Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense (page 3)

Ding

If God does not exist where do objective moral values come from, Marvin?

Please name the other source or sources.

I feel there is something very strange going on here. Either the "objective sence of moral" (i am even going to accept it is not defined!) interact with us somehow, ie. there is some behavior or some events which it explain and evolution cant, or it is not so. If it is the first case, then thats an emperical claim and we should examine it as such before it convince us.

But if it is the second case -- surely that is a joke! the objective morals exist only because some people do not like the alternative, not because they actually explain anything or is of any use!

And we need God to explain that which explain nothing, so therefore God must exist!

But lets see what Ding says.

Marvin Shilmer

Ding,

The burden of proving true an argument—including each of its premises—is the burden of whoever asserts the argument.

If the argument in question is yours, or one you assert is true, then the burden of proof is yours and not mine.

The validity of an argument is not solely dependent on form. In addition each premise must be proven true, including underlying arguments and/or premises supporting each of those premises.

Unless proven otherwise it is assumption to say only the existence of God can result in the existence of objective values and duties.

Marvin Shilmer

Ding

Marvin,

I still would like to hear alternative explanations.

If objective moral values exist that are not derived from God, from what other source or sources might they come?

If Hitler succeeded in exterminating everyone who disagreed with his theory that genocide of "undesirables" was both moral and good for mankind, would that mean that genocide had become morally acceptable because everyone accepted it as such?

Is rape objectively morally wrong, or is it merely counterproductive to evolutionary progress?

bohm

Ding -- if you would like, i would very much hear your thoughts on the 3 items i listed on the past page. I will return to hitler and the case of rape when i know where you are coming from a bit better. but ofcourse i would believe hitler was wrong no matter how many he exterminated and i would believe rape was wrong no matter if an evolutionary value could be demonstrated.

avishai

Ding, RE: your hitler theory, didn't God do the same thing w/ the flood?

Ding

Bohm,

There are a lot of alternative explanations for our moral codes besides God, but I don't think any of them provide an objective basis for them.

Take evolution for example. We don't see any moral implications when lions kill and eat lambs or even when they kill and eat human beings. That's just a part of nature. So why do we think it is immoral for human beings to kill and eat other human beings? Is it just because it is reproductively disadvanteous or because we have developed some sort of "feeling" that it is immoral?

No, I think it would be morally wrong even if it were reproductively advantageous and even if we "felt" that it was fine (as some cannibalistic societies do).

I believe that God is the source of objective moral values. His values are the ultimate standard of right and wrong, and He has implanted these values in human beings. That's part of being "made in the image of God."

Granted, our moral understanding is imperfect and it has been twisted by sin, but it is there and I think it is the basis for the commonality of the moral codes of the vast majority of human beings.

If Hitler had exterminated everyone who didn't share his favorable view of genocide in furtherance of his "master race," it would still be morally wrong. Morality is not dependent on a vote taken of all or even a majority of human beings.

I've tried to answer your questions as best I can.

You seem to believe in the existence of objective moral values (Hitler example). If they don't come from God, what do you see as the source or sources of these values?

bohm

But ding, is there any way at all to test if there is objective moral values? Is there anything we can only explain if we assume they exist?

I am going to bed, i will think about a reply and give it tomorrow.

Ding

Bohm,

One way to know objective moral values is to have God reveal them to us.

Another way (subject to greater error) would be to look at moral values held by most people and societies and conclude that they either state or approximate those objective values (murder, rape, theft, etc. are wrong, for example.)

Avishai,

A couple thoughts in response to your question about God and the Flood.

1. We may well think, "It would be morally reprehensible for God to do such a thing." But where does THAT moral judgment come from? How can we be sure that it is right? In other words, where do we get these objective moral values by which we say, "Such conduct would be unworthy of God?" How do we know we are right.

