Dr. Craig's Self-Contradictory Idea of "Nothing"

A response to a video (actually several) by the user DrCraigVideos wherein Dr. Craig plays around with "nothing" and gets burned.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• nothing
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• theism
• religion
• atheism
• david
• steele
• philosophy

[31Uriel]

Nothing = not anything.

[thesparitan]

@FatalKnight The fact that our brains work by electro-chemical reactions is just a fact. You can derive an ought from evolutionary theory on the question of morality, just like healthy can be derived from objective medical knowledge. Sam Harris makes a great case about this.

[thesparitan]

@07Aristotle There were many suicides in death camps by the SS soliders that participated in the executions. It actually was a very large problem. And it is likely that the majority were not actually sociopaths. Dehumanization can be a powerful thing.

[FatalKnight]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Saying morality is based on instincts is like saying there really is no morality. True we have an innate sense for it, but why do we so often seem to do what is wrong?On naturalism there is no should, no ought only what the electro-chemical reactions in our brain have determined us to do. In that case there is no freewill. What then justifies us to to say the serial killer is wrong? Can you trust your own beliefs? Nature has determined you to believe them and mine as well.

[07Aristotle]

@MomoTheBellyDancer Thus subjective morality is considered illusory and untenable.

[07Aristotle]

@MomoTheBellyDancer...we live in such a society. This is because we do not live by a subjective morality and anyone who thinks we do is incorrect, insofar as someone claims it is just a result of biology that is.

[07Aristotle]

@MomoTheBellyDancer In your view, there is no good or evil. Just the attainment of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Morality is pejorative and 'good n evil' become arbitrary to the person. That would mean anything goes and nothing would be good or evil, just painful and pleasurable. Every action would not have an objective basis for which to be judged and no one would have grounds to condemn anyone for an act. That is why I said, in my earlier posts, that it is just not evident today that...

[07Aristotle]

@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims''

No they weren't , some of them enjoyed fervently what they did. They were confirmed sadists.

''Yes, but that doesn't mean it's objective.''

I never said that. You contradicted yourself when you denied your morality being relative, and then you said that it was subjective, which is relative. Hello.

[07Aristotle]

@MomoTheBellyDancer ''Sorry, I still didn't get my Telepathy License.''

Okay, Um, the definition of a saint is someone who never commits evil, is that easy enough for you?

''They *will* do so readily when properly brainwashed into thinking the ones they murder are not human.''

But it would be wrong on no grounds considering morality subjective/relative, right?

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

@07Aristotle

"So, Nazi morality is okay?"

To the Nazis it was since they didn't think of the Jews as people. To the rest of humanity, who DO seem them as human, it is reprehensible. Even many Nazis themselves were appalled of what they did when they learned the personal stories of their victims. That's how it goes.

"you were just objecting to your morality being relative."

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's objective.