that child abuse is wrong, as can all sane individuals; if an individual needs their deity to tell them that child abuse is wrong, they have a serious problem.
I find it rather sad that people feel the need to have a 'true evil' and a 'true good' to judge things against. You should be able to judge things independently of such comforts, or you are not a truly moral being.
He never really defeats the morality stemming from evolution argument. For one, should the morality of god be applied to other animals as well? Second, humans evolving differently to have different morality seem paradoxical as morality is what makes us human. Plus considering the universe is deterministic for almost all the time, humans will always evolve the same way. Also, 'specism(?)'. Lol
swisscheesepotatochi 1 month ago
Does this mean that God does/allows evil things? As a Christian this is a serious question, and I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt) but there are times when he commands the Israelites to ahnialate everything that breathes, mainly when taking the promised land, and fighting tribes like the philistines and amalekites. If God commands people to do things that wouldn't be normally good, does that make him evil? and does is make a difference?
conraddoavil 3 months ago
@conraddoavil Ok, rewind. You said, and I quote, "...I don't believe God is infanticidal (even though he kills the firstborn in Egypt)". How in the world can you say that isn't infanticide? Don't forget killing all the babies during the flood. I simply don't see how anybody can read those stories in the bible and not conclude that this Yahweh character is a monster. Care to explain why, in the light of these two examples, for instance, you don't consider him to be in favor of it?
thelordmemnoch 2 months ago
You are absolutely correct sir. There is no objective right or wrong. However, we live in a world where the things you listed as right and wrong are subjectively put into those categories. Are you saying that your belief in god is the only thing keeping you from going out and raping little children, and if you were proved wrong you would do just that?
red666111 5 months ago
How are the moral opinions of a personal god objective?
MrBillyconcarne 5 months ago
Oh this old argument again. WLC, there are no objective moral values. An objective moral value is just a rule. Even God changed those in His book. Real subjective morality actively considers how we should treat others. That's why it improves over time.
God's morality is one of the following. Pick one that feels good.
1. Might is right.
2. Do as I say, not as I do.
3. Father knows best (so woman shut up and get back to the kitchen and kids, respect me for no other reason than I made you).
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle
Cleaver trick, atheist!
Ignore the real problem at hand.
Don't justify your belief system
and lie about religion.
NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE EVER.... -___- I'm so impressed.
babertron 5 months ago
@babertron Hmm. What do you mean? I don't understand a single one of your rebuttals or how they're relevant to my comment. Perhaps you'd care to expand a little?
(Don't bother with the "cleaver trick" part. You don't need to explain that one, although I'm not quite sure what a rectangular-bladed kitchen knife most commonly used to hack through bones has to do with my original comment.)
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle
Wow, you can't even understand how the definition words change based on their context. This is going to more difficult than I thought.
Let me spell it out for you =)
You avoided answering to the impact that the absence of objective morals has on rational society... that, without it, Justice does not exist objectively...
You misrepresented what theists believe. I believe that God is the good. that the Good acts are performed by those who obey the commands given to them.
babertron 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle CON....
Lastly God being the objective good does not change. A change between commands given to one group of people in the past related to all people in the NT is not a sign that Objective morals have changed... no not at all, It simply shows that the purpose God has deemed the commands given in the OT fit for that purpose given the context of the situation time and place.
babertron 5 months ago
its hilarious how many of the things he started listing at 2:16 are things god did in the bible (many times), and even more hilarious that the things he started listing at 2:28 are things christians tend to not do.
mattakudesu 6 months ago
5.The ability of moral views to change when people like MLK Jr. or Gandhi work hard enough to change them by changing society or culture is a strong point of my argument. If there was objective morality, there wouldn't have been any need for people like them.
cutepinkbandanaman 6 months ago
2:05 onwards: Of course there is no single person who can be the source of morality, if morality is, as you brilliantly postulated, a socio-cultural construct. Societies and cultures are things that require groups, after all. However, we are not isolated singular persons, instead we all live in a society and we all have culture, so we actually can make the judgements you said we can't based on the moral values of our society and culture just fine.
cutepinkbandanaman 6 months ago
@cutepinkbandanaman
"so we actually can make the judgements..."
This "cultural relativism" is weak for a number of reasons:
1) Suppose Iran wants to destroy Israel, and the United States does not want them to. What should we do, because, according to this view, both moral views are equally true.
2) Actually, you can't make moral judgements because, according to this view, all moral systems are equally valid.
3) This view is self-refuting....
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON 1.Unless the cultures and societies dictating the moral views don't change, Iran should seek to destroy Israel and USA should seek to prevent this from happening. Moral systems that are okay with killing don't tend to last, though.
2.Yes you can, you just can't expect every other person who ever lived to agree with you.
3.I'm making a claim about what kind of constructs moral systems are. That's not a moral norm.
