Why the Moral Argument Isn't as Bad as People Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Many people in the apologetics community (both theists and atheists) are of the opinion that the moral argument is just not a good argument for theism and that Christians should stop using it in their apologetic. In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Adam Lloyd Johnson, a Christian philosopher that's devoted the past several years of his life to studying and strengthening the moral argument for the existence of God.
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CC...
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on RUclips: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchris...
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I have to admit I was hoping that this interview would be in part a response to the arguments David Pallman put forward in his video "Why I Don't Use Adam Lloyd Johnson's Moral Argument" or at least address some of the points made in that video. It would be really cool to see Johnson interact with Pallman on these points, whether that be him being interviewed by Pallman or him interviewing Pallman. As it stands I'm pretty convinced by Pallmans case that we shouldn't use the Moral argument but I see it as a great opportunity to really improve the moral argument because if we could address the problems Pallman points out then we'd have a very powerful argument. But as it stands I think Pallman is right that no current formulation of the moral argument has adequately shown how God is the best explanation of morality (is a simpler theory, has greater explanatory power or scope, or provides illumination to some long standing problem in philosophy) when compared to atheistic moral realist theories.
For that matter I'm actually on the fence with respect to moral realism as well, there's a lot of interesting stuff being put out by a guy named Lance Bush, his channel is Lance Independent here on youtube. I'm not convinced of anti-realism but his objections to arguments for moral realism have definitely given me pause. It'd be cool to see Dr. Johnson interact with him as well, he just did an interview with David Enoch which was fantastic.
I'm honestly just commenting to bump this in hope that he sees this and responds
I would love to see them interact! Especially since I say that the 21st century western church should use the moral argument almost exclusively.
It’s a terrible argument, and cannot be ‘reformed’.
I'm sorry that I missed this conversation when it was live.
The classical argument families for God start with an analytic proposition disguised as a synthetic proof. That means that we could give them any name. Just so we can refer to them without the baggage of the term "God," I'll give them different names. I'll call the object of the Ontological Arguments, "The Universe." I'll call the object of The Cosmological Arguments, "The Big Bang." I'll call the object of The Teleological Arguments, "The Purpose of Life." I'll call the object of The Moral Arguments, "The Moral Substrate." But really, if someone objects to any of these names and thinks they have a better name in any case, I'll hear them out.
There are strong versions of each of these, in my opinion. Fine tuning arguments work rather well at showing that these items are really the same thing. Just to pick a quick and dirty, intuitive version of a fine tuning argument that combines these: it really feels like it's our moral responsibility, and therefore at least part of The Moral Substrate of our lives, to uphold our purpose. Of course, there are more robust fine tuning arguments, this is just a quick and dirty example.
When people believe in the brute moral facts, they already agree that there's a Moral Substrate. Really, we're just arguing over the details. I think that leaving the baggage of the term "God" to one side in those conversations can really help. We can ask, "What are you proposing, other than a name change, that's different from my understanding of The Moral Substrate, other than a name change?"
There are some obvious starting points: I believe that The Moral Substrate came to Earth, took human flesh and form, died for us, and rose again. Most likely, they do not. If such a thing is to be established, it can only be established through history. Like saying that we believe that there was a comet in the sky after Julius Cesar died: we could suggest that it's theoretically possible, but we have to look to history to show that it actually happened. Any theory of how The Moral Substrate works or doesn't work needs to be compatible with the historical record. I think that historical resurrection arguments are pretty strong. Jesus claimed to be the son of God and the means by which right and wrong will be judged. He said that this will result in him being publicly executed and then raising from the dead. He was executed and then got up. That's a theory with a prediction, and the prediction came true. Past that, there are details to be worked out. If someone thinks that the moral compass of the church or whatever is broken, that's a worthwhile conversation: but it's based on the idea that there is a right to be sought out and a wrong to be avoided, and arguing over whether we call that "Moral Facts" or "God" is not a productive arguing.
But let's step back for a second and imagine that The Universe, The Big Bang, The Purpose of Life, and The Moral Substrate (as I defined them above) are not the same thing. The thing that made us is different than the thing that set us in motion which is different from the thing that gave us purpose and all of these are either immoral or amoral. (To be clear, I don't believe that, but it's an interesting thought experiment.) I say that in that case, our obligation is still to The Moral Substrate. Think about The Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3: Rocket Raccoon was made and set in motion and given purpose by The High Evolutionary. It was an evil creation project with an evil purpose and evil actions. Rocket figured out that he had a higher duty. I think he figured it out correctly.
