This is NOT "the basic way in which the Theist attempts to get out of this argument."It may be the way Dr Wm Lane Craig and others of that ilk do so. But they are motivated by a desire to rescue man's autonomous free will to do so and hence propose Molinism, or Open Theism, or a host of other nonsense to do so.
1. The Greek Gods never thought of an Almighty or eternal God who created the universe.
4. The true Theist or Calvinist has NO problem admitting that ONLY what God declares to be good is good.
5. Goodness is NOT a concept external to God by which He is judged either good or bad. HOW would Craig or the others know God's nature was good without such an external standard to judge it by?
6. See the video IS GOD ARBITRARY according to Dr Gordon H Clark on the Blogrich55 channel.
I do not ascribe to either moral relativism or moral absolutism, so "objective morality" would need more definition in order to be something I could discuss more concretely, but I would *not* say that evolution successfully wires the same moral code into all of us. Rather, it manifests as particular basic pillars--the current best understanding of them lists five: harm/care and fairness under "light morality" and obedience to authority, in-group loyalty, and purity under "dark morality."
My apologies for not getting back to this earlier. Hopefully my responses will show up this time.
I would not say that evolution hardwires us with knowledge that an objective morality exists, per se. Rather, it hardwires us with the vague notion that having some kind of social system to control overcompetition and enforce some degree of cooperation is better than an everyone-for-themself free-for-all.
My view of God is probably not consistant with most, but I view him more as a parent in relation to me the child. A parent tells his kids not to do certain things, and whther they know it or not, its usually for their own good and it is good..When god isimmoral, that becomes do as i say not as i do. When my child wants to use my band saw, i say no. When he gives me a "Why do you get to use it then" excuse, i say because i know what i'm doing with it. In the same way, God may know what hes doing
@scrappmutt2 it's very accurate to everyone's god belief. it is simply a daddy complex. and the child keeps saying look at me look at me. children want constant attention from their parents. as they grow up, they choose an imaginary daddy figure to try to remain children. basically it is a lack of maturity to believe in god.
God's nature determines what God would do, but that does not mean "what God does" can be used interchangeably with his nature.
rather than saying "No, god would not do that (aka evil) because god would not do that" it would be more accurate to say "God would not do that (aka evil) because it is inconsistent with his essential properties (aka his nature)."
For example, God is loyal, God is just, God is merciful, etc.
While those things are good, it does not follow that if God does something, we should also do it.
God judges, but we are different from God. We do not have omniscience, authority, and lack of bias. While justice is itself a good thing, that does not mean we are in a position to judge.
Also, more than just God's commands inform us of his nature. Any evidence for obj morality is evidence for God's essential properties.
I have a playlist on the Euthyphro dilemma and an ongoing discussion with the popular youtube atheist "theoreticalbullshit". Check out my vids if you want a detailed look at my objections. It is possible that God's nature is the source of objective morality (a third alternative). If it is even possible there is a third alternative while the Euthyphro dilemma only presents two alternatives.. then the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
@Epydemic2020 rd alternative has been part of the dilemma, although not introduced in the original discussion. but it is also problematic. if god's nature is the source, did god give himself that nature, or does it come from somewhere else. if god gave it to itself, then it is still not objective as he can change it, if it comes from outside of god, what is the source?
You cannot give yourself a nature, yet the nature of a non-contigent being doesn't come from an outside source. A necessary being and His nature would have existed co-eternally.
(more simply put, asking "what caused the essential properties an uncaused being?" is never a valid question, and it is equally impossible for a being to cause itself)
God does not decide what good is (If I am arguing morality is founded in His nature, I must also being arguing that morality is not subject to God's commands/decisions).
God cannot change His nature. A nature refers to a being/object's "essential properties". If God could change His nature, that would violate the law of noncontradiction because it would entail that God would have essential non-essential properties.
@Epydemic2020 Your claim that God does not decide what good is actually falls within the bounds of Euthyphro's dilemma: specifically, outcome two, where God loves what is good because it is good and not that what is good is good because God loves it. Thus, the middle-man can be skipped, and Euthyphro's dilemma remains valid.
@Epydemic2020 Dilemma is still relevant even if you attach this "objective morality" to God's nature: is this morality an objective morality specifically because it is God's nature (which fits under the outcome of "Things are pious because God loves them,") or does God have this nature because it is what is objectively moral (which fits under the outcome of "God loves things because they are pious")? It sounds like you ascribe to the former.
"Things are pious because God loves them" is not an accurate description of my position at all.
A nature, or a set of essential properties, is not contingent upon the sentiments of the individual with those properties. In other words, whether or not God loves His nature has no bearing on what His nature is.
@Epydemic2020 Hey there =) So I went back to your first comment on this video, and I have a few questions. How is it that you can pick which parts of god's nature to follow? Doesn't everything that god does follow under his nature? Its in god's nature to judge, but people shouldn't judge? How did you come to that conclusion without using a predetermined set of personal morals?
@Epydemic2020 It was more a reference to it still fitting under that general concept. Here, I'll do you one better: "Because I've decided to define 'good' as 'God's nature,' anything in God's nature must be good, including God condoning slavery, God commanding genocide, and God commanding that virginal women be taken as rape slaves." It makes it every bit as alien--and *utterly meaningless*--as "What God loves is what is pious."
@Epydemic2020 Whether God actually loves his nature is a complete triviality. There is not a meaningful difference between "God's choices determine morality" and "God's nature determines morality": they both set God up as the arbiter of right and wrong, whether by decision or by being--and regardless of whether this "objective morality" is based on God's commands or his nature, it still implies that *anything this creature is capable of*, no matter how horrible, is somehow just.
We have moral knowledge, ie a conscience, hardwired into our heads (we evolved that way).
That moral knowledge informs us of what the standard of morality (aka God's nature) must be like. By having knowledge of objective morality, we also have knowledge of what God's nature must be like.
@Epydemic2020 Kudos for understanding that we evolved, but I would note that the evolution of morality would actually be determined by what helps a species survive natural selection and better outperform competitors through ingroup cooperation--it would be more accurate to say that we have prosocial instincts (as all social animals do) that manifest themselves as an inclination towards some standard of morality or proto-morality that helps personal and group survival than moral knowledge per se.
Literally everything evolves as a result of helping us survive better (with possibly rare short-term exceptions to natural selection). Our eyesight also evolves to help us survive, but that does not call into question the existence of the things we see (to say it did would be to commit the genetic fallacy). For this reason, showing that our moral sense evolved does not bring into question the existence of objective morality.
@Epydemic2020 Very true, and that isn't actually what I was arguing. Rather, naturally evolved morality that passes the test of natural selection in the physical world makes a case for morality originating in the practical value of prosocial behaviour in the natural, physical world, as opposed to necessarily being something handed down from supernatural sources.
Evolution hardwires us with knowledge that objective morality exists. We need some sort of argument to make us not accept reality at face value and to conclude that objective morality is just an illusion. Otherwise, the moral argument will hold.
@Epydemic2020 The physical world and its components, including our evolved instincts, absolutely are real: to say our instincts are not real would be to claim that the functions of our brains aren't. That said, the instinct that "our group needs rules to prevent antisocial behaviour" isn't necessarily the same as belief in an objective morality--some organisms see it that way, others don't.
@Epydemic2020 The physical world and its components, including our evolved instincts, absolutely are real: to say our instincts are not real would be to claim that the functions of our brains aren't. That said, the instinct that "our group needs rules to prevent antisocial behaviour" isn't necessarily the same as belief in an objective morality--some organisms see it that way, others don't.
Here's your problem: Socrates was a theistic moral absolutist, as shown by the Phaedo. The point of the Euthyphro is a criticism of ethical subjectivism among theists. Moral absolutes are axioms. One cannot get behind axioms.
But you are quite right that morality must be objective to hold any real validity. Read "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis.