4.Which of these moral values do you adhere to the most?
cutepinkbandanaman 6 months ago
@cutepinkbandanaman
...I'll quote an article by Francis J. Beckwith: "The supporter of cultural relativism maintians that there are no objective and universal moral norms and for that reason all individuals ought to follow the moral norms of their own culture. But the cultural relativist is making an absolute and universal moral claim--namely, that individuals are morally obligated to follow the moral norms of their own culture. So, if this moral orm is absolute and universal, then...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@cutepinkbandanaman
...cultural relativism is false. But if this moral norm is neither absolute nor universal, then cultural relativism is still false; for in that case I would not have a moral obligation to follow the moral norms of my culture".
4) We belong to multiple cultures. Say that I'm a lawyer who lives in an upscale Hollywood neighborhood and I attend a conservative Christian Church. In my neighborhood, scandalous affairs are supported and viewed as "enlightening". My Church...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@cutepinkbandanaman
...strongly condemns adultery, while my law firm is neutral on it. What should I do, as all the "cultures" I am part of have a different view on this subject.
5) Finally, as I have pointed out, the cultural relativist must view Gandhi and MLK Jr. as evil and view Hitler as good. "Good" and "evil" has no meaning on this view.
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Of course, I personally find those actions disgusting and would kill nazis for pleasure, their actions have caused me to view their lives as worthless so there is nothing morally wrong with killing hitler. This illustration should serve to expose how subjective morality really is.
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33
This avoids my question. Do you honestly believe that Mother Teresa and Hitler are both morally equal? Do you honestly believe that throwing a baby off of the roof and giving money to charity are morally neutral acts? If so, why?
Besides, I have a question: Let's say that Jeffrey Dahmer wants to murder a baby and I don't want him to. What should we do, since both of our moral views are equally valid?
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON He explained that he thinks morality is a social construct to mr2bmr2b only two posts prior to your initial question.
cutepinkbandanaman 6 months ago
@cutepinkbandanaman
According to this view, "evil" is defined as doing something against social norms. So I guess you believe social reformers such as Gandhi and MLK Jr are evil? After all, they did rebel against social norms.
Besides, do you seriously believe that the terrorists who crashed their planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11 were morally equal to the fire fighters who risked their lives to save the people in the towers?
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON You should do what you find morally acceptable (of course!), intervene. Your moral stance happens to also be that of the majority of human beings, including human institutions such as law, so obviously your/our side carries more weight. I view things mathematically (math being perhaps the one "true" absolute) one can deserve death.
The notion of human right is not shared by all, it is a concept, concieved by humans. Valued only by those who value life, quite subjective.
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33
"You should do what you find morally acceptable"
Suppose I'm Adolf Hitler. Should I still do what I find morally acceptable?
"Your moral stance happens to also be that of the majority of human beings..."
While mathematically this works, it does not in real life. Take Nazi Germany, for example: the majority of the culture believed that it was right to kill Jews. Does that mean they were doing the right thing? A minority, such as the Confessionalist Church, believed...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@mehico33
...that the Holocaust was wrong. Were they being evil because they were rebeling against society?
As Dr. Craig argues, a moral relativist cannot condemn Nazi morals because they were internally consistent. He writes: "...[B]ecause of its coherence and internal consistency, the Nazi ethic could not be discredited from within. Only from a transcendent vantage point which stands above relativistic, socio-cultural mores could such a critique be launched. But in the absence of God...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@mehico33
...it is precisely such a vantage point that we lack".
"The notion of human right is not shared by all"
Differences in moral opinions by no means disrove objective morallity:
1) Differences do not mean that there is not answer. Suppose I think the earth is flat (I don't), and you think that it's round. Should we conclude that there earth is shapeless because there is disagreement?
Moreover, I think there are objective moral values. You don't. If you are to remain...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@mehico33
...consistent, you should abandon moral relativism because there is disagreement.
2) Disagreement is overrated. Take abortion for example: both the pro-life and abortion choice positions think it is wrong to murder a human. They just disagree over whether or not an unborn fetus is a human at all. While morals appear to be different, when you carefully study them, the principles behind them are the same.
3) Absurd consequences result from moral relativism. You are forced...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@mehico33
...to say that the terrorists who crashed their plane into the Twin Towers are morally equal to the firefighters who risked their lives to help people afterward .
Futhermore, suppose Jeffrey Dahmer wants to kill a baby, and I don't want him to. What should we do, as both positions are, according to you, morally neutral?
I have much more to say about the weakness of moral relativism, but I will save that for another post.
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Im not forced to say anything because I do not speak from an objective standpoint, im a human. What I find to be wrong is what I will label "evil". Its not as if the universe is watching that I make the right choice, it is internal.
