Relativism (2 of 7)

Are you often confronted with the "Who are you to say" questions? "Who are you to say that your religion is right?" "Who are you to say I'm wrong?" What is the fallacy behind these types of questions and how can you be prepared to respond. Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith offer cogent defenses for the concept of absolute truth against the fallacy of moral relativism. Table of contents: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E35E5E39118E83B6

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Relativism
• Postmodernism
• Truth
• Absolute
• Morality
• Ethics
• Reality
• Greg
• Koukl
• Francis
• Beckwith

[CVLFMG]

If there was a God, it would not be the Christian god.

[warrior4just]

because this video would awaken and stimulate ppl moral thoughts, it does not have lot of views..;if it was about some stupid shit u would find it having 5 millions hits.

[AtomicKinetic12]

@urbanh196398105 If it is absolute then it is unchanging. That is the definition of absolute. What you mean to say is "objectively" moral. The argument someone will bring in response to your "written on our hearts" claim is that your "heart" has been evolutionarily developed to have such feelings or intuitions. Meaning that it is still relative and not absolute. Abstract objects only exist for means of communicating generalizations; they do not effect the world literally. Only real objects do.

[AtomicKinetic12]

@Skywalker05088 The internal coherence was always the original argument. Read J.L. Mackies "Problem of Evil" paper. Stating that evil is an objective truth does not change the argument from being one of coherence. The speaker in the beginning still does not escape the issue and has not logically brought up an argument that any atheist can take seriously. It is not required that I believe in the actual existence of the premises of my argument in order to show how the concepts are contradictory.

[Skywalker05088]

@AtomicKinetic12 How you phrase the issue is not usually how someone will bring up the problem of evil. Usually people will say in some respect "how can a god exist when there is so much evil in the world?". That is usually how the issue is brought up. They bring it up in such a way as to concede that evil is objective and truly exists in our world. What you are bringing up is the internal coherence for the theist with their claim that an all loving god exists as well as evil.

[MrDrichards85]

@urbanh196398105 Look at the problem this way. Here is your key: "where certain moral absolutes do exist at any given time but which could change if majority opinion changes." Now consider the statement 2 + 2 = 5. How many people does it take believing that statement to make it true?

There I think is your answer.

[AtomicKinetic12]

The first point made by the gentlemen was completely self-defeating. It's obvious that the problem of evil requires the concept of a god and an evil. The issue in itself is two-fold resting on the shoulders of those who believe in a god and in evil. An atheist posits this problem of evil to show the contradiction in Christian logic. The atheist does not him-self need to believe in those concepts in order to form the argument.

[regelemihai]

@Bauwurst

How does Kant refute any of what's been said?

[lmarr07]

This is a good post.

[Bauwurst]

Have these dolts never read Kant?