God to be God of necessity is perfection. Lying is a lack of the truth and hence a lack of perfection. One who lies can not therefore be God. Murder can not be abscribed to God Who gives and who takes away and whose actions are Just for if they were unjust that would be a lack of Justice and therefore a lack of perfection. One who is unjust can not be God.
Again, as all atheists, you demand that God be made empirically transparent to you which is not possible in the sense of the scientific method which depends on tests and peer review. But may I ask you, what is GOOD?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Goodness is unselfishness. This is what Jesus Christ desplayed for us perfectly in His life and by going to the cross to pay for the sin debt of all who trust in Him. God has many characteristics to his nature; including righteous indignation and wrath. As a just judge this is why God has at times destroyed people who commit wickedness. God is a Spirit who can be known personally but our sins seperate us from Him, Jesus Christ bridges that gap through the cross.
Bitbutter had a pretty good and concise response to the Christian's answer to the Euthyphro problem.
In one particular video (watch?v=OGx8qHdxcpE), he simply asks, "Is what is moral part of God's nature because it's moral, or is it moral because it's part of God's nature?".
The point being that the Christian has done nothing except complicate the problem rather than actually solve it.
[arguing advocatum dei] This dilemma only works by confusing ontology and epistemology. Whereas "goodness" and "god's nature" may be ontologically identical, they are conceptually distinct. Our ideas of what is "good" may be acquired apart from a direct knowledge of God's essence, but this is a flaw in our method of intuition, not a statement about the ontology of either God or "goodness". Compare the philosophical distinction between sense and reference for similar examples.
God would do ex because someone sent him a DJ tiesto CD and some glowsticks and he has a three-day weekend. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.
To kill/sacrifice was a pure motive from the crucifixion. Also He didn't kill his son in the sense that most people think because of the trinity. God offered Himself up willfully.
And the old testament;in Exodus 22:29 God takes the babies through death and they are Given to him, they are going to be with God. people more often than not don't understand motives behind killing, there's a difference between killing and murder and that is the motive.
Big sacrifice for an omnipotent deity giving up his human form. God created a big game where people will no doubt commit fouls and then punishes people for committing the fouls that an omnipotent being would surely know people would do. If you bring up "free will" then that omnipotent being denied himself the power to meddle in people's affairs, even though people pray for him to make other teams lose in a roundabout way. People's "free will" is whatever option's that deity lets people have.
So he chose for three days of death, of his own free will...???
It's then in His nature to sacrifice himself to get closer to his people. So those who sacrifice themselves to get closer to God are the righteous.
Yay! Everyone, kill yourselves to go to Heaven...wait a fucking minute, suicide is a sin in Christianity. That means that Islam is the REAL RELIGION of God.
(I am serious, go convert to Islam and kill yourself)
And WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS FUCKING MOTIVE YOU SPEAK ABOUT?
I don't believe God is constraining himself because He is good, I'd rather come to the notion that He cannot sin. because evil or sin is not in His nature, therfore He cannot sin, therfore He is not restraining Himself.
@xxWhiteLightningxxx What are you trying to say? If you substitute a couple more typically used nouns and verbs in your quote, then it becomes:
"I don't believe God is constraining himself because he only wears flipflops, I'd rather come to the notion that he can't wear boots. Because wearing boots is not in his nature, therefore he cannot wear boots, therefore he is not restraining himself."
You're right that this so-called "third way" collapses into circular reasoning with horrible consequences, e.g., genocide must be morally fine since God has engaged in it and commanded others to do so (according to the Bible). Moreover, the "God's nature is good" bit also begs the question in that it assumes there is something called "good" that can be identified, but it doesn't identify it beyond saying God is good. Divine Command Theory is nothing but a moral swamp.
Testaments, in which he could teach people to do not the things what he has done before. Because he isn't perfect he evaluates, and everytime he does he also creates new more perfect worlds. So if this is true, we don't have to blame ourslefs that we aren't perfect. Also it would be interesting if we could overcome by inteligence Gods knowledge. The student overcomes his master. Like Steve Vai Joe Satriani :P Anyway, I stop it. Nice video with good ides ! :)
What if God is a person from the future who has a bit more inteligence then we have, but not 100% inteligence and perfection. And with his more inteligence he created us and the world we live in, but we aren't his first creation. He made a lot of people and world before us. Which were less perfect then we are. But, 'cuz he is evaluating too he could made more perfect worlds too (destroying the less perfect ones). Learning from his mistakes, he wrote testaments to the new worlds.
Very well said. You're just one example that intelligence breeds atheism. As the intelligence of the world's population has increased, atheism has increased. It's pretty obvious that as a species, we've become increasingly intelligent, and will continue as such, indefinitely. So, it logically follows that it's inevitable - at some point in the near future, EVERYONE will be an atheist. This tiring global debate will finally be reduced to a bedtime story.
I did what I did because it is what I would do, and when it was done, it was done because I do what I would do so therefore I did do what I did and now it's done because it is what I would do or would have done. BRAVO on a great video!!! Pardon my patronizing pre-lude, however I did it because it is what I would ..... ok ok I'm done.
I'm sure alot of christians will look at this and say: "Well, you can't comprehend God's will because it's the almighty God and God knows everything and because he is God he doesn't want you to know what he knows so therefore this subject is brought up. BOW BEFORE HIM!"
It's almost gotten to the point where every question can be countered. The testaments or the old books isnt what makes me think rational though. I just dont believe in a FUCKING FICTIONAL BEING!!
It seems as if Christanity, in whole, is circular. So many problems. If God knows all, why create souls destined for Hell? And if he is perfect, why allow Satan to exist? How can we live in Heaven forever, when we once lived on earth?... It's all self-contradicting.
I was troubled as a child, horrified that my inability to find 'faith' in Jesus might send my soul to Hell to burn for eternity.
"lol it sounds like mig is just saying the same thing over and over... just my opinion though"
maybe it could be an objective statement, i think the same way as you. if i could be bothered reading through his dodging of the questions i could measure the likeness of each statement.
ahhh, if i wasn't so lazy i wouldn't have time to do everything i want.
By claiming that "god chooses what is good because god is good (and therefore we can trust him)", JRSBarker is essentially saying that god chooses good acts because they are inherently good. He's dodging the issue and trying to create a false dilemma where there actually is none.
Excellent video, Peter. I had no problem following your train of thought, don't worry.
The very fact that you had to talk in circles while giving us the theist "refutation" demonstrated the point that it goes nowhere logically. Please continue what you are doing, I'd like to see more videos of yours explicating on philosophy full time, rather then tangentially to another subject.
Because cause and effect may be the way God works... you know, so us atheists can measure it, and rationalise it, and say it's completely logical, while all the good believers who have faith in God can smirk quietly to themselves, safe in the knowledge that their faith will lead to their salvation. I mean, God wants us to believe in him, but he doesn't want to give it all away up front, like some 10 cent hooker.
You know for a minute there, even I thought I was going to make a serious point :D
Tooltime, I agree with pretty much 99% of your videos, and I must say your arguments are really well researched and rebuttals to Christian arguments are both cutting and logical. However, I'm a bit confused about how in the last 2 minutes of this video you outlined some supposedly immoral acts that God has performed, but completed skirted around the issue of context and cause and effect. Maybe God performed these acts in order to avoid a greater evil. I was wondering if you could clarify this?
also, i would submit that "objectivity" doesn't even exist. everything is perceived through the lense of consciousness, and that consciousness is unique to the being doing the perceiving, and because it is unique to the being doing the perceiving, is subjective.
Well this logical reasoning applies to how many people think - I even think I've caught my self in making circular explanations but with many more deducted steps.
I think it would help if you used flow charts - eg. in another video layer as you're saying it. (this might even be a circular reasoning :P)
I'm still unable to comprehend how a completely singular event (slaughter of the canaanites), which has a very interesting context worth discussing (which for some strange reason you cast aside), proves that genocide in any and all contexts would be moral assuming that morality is rooted in God.
I said given the context that morality = what god would do. again, to say that morality is contextual is to lead us right back to an extra-divine explanation of what morality is.