You dont seem to understand that the fact that there are no absolute "good/evil" has no bearing on what I(or anyone else) find acceptable nor our ability to act. Terrorists think their actions to be gods work, and that theyll be rewarded, I disagree.
mehico33 6 months ago
It's wonderfully ironic that he essentially defeated his own argument from the outset; it follows that, in a universe without objective morality, a self cognizant species would adapt a religious system that would propose the existence of an anchor for the sake of self preservation. Because moral objectivity is appealing doesn't make it more true. And, even if there was a god or gods, it wouldn't establish objectivity, but instead another completely subjective view.
AletheianAeon 6 months ago 8
@AletheianAeon Its interesting that during argument I will raise examples of immoral acts of God from biblical accounts and im always told "Youre taking that out of context!", that would imply that that which is morally acceptable now, was/is not absolute. That gods morality adapts to social environment. In other words is completely subjective
mehico33 6 months ago
@AletheianAeon so, then you agree that there is no objective good or objective evil. It is all relative? How about survival? Is that an objective moral value that is good - evolutionists think so - this one seems to cross all cultures, species, times. How did all species through all time in all places share this one moral value if it is really subjective?
sethdbeebe 4 months ago
@AletheianAeon Genetic fallacy much? You really don't understand his message though, "In the absence of God," moral values would be purely subjective, and any appearance of objective values would be an illusion created by evolution. Therefore, he concludes, the only possible way by which objective moral values could exist is if God exists. So anyone who believes in objective moral values must either accept God logically, or reject objective moral values along with God.
Satarack 3 months ago
And that is somehow an argument? was it supposed to be? Of course good and evil do not exist. Is it evil when a lion eats the cubs of another to avoid starvation?
mehico33 6 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Well, if you could get away with raping, murdering, or robbing, would it still be morally justifiable? This is the real question. It was "beneficial" for the Nazi soldier to follow orders and obey authority when dealing with the Jews, as it not only advanced his career but also helped his 1930s German society. So it isn't always "beneficial" to treat others well. This has nothing to do with whether the action is right or wrong though.
mr2bmr2b 6 months ago
Morality absolutely is not objective. Even the commandments which seem rational can have exceptions. Is it wrong to kill a murdering psychopath? Was it wrong for Robin Hood to steel from King John? In fact, objective morality is incredibly dangerous when your objectives command you to burn witches and commit genocides.
thecraziestkyle 6 months ago
@thecraziestkyle By "objective" WLC means an action is either right or wrong INDEPENDENT of whether or not people believe it to be. Or do you think acts like burning supposed witches or committing genocides is not objectively wrong? In other words, without morality having an objective source outside of human opinion, genocide is no worse than giving to the poor. If a society okays genocide, and objective morality does not exist, what made the actions of the Nazis abominable?
mr2bmr2b 6 months ago
@mr2bmr2b The fact that we think they are. Thats what made their actions abominable. If we shared their feelings for jews we would have no problem with the genocide, its all subjective as we all experience reality subjectively. It can be argued that we are reality experiencing itself subjectively
mehico33 6 months ago
@mehico33 So your conclusion is that "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Interesting. I don't think anyone actually believes this, but it is fun to see people try and defend this notion. So you believe there is no real difference between forcing a 12 year old girl into genital mutiliation and donating 100% of one's savings into helping her receive cancer treatment?
Also, don't be obtuse. Lions don't have the congnative ability to understand right and wrong. Humans obviously do.
mr2bmr2b 6 months ago
@mr2bmr2b Of course, these things do happen, the universe doesnt apply any kind of justice, does not punish evil doers. We as a society have our own morality, developed over millenia via argument/discussion/experience/movements. There is no reason that rape, cannibalism, slavery etc are "wrong" other than that we do not approve of them. For instance in the dark ages it was acceptable to torture a theif on a rack, to burn a witch. Morality has developed from empathy
mehico33 6 months ago
Rape, child abuse, torture, infanticide, and racism were only wrong for specific cultures and eras. Nothing is REALLY wrong because humanity can always veto that. Examples: Rape had been socially allowed in the context of temple prostitution. The Aztecs had a society based around human sacrifice.
I think it's more convincing to say that morality evolves according the conditions of a society. And we shouldn't do immoral things because the social consequences of our actions are grim.
xytoplazm 7 months ago
Yes, we can be good without god(s), since that's what we have been doing all along.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago 17
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You are totally misunderstanding the premise. Dr Craig didn't say that you COULDN'T be good without GOD, he is saying that what constitutes the definition of 'GOOD' would have no authority or validity or OBJECTIVITY without God.Who's to say that what YOU say is 'good' is MY defintion of what is good, therefore, we would have no foundation for declaring what is good or bad, or right or wrong...all these are merely SUBJECTIVE ideas without an OBJECTIVE entity to corroborate.
