Probably my favourite RUclips channel. Christian apologetics is needed. Some of us do it a little here and there, but you lot prepare and present this stuff to spread it far, all while remaining characteristically "RUclips". You're doing a service and we thank you for it.
InspiringPhilosophy (Ultimately) People don't intend to do wrong to others because even when they do, they are only pursuing their desire for Happiness at whatever cost they understand as fitting (Passion fueled by purpose in choice.). Selflessly, Ps. All things humans do, are and can always be reduced to Hope and Love as we seek Happiness! _Human Nature Pattern (Pursuit of Happiness 1st Read) facebook.com/notes/eternal-optimism/eo-pursuit-of-happiness-1st-read/10159904079405720/
We cannot prove that unicorns, leprechauns and pixies don’t exist, these are unfalsifiable hypotheses. However, we can determine if something is logically possible to exist. If something is defined in such a way that it contradicts its own definition, then it is logically impossible to exist and therefore cannot even be imagined in your head, let alone exist in real life. A square circle, for example, is logically impossible, because it contradicts its own definition, and therefore a square circle cannot possibly exist, even in the unknown. Objective morality is logically impossible to exist. Morality consists entirely of should statements. Should statements cannot be objective. If someone says to you, why ought X be true? you could furnish an answer, but the other person could reply with the same question ad infinitum. If you say that X ought to be true because of Y, someone could ask you why ought Y be true? If you say that Y ought to be true, because Z, someone could ask you why ought Z be true? Your chain of answers can’t go on forever, sooner or later, you must admit that you are ultimately just expressing an opinion. From here on out, the term moral objectivist refers to a person who believes in objective morality and a moral relativist refers to a person who believes that all morality is purely opinion based. Two atheists are in a room just the two of them. One believes that all morality is purely opinion based, while the other believes that morality is objective. As non-believers, they both believe that morality comes from the principle of empathy. If you do not want to die, you should not kill innocent people. If you want your property to be respected, you should not commit vandalism. The atheist who believes in objective morality believes that it is objectively wrong to cause unnecessary harm to your fellow human beings. The atheist who believes that all morality is opinion based holds the opinion that you should not cause unnecessary harm to innocent people, but he is merely expressing an opinion when he does so. The following hypothetical conversation occurs between the two atheists who disagree on objective morality. Moral objectivist: Sexual assault is objectively immoral. Moral relativist: I believe, as a matter of logical principle, that sexual assault is immoral, but that is just my opinion. Moral Objectivist: No, it is objectively true to say rape is wrong. Moral Relativist: How do you know? Moral Objectivist: It causes unnecessary suffering to innocent people. Moral Relativist: Why shouldn’t we cause unnecessary suffering to innocent people? In the above hypothetical, the moral objectivist and the moral relativist both believe that sexual abuse is immoral. However, one believes the objective nature of morality, while the other does not. The relativist cannot demonstrate that there is any objective reason why he should not harm others, it is just his opinion. The above hypothetical effectively proves that a world in which the concept of morality is derived from the principle of empathy does not offer up any basis for objective morality. However, even if you believe in a higher power, that is still no reason to assume that objective morality exists, as even if there is a God, you still have no way of knowing what moral rules, if any, God wants us to obey. Now imagine an atheist who does not believe in objective morality and a devout Christian, who does believe in objective morality, are in the same room together. They have the following conversation. Christian: Rape is objectively immoral. Atheist: I believe that sexual assault is immoral, but it is only my opinion. Christian: No, objective morality is real. Atheist: How do you know that sexual assault is objectively immoral? Christian: Because God deemed it immoral. Atheist: How do you know that God deemed it immoral? Christian: It says so in the Bible. Atheist: How do you know that the Bible was written by God? Christian: How do you know that the Bible was not written by God? Atheist: If a Muslim asked you how you know that the Quran was not written by God, what would you say? Whatever your response would be to a Muslim asking you why the Quran isn’t real, that is myn explanation as to how I know that the Bible is not real. Christian: God communicates his moral values to us through our conscience. Atheist: There exist school shooters who claim to be doing God’s will. The 9/11 terrorists believed that they were doing what they were doing out of love for their religion. It is not just Muslims who do that. There have been cases where Christians have committed rampage shootings in God’s name. Christian: Some people have misguided consciences, but there is an objective truth, defined by God, about what is and is not moral. Atheist: If you and another person of the same religious faith have two different ideas about what is and is not moral and both of you derived this belief from what your conscience was telling you, how do you know which one is correct?
@@julianbigelow2794 “There have been cases where Christians have committed rampage shootings” “We can not prove that unicorns” Ho the irony!! Really your actually using the “unicorn” argument!! Look up (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) and (Category Error Fallacy). Not to mention the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy) and (Pretended Neutrality Fallacy)!! The list of logical fallacies goes on!! Sorry but people who claim to be “Christians” who have committed crimes have clearly done so despite Christs teachings not because of Christs teachings, whereas an atheist/relativist/sophist has no such prohibitions only their arbitrary subjective preference, arbitrary subjective taste, an arbitrary social construct, arbitrary cultural relativism, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!! Sorry but the fact is that in a ultimately amoral, that is in a ultimately purposeless, ultimately pointless, ultimately meaningless universe there are no absolutes, no universals, no prescriptive laws of logic!! Equally, there is no absolute objective standard as it’s all just equivocation and prevarication, that is ultimately purposeless, ultimately pointless and ultimately meaningless, amoral word games!! The fact is that this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur!! Pond slime evolved to an higher order!! The meanderings of a determined machine, a biological and chemical robot!! Sorry but under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims are nothing more substantive than the delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas. It’s just brain chemicals and nothing more substantive than the brains user illusion of self!! The ultimately meaningless science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!! The survivors of the Soviet Gulags reported that as they were being tortured by Stalin’s guards, the atheistic guards could be heard saying… “There is no God, no heaven, and we may do as we wish”. Which is obviously true if atheism is true so they were just being “logically” consistent with this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, atheistic nihilistic, fatalistic b…sht!! “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” [emphasis added].” (Richard Dawkins) That proselytising from Dawkins would be laughable if it wasn’t such a green light and an inspiration for all the narcissists and psychos out there!! Im not making any appeals to authority but according to the psychiatrist, scientist and survivor of the Nazis death camps Victor Frankl…. “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazi like to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” (Victor Frankl). Frankl’s words are sobering and should give us pause as we consider what our philosophers and scientists are teaching the next generation in our own sacred halls of learning. Are we teaching students that they are nothing more substantive than the product of their environment, not responsible for their actions? Are we teaching them to view good and evil not as absolutes, but as variables dependent upon one’s cultural norms, ones arbitrary subjective taste, ones arbitrary subjective preference, an arbitrary social construct, arbitrary cultural relativism, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!! If so, are we simply hurtling the next generation towards the Auschwitzes, Treblinkas, and Maidaneks of the 21st century? “We should challenge the relativism that tells us there is no right or wrong, when every instinct of our mind knows it is not so, and is a mere excuse to allow us to indulge in what we believe we can get away with. A world without values quickly becomes a world without value.” (Rabbi Johnathan Sacks: Head of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth). I like how you left out the atrocities committed by atheists as if all atheists are squeaky clean and don’t spend hours evangelising on RUclips in the name of the cult of rationality and atheism. This is comedy gold and is hilarious. Your patronising saga is testimony to the fact that people develop very bizarre behaviours in the name of atheism. “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source” (Albert Einstein). Militant atheists are without doubt the Greatest Pretenders of our age. Apart from pretending that they aren’t religious and fanatical and that rationality, inductive reasoning and empiricism etc does not require faith and unprovable value claims, and that they don’t believe in absolute truth as the absolute absolutely doesn't exist, that freedom of religious expression is the cause of all human misery, that faith is believing without evidence and is in decline when statistically its enjoying a massive increase, they also pretend that they are not even atheists, they just “lack belief”. Sorry but the claim that no true atheist ever committed genocide is the (No True Scots Man Fallacy) The fact is that… “What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.” Hitlers right hand man Joseph Goebbals wrote in his private diaries in 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons (Joseph Goebbels). Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is truth, that is value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, objective morality, universals, the conscious agent, free will and with it rationality, truth, and science itself than to admit the soul/self. Once again, the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very (dogmatism) of which he accuses the person who believes in ultimate value, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no believer in an ultimate ontological ground of value has ever dreamed!! Sorry but everyone has the right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have the right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting!! I rest my case!!
