William Lane Craig's Moral Argument.flv

WLC's Moral Argument for the existence of God.

Syllogism:

1st Premiss: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2nd Premiss: Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• WLC
• William Lane Craig
• apologetics
• debate
• christianity
• rationality

[adamXcore]

@CheekyVimto08 feel it's logically impossible. Also, you'd be surprised- the people on ReasonableFaithDOTorg are actually very friendly. You don't need to communicate with anyone when you go on there, though. I rarely do. I just log in to view to new videos and read more articles.

[adamXcore]

@CheekyVimto08 Saying it's a question of language doesn't bring it to a logical impossibility, though. Things which are logically impossible tend to have an appearance of impossibility that is apparent. Square circles; married bachelors; a box that both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, etc. This appearance of impossibility seems absent in the case for objective moral values and duties. In fact, the concept isn't even logically incoherent! So I guess I'd just need to hear more about why

[CheekyVimto08]

@CheekyVimto08 The is/ought gap is actually a good thing, because it means no way the world is can impose on our morality. Morality comes from within, but this is its strength. It isn't dependent on the existence of a deity. If it was, that would be bad, i think.

Well I don't think i'd be welcome on that website, but I'll let you wrap it up because I'm finding it hard to follow on this page. It's been interesting. Cheers. :)

[CheekyVimto08]

@adamXcore Yes, I think it's logically impossible for a value to be objective in the sense WLC is after. The married bachelor is really a good example because it's a question of language, and i just think objective is the wrong word.

That doesn't make me a crude moral relativist however. I think the whole paradigm of 'is it subjective or objective' is crude. Because morals are values, they can't be objective, but that doesn't mean they are whimsical and unimportant.

[adamXcore]

@CheekyVimto08 summarize this incredibly complex issue in a YouTube comment. If you do not yet have a ReasonableFaithDOTorg account, I'd highly recommend you create one and use it as I do (to have free access to his academic articles and debates). As much as I'd love to expound on this issue, I simply do not have the drive or time to do so, especially when someone who can do it better than I ever could has already has.

[adamXcore]

inconsistent. If no moral action is objectively right or wrong, then all is relative. Moral behavior becomes completely neutered and it is impossible to meaningfully condemn or praise any moral action. All we have is our relative impression of the action. We are left with "I approve of P. I disapprove of Q." Also, it's not God's existence that makes morality objective, it's God's nature. This is an incredibly nuanced issue here and I'd refer you to Craig's written work on it rather than try to

[adamXcore]

would be things like married bachelors, four-angled triangles, a man who is taller than himself, etc. These things contain intrinsic contradictories and thus can never be actualized. A morality which is objective and binding doesn't seem at all logically impossible in this way. So what is it, exactly, that you find impossible about objective moral values? Also, this part: "I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine..." is

[adamXcore]

@CheekyVimto08 You're using terms that I think are misnomers here and it's making it difficult for me to follow along with some of your points. For example, you say "...morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible." Now do you mean logically impossible in the way philosophers use the term, or are you just being excessive and saying it's unlikely? Because keep in mind, the logically impossible is both incoherent and unable to ever be actualized. Logically impossible things

[CheekyVimto08]

@CheekyVimto08 ...gap. But you can just bridge the is/ought gap by using a powerful being. There's no way that morality is any more objective with than without god. There's nothing about god's existence that makes morality objective, any more than god's existence makes red the objectively best color.

The is/ought gap means that morality can't be imposed from without, it has to come from within.

[CheekyVimto08]

@adamXcore Well it's not either 'objective and binding' or moral nihilism. I've said moral nihilism is incoherent and morality which is 'objective and binding' is logically impossible.

I think it's crude to have one or the other. I think the 'objectiveness' of morality is illusory. I don't think that means all of those acts are just fine, or 'merely unfashionably'.

I think WLC fears crude moral relativism so much that he wants to plug the god of the bible in there, to bridge the is ought