10:22 How is that any better than the option ''it's good because God commands it''? I can just quote dr Johnson's objection and change it a bit: ''If God's nature can just be any crazy thing, like, we should all eat kittens for breakfast, then that would make it good''. I suspect the defense would be ,,but God's nature isn't to eat kittens''. Okay, then what's wrong with ''it's good because God commands it''? God didn't command eating kittens.
14:40 That's false, other options include:
- There are multiple independent uncaused causes.
- There are multiple causal chains, some of them start at some point and some go back forever.
- There is a time loop where the final cause goes back in time to cause all the previous causes.
There might be philosophical reasons as to why those don't work, but dr Johnson also claims that infinite regress doesn't work yet lists it as an option first.
17:49 In case of the contingency arguments, demonstrating that the first cause is God requires additional argumentation. Similarly, without further justification, I see no reason why grounding morality in God with no further explanation is any better than grounding it in flourishing or whatever with no further explanation.
21:30 When I hear apologists claiming that there is objective morality, I presume they mean something like ''morality that's more than just our feelings''. But when apologists try to justify its existence, the evidence they point to is our feelings. It's not like 2+2=4. I can check whether 2+2=4 at any moment by counting with my fingers.
46:12 I haven't read those theories, but I would presume that a theory without God would contain something like:
''Brute fact 1: X is morally good.''
''Brute fact 2: Y is morally evil.''
etc.
Then a theory with God, which is to account for all the same moral facts, needs to do something like:
''Brute fact 1: God's nature is in accordance with X''
''Brute fact 2: God's nature is against Y''
That's the same number of brute facts already, and on top of that the theistic theory adds brute facts like ''God is omniscient'' and ''God is triune''. So I don't see how the theistic theory can be less ''bloated'' with brute facts. Unless, of course, we compress all of them into a single one, like: ''Brute fact 1: God is omnipotent, omniscient, triune, in accordance with X and against Y'', but then an atheist can just compress brute facts into one in the same manner.
17:49
For this portion, I've always seen it as worse than contingency arguments since they aren't arguing just that morality exists in some sense but that it is also somehow objective.
When they then turn around and try to say the grounding is in a subject (god), I always find it a bit ridiculous. We wouldn't say grounding morality in the nature of Bob is objective. And they simply can't special plead a god's nature as a more objective grounding than Bob's.
The best you could say is that a god's perspective would be more informed than Bob's, but that doesn't make it more objective.
I'm just really tired of the moral argument due to all its shortcomings and how prevalent of an argument it is.
P.S. Great breakdown of several key moments. These are useful avenues to open up a dialogue.
Great work.
@@DennisMSulliva Thanks!
I like moral arguments and I cannot lie.
I like, big, butts and I cannot lie! You other brothers can’t deny!
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist, and a round thing your face, you get sprung!
I understand we can't get into every detail of everything, but the "there can't be actual infinities" is extremely contentious take and would warrant some defence.
For example we know for a fact that spacetime is continuous. Which means there is actually uncountably infinite points in space. Which also means there are uncountably infinitely many values for each field in all these points.
"There can't be actual infinities" is a hard to defend premise. "Philosophers and mathematicians have proved actual infinities are impossible" is an outright falsehood.
@@anthonydesimone502 I just filtered it down to just plain assertion. But you're correct. It's wrong, misleading and judging by his the general awareness of actual philosophy, dishonest.
@@anthonydesimone502proved it how?
@@alekm4185 I'm saying they didn't prove that.
37:00. This is comically misunderstanding the evolution. Imagine there is one million boats. And each is different from each other. And they don't need to travel entire ocean. Just few miles to the next island. They all go. Most sink. So find the island by luck. Some because of their good design, some despite bad design, and some some don't make it despite perfect design. Let's say 1% makes it.
Now this 10 000 share notes with each other. And they make new million boats. And they go again to the next island few miles away. And again 1% makes it there. Again, some because of their brilliant design inherited from previous design, some despite inheriting bad design from previous.
Now after hundreds of those cycles the entire ocean is traversed. And you look at the boats. And they are very simmilar. Pretty much all atrocious design choices have been wed out. And all amazing design choices are left in. But there is still considerable variation. When they will go again, not everyone will make it once more
Now compare that against our moral "knowledge".