I do know the "context" god told Joshua to slaughter them so that the Israelites could have the land.
"I said given the context that morality = what god would do. again, to say that morality is contextual is to lead us right back to an extra-divine explanation of what morality is."
How is the situational/contextual nature of morality indicative of an extra-divine source for morality again?
"I do know the context"
true, but did it ever occur to you that the Canaanites were a terrible lot (child sacrifice, genocide etc. common on their part)
how the hell can you believe in objective rights and wrongs if you're a naturalist? this would seem to show that moral values are non-physical objects which act within the universe (which would falsify physicalism and naturalism depending on how one defines "natural")
how Petulant! the age old "if god doesn't make the rules, then there are no rule" argument. note the fact that you are deploying it in order to dodge actually having to justify your god's seemingly abhorrent actions. again, your moral intuitions are more warped then you want to believe.
"how Petulant! the age old "if god doesn't make the rules, then there are no rule" argument. note the fact that you are deploying it in order to dodge actually having to justify your god's seemingly abhorrent actions."
so the evident evil of the canaanites wasn't enough? sheesh!
again, your god is not in the business of stopping atrocities, and that STILL does not mean that EVERY man, woman and child deserved to die, NOR does it erase the FACT that god could have ended all of that without resorting to slaughter. for an all powerful being, he certainly went for what should have been his last resort first, but you refuse to face that fact.
"but did it ever occur" did it ever occur to you that that's a lot of biblical propaganda? even if it is not, are you saying that EVERY man, woman and child were responsible for those acts? why is your god only in the business of stopping such acts back in the OT? sacrificing children to what? false god? that means that your god could A) send people to slaughter them, or B) show up in a burning bush or something, give the Canaanites "true religion" and save all those babies. God chose the former
"did it ever occur to you that that's a lot of biblical propaganda?"
I'm fairly certain that we have extra-biblical sources on the Canaanites. Oh and the archaeological evidence (population increase in 12th and 11th centuries) seems to corroborate the canaanite conquest. Moving on, can we be certain that they would believe God if he sent this "burning bush"? lastly, if one believes in infant and child salvation, then this would not be as immoral an act as you percieve.
I never said the Canaanites did not exist. what I meant is that there is an old anthropologist saying about ethnography where they would ask a tribe about cannibalism, and they would say "well we are not cannibal, but that tribe over there..." and then the next tribe would say the same thing.
"hat they would believe..." drop the BS mig, if your god truly wanted anyone or everyone to believe in him, no one would be left in doubt as to his existence.
mig, having a source in not the point. the story may well be apocrypha. the point is that the bible is not necessarily the most unbiased source of information on the Canaanites.
again, you god clearly is not in the business of stopping such acts. it AMAZES me to here you talk about moral intuition, when yours have clearly rotted away years ago. you are no doubt currently awaiting the day in which god will wipe billions of the face of the earth and the blood will be up the the horses' bridals in an act of "divine compassion", because according to your belief system, this life is just a waist of time, and its ending is the best thing that could happen.
"you are no doubt currently awaiting the day in which god will wipe billions of the face of the earth and the blood will be up the the horses' bridals in an act of "divine compassion","
where the hell did that one come from O_o?
"this life is just a waist of time, and its ending is the best thing that could happen."
perhaps if we ignore the significance of the final resurrection of the dead and the redemption of creation.
it is a book called Revelations. you might have heard of it. it details how god is going to show his "compassion" for the world through the slaughter of billions.
"perhaps if we ignore the..."
Jesus in a nutshell "fuck this life, wait for the next".
"it is a book called Revelations. you might have heard of it. it details how god is going to show his "compassion" for the world through the slaughter of billions."
2 points
1: your post would prove that I was ignorant, not that I was some sociopath
you dodge, you evade, you ignore, you brush aside, but I want to actually hear what you have to say about the book you base your life on says that god is going to end the world in orgy of violence.
"does that really need a response?"
no, because that is a perfectly succinct summation of a great portion of his teachings.
"There is extra-biblical data to corroborate the fact that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice "
so did the aztecs. yet your god did not send moses on a sailing trip to kill them all. why did your god not kill them all to leave moses' hands free from the blood?
tooltime has asked some very good questions which you have not answered, i think, subjectively, that all you have done is clog up the comments section on this video.
"29 You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses.*
The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: for seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you" shall give it to me.
God's genocide is a completely singular event? What about Sodom and gomorrah, while not technically genocide, it was mass murder. And wasn't there something about a flood? That was damn near humanicide and speciescide, or whatever you would call murdering almost all of humanity and every land borne species. Hmmm, is god really moral? Not by my standards, by my standards, god is a psycopath. Guess thats why I'm an atheist, I can't imagine something that evil.
with science and empirical observation we can quantify compassion, empathy, and justice, but we cannot use science or empirical observation to quantify morality. The Theist would (or should) argue that because of God and shedding of naturalism, we can quantify the morality of a possible action.
if we can quantify those things, then what about morality can't we quantify? again, thew theist simply wants to try to cheat their way to an "absolute morality by saying "god done did it" if it is unquantifiable, they you only have the FAITH that god is giving you the proper quantification for it.
"if we can quantify those things, then what about morality can't we quantify?"
whether or not something is actually "good" or "evil"
"they only have faith that God is giving you the proper quantification for it"
not really. Our moral intuitions seem to comply with justice and compassion. it woulden't then take faith to believe that our moral intuitions are correct or are accurately revealed by their source
I dont quite remember claiming to be able to quantify "moral" and "immoral", and if I did I'm sorry. But Justice and compassion I believe can be quantified and categorized easily by anyone, atheists and theists alike.
What I mean is that saying "if something is moral or not" can be quantified is literally nonsense. If something is moral or it is not, then that is not quantification, but categorization. Categories are things we collectively make up in our heads. They have wholly subjective scopes. To say you can have an objective morality based on those subjective categories is absurd.
for the upteenth time, morality is not based on Justice and compassion. Morality is based on God's nature, which is rooted in justice and compassion. Without God's nature we cannot say that justice and compassion are actually moral.
"why is God just and compassionate rather than not?" because he just is. we can know this because of our moral intuitions.
So what you're basically saying is God is the only one that can tell us that justice and compassion are good? Because his nature is rooted in them? But why are they good?!
"because he just is." there is a statement pulled straight from an asshole if I ever heard one! what you mean to say, is that you would loose all credibility if you argued otherwise, therefore, one NO epistemic basis WHAT SO EVER, you make that assertion!
our moral intuitions? whats predicated on the assumption that they are correct. the thing is, that to a SANE person, plenty of the actions of YHWH are intuitively morally reprehensible! our intuitions therefor must be flawed!
THe moral argument seeks to establish the truth value of our moral intuitions by showing the belief in the truth value of them as a properly basic belief.
Since our moral intuitions are objective, God is the only explanation for their objectivity. The statement that "God just is just and compassionate" is rooted in the fact that our moral intuitions align with compassion and justice.
they are? really? the are only objective if there is a objective morality, there is only an objective morality if our moral intuitions are objective. again another circle.
"is rooted in the fact that our moral intuitions align with compassion and justice."
you are simply projecting our intuitions onto god's nature. "I don't like X, so god doesn't like it either"
"I showed why God's nature is rooted in justice and compassion earlier." no, you asserted that our moral intuitions are objective, then you said that they could only be objective if they reflect god's nature, then you said our moral intuitions point towards compassion and justice, therefore god's must as well. which is only the case if our moral intuitions are objective, which is only the case if god gave us true moral intuitions, which is only the case if he is just, which is only the case if..
alright, let's get god into this conversation to tell us what is good and what is not, let god prove that it is not lying, and then the argument is ended.
so where is god, why does god not just end this right here and now.
"doesn't morality stem..." No because we cannot use science or empirical observation to say if justice or compassion are actually moral. It is my contention that one needs God to say that justice and compassion are objectively moral.