2. Just because something would be wrong if we did it doesn't mean it is immoral for God to do it.

Consider this example. It would be morally wrong for you or me to take a human life (absent justification such as self-defense). In fact, it would be morally wrong for us to stand by and allow a person to die if we had the power to prevent the death or to heal them. Does that mean that it is immoral for God to let anyone die? Couldn't He prevent every death? Couldn't He heal everyone? If we conclude that, then morally God cannot let anyone die.

How about allowing pain? Is it immoral for God to allow people to experience pain -- at least beyond a certain level -- if He has the power to prevent it? So God cannot morally allow people to experience more than a certain amount of pain.

We could come up with all sorts of restrictions this way, reasoning from what we consider immoral for us to do or not do and extrapolating to the point that God cannot morally do anything that we ourselves could not do.

What is the source of these moral values that are superior to God's own judgment (based on His actions or inactions)? How do we know that what is wrong for us is also wrong for God? On what objective basis do we decide something is unworthy of God? Do we take a vote? Whose moral judgments is He required to follow -- Mine? Yours? Hitler's? Ghandi's? Who will enforce these judgments against Him?

bohm

Ding: The rebuttal shall be ruthless.

My question:

is there any way at all to test if there is objective moral values? Is there anything we can only explain if we assume they exist?

Your answer:

I believe that God is the source of objective moral values. His values are the ultimate standard of right and wrong, and He has implanted these values in human beings. That's part of being "made in the image of God."

Aha, so is there or is there not some part of our behavior which could not have evolved? its the crucial question; you cant just say: "God put morals in us, i cant tell which or how or say why God had to be the one cramming them in there, but he did, and therefore God must exist!" that would be circular logic, we must make sure that we do not invent a problem nature could solve on its own, define it so that only God can solve it, and claim that since we see no problem God must exist!.

You go abit around my question, you claim there is something called "objective morals", i am merely asking you if the word cover any behavior which cannot have been evolved, ie. if there is any way to test if "objective morals" actually exist.

if someone asked me: "Why is there sets (the mathematical kind)" i would just say: "because i can think of them". if he asked "why? Dont you require God to be the source of all sets?" i would simply say: "No. I just assume they exist and i think any intelligent creature would eventually evolve in such a way it had an intuitive notion of sets".

Adding God to the mix explain nothing: The evolved creature, and the creature programmed by God, must both have approximately the same notion of sets (namely a logically coherent one), and thus God explain nothing and it is not evidence in favor of God.

Similar, I dont see overwhelming evidence a rational creature who try to live in a group could come up with radically different sences of morality, and ofcourse the sence of morality must be evolutionary tied into our reward/punishment system so it just "feel" as if its there.

As for your situations:

1, why its wrong to kill.

So why do we think it is immoral for human beings to kill and eat other human beings? Is it just because it is reproductively disadvanteous or because we have developed some sort of "feeling" that it is immoral?

Isnt it obvious? I think its immoral to kill another people because 1) im ending his life and human life has value and 2) i would not like him to do that to me. And yes, ultimately it because of an evolved "feeling", though i there is also a great deal of rationality in it: I might on myself dislike seing harm done to another being, but a rule like "Do onto other what you would like them to do onto you" is not something i think i was hard-coded with; it has to be discovered.

2, hitler:

If Hitler had exterminated everyone who didn't share his favorable view of genocide in furtherance of his "master race," it would still be morally wrong. Morality is not dependent on a vote taken of all or even a majority of human beings.

yes, i would still believe it was morally wrong. and so would the people who drove the camps. and if hitler through genetic manipulation made everyone think monthy python sucked, and two and a half men was the most funny thing ever, two and a half men would still suck! And if hitler told people 2+2 = 3, it would still be 4!.

so i dont get the point? are you asking if "hitler changed everyones mind physically would they still think something was wrong" (no) or "if hitler forced everyone to behave in a certain way would they still think it was wrong" (yes) or "if hitler indoctrinated everyone to think killing jews was allright would that work?" (which is the interesting question, and i would say no).

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

Share this