RE: Suffering
September 17, 2012 at 6:30 am
(This post was last modified: September 17, 2012 at 6:44 am by Reasonable_Jeff.)
(September 17, 2012 at 12:06 am)Waratah Wrote: Name one objective evil, moral. "Truly evil" does not make it objective evil.
It seems to me that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil.
(September 17, 2012 at 2:50 am)apophenia Wrote:
Quote:1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective moral values exist (some things are evil).
4. Therefore, God exists.
In #2, that needs to be "objectively evil acts, things or creatures exist," or something similar. (What is required is not just evil but "objective evil".) As a result, #2 is not the negation of the consequent in #1, and therefore the negation of the consequent in #3 is invalid and #4 does not follow. The proof is flawed by what is essentially ignoratio elenchi. Yes, the existence of objective evil might lead to a persuasive argument, however since that is not established, the "proof" is invalid. Of course, if you could prove either objective evil or objective good, you wouldn't need such proofs in the first place; in line with Euthyphro's dilemma, people could likely be persuaded to follow those objective morals, whether or not they emanated from God.
Proving the existence of objective moral values. That would be sweet. I already know where the first $100,000 of my Nobel would be going.
Good call, you are correct, this isn't a coercive argument although I think it is a very compelling one. It is subjective and depends on whether the reader/listener thinks that there really are objective morals in this life.
If you do not believe that there are any, the argument is dust in the wind.
I could be wrong but I believe the Euthyphro dilema is a false dilema. God would be the perfect moral good and his commands are a reflection/in-line with His own character. The answer would not be "a" or "b" but a hidden "c" option.
Also you said, "people could likely be persuaded to follow those objective morals, whether or not they emanated from God."
I may be misunderstanding you comment or taking it out of context (please correct me if I am) but isn't this ignoring the first premise?
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist?
And it seems to me that on the whole people do follow these "objective moral values." I believe that most people would agree that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil/wrong.
(September 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm)Ben Davis Wrote:(September 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: How can God exist if there is so much evil in the world?You're posting Craig? Really??
http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...-evil.html
What do you guys thinks?
Is this taboo? What's wrong with Craig? He doesn't come across as a jerk like some of the other Christian Apologists.
Besides, that whole article isn't a quote from Craig, only certain points.