Please tell me how. I feel that trying to quantify these is to commit the fallacy of reification.
"No because we cannot use science or empirical observation to say if justice or compassion are actually moral."
I doubt that we can even quantify justice or compassion in the first place. We have a grasp of the concept but to quantify it would be very arbitrary. How do you know that objective morality exists?
"how do you define goodness" that which is like God's nature.
but woulden't questioning the veracity of the argument based on our inability to strictly define goodness be tantamount to questioning the existence of truth because we cannot define "truth"?
no, the point is that if goodness is "that which is like God's nature" then what is god's nature?
you and to say that it is bad to kill? why? because it is contrary to god's nature? so it is bad because god would not do it? how do you knwo that god would not do it? how is it that you claim to have ANY knowledge of god's nature at all?
so you assume that your moral intuitions are correct because they reflect god's nature, but you know god's nature because they are reflected in your moral intuitions? which is it?
the existence of your moral intuitions can be explained without god's existence, so you are really just blowing smoke.
"so you assume that your moral intuitions are correct because they reflect god's nature"
I assume they are correct because moral values can be shown to be objective
"which is it?" Our moral intuitions reflect objective moral values. objective moral values reflect god's nature
"the existence of your moral intuitions..." I dont deny that, but I am arguing that the objectivity of moral values can be established, and hence the existence of God is established.
the objectivity of some moral statements is simply properly basic. Does one need, or SHOULD one even need evidence for the statement that Hitler (killed 12 million civilians) was less moral than Bill Gates (donated 500 million dollars to help cure HIV/AIDS)?
This is NOT "the basic way in which the Theist attempts to get out of this argument."It may be the way Dr Wm Lane Craig and others of that ilk do so. But they are motivated by a desire to rescue man's autonomous free will to do so and hence propose Molinism, or Open Theism, or a host of other nonsense to do so.
1. The Greek Gods never thought of an Almighty or eternal God who created the universe.
2. This was a concept uniquely Hebrew in nature.
3. The Greek gods were of conflicting ideologies
SmolyHoax 3 months ago
4. The true Theist or Calvinist has NO problem admitting that ONLY what God declares to be good is good.
5. Goodness is NOT a concept external to God by which He is judged either good or bad. HOW would Craig or the others know God's nature was good without such an external standard to judge it by?
6. See the video IS GOD ARBITRARY according to Dr Gordon H Clark on the Blogrich55 channel.
SmolyHoax 3 months ago
my head hurt, It is so funny
ThePeacefulAtheistt 9 months ago
your a fool..read plato...the gorgious
MrZeus169 10 months ago
You are still hott just stop using big words :(
luciielove1 10 months ago
I do not ascribe to either moral relativism or moral absolutism, so "objective morality" would need more definition in order to be something I could discuss more concretely, but I would *not* say that evolution successfully wires the same moral code into all of us. Rather, it manifests as particular basic pillars--the current best understanding of them lists five: harm/care and fairness under "light morality" and obedience to authority, in-group loyalty, and purity under "dark morality."
belladonna5012 1 year ago
My apologies for not getting back to this earlier. Hopefully my responses will show up this time.
I would not say that evolution hardwires us with knowledge that an objective morality exists, per se. Rather, it hardwires us with the vague notion that having some kind of social system to control overcompetition and enforce some degree of cooperation is better than an everyone-for-themself free-for-all.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
Some of my responses don't seem to be showing up when I reload the page. I'm going to wait a bit to see if they start showing up before continuing.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
Excellent Video! I am definitely subbing.
TheDarkSagan 1 year ago
My view of God is probably not consistant with most, but I view him more as a parent in relation to me the child. A parent tells his kids not to do certain things, and whther they know it or not, its usually for their own good and it is good..When god isimmoral, that becomes do as i say not as i do. When my child wants to use my band saw, i say no. When he gives me a "Why do you get to use it then" excuse, i say because i know what i'm doing with it. In the same way, God may know what hes doing
scrappmutt2 1 year ago
@scrappmutt2 it's very accurate to everyone's god belief. it is simply a daddy complex. and the child keeps saying look at me look at me. children want constant attention from their parents. as they grow up, they choose an imaginary daddy figure to try to remain children. basically it is a lack of maturity to believe in god.
brownbigb 1 year ago
God's nature determines what God would do, but that does not mean "what God does" can be used interchangeably with his nature.
rather than saying "No, god would not do that (aka evil) because god would not do that" it would be more accurate to say "God would not do that (aka evil) because it is inconsistent with his essential properties (aka his nature)."
continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020
For example, God is loyal, God is just, God is merciful, etc.
While those things are good, it does not follow that if God does something, we should also do it.
God judges, but we are different from God. We do not have omniscience, authority, and lack of bias. While justice is itself a good thing, that does not mean we are in a position to judge.
Also, more than just God's commands inform us of his nature. Any evidence for obj morality is evidence for God's essential properties.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 did you not listen to the video? objective morality can not come from god.
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
There is a difference between not listening to the video and not agreeing with all of the arguments made.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 so how do youdebunk euthyphro's dilemma?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
I have a playlist on the Euthyphro dilemma and an ongoing discussion with the popular youtube atheist "theoreticalbullshit". Check out my vids if you want a detailed look at my objections. It is possible that God's nature is the source of objective morality (a third alternative). If it is even possible there is a third alternative while the Euthyphro dilemma only presents two alternatives.. then the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 rd alternative has been part of the dilemma, although not introduced in the original discussion. but it is also problematic. if god's nature is the source, did god give himself that nature, or does it come from somewhere else. if god gave it to itself, then it is still not objective as he can change it, if it comes from outside of god, what is the source?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
You cannot give yourself a nature, yet the nature of a non-contigent being doesn't come from an outside source. A necessary being and His nature would have existed co-eternally.
(more simply put, asking "what caused the essential properties an uncaused being?" is never a valid question, and it is equally impossible for a being to cause itself)
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 so god does not decide what good is? can god change his nature?
brownbigb 1 year ago
@brownbigb
God does not decide what good is (If I am arguing morality is founded in His nature, I must also being arguing that morality is not subject to God's commands/decisions).
God cannot change His nature. A nature refers to a being/object's "essential properties". If God could change His nature, that would violate the law of noncontradiction because it would entail that God would have essential non-essential properties.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Your claim that God does not decide what good is actually falls within the bounds of Euthyphro's dilemma: specifically, outcome two, where God loves what is good because it is good and not that what is good is good because God loves it. Thus, the middle-man can be skipped, and Euthyphro's dilemma remains valid.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@belladonna5012
If as my third option entails (that objective morality is dependent upon God's nature) then God is not a middle-man and cannot be skipped.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Dilemma is still relevant even if you attach this "objective morality" to God's nature: is this morality an objective morality specifically because it is God's nature (which fits under the outcome of "Things are pious because God loves them,") or does God have this nature because it is what is objectively moral (which fits under the outcome of "God loves things because they are pious")? It sounds like you ascribe to the former.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@belladonna5012
"Things are pious because God loves them" is not an accurate description of my position at all.
A nature, or a set of essential properties, is not contingent upon the sentiments of the individual with those properties. In other words, whether or not God loves His nature has no bearing on what His nature is.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Hey there =) So I went back to your first comment on this video, and I have a few questions. How is it that you can pick which parts of god's nature to follow? Doesn't everything that god does follow under his nature? Its in god's nature to judge, but people shouldn't judge? How did you come to that conclusion without using a predetermined set of personal morals?
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 It was more a reference to it still fitting under that general concept. Here, I'll do you one better: "Because I've decided to define 'good' as 'God's nature,' anything in God's nature must be good, including God condoning slavery, God commanding genocide, and God commanding that virginal women be taken as rape slaves." It makes it every bit as alien--and *utterly meaningless*--as "What God loves is what is pious."