@@julianbigelow2794 “Objective morality is logically impossible to exist” “Bible” “You are ultimately just expressing an opinion” “Should statements can not be objective” This is beyond ironic!! Why “should” we take anything you say seriously then? Equally, you are also ultimately just expressing an opinion. Look up (Special Pleading Fallacy) and circular arguments. You just undermined your own argument!! Sorry but do you even know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? Philosophical naturalism is a philosophical position buddy not a scientific position! Do you have actual evidence or not that this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism can even get off the ground? I’ll wait!! Do you have actual evidence or not that relativism is coherent, that is a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is coherent and can even get off the ground without borrowing from and appealing to metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as Truth itself, that is absolute value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, (conscious agents and free will, that is rationality itself and morals and ethics) including universals, the categorical imperative, the uniformity of nature, empiricism, inductive reasoning, identity over time, the one and the many, the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!! Sorry but I just (lack a belief) until strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can provide a shred of coherent evidence that the accidental arrangement of the magical “nothing” or even worse the accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea created everything including all of these metaphysical realities and transcendental categories!! Do you have actual evidence or not? I’ll wait!! Look up burden of proof. Look up pretended neutrality fallacy!! Sorry but everyone must have an ultimate standard that forms the basis of his or her worldview!! The theist, deist, pantheist, panpsychist, panentheist, Spinozist, and especially the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist have positive worldviews. Each person believes that his or her worldview provides the positive way to interpret evidence!! Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated. That ultimate standard cannot itself be judged by a lesser “neutral” standard, otherwise it would be incoherent! Clearly, a “neutral” position, that is the claim we can not know anything is logically flawed and is a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree!! “Should statements can not be objective” That is not the argument for objective morality as monotheists know this already and would easily point out that this is the (Is/Ought Fallacy or the Naturalistic Fallacy) This actually works in the theists favour and points to metaphysical realities!! The fact is that the “natural sciences” attempts to describe objective reality using the best metaphors but the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!! Your confusing ontology with epistemology!! Equally, I think what you meant to say was that….. “You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume). Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why (ought) we listen to the very ironic absolute truth claims of pond slime evolved to an higher order? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas?? Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, nihilistic, atheistic, fatalistic b…sht your very ironic absolute truth claims and “pretended neutrality fallacy” are just a cosmic accident that went neither “wrong” nor “right”, that is neither “good” nor “bad”. Neither “logical” or “illogical”. There are no prescriptive laws of logic or (oughts), “shoulds”, that is morals and ethics as everything just (is) ultimately amoral, everything just (is) ultimately purposeless, everything just (is) ultimately meaningless and there is no objective standard and everything just (is) just totally relativistic!! Basically everything just (is) ultimately meaningless b…sht under your world view and deep down you know it which is why you are wasting your so called finite life ironically proselytising about the meaninglessness!! Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!! When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality!! Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
@@georgedoyle2487 My arguments are self-defeating? How? You ask me for evidence to support the idea that atheist philosophical naturalism can get off the ground. What does that even mean? You bring up the idea of absolute truth. There is an objective truth about the age of the earth and the number of electrons in a nitrogen atom, because these are prescriptive statements. Descriptive statements are different. If you believe that morality is or can be objective, where would this objective morality come from? God? How do you know what moral rules God wants you to obey? You could cite the Bible, but how do you know that the Bible was actually written by God? The Bible may have been written by fallible humans for all you know. You describe the atheist belief about how the universe came to be as the accidental arrangement of nothing. The theory of The Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang created everything, rather that it is the first thing that everything did. A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that the universe always was. While atheists believe that the universe always was, most theists believe that God always was. Both of these ideological groups believe that something existed without being created. The Big Bang has never been proven as far as I am aware, but neither has God. Everyone must have an ultimate standard that forms his or her worldview? My worldview is based on the principle of empathy. I don’t want to die, so I do not murder. I would not want someone to disrespect my property, so I do not steal or commit vandalism.
@@julianbigelow2794 “A lot of atheists, myself included believe that the universe always was” “There is an objective truth about the age of Earth” Yep I agree!! There is clearly such a thing as objective Truth. There is clearly an objective truth about the age of the Earth including the age of the universe but this objective truth regarding the age of the universe does not currently support your strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! That is your ideology that “the universe always was”!! It has no scientific and logical grounding. So by your own standard of verificationism this is a philosophical position not a scientific position and clearly a (faith) position at that!! Sorry I’m not making any appeals to authority or appeals to consensus but this claim that the “universe always was” is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot “Big Bang” and a finely tuned universe hence the Nick name “Goldilocks” universe. So the claim that our “universe always was” is clearly a (faith) position. Obviously your entitled to your own (faith) position under moral subjectivism as we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism as we all just create our own truth and meaning under moral subjectivism/relativism, that is under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! My subjective truth trumps your subjective truth. Heads I win tales you lose!! You get the picture!! The fact is that science itself demonstrates that the theory with the greatest explanatory power and the most parsimonious hypothesis is the “Big Bang” not the steady state theory of the universe as the claim that the “universe always was” is clearly not supported by the scientific literature or the vast majority of scientists in general!! The steady state theory was debunked decades ago so it looks like “matter”, space and time itself had a metaphysical beginning!! Do you prefer the steady state for ideological reasons or scientific reasons? Just a thought. Just seems a bit hopeful. Again I’m not making any appeals to authority but even Steven Hawking pointed out that… “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Steven Hawking). Furthermore, according to the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who spent over 50 years developing some of the most sophisticated arguments against an absolute ontological ground of reality/God that you can find… “This fine tuning has been explained in two ways. Some scientists have said the fine tuning is evidence for divine design; many others have speculated that our universe is one of multiple others-a ‘multiverse’-with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life. Virtually no major scientist today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe” (Anthony Flew). Again I’m not appealing to general consensus but the general consensus among scientists is that our universe is clearly fine tuned other wise no one would have bothered investigating the multiverse hypothesis or investing so much money and scientific research in string theory and the multiverse hypothesis. Stories about magical talking puddles, that is the anthropic principle doesn’t really cut it!! Stories about talking puddles or Anthropic principles and the multiverse are purely speculative and are an argument from ignorance and a question begging fallacy of the highest degree and fail to explain why our universe is in one such fine-tuned state, when “all things being equal”, it was much more likely to develop into chaos!! Tautologies just don’t cut it in science!!
I‘d answer the Euthyphron-Dilemma like this: P1: Something is ‚good‘ if it does what it was created for, fulfilling the purpose of it‘s existence. (Like, a hammer that loses it‘s head when swinging it is not a good hammer. In German, the word for virtue, ‚Tugend‘ even comes from the verb ‚taugen‘, meaning ‚being useful‘.) P2: We were created with the purpose of being imagers of God (Genesis 1: 26-27). C1: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of God. P3: God is Love (1. John 4:8). C2: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of Love.
@@AggoKarmaGaming Where exactly does it say this? Because the word ‚homosexual‘ was made up like, in the 1800s, so it can‘t possibly be in the Bible. Also the Torah is not a legal code like modern laws to be followed by the word. Jesus unmistakably states this. It is a collection of words about how to develop a just character. We also have to consider the socio-cultural context of the time. Not only the word, but even the very concept of homosexuality was not in the heads of people back then, so it is unthinkable for them to write about it. When men had sex with other men back then, it was mostly the violent rape of war captives or minor sex slaves, which makes the death penalty actually sound very fair.
