Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:38 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moral Argument for God's Existence
#1
Moral Argument for God's Existence
So, the moral argument, one of the stranger apologetic arguments in my opinion. The William Lane Craig rendition (which is the oft-repeated one) goes something like this:

Quote:P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

P2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C) Therefore, God exists.


Man, where to start. When I first joined the forum I waded into a thread wherein a user was persistently pushing this argument. If I recall correctly, they said that if there was no structural error, then the argument works and I had to become a theist. But clearly that's not true, the argument could easily be unsound.

Anyway, one common thing that I see is that, at least online by William Lane Craig parrots, the 1st premise in the argument is never defended. Like the user I mentioned above, it's treated as self-evident. Sometimes an appeal to authority is made, often by saying "Atheist philosophers X and Y agree", without realizing, given most philosophers are atheists (~73%) and most are moral realists (~60%), so that isn't seemingly a widespread belief (and this appeal is kind of lazy I think, used to ignore defending a controversial assertion).


Furthermore, the argument is really nonsensical at base. It amounts to saying "Solve meta-ethics or God exists", without specifying why that is the case, or if that even makes sense (and the Divine Command theory often pushed by users of this argument is disturbing). William Lane Craig himself has usually done this sort of not defending that premise except by appeals to authority either.

And as the philosopher Stephen Law says, you could just as easily conclude that moral realism ('objective moral values and duties') is false by not accepting thesecond premise, and moral anti-realism is a defensible position i think.

Lastly, isn't the phrase 'objective values' contradictory? Values necessitate some conscious mind to be the valuer, but how can values be independent of (objective) minds while not being entirely dependent on them? I have a feeling it's a simple misunderstanding in my part. Smile
Reply
#2
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
Quote:Therefore, God exists.

The god who ordered mass murder in Canaan? That moral motherfucker?

Craig is an asshole.
Reply
#3
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
Always baffles me when people say William Lane Craig has good arguments. Why would people think that? I've heard him speak, he isn't very good at all.

Anyway, agreed that the first premise is unfounded.
Reply
#4
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
That quote is a mangy dog chasing it's tail. Logical 'proofs' for god always are. Man makes up the notion that a god must be posited, then does mental contortions to prove how clever he is in deceiving himself. Apologetics is like wearing a tin foil hat to keep aliens from reading your mind...a silly solution to a make believe problem.
Reply
#5
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
Since no one has managed to demonstrate an "objective morality" that argument is a total fail.

To elaborate, an objective morality will be something that humans will have no choice but to obey.

Like gravity or the speed of light.

And since any behaviour that you or I might find wrong or even reprehensible will be practised with great enjoyment by somebody, somewhere.

It is is extremely hard to claim that objective morality exists.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#6
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
(September 2, 2013 at 4:45 am)Zen Badger Wrote: To elaborate, an objective morality will be something that humans will have no choice but to obey.

Like gravity or the speed of light.

And since any behaviour that you or I might find wrong or even reprehensible will be practised with great enjoyment by somebody, somewhere.

It is is extremely hard to claim that objective morality exists.

This position is as baseless as claiming that objective morality requires a god.

Morality is a standard to judge human actions. Humans have many such standards to judge different things - we've standards for weights, lengths, volumes etc. The objectivity of these standards only depends on their non-reliance on individual perception.

Take measurement of quantity for instance. It used to be subjective - a fistful of rice, a pinch of salt etc. It'd vary from individual to individual based on their physical specifications. But now we've established a specific quantity as 1 cubic-meter or 1 kilogram and we use that as standard to measure it. It is objective because it no longer depends on any individual. Further, individual rejection of the standard doesn't make it subjective.

Similarly, objective morality would simply mean that the code of ethics would not change with the person applying it. Unquestioning compliance is not a requirement. Universal acceptance is, likewise, not a requirement.
Reply
#7
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
(September 2, 2013 at 6:02 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 2, 2013 at 4:45 am)Zen Badger Wrote: To elaborate, an objective morality will be something that humans will have no choice but to obey.