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Whether God actually loves his nature is a complete triviality. There is not a meaningful difference between "God's choices determine morality" and "God's nature determines morality": they both set God up as the arbiter of right and wrong, whether by decision or by being--and regardless of whether this "objective morality" is based on God's commands or his nature, it still implies that *anything this creature is capable of*, no matter how horrible, is somehow just.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@belladonna5012
We have moral knowledge, ie a conscience, hardwired into our heads (we evolved that way).
That moral knowledge informs us of what the standard of morality (aka God's nature) must be like. By having knowledge of objective morality, we also have knowledge of what God's nature must be like.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Kudos for understanding that we evolved, but I would note that the evolution of morality would actually be determined by what helps a species survive natural selection and better outperform competitors through ingroup cooperation--it would be more accurate to say that we have prosocial instincts (as all social animals do) that manifest themselves as an inclination towards some standard of morality or proto-morality that helps personal and group survival than moral knowledge per se.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@belladonna5012
Literally everything evolves as a result of helping us survive better (with possibly rare short-term exceptions to natural selection). Our eyesight also evolves to help us survive, but that does not call into question the existence of the things we see (to say it did would be to commit the genetic fallacy). For this reason, showing that our moral sense evolved does not bring into question the existence of objective morality.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Very true, and that isn't actually what I was arguing. Rather, naturally evolved morality that passes the test of natural selection in the physical world makes a case for morality originating in the practical value of prosocial behaviour in the natural, physical world, as opposed to necessarily being something handed down from supernatural sources.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
@belladonna5012
Evolution hardwires us with knowledge that objective morality exists. We need some sort of argument to make us not accept reality at face value and to conclude that objective morality is just an illusion. Otherwise, the moral argument will hold.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
Comment removed
belladonna5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 The physical world and its components, including our evolved instincts, absolutely are real: to say our instincts are not real would be to claim that the functions of our brains aren't. That said, the instinct that "our group needs rules to prevent antisocial behaviour" isn't necessarily the same as belief in an objective morality--some organisms see it that way, others don't.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Epydemic2020 The physical world and its components, including our evolved instincts, absolutely are real: to say our instincts are not real would be to claim that the functions of our brains aren't. That said, the instinct that "our group needs rules to prevent antisocial behaviour" isn't necessarily the same as belief in an objective morality--some organisms see it that way, others don't.
belladonna5012 1 year ago
Here's your problem: Socrates was a theistic moral absolutist, as shown by the Phaedo. The point of the Euthyphro is a criticism of ethical subjectivism among theists. Moral absolutes are axioms. One cannot get behind axioms.
But you are quite right that morality must be objective to hold any real validity. Read "The Abolition of Man" by C. S. Lewis.
MrBenMcLean 1 year ago
Such ignorance is laughable.
ShaneequaRayquaza 1 year ago
God to be God of necessity is perfection. Lying is a lack of the truth and hence a lack of perfection. One who lies can not therefore be God. Murder can not be abscribed to God Who gives and who takes away and whose actions are Just for if they were unjust that would be a lack of Justice and therefore a lack of perfection. One who is unjust can not be God.
Xpistos2 1 year ago
Again, as all atheists, you demand that God be made empirically transparent to you which is not possible in the sense of the scientific method which depends on tests and peer review. But may I ask you, what is GOOD?
Xpistos2 1 year ago
So pretty much...
- Circular argument: Good = God's nature. God's nature = Good.
- Genocide = God's nature since he committed genocide in the bible, therefore genocide = good.
xxxFaustusxxx 1 year ago
Comment removed
PlasticSpeed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ah, but that's God's old nature. Remember, he allowed his son to die on a cross for our sins so that we could be forgiven?
PlasticSpeed 1 year ago
great arguments! whenever i use this argument on christians they become unsure where they stand.
VicTheVicar 2 years ago
Comment removed
PlasticSpeed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Who are you talking to? You must be so proud for knocking down Christians for their faith.
PlasticSpeed 1 year ago
The biblical flood = The First Holocaust
mspookie 2 years ago
Thank you for making this two part video.
=)
cube11235 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Goodness is unselfishness. This is what Jesus Christ desplayed for us perfectly in His life and by going to the cross to pay for the sin debt of all who trust in Him. God has many characteristics to his nature; including righteous indignation and wrath. As a just judge this is why God has at times destroyed people who commit wickedness. God is a Spirit who can be known personally but our sins seperate us from Him, Jesus Christ bridges that gap through the cross.
alivetree 2 years ago
Actually thinking that the whole universe was made specifically for us is the very hight of arrogance and christianity says exactly that.
helldogas2 2 years ago
5:19-5:25 "God would do what God would do because God would do it" LOL
Zairik 2 years ago
God commited genocide a long time ago. There ya go Christians, go kill entire countries.
pyrix 3 years ago
Call me stupid - but it sounds like you're thinking way too much. LOL
christoferL 3 years ago
to not think about religion is to accept it's tyranny.
If you do not care for truth, do not think about it.
If you care about truth, then you must consider it.
addmoreice 3 years ago 2
yeah... it's called philosophy :)
rlmtengr 2 years ago
Very good video, as clear as identifying circularity can be!
Vertaeufelt 3 years ago
Bitbutter had a pretty good and concise response to the Christian's answer to the Euthyphro problem.
In one particular video (watch?v=OGx8qHdxcpE), he simply asks, "Is what is moral part of God's nature because it's moral, or is it moral because it's part of God's nature?".
The point being that the Christian has done nothing except complicate the problem rather than actually solve it.
Neilsama 3 years ago 2
I am already subbed to bitbutter. I like his video. to bad he has not made any in awhile.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
Is that not a purely Socratic/Platonic technique?
ShaneequaRayquaza 1 year ago
[arguing advocatum dei] This dilemma only works by confusing ontology and epistemology. Whereas "goodness" and "god's nature" may be ontologically identical, they are conceptually distinct. Our ideas of what is "good" may be acquired apart from a direct knowledge of God's essence, but this is a flaw in our method of intuition, not a statement about the ontology of either God or "goodness". Compare the philosophical distinction between sense and reference for similar examples.
jason666king 3 years ago
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." -Isaiah 45:7
Yup, Evil is good too according to the Euthyphro argument.
Great vid!
RosieDesire 3 years ago
God would do ex because someone sent him a DJ tiesto CD and some glowsticks and he has a three-day weekend. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.
sunflowerssunshowers 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
National burn your bible day December 25th 2012
interested976 3 years ago
All to often people kill out of evil motives.
To kill/sacrifice was a pure motive from the crucifixion. Also He didn't kill his son in the sense that most people think because of the trinity. God offered Himself up willfully.
And the old testament;in Exodus 22:29 God takes the babies through death and they are Given to him, they are going to be with God. people more often than not don't understand motives behind killing, there's a difference between killing and murder and that is the motive.
xxWhiteLightningxxx 3 years ago
Big sacrifice for an omnipotent deity giving up his human form. God created a big game where people will no doubt commit fouls and then punishes people for committing the fouls that an omnipotent being would surely know people would do. If you bring up "free will" then that omnipotent being denied himself the power to meddle in people's affairs, even though people pray for him to make other teams lose in a roundabout way. People's "free will" is whatever option's that deity lets people have.
brutus149 3 years ago
So he chose for three days of death, of his own free will...???
It's then in His nature to sacrifice himself to get closer to his people. So those who sacrifice themselves to get closer to God are the righteous.
Yay! Everyone, kill yourselves to go to Heaven...wait a fucking minute, suicide is a sin in Christianity. That means that Islam is the REAL RELIGION of God.
(I am serious, go convert to Islam and kill yourself)
And WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS FUCKING MOTIVE YOU SPEAK ABOUT?
onijester56 2 years ago
Excellent video. I get dizzy when trying to think like a theist. Too many circles.
subcoolfl 3 years ago 2
Gotta love when Christians think in circles.
