William Lane Craig (4/6) Moral Argument

William Lane Craig explains the moral argument at Watermark Community Church in Dallas, TX on October 4, 2009.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Atheism
• Reasonable
• Faith
• Christianity
• Apologetics
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Fine
• Tuning
• Contingency
• Resurrection
• Evil
• New
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Science
• God

[JMUDoc]

@Zentz29 The ontological argument is utter nonsense.

God is the greatest imaginable being.

All else being equal, a being or entity that exists is greater than one that doesn't.

Therefore, God exists.

Then the god in question isn't the Xian god, because I can imagine a greater god that can create the universe in less than six days AND not rest afterwards. This is only the most whimsical refutation, but it does the job on Xianity :).

[Zentz29]

@JMUDoc Yea, this argument is pure shit. Even if a god exists and has an "objective moral standard", no person can possibly know what that standard is. "objective morals" are USELESS if we can't know what is objectively moral.

Even if an "objective standard" exists, human beings NECESSARILY have no choice but to base their morals on a subjective standard.

WLC likes the Ontological argument too. lol The ontological arguement disproves all known religions as far as I can tell.

[JMUDoc]

Premise 1 is unverified - why can't moral absolutes exist without an all-powerful being?

Premise 2 is unverified - HOW DOES HE KNOW THAT OBjECTIVE MORALS EXIST?!?

Rape is REALLY wrong, is it? Can WLC ennumerate EVERY possible circumstance? Rape is wrong in every circumstance I can think of, but that doesn't make it OBJECTIVELY wrong, because there are circumstances I CAN'T think of.

[auritone]

Looking though history we see no indication of "objective morals".

What we see is very much morals differentiate between cultures and civilizations throughout time. Social values evolve as society evolves.

As for the basics (not killing, raping ect.) they're evident in nature and does not need a God to be explained as their are important for basic survival.

The development of morals are not evidence of God as there are other ways of explaining them satisfactorily.

[YesWeCantaloupe]

This is a fantastic argument because it sharpens one's sense of right and wrong. Something cannot be right or wrong simply because someone else says so.

[RedneckRandino]

@SinuousStudios Consider this. Even if you convinced a group of people that rape and child abuse were moral acts, it would not matter what they now think, those acts are still intrinsically immoral. Public opinion does not determine what is moral or immoral. If you agree with that concept, then you must ask where does morality come from, if not from public opinion.

[SinuousStudios]

Can't I have subjective moral values? Can't I believe that I live a moral life, but also believe that if I was born and raised somewhere else I would quite probably have different morals?

Is William Lane Craig saying that's impossible to convince people that rape and child abuse is a moral act? and if so would convincing a group of people that a supposed objective immoral act was really moral would that not disprove the Moral Argument?

Or my be I just don't get what objective Morals are.