Is it "written on our heart", by a perfect being as obvious and bright as out perception of colors, with just a few broken people who for some reason can't perceive it?
Or is the same in broad strokes. But surprisingly varied in detail. Where if you take a set of 5 propositions, you'd be hard pressed to find two people who share opinions on all 5 of them precisely alike. As if the process of arriving at the conclusion was made by blindly building a boat based on design of a two different boats that crashed ashore...
I bet if someone came along and stole their boats and left them stranded on the island they just traveled to without any food or water, then they'd all have a similar opinion about who stole their boats.
My sincere thanks to David Pallmann for the production of this video!
So...Is it in God's nature to love what is good, or is the good whatever happens to be in God's nature? If the first then God is unnecessary. If the second, then you end up with an arbitrary and mind dependent standard of goodness.
The good is whatever is on God's nature (I wouldn't say "happens" cause his nature is necessary). It's not clear to me what you mean by your objection to this option: "you end up with an arbitrary and mind dependent standard of goodness". Could you elaborate?
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun Well if 'the good' is simply the abstract set of qualities and attributes that you believe God possesses, then God needn't actually exist for that to be the case. There is absolutely no intuitive or logical connection between "kindness is good", say, and "kindness is part of the nature of a God". From a moral realist framework, such things are simply recognized as being intrinsically good in of themselves, not only good because there happens to be a God who embodies them. Like I said, there is no logical connection between those two ideas that I've ever seen.
43:10 _"Every theory does have to have a brute"_
No they don't... By definition, if you don't have any unjustified belief (or ontology) then nothing is _"brute"_ in your theory... You only _"have to have a brute"_ if you are a foundationalist...
The moral argument for me is the best argument for God. Not only does it proves God, but it shows that God is personal and moral being.
The reason why people think is a bad argument is cause they don't understand it. To my surprise even the academics don't understand it.
Okay.You tell us what you think, but not why.
What do you mean what, but not why?
@@BerishaFatian I read what you wrote. I learn what you think is true. But I don't hear why you think these things are true.
So could you please explain this argument in the strongest form?
I don't think it proves God because I don't think moral realism is true, and I don't think there are any good arguments for moral realism being true.
Who thinks the moral argument is bad? It's actually top tier. The only argument that might be better is the transcendental argument.
I think it's bad. There aren't any good arguments for moral realism, so it's weird to lean on a premise that is, itself, poorly supported.
I think it's bad because in the majority of cases the person giving the argument doesn't properly justify premise 1 that God is the only possible/best grounding for morality. Maybe someone could show that this turns out to be true, but that doesn't change the fact that 99% of the people who use the moral argument have literally no argument against (or even familiarity with) the leading non-theistic moral realist theories.
The moral argument is immoral.
Naturalism has no issue, that I can see, with providing an answer as to why something is good.
"Why do you want to be happy?" is an absurd question, because if you know what happiness is then you know the answer. So happiness is good for its own sake; it's intrinsically good. So to ask why is happiness good is to not understand what it feels like to be happy.
"Why do you want to be successful?" is not an absurd question in the same way. There is an answer: Because you want to be happy. So success is an instrumental good.
There are puzzles surrounding the nature of happiness I won't unpack here. But to make my point that naturalism is fine, here's an idea: there is only one intrinsically good thing: that the goodness of which is accessed directly, which is happiness. Everything else is instrumentally good, good only insofar as it's able to bring about happiness.
I don't see how God solves the problem. We can ask why God is good. On my view God would be good because God brings about intrinsic goods.
And if God is supposed to be the standard or foundation of goodness, then does that mean to say something is good is to say it is godly, or consistent with God's nature, or approved by God, or rooted or grounded in God in some way?
If so, then that's simply not how we use the word good. We talk about good movies, good food, a good teacher, etc, without evoking God. Good food is good because it's healthy, tastes good, and is ethically sourced, not because God approves it or because the food is consistent with God's nature. (And we can see how being healthy, tasting good, and being ethically sourced are instrumental goods.)
So not only do I not see how God solves the problem, I do see how it doesn't make sense to say God is the good.
Another view is that goodness is basic and cannot be analyzed at all, in which case nothing, not even God, can explain what goodness is or why things are good.
