William Lane Craig's moral argument

I nearly sprayed coffee all over the table when I heard WLC's so-called argument.

I sincerely recommend the excellent podcast that this comes from. I subscribe on iTunes, to "Unbelievable", from Premier Christian Radio in England. www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.
Justin Brierly is an excellent and impartial host, and he has really first-rate guests in a weekly debate format, discussing things in a scholarly way. I don't miss an episode.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• NonStampCollector
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• moral
• morality
• christian
• christianity

[TheObserver89]

Wait, is the same WLC that's defined god as a disembodied mind in his various other "proofs"? I'm struggling to understand how objective ("mind independent") moral values could be the result of a disembodied mind. Contradiction, anyone?

[damntull]

Well, at least we have moved beyond your initial (mind-bogglingly inane) question.

Yes, God is good - in fact, he is the Good.

Yes, Good can exist without evil - but evil cannot exist without the good.

The definition of the good has been the subject of discussion for the greatest minds in human history for thousands of years. If you require an exact definition, perhaps this says something about your character. Perhaps you should grow up and get used to a little ambiguity in life.

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (3) If acts are good or evil in themselves, their goodness or badness can't be judged relative to one another. So it doesn't make sense that "good is better than evil."

Is God good? Was God good before creation? Well, presumably there was no evil then. Does that mean that God wasn't good then, in the absence of evil to be "better" than?

So obviously good has to be describable independent of even the existence of evil.

I'm still waiting for one of you cheeseheads to do it.

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (2) So if something, X, is better than something else, say Y, does that may X good and Y evil?

So, let me get this straight. I'm guessing that raping ten little girls and setting them on fire would be pretty evil

But what if I only rape just one woman. Surely that's way better than the above.

So by the definition above, that becomes Y to the former X, which makes just raping one woman good.

No? Why not? If Good is only determinable against evil, that's moral relativism.

[prodprod]

@damntull Oh, I see. So the definition of good is -- what? What exactly is this definition?

Good is defined as what, chucklehead? Evil is defined as what, brainless?

What, exactly are these definitions?

The definition of good is:

Better Than Evil.

And if I look up evil will I find:

Worse Than Good.

[damntull]

@prodprod Why can't YOU read? I responded to your (inane) question as to why good is better than evil. It's definitionally true! Now we can move on to more intelligent questions, like what is the basis for defining what is good, and then on to defining what is good. Try reading yourself, doofus!

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (3) How then, could any such moral truths be merely "definitional" in the absence of anyone doing the defining?

The word "retard" for instance. In the absence of any matter, energy, space or time, would that non-existent term still apply to a non-existent theist who posts some non-existent bullshit without even thinking about what it all means?

I'll let you *not* think about that for awhile before, hopefully, you *don't* post anything else about it.

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (3) And the rules governing the meanings of words -- which is what you're talking about when you talk about definitions, likewise cannot make an *act* right or wrong.

The definitions of words change. There are countless words that develop new meanings and that have lost their original meanings. The original poster, that I was arguing with, claimed that moral truths were universal and unchanging -- that they existed even in the absence of *humanity.*

[prodprod]

(cont'd) (2) The 10 commandments? Would that be the same 10 Commandments that forbids the making of any graven images, of any labor on the Sabbath, of the worship of any *other* gods, of coveting your neighbor's possessions?

But you can certainly go much older than the 10 commandments and find laws against murder. The code of Hammurabi forbids it. The code of Ur-Nammu, the earliest extant set of laws we have, forbids it.

But those are *codes of law* -- a law doesn't make a thing wrong.

[prodprod]

@damntull I guess it's always making too great a demand on the average theist to expect that -- *they can fucking read.*

If you could read, you would no doubt have read the very sentence above, which said, "you couldn't rely on simple assertions."

That is, you *can't* simply assert that particular things are right or wrong, good or evil -- can't simply define them that way.

If you assert that murder is wrong *by definition* -- where exactly is that definition?