MsPROOFthatGODexists 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
You cant say that something is not true just because it has negative consequences... thats a logical fallacy
bommobiel 8 months ago
This guy is, at best, uninformed.. Read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris
uv4jjj 8 months ago
In the rape example I would ask someone why it's wrong to harm people and steal. You can probably just keep going with that line of questioning. Trying to rationally explain away feelings seems absurd to me. You can reject objective moral values on the face but nobody can put into practice that viewpoint. You affirm them when you vote for or against gay marriage or when you see the way Afghani women are treated and condemn their men for treating them that way.
milesgorey 8 months ago
Tired old canard from Craig. Like so many others he treats subjectivity as though it were totally arbitrary. Even a five-year-old is developing a value system, no armchair philosophy, no metaphysics, required.
929myohmy 8 months ago
@929myohmy Dr. Craig would argue that our value system is developed because we have reliable faculties for assessing that there really are such things as right and wrong and we have an innate sense of moral duties. On Christianity this is because God has written his law on mankind's hearts so that they would have this sense of objective morality whether or not they chose to believe in Him. This is not to say that our subjective application and awareness of these values is always correct.
milesgorey 8 months ago in playlist Dr William Lane Craig answering questions
@milesgorey We all must take certain assumptions to be true before we can make any statements about moral 'rights and wrongs'. These are very basic, usually unproveable assumptions, such as--people generally prefer pleasure over pain; People love other people (not necessaril all other poeple) and want them to be happy; People empathize with other humans.. We can make these assumpitons because we have enough information about our species to be confident that the are practically universal.
929myohmy 8 months ago
@929myohmy They are stil assumtions, and they are not objectively verifiable. If what you write about Craig is accurate, then he is making assertions that are much less likey to be genearally accepted. God has written his law on our hearts? Tough to prove. Our facutlies are reliable, but only when we take, on faith, certan assumtions to be true. We cannot objective prove these assumpins. Does Craig maintian that we can?
929myohmy 8 months ago
@929myohmy I'm not sure Craig maintains that we can objectively prove any assumptions about morality but that we have an innate sense of their objectivity. That is the crux of using the words right and wrong. Certain things absolutely are just right and wrong, we feel, and on a deeper level than explaining them away with a few axioms. It's not enough that we feel we know what is right and wrong but most of us feel that we are obligated to do the right over the wrong thing.
milesgorey 8 months ago
@milesgorey I don't believe it's necessary to say that our innate sense is of their "objectivity". We have an innate sense of them, yes, and they are relative to our humanness, in which many things, such as I mentioned, are generally (universally) true about all of us. That's why people can generally agree on a number of moral values. If you are of the opinion that objective moral values "probably do exist" that's fine, but I can't imagine how you might demonstrate it objectively.
929myohmy 8 months ago
@929myohmy Universality is not equal to objectivity. However, it does help to illustrate that objective moral values probably do exist because people can generally agree on a number of moral values. Moreover the fact that most of us don't feel the need to prove rape is wrong (we don't explain to someone that we feel that way because 'it harms the victim, it's taking something that isn't yours...') illustrates that we have innate sense that there are indeed right and wrong values.
milesgorey 8 months ago
@milesgorey I really don't like the youtube discussion format, so just one last thing. No, universality does not equal objectivity, you're right. What I'm suggesting is that because the commonalities within the human species--biological consistencies, we see consistent views on what is right or wrong. This is confused with objectivity but it's not. It is subjective and relative to our humanness. Craid et al try to claim with without a belief in God nihilism is logical but this is incorrect.
929myohmy 8 months ago
@929myohmy Point taken. Happy trails.
milesgorey 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta your point are becoming increasingly irrelevant, take some time to think before the next one...no rush.
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta Yes the justice system does see killing as wrong because the majority believe it to be, the government and it's departments were created to serve the people. The justice system once gave less rights to blacks, you think that was because blacks were less important so did not fit the same moral categories?? Maybe because blacks had lower rankings in God's objective moral code? Bulls**t! It sounds like you are arguing the justice system is the base of/or reflecst objective reality
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta I don't believe the bible no, but you'll find that my personal moral code based on relative morality is higher than many who believe their moral code to be God given.
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta ...if morals are relative then they depend on our understanding of the outcomes for us and all others, so obviously burning a woman for cheating is not seen as morally just as we see the negative outcome for that woman vastly outweighing the perceived crime and the negative impact of that crime. If in India the crime is equal to/or greater than the punishment it can be considered just by them, no matter what your opinion may be. Moral codes reflect the views of the majority.
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta ....moral judgements are mere expressions of emotion...without that emotional attachment there are no morals. Killing for land, sex with children, religious discrimination and many other horrific things have been seen in the past as just because the general populace did not have the negative emotional response of moral judgement towards them...if morals were objective this could not have been so.
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta So you are going down the road of pure speculation? "Without being a Christian nation we may have ended up like India" (no burning your wife is not a just act in India now). Ok so without being a Christian nation the US may also have had a greater moral code, less prejudice, no beating and killing of slaves (which was once widely seen as just), etc. You don't know what would have become of the country so stop making baseless assumptions.......