You'd think when you believe that the universe came about by purely purposeless and unguided nature, and life is just the product of unguided and purposeless processes, then it would follow naturally that nothing is actually good or evil. But don't expect an atheist to be consistent with the implications of their position.
@@yancooper3008 We access the goodness of happiness directly, so it's impossible, on any worldview, for happiness to be bad.
""Why do you want to be happy?" is an absurd question."
Why? What evolutionary purpose does happiness serve?
""Why do you want to be successful?" is not an absurd question in the same way. There is an answer: Because you want to be happy. So success is an instrumental good."
Do I want to be happy? What does happy even mean? I think of Ren and Stimpy, the "happy helmet" - is that what I want? How do you know? What evolutionary purpose does happiness serve? Are the happiest societies the most likely to thrive? Why does Denmark, among the happiness countries in the world, have such a low birthrate?
"there is only one intrinsically good thing: that the goodness of which is accessed directly, which is happiness. Everything else is instrumentally good, good only insofar as it's able to bring about happiness."
What do goodness and happiness have to do with one another? Can something be good without bringing happiness? Is the goodness of something contingent on a mental state? I guess badness and suffering would be too, no?
"If so, then that's simply not how we use the word good. We talk about good movies, good food, a good teacher, etc, without evoking God. Good food is good because it's healthy, tastes good, and is ethically sourced, not because God approves it or because the food is consistent with God's nature. (And we can see how being healthy, tasting good, and being ethically sourced are instrumental goods.)"
I'd say good food is absolutely in accordance with God's nature, although but analogically (not univocally). We use good in terms of our own emotions? So goodness is only spoken of in terms of its utility? Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would have some significant reservations with this. Goodness and utility have nothing to do with one another.
This wasn't the own you think it is.
I'd agree with you that happiness would be the greatest good if there was no God, but it seems that intuitively happiness does not correspond to The Good.
I think one major issue with the thesis that happiness just is the good is the conflict between your own happiness and other peoples'. Seems like many important moral questions hinge on that, and I can't see why what you said about your own happiness would apply to anyone else's (even your own offspring). The only way you can answer that, I think, is adding an additional value besides happiness, like "compassion", but that doesn't have the same simplicity as your happiness hypothesis does.
> Another view is that goodness is basic and cannot be analyzed at all, in which case nothing, not even God, can explain what goodness is or why things are good.
I think in this you are conflating an analysis of goodness with a grounding for goodness. I'd say redness is also basic, and not analyzable, but that doesn't imply that the existence of anything red doesn't require an explanation or grounding. Some things are red because they have certain physical characteristics that make them reflect light mainly on the red spectrum. This grounding is different from an analysis of red. I agree that goodness is not analyzable (I believe we have access to the concept of goodness through our moral conscience in a way that is analogous to sense perception), but that doesn't get us anywhere in providing a grounding for it. It seems to me that in a purely naturalistic view, the existence of such properties as moral properties is very surprising, unlike in the theistic worldview.
5 years from now Cameron will have a solid apologetics boook of his own. I want a signed copy!
Cameron's comments about the fundamental particles seem to hinge on a huge misunderstanding of physics. I know of no one that asserts each fundamental particle themself are fundamental and brute.
The Euthyphro dilemma/trilemma isn't itself an objection. Any branch of the dilemma will have arguments for and against accepting that branch that need to be discussed individually
What?
A dilemma means two choices. What's the third choice?
@@DennisMSulliva Apparently the algorithm deleted my comment where I expanded more.
The main two options are:
A) morality is definitionally equivalent to God's commands
B) God commands things because they are good (where good is defined independently of God)
C) Some Christians (William Lane Craig for instance) say there is a third option of God's nature to define morality.
Technically you are correct that the word dilemma means two choices, so if there are three choices it should more properly be called a trilemma.
My point is that these three are different ways to think about Divine command theory. Each individual option has arguments for and against it. This means that the existence of options itself does not disprove anything, we have to look at each of those options one-at-a-time to see if they hold up
@@PiRobot314 Have you heard it explained as a skeptic argument? The idea is that both choices are bad , for belief .A.} The god decides all right, and wrong. That gives you the absurdity that all right, and wrong could have been reversed. B) Independent of the god. Then we don't need him for morality. He is an unnecessary middle man. C) I think C is an attempt to weasel out of picking between A, and B.