I've never encountered this version of The Moral Argument prior to watching this video yesterday. The version I defend is Craig's modus tollens version. I would disagree that it doesn't account for why God is needed to ground morality. It's true that it isn't explained in the premise, but whenever I or Craig give the DEFENSE of the first premise "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist", that's when the unpacking of why a being like God is needed for morality to be objective. In fact, I do severe unpacking of this in chapter 4 of my book "The Case For The One True God" and explain that not only is God needed to ground morality, but specifically the uniquely Christian conception of God is needed. That said, I like your syllogism in that it cuts out the middle man and basically entails why God must ground morality right in the syllogism, rather than being part of a defense of the syllogism. It's nice to see a familiar topic dealt with from a slightly different angle.
Okay, let’s look at Wiiliam Lane Craig’s moral argument: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist 3. Therefore, God exists. I want to focus on the first premise: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Now let’s suppose God doesn’t exist, but a demigod does. Demigod is a necessary being, has the same moral virtues that God has, is equally omniscient, and is very powerful, yet he is not quite omnipotent. For example, let’s suppose demigod is not omnipotent because he cannot make things go faster than the speed of light. I think there are two main conceptions of the philosopher’s God: (1) the greatest conceivable being, or (2) an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and necessary being. Demigod seems to not satisfy either of these conceptions. So, Craig has to say that if God did not exist, and demigod did exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist. This seems to be an odd consequence of Craig’s 1st premise. God and demigod are very much alike, save for the fact that demigod can’t make things go faster than the speed of light. How can this difference be a difference-maker when it comes to objective moral values and duties? What do facts about making things travel faster than the speed of light have to do with objective moral values and duties? Since demigod can’t make things go faster than the speed of light I don’t have an obligation to save the drowning baby? The only relevance power might have is the need to hold people morally accountable in terms of heaven and hell, yet demigod has sufficient power for that. The goal here is to point out that Craig is making a fairly bold claim in this deductive argument. He’s not merely saying that God would better explain or ground morality than demigod or other views would; he’s saying that only God could do that, and it’s far from obvious why demigod can’t do just as well in grounding morality
Maximus Garahan The problem with your reasoning is that a demigod is defined RELATIVE to God, you’re already presupposing God does exist. Therefore, your argument doesn’t work at it leads to contradictory/absurd conclusions.
Whoever writes this stuff is a philosopher after my own heart! (Not that I always agree with you; but I agree with what you're doing and how your mind works...)
Argument presented in video fails at time mark 3:31. Video says that morality is rational enterprise and that non-sentient objects cannot be rational. Those two things are true. Then video gives false conclusion that morality must have sentient source. That is false, because morality being rational enterprise means being moral is rational thing to do, it doesn't mean morality has rational source. Video never proves morality has rational source.
@@goranmilic442 If morality is a rational enterprise and non sentient objects cannot be rational then it logically follows that the foundation of morality must be a rational, sentient being. It is easy logic. You should know that
@@Navii-05 I agree that morality is a rational enterprise. I agree that non-sentient objects cannot be rational. I strongly disagree it logically follows that foundation of morality must be rational and sentient. If foundation of morality is intelligence, that would mean that intelligence can create, change and decide moral rules. Can God decide that rape is good? This works not only with morality, but also with math and logic. Can God decide that 2+2=5 or that A is not equal A?
@@goranmilic442 God certainly doesn't change, or decide what is objective morality. In fact, I wouldn't even say God created it. If God is in fact omnibenevolent, then his very essence must be objectively good. So without the existence of morality, you cannot have an omni-benevolent God, since an omnibenevolent God is by definition the embodiment of moral perfection. Therefore, if God is unchanging and uncreated/eternally existing, yet also omnibenevolent, then so must be the rational enterprise of morality. In a nutshell, God didn't “create, decide or change moral rules”, because morality is part of who God is…and God cannot create or change himself. Hope my explanation helps you understand how morality being grounded in God can make sense.
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29
Mathematics is a rational enterprise, but surely it doesn't follow that mathematical facts are grounded in a sentient being, does it? It just means that mathematical facts are discovered through reason.
The end conclusion ties into an atheist argument I see a lot. Well, I guess it's not so much an argument as an assumption they hold that's demonstrated through the way they structure their arguments. They'll say something along the lines of "God must be evil because he'll send you to hell for *disagreeing with him*". The entire point, which you arrive at here, is that God does not hold opinions, his Word is simply the optimal way to act. In the same way an omniscient being cannot be wrong, an omniscient being cannot "hold an opinion". An opinion is simply a view of what "ought to be", rather than the factual "is". If the creator of the universe thought something "ought to be" a certain way, it would be so. His moral "opinions" is the exact same thing as the moral nature of the world.
Bane? Also, no not all Christians believe in a literal burning hell, and the actual reason for hell is because we are sinners and we didn't accept/ask for the gift of forgiveness.
AdolfHitler EstavaCerto! "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:11-15 The Lake of Fire is none else other than the Final Judgement. When Christ returns in the Second Coming, the dead shall be judged according to their works (those who did not accept Christ's gift of salvation), and exactly as the text says, those who are not saved will be annihilated forever from God's memory. After the wicked perish, hell _itself_ and the very notion of death shall disappear as well to make way for God's new creation.
God also doesn't "send" people to hell. He offers salvation freely to all people, which we are free to accept or deny. Salvation, and thus Heaven, is nothing more than a loving relationship with God (not a cloud somewhere in space with a golden gate that St. Peter can open or close), and it'd be impossible to force a free being to enter into such a relationship against their will while maintaining their freedom
+Bane? _"They'll say something along the lines of "God must be evil because he'll send you to hell for *disagreeing with him*". "_ Does not a judge do the same, in some effect? The funny thing is that even if God sent people to hell, just for *disagreeing with him*, atheists have no case against him. Unless, of course, they believe that people fining others for crossing speed limit are evil as well.
Morality is subjective because it's based on our feelings and emotions.If a 10 year old kid's mother died he would cry and he would be sad but it's an objective fact that his mother died,how he feels about it is subjective.If that 10 year old kid's mother died,i would just be sorry for it,i wouldn't cry because i wasn't her son,he was.It's an important thing who you were to the person that died.That's why morality is subjective.
Epic video. I have a friend at church who disagrees with the moral argument as it's popularly framed, but I think this may just change his mind. Thank you for the awesome information, God bless. :)
It is easy to deny, and yet those who deny fail to live up to implications and where never something wrong happens they do not even notice how fast they become moraly objective.
David Pallmann I agree. Too much work trying to prove objective morality. If anything just keep this one tucked away and use it as a supporting argument like the Teleological argument.
Anjelus I think atheists have a limited range of morals. This system is flawed when someone goes right at the limits, however. It is pretty much impossible to tell if they are right or wrong. Also, IP made some videos on moral realism.
*Po-ké Watch : **_"If an Atheist murders five people and rapes a baby, their response is usually, "Well, morality is subjective, and in my own belief system, I believe this is a really complex issue."_* If believers put entire Canaanite cities to the sword, all the way down to the infant sucklings, seldomly taking prepubescent girls as war trophies, Christians will be like _"That's moral because God commanded them; they had to kill babies in in self-defense"_
Excellent video and argument. Spot on! This is so logical and so true, it is amazing, sad even disturbing to me that there is so many people who can not understand the facts you listed in this video. But great to know that some do, even if there are people who seem bend of going against life and nature itself.