TheNewzbreak 8 months ago
Goes wrong for me about 2.35. I dont think there are objective truths at all, however I do beleive that there are some actions which a very significant proportion of people think they are wrong so the people that carry out these actions are disadvantaged. Either socially or in cases which are extremely wrong by prison and other state sentences. Would have been good to hear his answer to the question though.
funkynosejob 9 months ago
lol, sounds like "speciesm" is basically racism. (=
BeyondtheChaos1 9 months ago
Is it objective to stone a woman to death on her father's doorstep if she's not a virgin on her wedding night? God seems to think it is.
DamienBlade 9 months ago
@DamienBlade God's morals are right because he has the most power, come on man! D=<
idreamtofflight 9 months ago
@idreamtofflight I reject the idea of God's morals and God's laws. They clearly reek of being man-made. Many of stories in the scriptures show that many of these "divine decrees" benefit certain people already in power.
DamienBlade 9 months ago
@DamienBlade I was agreeing with you, in fact I completely agree, haha! Just using a bit of sarcasm
idreamtofflight 9 months ago
@idreamtofflight No, I know. I'm just having discussions with multiple creationists right now across a few videos. As it turns out, most of them don't accept infinite regression as a counter-argument to God.
DamienBlade 9 months ago
@projectlevydelta nope wrong, try read my original post again...it perfectly addresses your ridiculous claim wthat killing Jews must be a good thing because of a Nazi subculture......read slowly!
TheNewzbreak 9 months ago
@projectlevydelta No, murder is bad because of the result, and because we have the abilities of fore-thought and empathy we can know it is wrong because we understand the effects. In fact without our ability to understand the impact of our actions and the validity of those actions as being called moral by the intent and outcome of our actions, the concept of morals does not exist. ....
TheNewzbreak 10 months ago
his reasoning makes any conclusion we humans reach on our own subjective. take physics, for example. it is what we infer from our observations and completely depends on how our minds work. Craig says, unless some alien civilization confirms our equations, physics is subjective. What follows from his line of thinking is absurd. He is confusing objective and absolute. He wants absolute morality, guess what it is, and this is immoral because we improve our moral standards by conversation.
AD6043 10 months ago
Someone should hand Mr. Lane a copy of marc D. Hauser's book "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong". Science is our best approach to the truth (hint: there is no god).
LegionarioCruel 10 months ago
@LegionarioCruel
"Someone should hand Mr. Lane a copy..."
What you see in these brief clips only scratches the surface of the surface of his works? Elsewhere, Dr. Craig shows how "evolutionary morality" is completely ridiculous.
"Science is our best approach to the truth"
Can you scientifically verify that statement?
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
if craig can use logic to say god objectively exists, why cant the atheist use logic to say morality exists (rawl's veil of ignorance and the categorical imperative)
nubbs 10 months ago
God? Which God? What he believes in? Seriously, using god as an answer creates more questions than it answers.
BTW, Can someone give me a basic list of absolute moral?
darkrood 10 months ago
YOU might be too stupid to know that murder and rape is wrong.
The rest of us have brains.
VonVladimierVoltar 10 months ago
this guy hates baboons
keepthefunk 10 months ago
0:30 No. The church has no monopoly for moral and values in life.
keepthefunk 10 months ago
It's funny how an atheist assumes morality which they cannot define. Morality is only understandable in the context of God.
YHWHisSovereign 10 months ago
@chairde I think you missed the point.
KPACHNbIBLOOD 10 months ago
Even with a belief in God there are no objective morals. The bible talks about slavery and stoning for infidelity all kinds of things that no one practices any more. People pick and choose what they want to follow from the bible, the same way Atheists and others pick and choose what they think is right and wrong. Religion is just dragging a little behind the moral zeitgeist.
VonKraut 10 months ago
Comment removed
ozzylad71 11 months ago
If love, tolerance and charity are "really good" objective values, I guess you can't question whether "love" could be a selfish, excluding and sexually motivated desire, "tolerance" hypocritical cowardice and "charity" the perfect way to get a good conscience. Just an objective thought though. Or was it subjective?
Toggen62 11 months ago
He isn't making a good argument. He defines objective values as values that are independent of people's opinions. Then he says in the absence of god, values cannot be objective. How people evolved to see murder as evil is completely independent of personal opinion, fitting his definition of an "objective value", and this has *nothing* to do with god being around.
miketgates 11 months ago
@miketgates ....our prisons and jails are filled to the max with people who consider themselves as MORALLY GOOD. Without the guidance and conviction of the Holy Spirit...most people can not see or understand what is wrong with abortion, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc. Their personal moral compass is SKEWED because of their own sin.
bornagain001 11 months ago
@bornagain001 You still haven't explained why homosexuality, forniction, adulter and pornography are bad in and of themselves.