@@DennisMSulliva Oh I've heard it explained as a skeptical argument, but I don't think the trilemma *itself* is the objection. You have to pick one of those options and discuss the arguments for and against it.
Ultimately I'm not a divine command theorist because I think in each case the arguments against are stronger than the ones for, but I do think they are more nuanced than some people assume.
52:01 Felipe Leon has a breakdown of “strict”, “moderate”, and “liberal” naturalists of which he assigns Wielenberg to “moderate”. But some of Leon’s “liberal” naturalists are theists, so…
No. He says ‘Conservative’ not strict.
18:44
Is there an example of a phenomena in which (like the child asking their parent) asking “why” can’t always be the retort?
God becomes the bundle of “stopping points”
But then why did God choose to do “X” or why does God have “X” nature, or why is “X” properly regarded as a mark of perfection and on we go
Yes exactly. Throwing a god in is not helpful.
I agree. The issue when arguing morality is that Christians demand we accept god's word and questioning it is always "self-fulfilling pride."
They seem to forget that, yes, we don't understand the point and are looking for sound reasoning. We all accept things in our lives without digging into the root of all it.
But to stake our entire life on a god who did notnor9vide sufficient answers; there is a major disconnect there they don't omt seem to understand.
15:00 _"Mathematicians and philosophers have shown that having an actual infinite series is a logical impossible"_
He should be more careful with his language. Obviously actual infinite series are not logically impossible... They are used all the time in mathematics. Unless he thinks mathematics is illogical...
If he thinks there is a logical impossibility, then I invite him to give his demonstration and change mathematics forever...
I guess they mean we can't visualize it. Regular math doesn't work so well with infinities. Even numbers are half of a all whole numbers. But even whole numbers,, and all whole numbers are both infinite.
Nope. You are the one wrong here bud. What you're talking about is a potential infinite not an actual infinite. An actual infinite is impossible.
@@iyad0102 *-"An actual infinite is impossible."*
What makes you think that ?
@@santanoschsantosch3016 *"maths and philosophy"* what ?
@@MrGustavierYou are all mixed up if you think an actual infinite is possible. No wonder you ran away from our debate on that Eric Hernandez video. Are any of your beliefs rational?
I really hate how you picked on the weakest version of euthyphro. You should formulate it as
1. The source of morality is either fully contingent on God's will or not
Now you have an inescapable dilemma. It's p or not p.
The way I see it is that it’s a false dilemma. It’s not whether one preceded or is dependent on the other, but that they are one in the same. Neither precedes the other, they’re just *one*
Similar to the Trinity. There are three distinct persons, in relationship to each other, but neither causes or precedes the other they are all three one, and unified for all eternity.
@@littledrummergirl_19 you can't say p or not p is a false dilemma. This is the logical definition of dilemma.
What you're doing is just saying that source of morality is not fully contingent on God's will.
Instead it's contingent on how God is. His inherent nature.
Which means he couldn't have chosen the morality to be different.
Which means morality (or at least part of it) is outside of his control.
Which means it's objective source outside of him. Or at least outside of his will.
I don't see the thrust of this version. I can just pick: "It's not fully contingent on God's will" (because it is contingent on God's permanent attributes). What would be the objection to that option?
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun that means that God's will is subject to and constricted by something outside of itself. Which some Christians don't like because it runs against divine simplicity and implies that it's something God had no choice about. He just happens to be this way. (if he had any choice, it would imply his will was somehow involved.)
@@KillmanPit I see. Yeah, I think divine simplicity has some much bigger issues, so these consequences aren't really a problem to me.
About the possibility of God acting against his nature, that also doesn't really seem like a problem. Since his character is The Good, and is necessarily as it is, it seems natural to me that he is not free to act against it, and that is a good thing. I don't think that implies necessarily that he isn't free on non-moral things, though.
It really isn't just an 'argument'. It's an experiential reality.
We feel/know that there is a right and a wrong.
I spent most of my life as an atheist, scoffed at theists, read all the books that supported my views. Exploring the philosophy, I lived for years believing that morality was relative, that there was no absolute good or evil, that it was just the legacy of evolution on some brain chemicals, that reality was simply the battle of all against all, that each person had to make a 'meaning' for his or her life individually.
But eventually, looking at the history and current conditions in the world, I knew in my gut that some things were absolutely wrong (the holocaust, the murder of children, etc.). My direct experience of living in the world conflicted with my system of ideas. That is when I began to investigate the theist arguments from across time, from Aristotle and Aquinas to the thinkers of our day.