@@PianoKZ IP is assuming and defining everything into place that he needs for his argument. ruclips.net/video/zjkgD4w9w1k/видео.html&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy In his defense of moral realism video (needed for premise 2 to hold any merit) he equivocates epistemic truths and moral truth using a fallacious example. Apparently, moral relativism is defeated by moral relativists demanding debate rules to be followed. Of course, this is nonsense. Demanding that debate rules to be followed is for the purpose of reaching truth. Whether or not such a debate is morally righteous is entirely a different issue. Arguments and statistics are amoral. Application of them can be moral or immoral. Conflating the two to be the same is fallacious. He also points to demonstrations for human rights, which is honestly an over-generalization of how moral relativists are. Also, it's possible to be a moral relativist and still maintain that my culture has influenced me to the point where I am distressed by atrocities and cruelty. Then he goes on to a classic argument, "If Moral realism is not true, then genital mutilation, the KKK actions are equally sensible to actions of our own". This is of course a purely emotional argument without any rational merit, but what baffles me is the hypocrisy. The Old testament condones chattel slavery, Rapists being able to marry the victims if the rapists are rich enough, Amalekite infants being cruelly slaughtered in spite of being innocent etc... All of which condoned or even outright ordered by God. By basing morality on the God of the old testament, IP is essentialy saying that all of these things are not only sane and sensible, they are morally justifiable to the highest degree since they are rooted in the very center of morality. There's more, but let's move on from the second premise. Human disagreement means that morality can't come from us? That's fairly simple to solve. We simply have to claim that morality comes from specific humans. Perfect knowledge of the facts is also a useless argument, that only means that God has a greater potential to be good (if he desires to) or evil (if he desires to), it does nothing for the question on whether or not God is actually good. He also claim that we humans fail to perform moral duties. What basis is he using to determine that? It can't moral based on God, because that is conclusion he is trying to prove in this video. A classic begging the question fallacy, where the conclusin is used as the ground for one of it's premises to stand on. There's more, but if you are curious you should honestly study philosophy and pick it apart yourself.
In his video he doesn’t conflate trying to reach truth with morality during a debate he says that such ideals are based on honour for the debate and he even mentions that “why should we care about reaching the truth” he mentions that because he is talking about the inner morals even in debates he isn’t trying to say the reason we have rules for debate so moral reason he even mentions that they are in place to reach truth. Rewatch the video
In reference to P3, one could potentially argue that moral disagreements are rather indicative of morality being subjective, because had there been a set of objective moral facts equal to the laws of logic, they would've been followed by everyone.
Here is a simple answer to atheist thinking ”why does evil exist”. Evil is not a physical thing, it’s simply a lack of good. The same way cold is a lack of warm, and nothing is a lack of something.
Good presentation! As a side note, this is yet another aspect that ought to make you reconsider your approach to interpreting Genesis, where you either have God call a perfect and mature world a good thing, or a continually evolving and progressing world with torture and rape a "good" thing.
“If objective moral facts and duties exist…….” How then would we define or categorize morality based on societal norms and standards? Definitely neither under Objective(because not all societal morals are universal) nor subjective morality(it’s widely accepted within the society). Am example; Pedophilia is morally wrong where I come from. In certain societies, it’s okay. The Bible, Quran, Torah do not condemn it. But you can be Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever and still believe it’s morally wrong based on how and where you were raised or reside. (It is “societal” morality) If morality is grounded in a supernatural being, and this being doesn’t condemn pedophilia, then that means we as humans defined it immoral. God was not involved. Then why are we against it yet God isn’t? Meaning morality is neither objective nor subjective.
Well yeah I just I finished by B.Sc in physics but I don't agree that there's 'evidence' for free will, idealism or strictly even a God from quantum mechanics. I think the moral argument is much stronger.
Andrew Wells That's a fair point. The existence of morality and the conscience mind is quite the spectacle in comparison to plain facts about science. Not to belittle the prior videos. I love those videos.
+Andrew Wells Hey, your comment caught my attention because I am currently having an ongoing discussion with a theist who was citing experiments with quantum mechanics as support for the idea of a god existing. We struggled to agree on many of his interpretations of the results of these experiments, and we had a different understanding of quantum physics' concepts. We've been talking on Discord, but I'd be willing to create a Google Plus discussion for this topic. Would you be interested in joining us and sharing your thoughts about this? If not, no worries. Thanks for your consideration!
Atheist here, debate me but seriously, Ive been looking for a good argument for god, so I'd like to have a conversation with you, you seem the mature and reasonable type Lets see if I understand the argument Premises 1- Morals can be determined through rationality 2- Moral objectvivity exists, and facts of morality exists 3- Becuase theres morality disagreement amongst humans, morals can't come from humans, becuase humnas in escence are imperfect. (ie we sometime wrong on moral duties) Arguments 1-If morality is objective, it must be base on an unchanging (thing) 2-becuase morality is ratonal, the base must also be rational (sentient) 3-humans are everchanging and cannot be the source of this morality therefore, a sentient being apart from humans must exist which is unchanging and objectively moral. this would be (god) Ill go watch that other video and Ill come back
I wanted to go to that other video you mentioned but you have like 6 years of back catalog, can someone pont me to the video where he bases moral realism?
1. yes buts its not necessary 2. no i do not agree. .3. Well clearly the argument ends there since we didnt get past the second premise. 1.yes and those unchanging things would be facts. 2.morailty is not necessarily rational but can have standards that you base your rationality for the situation at hand on. 3. No but they could be the source of subjective morality. that was a pretty big leap, if morals where objective then they would be objective due to factual information, i dont know why after that you assume a god.
@@pragmaticduck1772 But we are rational at least some of the time. So couldn't we invent an idea of a perfectly rational being and ground morality in that?
Regarding premise 3, why must humans be perfect moral beings in order to establish a useful and beneficial moral system that improves over time as we learn more?
Obviously moral facts can't be objective and subjective at the same time. That's a truism. But if moral facts exist and God is their source, how does that make them objective? God's judgments could be just as subjective as ours but with the power to enforce them on humans. I've never heard a Christian explain how God's moral law is objective without begging the question. You can't independently prove that moral values are "part of God's wholly good nature"; you just assume that God, if he exists, is wholly good. How do you know that God is wholly good? What we take to be objective moral facts could be the outcome of our evolutionary conditioning. (I'm not saying that it is, merely that it is possible that it is.) When we argue over the "truth" of moral issues, we are arguing over the best strategies for survival. All apologists do to counter this theory is claim that it is the naturalistic fallacy, which is actually the strawman fallacy, because no one argues that we ought to refrain from murder and theft *because* it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to do so. It is just an alternative explanation for why we think we are debating objective truths, rather than strategies for enhancing group survival. And often, people do think they arguing for their sake of their survival. It's quite common for people to morally posture to increase their social status. Increasing your social status increases your access to resources, which increases your chances of survival. Again, not saying this is the basis of moral facts, only that it is possible and that you can't discount it because it is consistent with what we observe.
Follow the logic of the video. We are not arbitrarily grounding moral facts in God, the necessary source is just labeled God. They are objective because the source is unchanging by definition. What we take to be objective moral facts could be the outcome of our evolutionary conditioning, but that would be how we came to learn moral facts not the ontology of them.
+One Man's Chorus _" God's judgments could be just as subjective as ours but with the power to enforce them on humans. "_ I think you are misunderstanding what IP means by "objective". The reason, why our judgements are considered "subjective" is because we differ, even with ourselves. If we all, along with every other creature of our type, were making same judgement, then it would most probably have an objective reason behind it. _"It is just an alternative explanation for why we think we are debating objective truths, rather than strategies for enhancing group survival. And often, people do think they arguing for their sake of their survival. It's quite common for people to morally posture to increase their social status. Increasing your social status increases your access to resources, which increases your chances of survival. Again, not saying this is the basis of moral facts, only that it is possible and that you can't discount it because it is consistent with what we observe."_ The problem with this explanation is that two reasonable and rational people may make different decisions based, even though they are put in similar situation. Imagine an atheist in Saudi Arabia. What is he getting? And suppose, he is getting something. Then why all others are not atheist. We all have evolved similarly, right?