Heathenfidel 3 years ago
I don't believe God is constraining himself because He is good, I'd rather come to the notion that He cannot sin. because evil or sin is not in His nature, therfore He cannot sin, therfore He is not restraining Himself.
xxWhiteLightningxxx 3 years ago
If He is incapable of performing evil because he is all-good, he is not all-powerful because of this incapability.
XiaoGui17 3 years ago 9
I see your point yes, but sin and power are two different things.
xxWhiteLightningxxx 3 years ago
all sin is is not doing god will, so god can do anything and it would not be sin. how is that any better then an arbitrary morality?
tooltime9901 3 years ago 4
Can someone that is only good and cannot sin create evil?
RosieDesire 3 years ago
Sure.
Unless he's infallible.
Zekkron 2 years ago
Nice... :) I like the way you think...
RosieDesire 2 years ago
@xxWhiteLightningxxx What are you trying to say? If you substitute a couple more typically used nouns and verbs in your quote, then it becomes:
"I don't believe God is constraining himself because he only wears flipflops, I'd rather come to the notion that he can't wear boots. Because wearing boots is not in his nature, therefore he cannot wear boots, therefore he is not restraining himself."
Is a god who can't wear boots omnipotent?
AllOtherNamesTaken2 1 year ago
this video was awesome. good work!
Partisan5417 3 years ago
You're right that this so-called "third way" collapses into circular reasoning with horrible consequences, e.g., genocide must be morally fine since God has engaged in it and commanded others to do so (according to the Bible). Moreover, the "God's nature is good" bit also begs the question in that it assumes there is something called "good" that can be identified, but it doesn't identify it beyond saying God is good. Divine Command Theory is nothing but a moral swamp.
ProfMTH 3 years ago 12
Testaments, in which he could teach people to do not the things what he has done before. Because he isn't perfect he evaluates, and everytime he does he also creates new more perfect worlds. So if this is true, we don't have to blame ourslefs that we aren't perfect. Also it would be interesting if we could overcome by inteligence Gods knowledge. The student overcomes his master. Like Steve Vai Joe Satriani :P Anyway, I stop it. Nice video with good ides ! :)
NeoBarockLoki 3 years ago
What if God is a person from the future who has a bit more inteligence then we have, but not 100% inteligence and perfection. And with his more inteligence he created us and the world we live in, but we aren't his first creation. He made a lot of people and world before us. Which were less perfect then we are. But, 'cuz he is evaluating too he could made more perfect worlds too (destroying the less perfect ones). Learning from his mistakes, he wrote testaments to the new worlds.
NeoBarockLoki 3 years ago
Have to say that if He were that powerful, then why is He letting us destroy what He made and what he wants to perfect?
And the Testaments, why would an intelligent being make a (99%) spherical world and describe it as flat and on four pillars, etc?
It's like, he is setting us up so that there will always be stupidity and imperfection. or is that not your point?
onijester56 2 years ago
Very well said. You're just one example that intelligence breeds atheism. As the intelligence of the world's population has increased, atheism has increased. It's pretty obvious that as a species, we've become increasingly intelligent, and will continue as such, indefinitely. So, it logically follows that it's inevitable - at some point in the near future, EVERYONE will be an atheist. This tiring global debate will finally be reduced to a bedtime story.
siciliano29 3 years ago 2
I did what I did because it is what I would do, and when it was done, it was done because I do what I would do so therefore I did do what I did and now it's done because it is what I would do or would have done. BRAVO on a great video!!! Pardon my patronizing pre-lude, however I did it because it is what I would ..... ok ok I'm done.
jpnkc74 3 years ago
I hardly ever bother to rate videos, but you get a five.
Valease 3 years ago
I'm sure alot of christians will look at this and say: "Well, you can't comprehend God's will because it's the almighty God and God knows everything and because he is God he doesn't want you to know what he knows so therefore this subject is brought up. BOW BEFORE HIM!"
It's almost gotten to the point where every question can be countered. The testaments or the old books isnt what makes me think rational though. I just dont believe in a FUCKING FICTIONAL BEING!!
Sorry if i offended anyone.
ZoaN90 3 years ago 2
Also, great video man!
I'm not trying to put you down in any way, i just get so frustrated because it's all so fucking stupid to me.
ZoaN90 3 years ago
You really beat your point into us on this one.
TaylorJohnson1020 3 years ago
It seems as if Christanity, in whole, is circular. So many problems. If God knows all, why create souls destined for Hell? And if he is perfect, why allow Satan to exist? How can we live in Heaven forever, when we once lived on earth?... It's all self-contradicting.
I was troubled as a child, horrified that my inability to find 'faith' in Jesus might send my soul to Hell to burn for eternity.
mandalastar 3 years ago
isn't that sad? how religion can ravage the mind of a child? they don't know any better.
tommasfoolery 3 years ago
lol it sounds like mig is just saying the same thing over and over... just my opinion though
xL4m8x0fxG0dx 3 years ago
"lol it sounds like mig is just saying the same thing over and over... just my opinion though "
Because he is ultimately channelling William Lane Craig's arguments and will not retract them unless WLC does so himself.
noobapple 3 years ago 2
"lol it sounds like mig is just saying the same thing over and over... just my opinion though"
maybe it could be an objective statement, i think the same way as you. if i could be bothered reading through his dodging of the questions i could measure the likeness of each statement.
ahhh, if i wasn't so lazy i wouldn't have time to do everything i want.
bignastydragon 3 years ago
Excellent analysis! You got my wheels turning.
lensherr82 3 years ago
By claiming that "god chooses what is good because god is good (and therefore we can trust him)", JRSBarker is essentially saying that god chooses good acts because they are inherently good. He's dodging the issue and trying to create a false dilemma where there actually is none.
Perrine234 3 years ago
Excellent video, Peter. I had no problem following your train of thought, don't worry.
The very fact that you had to talk in circles while giving us the theist "refutation" demonstrated the point that it goes nowhere logically. Please continue what you are doing, I'd like to see more videos of yours explicating on philosophy full time, rather then tangentially to another subject.
restman79 3 years ago
Great video tooltime, your channel is fast becoming one of my favourite channels.
Oct195 3 years ago
You broke it down so that just about anyone can understand it. Anyone that isn't a god believer, that is.
theoriginalSkooby 3 years ago
Interesting, and very thought provoking.
If you would care to reply,
What philosophy books would you reccomend?
jpmgmpj 3 years ago
Because cause and effect may be the way God works... you know, so us atheists can measure it, and rationalise it, and say it's completely logical, while all the good believers who have faith in God can smirk quietly to themselves, safe in the knowledge that their faith will lead to their salvation. I mean, God wants us to believe in him, but he doesn't want to give it all away up front, like some 10 cent hooker.
You know for a minute there, even I thought I was going to make a serious point :D
sjadcock 3 years ago
And lo, St. Peter struck religion dead!
Or at least, the asinine argument that "morality is what God defines as good, because God is good."
SkepticalAtheist 3 years ago
Tooltime, I agree with pretty much 99% of your videos, and I must say your arguments are really well researched and rebuttals to Christian arguments are both cutting and logical. However, I'm a bit confused about how in the last 2 minutes of this video you outlined some supposedly immoral acts that God has performed, but completed skirted around the issue of context and cause and effect. Maybe God performed these acts in order to avoid a greater evil. I was wondering if you could clarify this?
sjadcock 3 years ago
nothing is good or bad. things just are. the goodness or badness of something can only be judged within context, and relative to everything else.
please please please humanity - throw away the concept of the absolute. it is highly unlikely that anything like it exists.
tommasfoolery 3 years ago
situational relativism does nothing to disprove the objectivity of good or evil acts.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
why not?
also, i would submit that "objectivity" doesn't even exist. everything is perceived through the lense of consciousness, and that consciousness is unique to the being doing the perceiving, and because it is unique to the being doing the perceiving, is subjective.
tommasfoolery 3 years ago
Well this logical reasoning applies to how many people think - I even think I've caught my self in making circular explanations but with many more deducted steps.
