Suffering

[Angrboda]

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.

[Reasonable_Jeff]

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.

---

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.

---

How can God exist if there is so much evil in the world?

http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...-evil.html

What do you guys thinks?

You're posting Craig? Really??

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.

[Ben Davis]

You're posting Craig? Really??

Is this taboo? What's wrong with Craig?

It's not taboo, I'm just expressing my incredulity; Craig's arguments have been so utterly defeated in so many public fora that I'm amazed that anyone still considers them to be valid. I know he still tours with these arguments but that's simply a product of his disingenuity.

He doesn't come across as a jerk like some of the other Christian Apologists.

But he is; he knows that his arguments are wrong & have been defeated but he continues to preach them anyway. I always thought that deliberately spreading falsehood was against the commandments that he claims to follow. Obviously not when his personal pride/professional reputation is at stake...

Besides, that whole article isn't a quote from Craig, only certain points.

...yeah, the points that describe the argument. It's those points that I'm saying you should disregard.

[Waratah]

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.

If it's fun it is good. How is that evil. To you its evil, to the person doing it, it's not. Therefore it is not objective evil.

[genkaus]

It seems to me that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil.

Can you back that up with facts?

It is subjective and depends on whether the reader/listener thinks that there really are objective morals in this life.

Actually, that's where you are wrong. Either there are objective morals in this life - known or unknown - or there aren't. What the reader/listener thinks about it is irrelevant. If there are objective moral values then the argument would stand (though not for long as there are problems with the rest of it as well). Declaring the argument to be subjective is simply another way of saying "I feel like it's true, but I can't prove it".

If you do not believe that there are any, the argument is dust in the wind.

Actually, it's dust in the wind either way.

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.

Actually, no. The hidden option "c" ultimately boils down to "a" or "b". If you say "God is the perfect moral good" then that implies the standard of morality exists independently which falls on the "god commands it because it's moral" horn. If you say that "morality is a character trait of god", the the question becomes, "what determines god's character?". If the answer is "god does", then you have the "it is moral because god commands" horn. If the answer is anything else, then you are back to the first one.

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?

That was the point being made. The first premise is wrong as well.

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.

That is where you make your error. If it was, in fact, objectively wrong, then you wouldn't need to use the "most people would agree" argument.

[Napoléon]

It seems to me that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil.

I guess polar bears are objectively evil then.

[Faith No More]

I would want to know why an atheist parent would bring a child into this world knowing that suffering exists.

Because we're humans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Suffering is a result of our own selfish ambition.

[LastPoet]

Some people are like that R, they like to devalue suffering. I guess its the jeebus mentality, only the godboy truly suffered for our sins.

@Polaris: did you had an orgasm saying that?

[Whateverist]

How can God exist if there is so much evil in the world?

http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...-evil.html

What do you guys thinks?

I would want to know why an atheist parent would bring a child into this world knowing that suffering exists.

Perhaps because it is only suffering after all. There is also pleasure and interest and connection but none of it exclusively and always. Atheist parents have no issue with life as we find it. It is you theists we have to worry about slitting your wrists when reality doesn't reinforce your fantasy.

---

It seems to me that murdering babies for fun is objectively evil.

I guess polar bears are objectively evil then.

Well technically I think they are only bad asses. Nothing to trifle with, mind you, but their intentions are clearly not nefarious. They are merely trying to make a living by tooth and claw, and apparently we aren't bad tasting.