Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 6/7

A debate between renowned Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig and prominent humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz at Franklin & Marshall College discussing whether God is necessary for a sound foundation for morality.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Paul
• Kurtz
• Morality
• God
• Theism
• Atheism
• Humanism
• Nihilism
• Goodness

[grasuh]

Examples of objective morality:

it is universally considered good if there is a parent and a child that honestly loves each other. It is universally considered good if a couple stays faithful and loves each other. It is universally good if a teacher and a student genuinely respects each other.

[saintpine]

@benthemiester

“According to this paradigm the fecal matter that your body excretes is objectively more substantial than your illusory construct of morality.”

You can go on using all your wonderful poetic talent, facts are that you have absolutely no evidence of an objective morality, and your fairy tale paints your god as one of the worst characters that has ever appeared in fiction. how dare you even suggest that be source of any morals.

I’m going to sleep, it's 3am, had enough of your crap.

[saintpine]

@benthemiester "For the fourth time........."

Wow!! lets try again.

I don’t accept the existence of objective morality.

Many subjective moral standards can live side by side in some sort of agreement.

I don’t go around asking normal people to adhere to my standards, how the hell do you think I’m asking a powerful despotic bully to do it?

It's your god that wants me to accept his standards, I need to understand them to see if I can accept them in accordance to MY SUBJECTIVE moral standards.

[benthemiester]

@saintpine "I'm using my own subjective morality, i have no objective justification for it, no different to you"

There is a big difference. Your sense of morality is as illusory as what a street magician does. This is your view of morality, not mine. They are not the same or even in the same ball park. According to this paradigm the fecal matter that your body excretes is objectively more substantial than your illusory construct of morality.

[benthemiester]

@saintpine "where in my message you quoted did I suggest that Mr God should adhere to my moral standards"

For the fourth time.........

"If your god wants to be taken into consideration, he needs to prove his existence doubt and justify his actions under my subjective morals standards" Are you know denying that you wrote this?

[saintpine]

@benthemiester "makes no sense."

Morality as an objective standard is an illusion.

Everyone has different morals and ideas on every issue, there are many agreements, but it’s impossible to have an objective morality.

Does god promote objective morality because it’s good or is it moral whatever god defines as moral?

In the first case god has nothing to do with objective morality, in the second case by definition it’s not objective because he could change his mind. and decide you kill you child.

[saintpine]

@benthemiester

2.

"I already pointed out 3 times and with quotation marks when u contradicted yourself "

Enough!!

"You say morality is illusory and use the same morality construct & try to judge God. "

Let’s put it this way, how dare you judge me with morals coming from a Bronze Age fairy book.

You go go on with this non existing objective morality.

I'm using my own subjective morality, i have no objective justification for it, no different to you.

[saintpine]

@benthemiester

where in my message you quoted did I suggest that Mr God should adhere to my moral standards?

I am simply critisizing and not accepting his standards, I have no authority to convince him to adhere to my moral standards. After all I follow the standards that my comunity has layed down, I don't accept everything, the law assures that I keep in the boundaries by applying various threats (fine and jail).

[benthemiester]

@saintpine I thought you understood that quotation marks are meant for directly quoting someone. All I did was copy and paste your own quotation, and if you cannot recognize something you wrote yourself, and did so very recently, then you may have short term memory loss.

[benthemiester]

@saintpine I already pointed out 3 times and with quotation marks when u contradicted yourself about God having to prove himself to your moral standards. Which you still deny. I then pointed out & also with quotation marks when u said..... "morality is a human construct an illusion and god doesn't exist" "brutality and totalitarianism aspect of Hitler, no different to gods behavior" You say morality is illusory and use the same morality construct & try to judge God. This a logical fallacy.