From what I've undetstood, you used to be convinced that morality is just a matter of personal feelings, but then changed your mind based on... personal feelings?
@@icosahedron7497 I used to believe that morality was a matter of socialization, and so was historically and culturally contingent. One could discard those notions if one preferred. There was no absolute morality, no true good or evil. Stuff just happened and the universe didn't care. The murder of millions was equal to the writing of a symphony, both inherently nihil.
But in my gut, I 'knew' there was real evil. I could see it in the world around me, in the actions of men. (There are ways of knowing that are pre-conceptual, that are intuitive or a matter of 'feeling'.) That is what began the re-thinking of my assumptions.
Amazing! You were once an atheist, with all the false things theists attribute to us.
@@DennisMSulliva Atheist. Trained in the social sciences. Conversant with Dawkins and all the other modern apologists. Conversant with the philosophers, to Nietzsche and Sartre and so on.
There are many attitudinal atheists who don't bother to investigate the assumptions of their choice, or the logical consequences. I wasn't one of those.
@@stephenbailey9969 So you are saying that when you went to atheism, you brought long with you all the things theists say about us?
Gavin Ortlund will love this video lol
Im not seeing that among popular apologist.. they LOVE the moral argument. Frank Turek hangs his hat on this point.
It's a very strong argument.
@@MartinHindenes It's not. It turns in part on how strong of a case there is for moral realism, and there aren't any good arguments for moral realism.
@@lanceindependent Could you explain what you mean? I'm not familiar with the term moral realism
@@FishFish431 Sure. Moral realism is the position that there are "stance-independent moral facts." This is a technical term meaning moral facts that are true independent of anyone's goals, values, or attitudes. For comparison, 2+2=4 and scientific facts aren't made true by us wanting them to be true. The idea is that moral facts are true in a similar way.
@@MartinHindenes It is an immoral, nihilistic argument. And it doesn't really solve the problem. Theoretically supposing we had a god who didn't contradict himself like the god of the Bible, how would we know what he ordained was just? How would we know he wasn't malevolent?
Jesus Christ of Nazareth..
Comment for traction
I agree, it isn't as bad as people think - it's worse.
💯
The Euthyphro Dilemma is fun but man! Talk about low hangjng fruit.
It's better than "who designed the designer?" But not by much.
I was shocked when Rebecca Goldstein (I think: Steven Pinker's wife) used it in the dialogue between her, WLC, & Jordan Peterson.
On the other hand, it is aggravating that people that claim to be full of 'reason' so emptiliy headed claim that this is a such a strong point.
"Who designed the designer?" is actually an excellent question that exposes the special pleading of theists.
Call me crazy, but apologists' answer to the ED seems to be just another way of stating one of its horns.
@@wet-read Why do you think that is so? Seems to me like the objections to each horn do not apply to the response: "What God is is The Good". So it would be a relevantly different option than the original two that are presented.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun
If God IS the good, then he can only will good things; the usual, plus things become good by default because God wills them (theodicies). That sounds like one of the horns, the one that says things are good because God wills them.
@@wet-read I don't see how that is the same... In this third option, God's specific decisions are restricted by his own character, so it isn't the case that he can will anything. But these limitations are what he is, it's not something external to him.
31:17
The amazon book: *"Moral Argument: Christian Apologetics Rebuttal"* By: Nicki Stone
Has some good stuff about this 🌟
Why not repent of God's gnosis of good and evil? Then iniquity won't be found in you so you won't be a worker of it and you won't be asked to depart into outer darkness.
what
@@ogloc6308 God is the creator of everything. Why don't you take the scales of Good and Evil off your eyes and see? Live by faith. Where will you find yourself in the balance otherwise? You'll be judged by the measure you've chosen. And God gives without measure to those who have faith in him and his original command
‘At the highest academic level’ and ‘Philosophy’ do not belong in the same sentence. The fact that this fellow keeps repeating it is a fallacious appeal to authority, when the very idea of authorities in a nebulous and subjective field like Philosophy is rather ridiculous.
Princess Dave's campaign against something he doesn't understand continues. "Appeal to authority" only pertains when an authority is false. There's nothing subjective about philosophy. Science is far more subjective, which explains why the replication crisis is occurring.
