The atheist's Moral Relativism Debunked

Dr. William Lane Craig proves irrefutably that moral relativism is an incorrect position.

He also proves moral values and duties are objective, and NOT (as the Nazi lawyers at the Nuremberg trials tried to argue) subject to cultural differences. This fact points to a personal, real, and transcendent source for the moral values and duties that we observe in reality, which are clearly and irrefutably objective. That source transcends all cultural differences, just as objective morality transcends all cultural differences.

The moral argument clearly proves God's factual appearance and activities because the only person who could possibly provide those undeniably existent objective moral values and duties is God.

Here is an interesting logical proof for the existence of objective moral ideals:

1. If opposing moral ideals exist,
then some moral ideals are necessarily wrong.*

2. If some moral ideals are wrong,
then objective moral ideals exist.

3. Opposing moral ideals do exist.

4. Therefore, some moral ideals are wrong.

5. Therefore, objective moral ideals exist.

For further proof of the factual existence of objective morals, please see the following two videos, and please pay special attention to their description boxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-He9otF_Ak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOchtZIQAAk

*If two moral ideals oppose each other, then by the rules of logic, both cannot be correct: one or both must necessarily be wrong.

Take the following two opposing moral ideals for example:

1. Morality is objective

2. Morality is not objective

Since morality cannot possibly be both "objective" and "not objective" simultaneously, the only conclusion is that one of the above moral ideals must necessarily be wrong.

This conclusion relies on the rules of logic exclusively, and allows an equal possibility of morality being "objective" or "not objective" in the process of making its case: It is an inescapable logical certainty that one of the above moral ideals must be wrong whether morality is idealized as "objective" or "not objective."

Furthermore, every time the atheist asserts that subjective moral ideals exist, he proves (unwittingly) that objective moral ideals also exist. Here is the proof:

1. Subjective opinions require authentic conscious access to the thing in question: without authentic conscious access to the thing in question, any opinions formed would necessarily be about some other thing, and not about the thing in question.

2. Authentic conscious access requires non-fabricated data.

3. Non-fabricated data require objective existence.

4. Subjective opinions about moral ideals exist.

5. Therefore, authentic conscious access to moral ideals exists.

6. Therefore, non-fabricated data about moral ideals exist.

7. Therefore, moral ideals exist objectively.

Category:

Education

[gerhitchman]

There's a difference between unchanging, "absolute" moralities as promoted by theists, and simply "objective" moralities, as promoted by secular moralists, such as utilitarianism. It simply doesn't follow that God is required for objective moralities.

It may be the case that God is required for an "absolute" morality, but there is no proof that absolute and unchanging moralities exist...

[1GodOnlyOne]

@gerhitchman No Theist has ever promoted "absolute" morality, so your post is a strawman logical fallacy from the outset.

If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist -- you are incorrect.

Yes, there is plenty of proof that unchanging morality exists. That is part of the definition of objective morality.

You may post again, but if you state the term "absolute morality" again, you will be blocked and deleted.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Premises:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

Conclusion:

3. Therefore, God exists.

Dr. Craig irrefutably supports both premises, which irrefutably proves the conclusion.

[Neoscalex]

If God embraced some moral values, are they not subject(ive) to God's will? If it's the other way round, and God is subject to some moral absolutes, how can it be that they need God to exist?

[1GodOnlyOne]

@Neoscalex Morality can only exist in relation to a person with a mind.

By definition, objective moral values transcend all human cultures.

Therefore, objective moral values can only exist in relation to a person who transcends all human cultures.

God is the only person who transcends all human cultures.

Therefore, objective moral values can only exist in relation to God.

Thanks for asking, and God bless you!

[1GodOnlyOne]

Since morality cannot possibly be "objective" and "not objective" simultaneously, the only conclusion is that one of the above moral ideals must necessarily be wrong.

This conclusion relies on the rules of logic exclusively, and allows an equal possibility of morality being "objective" or "not objective" in the process of making its case: It is an inescapable logical certainty that one of the above moral ideals must be wrong whether morality is idealized as "objective" or "not objective."

[1GodOnlyOne]

*If two moral ideals oppose each other, then by the rules of logic, both cannot be correct: one or both must necessarily be wrong.

Take the following two opposing moral ideals for example:

1. Morality is objective

2. Morality is not objective

[1GodOnlyOne]

Here is an interesting logical proof for the existence of objective moral ideals:

1. If opposing moral ideals exist,

then some moral ideals are necessarily wrong.*

2. If some moral ideals are wrong,

then objective moral ideals exist.

3. Opposing moral ideals do exist.

4. Therefore, some moral ideals are wrong.

5. Therefore, objective moral ideals exist.

[Frisby412]

Exactly. Wonderful.

[theantisauronist]

This student/professor anecdote reminds me of what C.S. Lewis said about moral relativists: they're the first one to complain when they perceive they're being treated unfairly.