Keitaro2011 11 months ago
@Keitaro2011 ...GENESIS 2:24. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” In this ONE VERSE, God establishes “His” boundaries for BOTH marriage and sex. ANY deviation from this is a perversion of His will for your life and rebellion (SIN) against Him. Of course if you reject God...then all things are permissable.
bornagain001 11 months ago
@bornagain001 That doesn't explain why it's wrong. AT ALL. You fail.
Keitaro2011 11 months ago
@Keitaro2011 ...It's WRONG because our CREATOR tells us it's wrong. YOU FAIL.
bornagain001 11 months ago
@Keitaro2011 ...It's WRONG because our CREATOR tells us it's wrong. YOU FAIL.
bornagain001 11 months ago
@bornagain001
Their personal moral compass is skewed because of some combination of upbringing and genetics. Once you bring God into it, the moral compass actually becomes *more* subjective. Case in point: Do you know who also felt they had the "guidance of conviction of the Holy Spirit"? The men who crashed two 747s into the twin towers on 9/11.
miketgates 11 months ago
@miketgates ...Do you know who also felt they had the "guidance of conviction of the Holy Spirit"?
INCORRECT. Muslims do not recognize or even understand the influence of the Holy Spirit. The men who crashed into the Twin Towers were TRYING to reach out to God to please Him and perhaps be rewarded in Heaven. God NEVER told them to kill fo Him and they are now in Hell.
bornagain001 11 months ago
There a plenty of times i the bible where murder is ok. God must be a moral relativist. How can we say slavery is wrong when it is condones in the bible?
bogusnachos 1 year ago
Chocolate is better than vanilla. Absolution.
TelegramZero 1 year ago
Its like relgion - everyone they have the objective truth. but clearly everyone cant be objective correct.
badpanda84 1 year ago
Saying there is objective morals is like every religion saying the have the objective truth
All religions claim they have -the objective truth. but clearly all religions cant be objectively correct.
badpanda84 1 year ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 1 year ago
the are no objective morals... Just claiming that something is an objective moral is merely your subjective opinion.
How can you tell something is an objective moral value..
for instance I could claim that no pre-martial sex is an objective moral value but dose that really make it so or is that my subjective opinion
badpanda84 1 year ago
... on the other hand, the evolution/social model better explains our moral inclination. It better explains why we have some people who don't seem to understand morality at all (sociopaths etc.) as well as why our morality as a human species has evolved over time. Who still believes it's okay to enslave people or to take women as property after a war conquest? Who still makes animal or human sacrifices? If God's morality is unchanging, how do we explain this evolution of social morality?
trout77x 1 year ago
It's interesting that this all-knowing, all-powerful being only created "objective" morals for one out of all the species of animals on the planet. Apparently, it's okay for a species to ruthlessly kill members of opposing species or even members of its own species without any fear of reprisal. But, humans are different. Yes, this God-being thrust a different kind of morality on us.
trout77x 1 year ago
@chairde
wrong ant belief system can make good people do bad things, communism drove good men seeking equality to mass murder.
leachyau 1 year ago
@leachyau The responsibility for our actions lies within ourselves and nowhere else.
chairde 1 year ago
@chairde I agree but you cant maintain religion is the only thing which can cause good men to do evil.
leachyau 1 year ago
@leachyau I can't think of anything right now. Some people say Communism or nationalism but they are near religions. Can you list some?
chairde 1 year ago
I am an agnostic (but not like agnostic agnostic, more like the Dawkins definition).
I think that Craig is right here. It is totally obvious for me that he is right. The only time I think he is right :D.
He was also right in the debate with this philosopher from Yale.
Some guy said that "If you need a divine commandment to tell you that murder is wrong then I doubt your ability to be moral". That guy clearly does not understand the issue here.
kostbill 1 year ago
@kostbill think that Craig is right here. It is totally obvious for me that he is right"
yes he is correct -- from 0:50 to about 1:50..
And no atheist don't typically think human being are special - after all we did evolve from primates.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 we didn't evolve from primates, we are primates.
bogusnachos 1 year ago
@chairde words cannot express how much I love this comment
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976
*sighs* The problem with that is that you would have no basis to shun another person if morality is only subjective. They would simply have to maintain their own moral code (of course I've yet to meet the person who has accomplished that in their life, including myself). Morality needs to be grounded in something greater than mere men to mean anything, that's the point of Craig's arguement.
AMWOODco 1 year ago
Don't confuse religion with God. Man will always be fallible, but that doesn't deny the moral law. What we do and what we're called to do are most often out of sync.
Edwordless 1 year ago
Child abuse is not an objective moral value --
Admittedly its a subjective moral value that the majority of people agree with.
And secondly atheist dont believe human begins to be special - after all we are just evolved apes
badpanda84 1 year ago
Maybe there is no such thing as objective morals..