Like gravity or the speed of light.

And since any behaviour that you or I might find wrong or even reprehensible will be practised with great enjoyment by somebody, somewhere.

It is is extremely hard to claim that objective morality exists.

This position is as baseless as claiming that objective morality requires a god.

Morality is a standard to judge human actions. Humans have many such standards to judge different things - we've standards for weights, lengths, volumes etc. The objectivity of these standards only depends on their non-reliance on individual perception.

Take measurement of quantity for instance. It used to be subjective - a fistful of rice, a pinch of salt etc. It'd vary from individual to individual based on their physical specifications. But now we've established a specific quantity as 1 cubic-meter or 1 kilogram and we use that as standard to measure it. It is objective because it no longer depends on any individual. Further, individual rejection of the standard doesn't make it subjective.

Similarly, objective morality would simply mean that the code of ethics would not change with the person applying it. Unquestioning compliance is not a requirement. Universal acceptance is, likewise, not a requirement.

As far as I can tell, you just used a whole bunch of words to basically agree with me.
[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Reply
#8
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
(September 2, 2013 at 3:06 am)Minimalist Wrote: The god who ordered mass murder in Canaan? That moral motherfucker?

Yep. When arguing for absolute morals, the big issue is that most (if not all) gods do not follow those morals. The way theists try to get around this is by claiming that the morals are absolute or objective for humans, but not for god. But in many cases god orders humans to commit the acts in question, when we know it would be trivial for god to do it himself and spare mankind from having to do what is immoral.

In either case, if it's moral for god to commit a certain act, or order a human to commit that act, then the act is not intrinsically immoral. Therefore, slaughtering a young girl's family and forcibly taking the girl as a wife is not an immoral act in itself (Numbers 31:17,18). Kidnapping young women and making them wives is also not an intrinsically immoral act (Judges 21:20-23). Invading a weaker nation and forcing its inhabitants into slavery? Not immoral (Deuteronomy 20:10,11).

How can there be a "moral argument" for such a morally ambiguous creature?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
#9
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
(September 2, 2013 at 6:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote: As far as I can tell, you just used a whole bunch of words to basically agree with me.

Then you should read again - with glasses on.
Reply
#10
RE: Moral Argument for God's Existence
Craig says that objective values DO exist, because he knows that many will shy away from the horrors of some clearly immoral behaviors. All normal people will say that murdering innocents just for fun is wrong, for example, and those who disagree will be treated as inhuman monsters. Since all healthy humans shy away from murder, Craig will say, it must be an objective value. The same goes for raping children. And for killing fetuses, eating the meat of defenseless animals, and . . . oh shit, wait a minute.

Okay, so there are some values that are so strong in the human population that they are nearly universal. Why would God be a better description of that fact than evolution?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving the Existence of a First Cause Muhammad Rizvi 3 758 June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Maximizing Moral Virtue h311inac311 191 12783 December 17, 2022 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Objectivist
  As a nonreligious person, where do you get your moral guidance? Gentle_Idiot 79 6403 November 26, 2022 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  The existence of God smithd 314 18952 November 23, 2022 at 10:44 pm
Last Post: LinuxGal
  Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war? Macoleco 184 6575 August 19, 2022 at 7:03 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  On theism, why do humans have moral duties even if there are objective moral values? Pnerd 37 3088 May 24, 2022 at 11:49 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Veridican Argument for the Existence of God The Veridican 14 1598 January 16, 2022 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Can we trust our Moral Intuitions? vulcanlogician 72 3614 November 7, 2021 at 1:25 pm
Last Post: Alan V
  Any Moral Relativists in the House? vulcanlogician 72 4585 June 21, 2021 at 9:09 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  [Serious] Moral Obligations toward Possible Worlds Neo-Scholastic 93 5295 May 23, 2021 at 1:43 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)