Living water ministries, Ray Comfort, uses the 10 commandments as a mirror. The moral laws of God. God's standards. It makes sense to everyone.
But those are not our values. The first 3, or 4 ( Catholics, and Protestants count them different) order the worship of a specific god. That is not our system. We are not constitutionally theocratic. We recognize freedom of religion.
@@DennisMSulliva "a specific god" is a stupid, nonsensical term used by people who don't know what they're talking about.
It's also legal to covet, to dishonor your parents, and to commit adultery. I'm sure you think these are fine, too?
@@newglof9558 Okay what synonym would you have me use? Do you want to have a serious discussion, or be sarcastic.
@@newglof9558 As you know, the first commandment orders that no other god be put before Yahweh, the god of the Hebrew Bible.That is not our system. Our first amendment says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion, or interfering with freedom of worship.
Hmm, Craigs reasoning seems a false dilemma, there are many reasons we have moral duties. Both atheists and theists use arguments from consequences. That's inevitable when using morality to determine what "is". Morality is always "what should/shouldn't be done" and has no bearing on what does/doesn't exist. Atheists say, "If God exists, why do bad things occur?" That's irrelevant to if a God exists or doesn't.
How many understand theists understand Jordan Peterson's answer to if he believes in God? "What do you mean by believe" and "What do you mean by God?" My point is, why not go straight to defining God, and belief?
A more traditional libertarian, old-school, basic human rights minded atheists has liked found themselves thinking or saying, "How dare the state or anyone violate anothers basic human rights!" No mention of God, and it probably sounds secular? But it is an appeal to some nameless, nebulous, higher moral authority than any state, or any human being. Is that Peterson's God? Could be, in his answer he continues on about the heirachy of (moral) values.
Maybe they already believe in God, and got there through their own moral reasoning? Maybe they lack the defining of God, and belief?
I follow your reasoning, particularly the appeal to some formless state apparatus they typically define by starting with "We live in a society" and it's laughable to me.
I like to couch it in terms that WLC presents so eloquently; namely, that the typical atheist simply can not present a good case for why atheism is true. The unquestionable dogma that science is the "higher power" is just as faith-based as any theistic claims and lack even a fraction of the explanatory power.
By the way, your username immediately reminds me of the hero of the excellent novel "Scaramouche" by Rafael Sabitini. Highly recommend!
Most atheists don't really grasp the moral argument. They usually go on irrelevant rants instead of just accepting their inevitable Nihilism, which follows from their godless position.
15:02 Mathematicians use infinite series every day, all day, baby. So does this Dr. Loyd believe calculus is "illogical"?
He’s talking about causal chains of events, not summations or set theory. So no, I highly doubt he is saying calculus is illogical.
@@encounteringjack5699I think so too. An infinite amount of time would have to have “passed” to get us here if the past is infinite. It’s not logical as it would break the definition of infinite.
@@encounteringjack5699 oh so he was just being sloppy, I see.
@@Efesus67 Sure… Sloppy… 😒
@@jasonzimmerer8658 Well, I don’t agree with the conclusion that the past can’t be infinite. I’m just saying, he wasn’t talking about any significant details relating to calculus that would make someone conclude that calculus is illogical.
It's a good argument it's just that the second premise is not that easy to support. The first premise is obviously true to me. A consistent nihilist, which an atheist should be, would just deny the second premise.
Can you demonstrate objective morality?
@@jacoblee5796 no, that's why the second premise, "objective morality exists" is not a slam dunk and that easy to support. You can make some arguments for it.
@@yancooper3008 I don't get how it can be a great argument when objective morality can't be demonstrated.
@@jacoblee5796 A premise doesn't have to be demonstrably true, just more plausible than its negation. Keep in mind that it's them who said it's a great argument and I am the one saying the second premise is not that easy to defend. It's certainly not demonstratable, if it was, then you'd have a knockdown proof for God's existence. Specifically because it's a deductive argument and if premise 1 & 2 are true, then the conclusion must follow from 1 & 2.
For example,
1. All houses on Sycamore street have a mailbox
2. Shelly lives on Sycamore street
3. Therefore, Shelly has a mailbox
If 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion has to follow. But it may not be demonstratable that Shelly lives on the specific Sycamore street the argument is referring to. There might be some good reasons to believe she does. Maybe she gets mail there, her car is on that street quite often but not a knockdown proof.