I think it would help if you used flow charts - eg. in another video layer as you're saying it. (this might even be a circular reasoning :P)
mamdk 3 years ago
"god would do, what god would do, because god would do it" try saying that 3 times fast!
Darkwolf5656 3 years ago
You think very well on your feet, staying articulate and understandable throughout. I suspect you'll make a hell of a professor some day! Well done.
MikeOfKorea 3 years ago
You explained this expertly! I don't really know of anyone who could explain this quite like you have. Kudos!
SolareType2 3 years ago
"genocide becomes moral"
I'm still unable to comprehend how a completely singular event (slaughter of the canaanites), which has a very interesting context worth discussing (which for some strange reason you cast aside), proves that genocide in any and all contexts would be moral assuming that morality is rooted in God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I said given the context that morality = what god would do. again, to say that morality is contextual is to lead us right back to an extra-divine explanation of what morality is.
I do know the "context" god told Joshua to slaughter them so that the Israelites could have the land.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"I said given the context that morality = what god would do. again, to say that morality is contextual is to lead us right back to an extra-divine explanation of what morality is."
How is the situational/contextual nature of morality indicative of an extra-divine source for morality again?
"I do know the context"
true, but did it ever occur to you that the Canaanites were a terrible lot (child sacrifice, genocide etc. common on their part)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"
true, but did it ever occur to you that the Canaanites were a terrible lot (child sacrifice, genocide etc. common on their part) "
Two wrongs do not make a right.
noobapple 3 years ago
"Two wrongs do not make a right."
how the hell can you believe in objective rights and wrongs if you're a naturalist? this would seem to show that moral values are non-physical objects which act within the universe (which would falsify physicalism and naturalism depending on how one defines "natural")
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"how the hell can you believe in objective rights and wrongs if you're a naturalist?"
They don't have to be objective. In any case, you do believe in them.
"this would seem to show that moral values are non-physical objects which act within the universe"
Or morality could be programmed into us by evolution. Do you doubt the selectivity of morality?
noobapple 3 years ago
how Petulant! the age old "if god doesn't make the rules, then there are no rule" argument. note the fact that you are deploying it in order to dodge actually having to justify your god's seemingly abhorrent actions. again, your moral intuitions are more warped then you want to believe.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"how Petulant! the age old "if god doesn't make the rules, then there are no rule" argument. note the fact that you are deploying it in order to dodge actually having to justify your god's seemingly abhorrent actions."
so the evident evil of the canaanites wasn't enough? sheesh!
migkillertwo 3 years ago
again, your god is not in the business of stopping atrocities, and that STILL does not mean that EVERY man, woman and child deserved to die, NOR does it erase the FACT that god could have ended all of that without resorting to slaughter. for an all powerful being, he certainly went for what should have been his last resort first, but you refuse to face that fact.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"but did it ever occur" did it ever occur to you that that's a lot of biblical propaganda? even if it is not, are you saying that EVERY man, woman and child were responsible for those acts? why is your god only in the business of stopping such acts back in the OT? sacrificing children to what? false god? that means that your god could A) send people to slaughter them, or B) show up in a burning bush or something, give the Canaanites "true religion" and save all those babies. God chose the former
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"did it ever occur to you that that's a lot of biblical propaganda?"
I'm fairly certain that we have extra-biblical sources on the Canaanites. Oh and the archaeological evidence (population increase in 12th and 11th centuries) seems to corroborate the canaanite conquest. Moving on, can we be certain that they would believe God if he sent this "burning bush"? lastly, if one believes in infant and child salvation, then this would not be as immoral an act as you percieve.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
one more thing, wasn't it moses who gave the command to slaughter the canaanites?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
I never said the Canaanites did not exist. what I meant is that there is an old anthropologist saying about ethnography where they would ask a tribe about cannibalism, and they would say "well we are not cannibal, but that tribe over there..." and then the next tribe would say the same thing.
"hat they would believe..." drop the BS mig, if your god truly wanted anyone or everyone to believe in him, no one would be left in doubt as to his existence.
do you believe that babies got to heaven?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"and then the next tribe would say the same thing."
source?
"do you believe that babies go to heaven?" yes.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
mig, having a source in not the point. the story may well be apocrypha. the point is that the bible is not necessarily the most unbiased source of information on the Canaanites.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
There is extra-biblical data to corroborate the fact that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice
migkillertwo 3 years ago
again, you god clearly is not in the business of stopping such acts. it AMAZES me to here you talk about moral intuition, when yours have clearly rotted away years ago. you are no doubt currently awaiting the day in which god will wipe billions of the face of the earth and the blood will be up the the horses' bridals in an act of "divine compassion", because according to your belief system, this life is just a waist of time, and its ending is the best thing that could happen.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"you are no doubt currently awaiting the day in which god will wipe billions of the face of the earth and the blood will be up the the horses' bridals in an act of "divine compassion","
where the hell did that one come from O_o?
"this life is just a waist of time, and its ending is the best thing that could happen."
perhaps if we ignore the significance of the final resurrection of the dead and the redemption of creation.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"where the hell did that one come from O_o?"
it is a book called Revelations. you might have heard of it. it details how god is going to show his "compassion" for the world through the slaughter of billions.
"perhaps if we ignore the..."
Jesus in a nutshell "fuck this life, wait for the next".
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"it is a book called Revelations. you might have heard of it. it details how god is going to show his "compassion" for the world through the slaughter of billions."
2 points
1: your post would prove that I was ignorant, not that I was some sociopath
2: pre-dispensationalism? motherfucker please!
"fuck this life, wait for the next"
does that really need a response?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
you dodge, you evade, you ignore, you brush aside, but I want to actually hear what you have to say about the book you base your life on says that god is going to end the world in orgy of violence.
"does that really need a response?"
no, because that is a perfectly succinct summation of a great portion of his teachings.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"you dodge, you evade, you ignore, you brush aside"
i have answered all of your points.
"but I want to actually hear what you have to say about the book you base your life on says that god is going to end the world in orgy of violence."
I'm a preterist. The events in Revelation are probably referring to a very soon event, like the destruction of Jerusalem.
"succinct summation of his teachings" Jesus' teachings revolve around the coming of the kingdom of God.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Jesus' teachings revolve around the coming of the kingdom of God."
you forgot to mention how, because of said fact, this current life is simply a burden to be endured.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"There is extra-biblical data to corroborate the fact that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice "
so did the aztecs. yet your god did not send moses on a sailing trip to kill them all. why did your god not kill them all to leave moses' hands free from the blood?
tooltime has asked some very good questions which you have not answered, i think, subjectively, that all you have done is clog up the comments section on this video.
bignastydragon 3 years ago
"How is the situational/contextual nature of morality indicative of an extra-divine source for morality again?"
perhaps from YOUR view of morality, this is not an issue. I am addressing the notion that "god's nature is good because goodness is god's nature"
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"perhaps from YOUR view of morality, this is not an issue. I am addressing the notion that "god's nature is good because goodness is god's nature""
Then I should just stop commenting on this video right now then if that's the only thing you intend to rebutt.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"true, but did it ever occur to you that the Canaanites were a terrible lot (child sacrifice, genocide etc. common on their part)"
Read Exodus 22:29-30
"29 You shall not delay to make offerings from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses.*
The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. 30You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: for seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you" shall give it to me.
CauchySchwarz 3 years ago 2
God's genocide is a completely singular event? What about Sodom and gomorrah, while not technically genocide, it was mass murder. And wasn't there something about a flood? That was damn near humanicide and speciescide, or whatever you would call murdering almost all of humanity and every land borne species. Hmmm, is god really moral? Not by my standards, by my standards, god is a psycopath. Guess thats why I'm an atheist, I can't imagine something that evil.
xxxchaindrive 3 years ago 2
with science and empirical observation we can quantify compassion, empathy, and justice, but we cannot use science or empirical observation to quantify morality. The Theist would (or should) argue that because of God and shedding of naturalism, we can quantify the morality of a possible action.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
if we can quantify those things, then what about morality can't we quantify? again, thew theist simply wants to try to cheat their way to an "absolute morality by saying "god done did it" if it is unquantifiable, they you only have the FAITH that god is giving you the proper quantification for it.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"if we can quantify those things, then what about morality can't we quantify?"
whether or not something is actually "good" or "evil"
"they only have faith that God is giving you the proper quantification for it"
not really. Our moral intuitions seem to comply with justice and compassion. it woulden't then take faith to believe that our moral intuitions are correct or are accurately revealed by their source
migkillertwo 3 years ago
" whether or not something is actually "good" or "evil" "
That'd be categorization, not quantification...