And keep in mind the catholic church had no problems with child abuse and torture...
badpanda84 1 year ago
wrong. man made god, therefore, man created objective moral values, therefore, there is objective values without god, therefore, stfu.
8DFahren 1 year ago
Such a waste of a brilliant mind......
philster61 1 year ago
what came first; a sentient being or morality?
Alaric11 1 year ago
He says rape, torture , infanticide and injustice are really wrong. He just described what jesus asked of his followers.
ozzylad71 1 year ago 2
@ozzylad71 really, Jesus said that. in the gospels?
leachyau 1 year ago
@leachyau have a read of the old testament. Christian friends of mine tell me when I bring the subject up about the atrocities committed in gods name, that god was only commanding people to carry out genocide, sodomy of young boys (still happens in the catholic church) rape, murder and torture not to mention incest because he was punishing people for their sins. And they then justify this as being the old testament and that because the great on in the sky died on the cross we are all forginen
ozzylad71 1 year ago
@leachyau The christians brush aside these atrocities in the old testament because they do not fit in with modern humanist morality. Human evolution has out grown the bible and its followers are just grasping at straws.
ozzylad71 1 year ago
@ozzylad71 He says rape, torture , infanticide and injustice are really wrong. "
Lol someone forgot to tell the catholic church that -- ok maybe they got the message about the infanticide ( because of there stance on abortion).........
badpanda84 1 year ago
@ozzylad71 Troll? Jesus didn't ask that. Read a Bible? I think so.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Sorry I stand corrected, since man created god it was man who wrote this. You should re read the old testament. God kills over 200 000 people and satin kills 10 of jobs' family. So who is the evil one.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 God is. Man didn't create him. There is a immaterial cause of the universe, and that's a fact of life we have all had to accept. If you don't want there to be a God, that's your decision. But no need to lie about the Truth.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth I was a christian from an early age god did not show himself never has never will even as a young brainwashed person. I have read the bible and that is one of the reasons I am an atheist if you want a debate bring it on.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 You wasn't a christian. You may have had belief, but the second you realized that being a christian meant you cannot be God you stopped believing. Are you seriously suggesting that someone can be brainwashed yet at the same time be aware of what brainwashing is?
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth No the moment there was not a god I ceased being a christian. Youy are making these claims so where is your proof. Something that is to be proven with no evidence can be refuted with no evidence.
where is your proof that can be measured out side of your own brain
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth who would in their sane mind want to be god. man uses god to justify atrocities
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 "Who would in their sane mind want to be God?". Are you being stupid?
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 "Who would in their sane mind want to be God?". Are you stupid?
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth I am not after insults I am after evidence can you provide this?
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Well this debate finished before it began whats wrong have you not got any evidence for a god? Who would of figured?
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 Have you got any evidence for an immaterial cause of the universe other than God? No.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth i am not the one claiming there is a god. There are invisible pink unicorns that live in the clouds and they have to exist because you can not prove they don't. We need to define what version of god you
have faith in. We need logical debate here.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 I know you are not claiming that there is a God, that is why i said can you provide me of evidence for an immaterial cause of the universe other than God. So are you saying a pink unicorn? I am not disrespecting your beliefs i simply asking you what is it that you put faith in?
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth I do not believe there are pink unicorns i was only using that as an example of how you are
trying to prove gods existence. looks like you cann not through logical reasoning. I am open minded how ever to change my mind i need proof
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 It is completely logical to say that something we cannot see/sense exists. The reason lies in the infinite regression problem. Without an immaterial cause it would take an infinite sequence of events to arrive at this present point in time, and therefore this moment wouldn't exist. This moment exists and therefore we know there must be a beginning to the universe.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth The use of in finite regression is not even supported by all theists and is a circular argument were there is no evidence that has to be provided to support a claim. you still have not answered my question on what is your definition of god and you still have not provided any proof. If god really existed you would have proof.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 Firstly mathematics is not circular reasoning. Infinity - Infinity = undefined, it does not equal 0. Very basic mathematics right there. Secondly my definition of God is a force which asks things of people via the Bible or via the mind. Do i have proof of this force? Well do we have proof that a force named "gravity" exists? Well we don't tangible prove that can be sensed by a human but we can see the effects of that force on material. Can we see the effects of a force like God? Yes.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Infinite regression does not justify any particular god or concept of god outside what you claim to experience. A moslem could use your reasoning to justify their god, and so too can any religion.