In the case of the moral argument, it's really the second premise in question. It's not that easy to defend. You can point to good reasons why it's true but no knockdown proof it's true.
@@jacoblee5796 I actually edited my comment because I meant to say it's a good argument. I didn't realize I said "great" when I meant good, but I did. Because if the second premise was demonstrable, then you'd really have a knockdown proof for the existence of God. I think the premise is defendable, but certainly not demonstratable.
If a second apologetic is required to explain why the first isn't as bad as people think, it suggests that the first is really as bad as people think to begin with.
I think this comment is a poor argument because your conclusion doesn’t follow your premises, If you try to refute this comment, just know that you are making a second apologetic for your original argument ;)
@@jeremyluce4354 Okay, but you have a problem, if your argument sounds very bad.
Imagine this scenario, I'm trying to convince a person who believes the earth is flat that it is actually spherical. Say I cite data from NASA or some other credible scientific institution and the flat earth proponent goes on to reject my data because they believe "NASA/ the scientific institution in question is a chief proponent of the lie that the earth is round and cannot be trusted". If I then go on to provide an apologetic for NASA/ the scientific institution in question does that mean my argument from their data that the earth was round was really as bad as the flat earther thought it was to begin with? Providing reasons in support of other reasons does not mean the reasons being supported were weak to begin with, it just shows that sometimes additional reasons are needed for the argument to proceed.
and just so there's no confusion I'm currently convinced that the moral argument in all of it's current formulations fail but even so this objection is just a really bad one to make and I'd recommend you retire it.
Do you mean to say that if an argument has received criticism (whether valid or not), it must therefore be not sound?
dougsmith6793, it appears your argument is quite contentious. It seems to me like you need a second apologetic for your argument. But as we all know, if a second apologetic is required to explain why the first isn't as bad as people think...
If there wasn't another plausible narrative for the origin of the concept of morality in humans, the moral argument for God would be much better than it is. But it's yet another argument that is unnecessary.
His argument has nothing to do with the origin of the concept of morality in humans.
If you don't understand why the origin of morality is irrelevant to the moral argument, then you don't understand the moral argument. Origins are not the same as grounding, justification, ontology, etc.
Ontology != Epistemology. If a tree fell in a forest and nobody was there to hear it would it make a sound?
@AlexADalton
You misunderstand why someone would point that out. They may understand that there is a difference between grounding and origins. But they may be trying to indicate that those origins suggest that these organisms didn't need some external thing to instill deep beliefs about morality for them to feel strongly about it. Or for it to be helpful in improving the welfare of people and their connections.
@@Boundless_Border
Again, the case being made here has zero to do with how these beliefs were instilled or how helpful they are.
Very interesting to learn that the majority of academics at the highest levels now agree that objective morals do exist.
Good video!
It would be even more interesting if it were true.
@@davethebrahman9870 It is true. The 2020 PhilPapers survey found that 62% of respondents to the survey endorsed moral realism.
@@dirtydevil Moral realism and objective morals are basically the same thing, right (I am _not_ a philosopher)? So that would constitute a majority of academics even without their views on theism/libertarian free will (which are in a different category), correct?
I think your source got his link deleted by the lovelies in RUclips. At least I don’t see it in this thread. But thanks for breaking it down!
@@dirtydevil Hmm…weird. Oh well…..thanks anyway, for passing on the source.
@@dirtydevilAha! I sorted the comments by newest and now I see it! Thanks again (although it’s still weird….)!😁👍
This argument is one of the best. Unsophisticated thinkers like to dog it. But all they do is demonstrate their ignorance.
Can you demonstrate objective morality?
The moral argument is the absolute worst. It is itself immoral. We need the cruel god of the Bible to know right from wrong?
whatchoo talkin' 'bout Willis?
The moral is the worst and then you proceed to provide a question about the morality of God. 😂 😆 😂
@cil Yes! You've got it. Now what part do you not understand? First the god of the Bible says; thou shalt not kill. Then in other places he orders murder. He violates his own principles. God ( of the Bible ) is not good.
@@DennisMSulliva it’s kinda funny you keep appealing to morality. God bless.
@@CCiPencil It's kind of funny that you think I should be amoral. I wish you well too.
Most Christians use it very wrong, however, if used correctly (in a logic sense) it is still capable of being used for terrible atrocity (though they wouldn't call it that).
I prefer to just state that I believe in life, love, and minimisation of suffering.