by bohm 104 Replies latest jw friends
Without an "idea" of an absolute moral value, then there really isn't any viable reason to believe in morals at all.
If morals are not subjective to an absolute, then who decides right from wrong? fair from unfair?
If there is no right and worng, why believe in equality? freedom? liberty", happiness? or any other "intangiable"?
These questions are in the relm of philosophy and not science.
PS: I can deside whats fair and not fair by referring to some things like: "do unto others what you would like them to do onto you". I can argue from evolution why this is a good idea, but not why its true in some higher meaning of the word.
but you have not created an argument for God yet.
you must explain why God provide a better explanation for morals. So assume God is true, why should i believe in equality? Why is this better explained in your model?
Again, the burden of proof is on you.
May I ask, what are the objective moral values? Just because moral values will differ from society and age to society and age. So which ones are the objective ones?
Tammy
Tammy, i got no clue.
Bohm, you have taken a statement of belief (God is behind objective morality) and merely substituted a different belief.
I think its obvious one should not rape like its obvious for me 2+2 = 4.
You still do not answer the questions. It may be obvious for you, but it might not be obvious to another from a different moral environment and, hence, a different moral compass.
Your moral compass is informed by 3000 years of Western ethics heavily influenced by the evolution of Judeo-Christianity. It is the air you breathe, and therefore you make claims of self-evidency where no philosophical thing exists.
It is not 2+2=4. Other cultures have or had no truck sanctioning activities you would likely regard as abhorrent--ranging from ritual rape to cannibalism. All of these cultures, however, grok basic maths.
Ding asked these kinds of questions again and again (I finally read the thread entirely), and he got no answers to his questions on whence an objective moral framework. All he got was an attack on one particular explanation for a source. At least Craig had the courage to put one forward to get shot at by those that disagree.
BTS
Tammy, i got no clue.
Finally.
If this is the case, your believing in certain moral standards as good is nothing less than an act of faith.
You have no way to prove them, since you know of no source for these standards. You believe in them.
BTS
BTS: But i have given my answer. You rightly say its a very poor one - i agree! Its a really shitty answer i just made up!
So now we have established i dont have an answer (ill try to cook one up as we go along, but please dont rely on that ever happening!) you must agree with me on this:
we have done absolutely nothing so far in terms of establishing if God exist or not.
is that not true?
BTS, yah darn right! i just believe in them! i pull them out of the thin air -- i dont even believe my standards are internally coherent, its just sparks in the brain i primarely accept for no objective reason for now.
So whats the argument for God?
(im not making fun of you. really, what happends now what does the argument look like?)
we have done absolutely nothing so far in terms of establishing if God exist or not.
Even if it is a weak argument, it is more than "absolutely nothing". All we have with Craig's moral argument is suggestive. To hold to it is an act of faith.
So whats the argument for God?
There are a number of them articulated by Craig himself. You already have the link to his website.
BTS
BTS:
No, seriously, help me spell it out. So far we have:
What should go on the dots now, logically? (I wont insert Craigs argument since you found it erronous). You must admit the burden on proof rest on you -- you cant just say that because none of us provide any evidence, God exists. We have at best both presented a non-argument for God so far.