You have first prove that objective morality exist in the first place. All you have offered is that we are not rational enough to be the source but that doesn't mean a "perfectly rational" being automatically exist. It’s a fallacious syllogism anyway, in that even granting the premises of the first two doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion. Even if we grant that “X existing” leads to “Y existing”, it doesn’t logically flow that “Y exists” means that “X exists”. You can argue that morality existing is a NECESSARY part of showing God’s existence, but that doesn’t mean that morality's existence is PROOF of God’s existence. This is logic 101.
@ One Man's Chorus. Great points about alternative explanation (strategies for group survival) that are obviously SUFFICIENT to the formation of moral code (standard) even if this alternative explanation MAY not be necessary. The first two premises in the syllogism presented in the video require that a sentient being be SOLEY responsible for the formulating moral code. And that 'SOLEY' requires exclusivity, meaning the premises requires that the antecedents be BOTH necessary and sufficient. Of course, even IF ONE ASSUMED the premises met that obligation, one could only argue for the validity of those premises AFTER establishing the existence and authority of the non-human sentient being! Again, great job!
Sorry I don't understand how we came to premise one with so much certainty. Could it not be claimed that morality is an enterprise of intuition or feeling? Perhaps, we find reasons to justify how we feel and our intuitive responses to moral dilemmas?
Ahh I see - I'll read up on non-cognitivism. To clarify, if we were to assume moral realism to be true, then we'd also accept morality to be a rational enterprise?
Well, to be fair, one can be a natural moral realist and argue moral goodness is equated to something like well-being. So it would be a natural substance, but they would still be cognitivists so they would agree morality is rational and not non-cognitive. However, I plan to a critique of that view later this year, along with the other major views in meta-ethics.
Okay cool, sounds good. I look forward to watching those! You said in the video that premise 2 is likely the most controversial. I suggest the first premise is the weakest. Yeah, not everyone conceptually accepts moral realism to be true in academia, however, I would argue everyone (including scholars) does accept moral realism in everyday life through their actions and responses to moral dilemmas. Just a thought derived from personal observation.
Thanks, I just think it is hard to deny morality is rational enterprise if you are a cognitivist. If someone wanted to argue that moral discourse isn't open to reason then I don't know what to say.
I've watched this videos couple of times and I just couldn't seem to get it. What did it mean "a rational enterprise"? I'm currently pursuing batchelor's degree (and later master's if God wills it) in Philosophy and History and I realize why emotivism fails and what does it mean for morality to be a rational enterprise. Your videos on these topics showed me how to debunk David Hume's pressupositions in metaethics and aesthetics. I often used Craig's version because it's an easily memorable syllogism and the first premise could be defended with prior probability and the second with abductive reasoning and common sense. I will still try to look more into your version. Thank you again for everything and may God bless you and help you reach more people.
@Oscar Perez bro , why can't non sentient things be rational? Like , 1 + 1 = 2 is rational and not sentient , right? What's wrong with moral facts and duties existing like laws of logic does?
@Oscar Perez I got that. My point is , what if morality exists like laws of logic or mathematics does? It will be a rational enterprise and could be non sentient , right?
Evil is the abuse of Good (ontology). We recognise Evil as corrupted Good (epistemology). God is good, and He created all things good. Examples: Pain is good, it informs us of injuries. Torture (abusing pain) is evil. Pleasure is good, it informs us of beneficial things. Fornication, gluttony, etc. (abusing pleasure) is evil. Free will is good, it makes us intelligent beings. Licentiousness (abusing free will) is evil. The Moral Argument is good, it points to God. Confounding it is evil, because God made all things good: that - and that alone - we innately know! EDIT: Not affiliated, just dropping by
@@fanghur Oh in case anyone starts conflating God with other non-biblical (ie. fake) versions such as "Allah", the true God is three persons in one, of the same substance (consubstantial). The Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (or both the Father and the Son).
Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that god told the Israelites that they could own other people as permanent property which they could pass down as inheritance to their children i.e. slavery was good in those times
Your comments five minutes in concerning A.C. Grayling: I have, over the years, debated at various levels with a great many atheists and I always bring in the moral argument. Every time, with out any exceptions to this rule, my opponent has misunderstood me in thinking that I am claiming that atheists "don't have morality", when in fact, I have emphasised "you can't justify objective morality". Event to the point where I validate the unqualified skeptic's claim that they are "more moral than you are!". I have tried to explain this in a variety of different ways, but the same trap is triggered each time. Very odd indeed.
@@AsixA6 Why morality is subjective? If you say morality is subjective then it points that ANYONE can justify their own morality for doing so. Slavery is beneficial to the doer so it must be GOOD. If it is good for them then they are justified in doing so since they're just looking out for their own well-being. If you can get away with a crime that benefits you, IT IS GOOD. So what if others suffer? Survival of the fittest is the only rule in a naturalistic world so they better learn the game and play others. The end justifies the means every time. That's the problem in making morality subjective. It leads to a tyrannical rule where might makes right.
@@silenthero2795 _”Why morality is subjective?”_ *Because morality is a feeling that certain actions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to do and feelings are subjective.*
Permit 3 is actually Quite Flawed.This argument confuses the descriptive (what is) with the prescriptive (what ought to be). Just because humans are flawed or engage in immoral acts doesn't mean they can not understand or define what is moral. Morality is about how humans ought to behave, not necessarily how they behave.
Yup, it started tribal based as an evolutionary trait (part of survival of the fittest). Because of our big brains we can reason what is best for the survival of our group and it's individuals to survive and flourish.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty the problem with subjective morality is that there is no presumed authority. It is all founded on personal opinion. However it is clear this is not how morality works within our universe. While we can agree that there is a sense of consciousness within us, we disagree on the authority which established it. Morality is coherent when it is comes from the correct authority. History falls short as an explanation because it is just personal opinions passed on. And personal opinions are not sufficient factors in determining morality. This may be the case for ethics, and each society definitely has their own ethics, yet morality is something that trumps ethics and has more gravity to it. Human beings always try to convince themselves they are doing right even if they know deep down they are doing wrong. How could they possibly feel in the wrong if their own ethics believes it’s right. There is weight to morality, that succeeds personal ethics. Therefore this cannot come from a person. Rather, the correct authority for morality is beyond humanity. This outside authority which design morality must be God.
@@Sadleafsfan.Wrong. Didn't you read the OT? Your god can't be the standard of the claimed absolute/objective morality. It's just wishful thinking....eeeeh, wishful believing.
@@KasperKatje there’s a lot more “wishful believing” in adhering to the randomness of Darwinism. There is no basis for objective morality in evolution. Yet we have it in reality. Therefore it must come from God. The Old Testament by no means refutes objective morality. It shows how God created the world and implemented himself as morality. Your personal opinion that God acted immorally has no basis as a counter argument to objective morality.
@@Sadleafsfan. we are not the ones making the false claim absolute/objective morality exists, let alone that a god is the standard. If that claim was true, owning people, and "eternaly punishing" homosexuals and girls who can't prove their virginity based on the hymen myth etc. should still be moral. All ordered or condoned by your god.
@@KasperKatje please be serious. There is context to Old Testament stories. You’re being willfully ignorant by taking acts from the OT and singling it out from their origin. If the Bible truly stood for such atrocities, people would not follow Christianity. And Christians are aware to this. Don’t say they aren’t. That’s why even though the topic of slavery is in the Bible, the context of it shows how evil and wrong it is. I would encourage you to find some Christian dialogue on this online. That way you can understand the true context of these actions and what Christain’s actually believe.
This is a good argument, though I still disagree with the main argument of your last video. "Ought" should not be treated as a key word, and epistemic oughts should not be equivocated with moral oughts because they are "similar". There would need to be a proof that having one has the other.
If morality is a figment of our feelings, then we can't be upset with who or what we see as immoral (Hitler, ISIS, Corrupted Politicians, or the drunk father that comes home and beats his family regularly). Plain and simple.
