If God Dead, Is Everything Permitted? - William Lane Craig vs. Torbjorn Tännsjö:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - As the climax of a speaking tour of Swedish universities in the spring of 2001 William Lane Craig met Torbjorn Tännsjö, Sweden's leading ethicist, in Gothenburg to debate the question, "If God is dead, is everything permitted?" Prof. Tannsjo is a hedonistic utilitarian, who believes that the good is whatever brings the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people and that God has nothing at all to do with morality. Prof. Craig argues that moral values and duties are based in the commands of a holy and loving God and that without God morality becomes wholly subjective. This gripping debate will help you to clarify your own thinking about the basis of moral values.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

Category:

Education

Tags:

• God
• Morality
• Ethics
• Atheism
• Theism
• hedonistic
• utilitarian
• Pleasure
• Christianity
• Dead
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Torbjorn
• Tännsjö
• Apologetics
• Philosophy
• Religion
• Absolute
• Objective
• Relative
• Subjective

[HOUSEofMETA]

Both speakers are wrong about morality. It's not objective. It can not possibly be objective.

[drcraigvideos]

@HOUSEofMETA Would you like to tell us why? Or are you here only to make cowardly drive-by comments?

[R0FLLWAFFL3]

@HOUSEofMETA I think you misunderstand the meaning of objective morality. It's not objective in the sense that it is a passive, inanimate object (ie. a doorknob). It is the exact opposite of moral relativism. Get your philosophical terms correct before partaking in a philosophical debate.

[drcraigvideos]

@cperez1000 I know what he thinks and it's false. Furthermoer, I don't see how my blocking trolls from commenting amounts to my watning to burn the first amendment of the constitution.

[cperez1000]

@drcraigvideos,

you and everyone knows what he means.. You only show the comments you want and in several videos adding comments is disabled. You are free to do it, but it makes you appear to be afraid of free speech.

[ApologeticsArsenal]

It seems that Torbjorn gave up his position half way through the debate and later on, simply reverted to stating that various people have thought various things about morality (sans argumentation). I respect Torbjorn, but it seems that Craig won with ease.

[drcraigvideos]

@VibrantNTingling "Why do you not allow people to comment on your videos with Craig?" Uh, yeah, I don't allow comments. I mean, just look around. Absolutely no comments, right?

"If christians go to heaven why should they get health care in case of a life threatening disease?" LOL! You think glorified bodies need health care?

[GospelHouseKat]

@arktheball The distinction has to be made -- and I am grateful for the correction. And I am now interested in examining the "Mind of Christ" that didn't count physical suffering as something to be shunned, but rather the "you lusted in your hearts" evil that is the only concern and that had to be dealt with BY MEANS OF physical suffering. You've got me thinking that this is really the "crux" of the problem of suffering/sin, at least as far as the New Testament describes it.

[arktheball]

@GospelHouseKat Im confused as now you seem to be separating moral wrong, from experiential unpleasantness. In your first post (the one I responded to) you seemed to coagulate the two together. Perhaps you mistyped, or I misread. But if you distinguish between that "made my foot hurt" bad, and "you raped someone" bad then I agree with that distinction.

[winterstellar]

@winterstellar Examples are for instance Japan or the scandinavian countries in Europe.: )

[winterstellar]

Hehe, it's quite clear that "everything isn't allowed" in the places where "God is dead". Since the least religious countries in the world also have the lowest levels of crime and violence and such: )

[HOUSEofMETA]

@emailgarbage20

Does pizza taste good (or bad, or anything at all)? Unless you deny this, you too believe that taste is objective. This raises the question, what is the foundation of taste?

See what I did? You do realize that you're not really describing a primary property of the pizza itself, but rather your own subjective experience of the pizza? The same goes for morality. People may think that what they're talking about is objective. But then again, people tend to argue over food aswell.