Dashes000 3 years ago
I dont quite remember claiming to be able to quantify "moral" and "immoral", and if I did I'm sorry. But Justice and compassion I believe can be quantified and categorized easily by anyone, atheists and theists alike.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
What I mean is that saying "if something is moral or not" can be quantified is literally nonsense. If something is moral or it is not, then that is not quantification, but categorization. Categories are things we collectively make up in our heads. They have wholly subjective scopes. To say you can have an objective morality based on those subjective categories is absurd.
Dashes000 3 years ago 3
"To say you can have an objective morality based on those subjective categories is absurd."
Your argument that categorization of things as "good" and "evil" and "un/just" is nothing more than an assertion.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
What?? These are attributes, not ingredients!
By definition they are categorized, not quantified. That's about as far from an assertion as yo0u can get o_0
Dashes000 3 years ago
so morality is based on justice and compassion, but we need god to tell us that murder is not compassionate or that theft is unjust? are you daft?
why is god just and compassionate rather then not? because god is good? then what is goodness?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
for the upteenth time, morality is not based on Justice and compassion. Morality is based on God's nature, which is rooted in justice and compassion. Without God's nature we cannot say that justice and compassion are actually moral.
"why is God just and compassionate rather than not?" because he just is. we can know this because of our moral intuitions.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
So what you're basically saying is God is the only one that can tell us that justice and compassion are good? Because his nature is rooted in them? But why are they good?!
Dashes000 3 years ago
"So what you're basically saying is God is the only one that can tell us that justice and compassion are good? Because his nature is rooted in them?"
precisely
"But why are they good?!"
because God commands them.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
And God commands them because they are in his nature? And what is in God's nature is good because he commands it? 0_o
Dashes000 3 years ago
so you answer Socrates by saying that "it is good because god commands it"?
so if naturalism is true, then we loose objective morality, but all that is apparently is the edits of a celestial tyrant.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"because he just is." there is a statement pulled straight from an asshole if I ever heard one! what you mean to say, is that you would loose all credibility if you argued otherwise, therefore, one NO epistemic basis WHAT SO EVER, you make that assertion!
our moral intuitions? whats predicated on the assumption that they are correct. the thing is, that to a SANE person, plenty of the actions of YHWH are intuitively morally reprehensible! our intuitions therefor must be flawed!
tooltime9901 3 years ago
*sigh*
THe moral argument seeks to establish the truth value of our moral intuitions by showing the belief in the truth value of them as a properly basic belief.
Since our moral intuitions are objective, God is the only explanation for their objectivity. The statement that "God just is just and compassionate" is rooted in the fact that our moral intuitions align with compassion and justice.
No epistemic basis? please *rolls eyes*
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"Since our moral intuitions are objective"
they are? really? the are only objective if there is a objective morality, there is only an objective morality if our moral intuitions are objective. again another circle.
"is rooted in the fact that our moral intuitions align with compassion and justice."
you are simply projecting our intuitions onto god's nature. "I don't like X, so god doesn't like it either"
tooltime9901 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"again another circle."
the way you framed my argument sure would make it look like a circular argument
"you're projecting" I am doing no such thing. I showed why God's nature is rooted in justice and compassion earlier.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I showed why God's nature is rooted in justice and compassion earlier." no, you asserted that our moral intuitions are objective, then you said that they could only be objective if they reflect god's nature, then you said our moral intuitions point towards compassion and justice, therefore god's must as well. which is only the case if our moral intuitions are objective, which is only the case if god gave us true moral intuitions, which is only the case if he is just, which is only the case if..
tooltime9901 3 years ago
so you're saying that no-one else can do that.
alright, let's get god into this conversation to tell us what is good and what is not, let god prove that it is not lying, and then the argument is ended.
so where is god, why does god not just end this right here and now.
bignastydragon 3 years ago
"with science and empirical observation we can quantify compassion, empathy, and justice"
Can we?
"ut we cannot use science or empirical observation to quantify morality."
Doesn't morality stem from the three things you mentioned?
noobapple 3 years ago
"Can we?"
yes
"doesn't morality stem..." No because we cannot use science or empirical observation to say if justice or compassion are actually moral. It is my contention that one needs God to say that justice and compassion are objectively moral.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"yes"
Please tell me how. I feel that trying to quantify these is to commit the fallacy of reification.
"No because we cannot use science or empirical observation to say if justice or compassion are actually moral."
I doubt that we can even quantify justice or compassion in the first place. We have a grasp of the concept but to quantify it would be very arbitrary. How do you know that objective morality exists?
noobapple 3 years ago
"Please tell me how. I feel that trying to quantify these is to commit the fallacy of reification."
what is the fallacy of reification?
"I doubt that we can even quantify justice or compassion in the first place."
so we cannot say that Louis XVI or Tzar Nicholas were unjust to their subjects?
"How do you know that objective morality exists?"
Because there are some moral statements which are ultimately self-evident and properly basic.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"what is the fallacy of reification? "
Trying to quantify an abstract.
"so we cannot say that Louis XVI or Tzar Nicholas were unjust to their subjects? "
Its ultimately an opinion and that does not make it quantifiable like temperature or mass.
"Because there are some moral statements which are ultimately self-evident and properly basic."
Doesn't necessarily mean it is objective.
noobapple 3 years ago 2
"Because there are some moral statements which are ultimately self-evident and properly basic."
name one.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
what do you mean when you say "moral" mig? is it "what god commands us to do"? is it "what is "good"? how do you define goodness?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"how do you define goodness" that which is like God's nature.
but woulden't questioning the veracity of the argument based on our inability to strictly define goodness be tantamount to questioning the existence of truth because we cannot define "truth"?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
we cannot difinie truth?
no, the point is that if goodness is "that which is like God's nature" then what is god's nature?
you and to say that it is bad to kill? why? because it is contrary to god's nature? so it is bad because god would not do it? how do you knwo that god would not do it? how is it that you claim to have ANY knowledge of god's nature at all?
tooltime9901 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"how is it that you claim to have ANY knowledge of god's nature at all?"
our moral intuitions.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
so you assume that your moral intuitions are correct because they reflect god's nature, but you know god's nature because they are reflected in your moral intuitions? which is it?
the existence of your moral intuitions can be explained without god's existence, so you are really just blowing smoke.
tooltime9901 3 years ago
"so you assume that your moral intuitions are correct because they reflect god's nature"
I assume they are correct because moral values can be shown to be objective
"which is it?" Our moral intuitions reflect objective moral values. objective moral values reflect god's nature
"the existence of your moral intuitions..." I dont deny that, but I am arguing that the objectivity of moral values can be established, and hence the existence of God is established.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"I assume they are correct because moral values can be shown to be objective"
How? This is a statement coming from a subjective viewpoint.
noobapple 3 years ago 2
the objectivity of some moral statements is simply properly basic. Does one need, or SHOULD one even need evidence for the statement that Hitler (killed 12 million civilians) was less moral than Bill Gates (donated 500 million dollars to help cure HIV/AIDS)?
migkillertwo 3 years ago
"the objectivity of some moral statements is simply properly basic."
This is a bare assertion.
"Does one need, or SHOULD one even need evidence for the statement that Hitler (killed 12 million civilians) was less moral than..."
Its ultimately an appeal to popular belief and does not make it OBJECTIVELY less moral. Such a v