Evil exists because it is a failure to do what is good. It is the absence of goodness. God did not create evil but gave us free will to do good or not.
I would argue logic and mathematics is grounded in the existence of everything. Logic is a description of everything that is and everything that is possible, so logic is grounded in existence itself.
Thank you for your excellent videos InspiringPhilosophy. This is one of the best explanations of the Moral Argument yet. I have several questions for you: 1. Is Logic part of God's nature? Or is it separate from Him? 2. Are objective morals properly basic beliefs? 3. What is the most moral thing to do when you are confronted with the Nazi dilemma? (You are hiding Jews in your house and the Nazi's come and ask if you are hiding any Jews.) Should you lie and save the lives of the Jews but break God's commandments or should you tell the truth and keep God's commandments but have the Jews taken away? Some say that God understands the context of the situation and that in this case morals are graded. (It is worse to have the Jews taken than to lie). Morals grounded in an "unchanging" source seems to imply moral absolutism. If morals are graded by God in certain circumstances, doesn't that seem to challenge the notion of morals being grounded in an unchanging source? Thank you for your help! God bless!
1. I would say so, but I wouldn't use it as an argument for God's existence. 2. Yes, see my video: ruclips.net/video/zjkgD4w9w1k/видео.html 3. You hid the Jews: ruclips.net/video/OdTpjg467WM/видео.html That is more of a normative ethical question and it would depend on what view of normative ethics you hold to.
Po-ké Watch These situations are rare but possible. Could God even tell you to go ahead and lie? If we admit that God could allow us to lie than we are saying that He isn't unchanging because morals are based on Him.
InspiringPhilosophy What if someone says: "Logic is an objective truth and it's not grounded in anything so even if Morals are objective they don't need to be grounded in anything either." Thank you for the responses.
*Could God even tell you to go ahead and lie? If we admit that God could allow us to lie than we are saying that He isn't unchanging because morals are based on Him.* I think your problem is that you are confusing the term OBJECTIVE with ABSOLUTE. Absolute morals would be FIXED regardless of circumstances, but objective morals mean that they are true independent of our opinion. - If moral values were absolute, lying would be ALWAYS bad. - However, if they are just objective, moral values and duties could be graded. Norman Geisler says there are prima facie ethical duties like "tell the truth" or "love your neighbor" but these are not all equal. They are graded so that if you come into a moral conflict, your obligation to preserve the life of your Jewish neighbor is greater or supersedes your obligation to tell the truth to the Nazi Gestapo knocking at your door. www.reasonablefaith.org/objective-or-absolute-moral-values www.reasonablefaith.org/apologetics-against-christian-apologetics
Alberto R R But that's my point. If objective morals are based on God's "unchanging" nature than aren't we saying that God's nature is changing when He allows us to lie in certain situations?
This world is created with math, it makes reason, it has nature rules. Who has the power to make nature laws sustainable? Who has the intelligence to make this laws work properly? The world is the proof of it's hand craft.
Am i missing something, because it looks to me like every single one of inspiring philosophy's videos is based on an unsupported claim and dodgy premises? I grant you that this one acknowledges this and refers to others for moral realism etc but they are no better. In the 'defending' video we get premise 1, 'If moral facts don't exist then epistemic facts don't exist'. Sorry, what? When are theists going to admit they've got nothing?
Even if you don't use the Bible, you hve to use somethig--the God of Aristotle, the God of Plato, the God of the Bantu philosophers, the God of the Tao maybe even. Even the ancestor worship of Shintoism holds to something greater than any living person. Yes the (orthodox) Christian way is best, but, even these other systems make more sense than anything ungrounded in something higher than human reason.
If you want to be trusted, if you want to be seen as honorable, if you want to be surrounded by people who have similar values, you're going to have to work on both having a good value set yourself and recognizing it in others.
How would we respond to someone saying at 2:30, why couldn't God give us perfect moral knowledge? We would still have free will and would not always obey the moral law correctly but at least we'd know when we are doing an immoral act.
Random-RUclips-Comment Cosmological Argument: Premise 1: Everything that exists had a cause Premise 2: God exists Conclusion: God had a cause You see why those kinds of arguments are absurd?
i don't see how it follows from the fact that rationality is a rational enterprise that therefore it is derived from a sentient rational source. one could say science is an enterprise of rationality, but science is merely the method of understanding the natural world through observation. could one not also conclude that morality is the observation of moral truths through rational investigation? why must morality itself originate from a sentient rational source?
Science is derived from the natural world though, so it is grounded there. As for ethics, in simple terms. Moral oughts have to be grounded as well, and since they are prescriptions (commanding), so therefore, it makes sense there would be a prescriber. I explain this in more detail in the video
I would say logic is grounded in the existence of everything since if something exists logic can describe it. Sort of like how the physical laws are grounded in the physical universe.
if the core of moral was that it is simply prescribed, then its core is not logical necessity. so it is not objective. which debunks the whole argument...
Being prescribed does not entail being subjective. That doesn't follow at all. Also, something can be objective and not necessary. Those two words do not mean the same thing.
i did not claim that being prescribed entails being subjective. but what you wrote so far made it seem like you think morality is prescribed INSTEAD of being a set of logically necessary facts. please give me an expample of something not being logical necessary but still being objective. btw.: as far as i understand it, the theistic worldview includes that gos is logically necessary as well as everything he does.
Im new to your channel, and Ive watched both vids, and (correct me if Im wrong) it seems to me that in the first video you surrender the point of free will, and proceed to only defend the ilusion of it. you argued that man has enough free will to act upon moral actions, adn that one can focus on a problem as much as one desires to, even if how much one desires to focus on or what prior thoughs are uncontrolable. This is like saying a domino chooses to fall or not base on the ammount of force it had been aplied, and that that domino has free will of its own, or that a glass of water chooses to spill based on how much water it has on it, even if it cant control how much water it has
You are assuming your conclusion, namely determinism. That when we focus, it is already determined so there is no free will, so you are just arguing in a circle. Then do explain how I misunderstood the Kochen-Specker theorem or the violation of the Leggett Inequality. Let me guess you are about to talk about how an observer in quantum mechanics is just the measuring apparatus or mention another interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've heard it all and no one has provided an adequate refutation...
no, Im not arguing anything, Im pointing out that in your video you inmediatly concede the posibility of free will, and only proceed to defend the illusion of it. Namely when you said "A man is free enough to make moral decision". free enough, nothing is free enough, either youre free or you arent and its just an ilusion. If you can't choose not even which criteria you use to choose the cereal you ate this morning, then you didnt choose the cereal you ate this morning. It mightve felt to you to have chosen it, but to an outside observer who knows all the variables your decision was calculateable. The quantum Mechanics bit your understanding of quantum mechanics isnt wrong, but your understandng of how it applies to our world is. in your video at the 6:12 mark (the original video) you present the argument 1 Ether we live in an indeterministic universe and we have free will, or we live in a deterministic universe and we dont have freee will 2. We have free will Therefore we live in an indeterministic universe. I imagine thats a typo and let's suppose that you can prove our universe isnt deterministic at the quantum level, and that some equations are completely random. we _still_ dont have control over the outcomes of those random proceses since our mind dosent exist separate from this world (refering to universe) so the argument you make later on to prove free will is invalid, as it does not prove that we have free will, but only that it's not imposible. it dosent prove that our free will is the reason for the universe behaving so strangely or why does the universe behave like this even in places where there are no other humans edit: minor grammar errors
Morality cannot be grounded in evolution because evolution is an ongoing natural process with no direction, suggesting morality is still "evolving" with no end goal in sight. An "evolving" morality cannot be absolute since it may shift depending on the consensus of the majority. If modern civilization "evolved" into a totalitarian dystopia, then morality would "evolve" from empathy to conformity, affirmed by the consensus of the conditioned masses. One thing I've noticed is that people who cite divine command theory as a criticism against Christianity seem to be suggesting morality can only be objective when moral principles somehow "exist" by themselves, independently from any intelligent entity. Either that or moral principles come from "inexplicable origins" we have yet to discover. However, I don't see how moral principles could logically be conceived beyond a higher intelligence. It often appears Christians and atheists adhere to fundamentally different premises: Christians believe moral principles require a higher source, while atheists don't. Or if atheists do support a higher origin, they haven't explicitly outlined what type of origin would be sufficient. Nature can't be a sufficient source for moral truth because it is a mindless, impartial, materialistic phenomena, incapable of conceptualizing moral principles, that doesn't "care" what happens to mankind. Plus, if Christian morality is based on divine command theory, then isn't secular morality based on "political command theory" or "popular demand theory"?