You still have not provided any evidence that your particular god exists.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 Firstly i didn't realize you wanted me to prove my particular God since you never said "my particular God". Nevertheless if you are an atheist then you have just proved to me that you do infact believe in a God, you are just unsure about which one, which would make you deist/theist. There are many reasons why Jesus is God and not "Allah", one simply being that Christianity is a more widely spread. Now your a deist/theist you can search up for yourself why Jesus is God and not Allah.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth i used the term your particular god is because there are so many interpretations of god
and providing an explanation that because christianity is more wide spread is not evidence that "your god exists."Think crusades when at a time christians were reclaiming holy land against moslems, jews and even Greek orthodox christians. Mass murder of people and killing them spread christianity that is why it is so why it is so widely spread.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth because more people believe in a particular religion does not prove anything. you still need to provide evidence other than blind faith. What do you mean you did not know which particular god of course i mean yours, who else?
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 You said, prove the existence of God not prove the existence of a specific God. God is God, do you not know what God is? I don't think you do seeing as you asked me what the definition of God was earlier. God is an immaterial force and we know that immaterial forces exist. Therefore God exists. Like i said, if you believe that God exists then why do i have to prove to you why Jesus is God? I could give you many links to why Islam is false. But then you could research that yourself.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth you have not provided any proof that your god exists and why the claims of your religion is true. I am not asking you to disprove other religions just prove your claims. It is that simple it, would be great if you could grasp that. Instead of making assumptions about me please please please answer the question as this debate is going no where
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 I have already given you evidence why God exists. God exists because immaterial forces which define God exist inside the universe. For example God created the heaven and earth = Gravity. God created the different elements which make up cells = nuclear force within the atom. God created man = Information within DNA. God asks people to do things = billions of people preaching the gospel, printing Bibles, building churches. Mary had a virgin birth to the son of God = The time-line begun.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth That is still not evidence you are only making more claims to justify a previous claim. You still have not proved gods existence in the first instance
ozzylad71 11 months ago
Comment removed
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ozzylad71 I am not making more claims to justify a previous claim. I had no previous claim. I simply stated that God exists because constant forces which have not been intentionally caused by material, exist. That is not making more claims to justify a previous claim. Making more claims to justify a previous claim is saying "we know A because of B, and B because of A". Immaterial forces are forces which you cannot see, you can only see the effects they have on material. For example "gravity".
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinksworth An invisible and silent God doesn't nessesarily exist inside this universe just because
mortal religious humans want to believe it. On the other hand, if there exist an invisible ans silent God I guess
he could exist in what ever universe or dimention he ever wanted no matter what creationist or evolutionist believe
or think about it. And if holy book claims sometimes doesn't make scientific sense, call them divine miracles. Or ---.
Toggen62 11 months ago
@Toggen62 This is kind of my point, my point was more directly addressing the fact that everyone believes in an immaterial power, due to the existence of gravity. There is still a Nobel Prize waiting for the person who can find out why gravity exists. Gravity simple shouldn't be there.
ThomasWinkworth 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth What are these immaterial forces that prove gods existence sounds absurd
ozzylad71 11 months ago
Comment removed
ozzylad71 11 months ago
@ThomasWinkworth Sir what is your definition of god since there are over 1000 denominations of christianity which suggests you do not need evidence just faith.
ozzylad71 11 months ago
I knew all the "good little atheists" would show up for this one....
EastofForever 1 year ago 2
@EastofForever Yes I did
ozzylad71 11 months ago
All of the bad thins he lists as wrong are straight out of the Bible as behavior ordered by God of his chosen people, the only evil ordered by God that he missed was Slavery. How somebody who claims to have studied the bible cannot see the hypocrisy in this statement is beyond the realms of probability, the conclusion is that Dr Lane Craig is knowingly lying to promote his particular point of view. The question is why? I can only think that it must be Mamon at the root of this deception.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
Nowhere in evolutionary literature is there place for "herd evolution"; natural selection doesn't operate on a species, it operates on the individual and their genes. Get evolutionary theory right and then give this discussion another swing, Craig.
kawawakaba 1 year ago
y does he need there 2 b an objective right & wrong anyway? Wot is the specieism in humanity coming up with its own ideas of whats good & bad,according 2 wot works and causes less suffering. It does not make us any better than other animals,merely that we as a species have basic morality built into us,which in no way applies to other species. We have the ability to think and see things from others perspectives. Our basic right and wrongs are merely subjective in relation to other species.
LobarRobotic 1 year ago
I am skeptical of evolution theory as well but it is people like this buffoon that is a disgrace to the human species. Well, guess he has to make a living so he pedals out nonsense.
lye54 1 year ago
All morals are subjective. One person's wrong may be a right to another. It's solely perspective.
Sublime3491 1 year ago
do piranha eat each other?why not?
amen is an egyptian sun god.
DSCW33 1 year ago
Why does Dr. Craig feel that objective morality is truly necessary? I can subjectively say that child abuse is wrong, as can all sane individuals; if an individual needs their deity to tell them that child abuse is wrong, they have a serious problem.
I find it rather sad that people feel the need to have a 'true evil' and a 'true good' to judge things against. You should be able to judge things independently of such comforts, or you are not a truly moral being.
WombleMan 1 year ago 2