Chem....If, as you claim "all morals are subjective.". Then explain when is moral to remove all your skin (while you are alive), then all your organs, then cut you into little pieces and feed you to people calling it stew?
+preto shohmoofc guy +Idiot atheist I understand you're being snarky/sarcastic, but if you'd actually like to add something to this discussion, and portray yourselves as thoughtful, critical thinkers, then I'd recommend expressing your disagreement with the OP's claim differently. For instance you could ask, "If morals are subjective, does this mean any behavior could be considered good?" Of course you're free to be presumptive of other people's point of view and write provocative jives, but if your goal is to nurture some sort of mutual understanding, then your current strategy is only likely to diminish the possibility of that ever happening. May you, one day, improve the way you address disagreements. Cheers! =)
Devils Advocate: couldn't one argue that, like math or logic, that morality is deduced based on conclusions from the world around us? For example, even though arithmetic is a rational enterprise, that doesn't mean it comes from a God. We know that mathematics is true, not because a rational being made it true, but because 2 + 2 = 4 and so on. This would be true in the atheist world and the Christian world, so why not say the same about morality? Why jump to a God?
How we learn what is moral is not the same as grounding ethics. That is confusing epistemology with ontology. I would agree we learn the what is moral from intuition and experience as I explain in my defense of moral realism.
Good point. That would be what I call _Natural Moralism._ Just like our extrinsic senses let us make scientific models about the extrinsic information of all that is not part of us, our intrinsic intuitions let us make moral models about the intrinsic information of each and every one of us. Because isn't that the rational essence of what metaphors like "from the heart" are trying to express?
Well, but according to premise 1, this source you call God still has to do the rationalizing. Meaning the standard is external to Himself. You reject human rationality because there are disagreements. But this entity that you crop up as the author or source still has to do the rationalizing of moral values for you to accept. If He rationalizes it, then much like us, He has to get it from somewhere. Btw I am not an atheist or an agnostic.
InspiringPhilosophy Still waiting for your answer: Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", "THE GOOD" be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"? and What would be the consequences of not doing so?
What do you make of Richard Swinburne's argument that moral truths are actually irrelevant to God? He says that if moral truths are indeed the case then they must be necessary truths (key premise), meaning that they are true whatever else is the case i.e. true whether god exists or not and so moral truths cannot be used to prove existence of god...?
And the counter-argument To the euthyrphro dilemma. Is saying the same thing in 2 different ways and acting like they're different. Something being The grounding of Something being grounded in is the exact same thing.
Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"? Of what relevance would time-bound "praise and worship" be to such "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time"? How are such time-bound "praise and worship" to be executed? What would be the consequences of not doing so?
The question was, "Why?". Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"? and: What would be the consequences of not doing so?
Dear InspiringPhilospophy, There is one premise that you have assumed without defending it, and it is this: "Moral facts and duties are grounded in something." But could you clarify why moral facts and duties need grounding at all? Couldn't it be the case that they are self-sufficient facts, either necessary truths or contingent truths without explanation (yes, this contradicts PSR)? What about naturalism, which says moral properties are identical to certain natural properties - do these natural properties need any grounding? Furthermore, I am not sure about your claim: "Even if someone gave a complete evolutionary account of how morality arose in humans, that would just explain how we came to understand/how we learned moral facts and duties." which is an often-repeated objection to the darwinian argument, one that I espoused for quite a while. But why assume that a darwinian explanation of moral BELIEFS (the first part of the sentence) is the same as an explanation of how we gained KNOWLEDGE (the second part)? If evolution has given us only moral beliefs, without moral knowledge*, then most, if not all, arguments from the previous video contain premises which we do believe in, but which we have no justification for. * This is so if evolution was not oriented towards discovering true moral facts, hence no justification is present.
Well as you said, it contradicts the PSR for starters and we should also note rational enterprises do not exist on their own but are contingent on something. I plan to do a video on ethical naturalism later this year. That would be to assume evolution gave us beliefs like that. If you take that road you need to question everything. How do you know everything you believe is true?
The existence of psychopaths and sociopaths to me gives me sufficient doubt when I ponder if moral facts exist. In ancient times ( arguably) people lived in small groups and every individual had to act a certain way in order to keep getting food portions and shelter ect so it was rational to act morally ever since the agricultural revolution with the first communities. So I certainly agree with the first premise...I just struggle to accept that moral facts exist because for one person stealing is no big deal and then for another they would be full of remorse and so forth. A callous criminal could be taught Kantian ethics and they still wouldn't care.
I like to think of morality as our 5 senses. They can and should be used to uncover objective truths, but certain people don't have sight, hearing, etc. So to, some people are psycopaths and don't have a conscience
@@obamatime1634 Yes but Moral Relativism debunks that idea...different cultures have different values. Morality is just rules made up to keep society together so it is like a cultural hypnosis.
@@michaelshell331 Different values yes, but the core values are the same everywhere. Even Germany during WW2 had to justify the holocaust by first indoctrinating people into believing the Jews aren't people of the same worth. The majority of the middle east treats woman worse because the people have been convinced through the Quran and Sunnah that they are inferior in intellect and religion. You will be very hard pressed to find a society that genuinely believes murder or even abuse of a human is 100% morally fine. In every example I am aware of, they have to justify themselves by convincing themselves and others that the people they persecute are less than human.
@@obamatime1634 Except that is precisely why the argument utterly fails as an argument for Christianity specifically. The very moral intuitions that the argument by necessity needs to both appeal to and grant epistemic credence to in order for the second premise to be in any way defensible also overwhelmingly condemn the Biblical deity as an immoral monster. So even granting the argument everything it wants, it ends up being argument against Christianity, since it ends up arguing against Yahweh being God.
But the fact that morality can only be ascertained by reason doesn't seem to me to imply that the source must be sentient. There are a number of things ascertained only rationally (like "all rocks are not human") doesn't imply that the thing ascertained (the nature of a rock) is sentient
That is just a logical sentence, we are talking about all of ethics. Plus we are not saying morality can only be ascertained by reason, the first premise is morality is a rational enterprise.
Why can't theists see the problem with this arguement? There is this overriding assumption that morality is objective and has a foundation in something other than ourselves. We're not born with a "moral compass" and not born with a religion. These things are learned depending on our family and society. Right and wrong are completely subjective concepts, rooted in culture, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why do different nations, cultures, religions and political affiliations disagree on such things? The moment you claim the moral high ground you should be ready for scrutiny. For me the most simplistic view is humanism, whether secular or not.
Referring to P1, moral "facts" and duties can also be deciphered through an emotivist view of morality. Granting the notion that each species looks out for its own survival, there will be an inherent emotion which will make us create normative propositions about how we should act upon one another. Therefore, morality is not necessarily a rational process.
This emotivist view of morality works only in cases where an act is unequivocally right or wrong, cases where rational deduction seems unnecessary because what’s moral is apparent. For instance, killing a baby would generally elicit visceral aversion,or a negative emotion, to an observer, which will cause the observer to say it is wrong even without much rationalization. Nonetheless, if asked why it is wrong, rationality, however small, is still required. However, in cases where right or wrong is not that obvious, say euthanizing an elderly to “put an end to suffering”, morality has to be painstakingly rationally deduced, which would now require basic moral assumptions to reach a verdict. Therefore, morality is necessarily a rational enterprise.
Paul circumcised Timothy because he was a gentile (Leviticus 24:10-24). The gentile circumcised in both heart and flesh was the sign of the Messianic Age, that the gentiles would eventually come to obey the whole of God's Law. Morality is what's stated in the Torah.
The logic of this argument is just ... disappointing. Even if premise 4 followed from the previous premises, it would not follow that the being described by premise 4 would be the being we would call God. Furthermore even if it indeed was that being, it does not follow that the being we call God (in the context of this argument) actually is God. If you will forgive my pretentiousness, you are committing what I would call the "nominal fallacy" by mistakenly assuming that what you have given the title "God" actually is God. More generally this is a form of equivocation fallacy but instead of using an existing ambiguity in our language to make your argument work you have (without intending it I presume) introduced a new ambiguity in which "God" in premise 5 means "the necessary rational source of morality" when "God" to the audience would something like "a maximally great person, worthy of worship". Now while both these concepts could refer to the same being, there is basically nothing in this video (except claiming that we have discovered that they are the same on the basis of a rather weak analogy) which give us any reason to believe that. In fact you seem to admit in the video that "God" is merely a title in the context of your argument which would seem to leave open the possibility that "God" in this context does not properly refer to God. You might respond that you have addressed all of this when you stated that any deity which used something else as a source for moral values would merely be a demigod and the source would be God. The problem which arises here however is that this source might not be a divine person but perhaps something more in line with the Platonic notion of "the good" and thus premise 5 is not necessarily true (it does not follow from the premises) and thus the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The argument is slightly better, and significantly more interesting, than the standard moral argument one often hear, so it wasn't all bad.
Idiot, I would simply call it "the good" but to be frank I think that the idea that morality has a source is a false notion. Morality (or value and rightness more generally) does not need to be explained in terms of something else existing nor should one view it as emanating from something else. Rather it is the standard with which everything else is to be judged and understood. Morality is much like logic or mathematics in this regard, at least in my view. Personally (maybe I'm going off on a tangent here), if I were to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma I would say that when God says that something is good it is because it is good and that this would still be so if God said the opposite. I might be presumptuous in saying this but I do think that this position has support in scripture, after all in Genesis, after each of his creative acts God saw that what he had created was good. I don't this is likely if God can make things good merely by calling them good or if God himself was Goodness. After all, I goodness wasn't external to God, then wouldn't it go without saying that his creation was good? And wouldn't it exasperate the problem of evil since it would be quite a feat to explain how goodness itself can give rise to evil?
Paradoxarn "Morality (or value and rightness more generally) does not need to be explained in terms of something else existing nor should one view it as emanating from something else." So you didn't agree with premise 4? "I goodness wasn't external to God, then wouldn't it go without saying that his creation was good?" I hope I understood this question. Yes. There's no need to say the obvious. But saying the obvious does not automatically mean that God can create something bad.
20“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:21
The defenses of Premises 2 & 3 are strange to me. It doesn't seem to follow that our rationality cannot be the origin of moral facts and duties simply because we are imperfect and contingent. The leap to saying that these things "Must be grounded in a necessary being" seems unjustified. What is the purpose of morality? What does moral action aim to achieve? The fundamental question that ethics seems to address is "how should we treat each other?" (in order to have the life we all want) To say that the answer to that question still exists even if we don't, just as the laws of logic do, strikes me as nonsensical. Can someone name a moral fact or duty that is not dependent on the existence of moral agents (like humans)?
I like the explanation of the argument but I also think you should clear up exactly what God you are talking about. Most atheists will use the argument of "well, how do we know which God is good?"
InspiringPhilosophy I understand that but they usually try to group all gods into the same category, especially Allah. But if the God of the bible is the one and only true God and the others are false, then would it not be important to specify what God has set the moral standard and why, or is that another topic for another video?
Since this version of the moral argument relies on God being conscious and rational, that would rule out any impersonal God. Since it relies on Him being necessary, that would rule out most, if not all, polytheistic gods. Since it relies on Him being moral, you can argue that it isn't the God of Islam on that ground. Of course, then you have to argue that the God of Christianity is actually moral, which is always a slog when it comes to atheists, but it's doable. Apart from that, arguments for the existence of God aren't intended to prove the Incarnation or the Trinity or any of the other characteristic features of Christianity. Asking them to do so is a red herring, like IP said.
I don't think one can argue they exist necessarily on their own. Laws are not something that exist without some type of material to describe or explain. The physical laws are grounded in the universe. The laws of logic are grounded in all of existence. Moral laws need to be grounded in something as well.
This may be a year late but I think what he meant is we constantly fight over what is morally good or morally bad and come to a conclusion at some point or another. Since a moral cannot be good and bad at the same time, therefore our conclusion of what is morally good or bad is fact. Since we are not perfectly moral we fight over what is one or the other.
I believe you jump to a lot of conclusions in this video without sufficient reasons. It seems to me that the video states that we are not capable of reasoning therefore we need a deity to give or show us objective morals. Maybe, I read into that incorrectly, but if humans are incapable of truly reasoning then we have no ability to have this conversation in the first place. I find that the moral argument is extremely flawed. How can we prove what objective morality is, even if it slapped us in the face? Where do we find these objective morals? Are they burned deep into our intellect, by a deity, to keep us on the right path? Or do we find them in an old text like the Bible. Are we supposed to find the ten commandments or the randomly written laws and moral codes throughout the Bible as objective morals. In that case I would rather personally live by my own subjective morals. Which brings me to the next question. Is objective morality even better than subjective? If a moral code/law is objective and never changing, is that a good thing. We can all find what we would consider immoral behavior promoted by the context of the Bible. I think we've all changed our minds on the fact that owning another human being is wrong or forcing woman into marriage is also wrong.
See what you did there at the end of the argument, you said “I think we’ve all changed our minds on the fact that owning another human being is wrong.” There you are using your own subjective morality of what you perceive to be “good” or “evil”. However, since you believe in subjective morality, you don’t have the power to judge another person’s actions based on your own morals. It’s simply hypocritical of your beliefs and many atheists do it. When you reject objective moralism, you reject any idea of there being “good” or “evil” since there is not one human’s subjective morals that are valued higher than the rest. That’s where your argument falls apart because without God, we have nothing to universally base morals on. Unless you can accept the belief that there is no good or bad and that morals don’t exist at all, then your other argument breaks apart. You can’t use your morals to judge someone else’s morals.
Objective morality doesn't exist. If you want to know what secular morality systems are based on, its benefit vs harm. Meanwhile, even if there is a god, religion based morality is based on the subjective opinion of that god. This is even weaker than it sounds once you realize that there is no way to demonstrate that gods even exist or what the moral opinions of those gods are. All theists have is a disjointed mess of "he said, she said" sorts of statements where people claim to know what god wants.
We address that: ruclips.net/video/WuF01dvh_hc/видео.html Also, moral realism is not based on a view of God, it is an argument for God's existence. You have it backwards.
Mind: Free will governing soul. Body: The flesh of the universe. Soul: Your essence of personality. Who you are. We humans are three in one, as God is three in one. God The Father who rules it all. Jesus the son who is the flesh and incarnation of the invisible God. And the Holy Ghost, God's personality who is divine (Morally Perfect). Much like God. We are three but one. This is how we are like them God.
I often have had people appeal to empathy as a grounds for knowing right or wrong. "I wouldn't do something to hurt that person, because I have empathy with them. I would know how I would feel if someone hurt me." What do you think of that argument?
What about a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy? Doesn’t he have the same moral obligations as someone who does have empathy? (Ex: torturing puppies is an evil act whether a psychopath or normal person does it)
In order to have objective moral values, we need to have basic guidelines by which we assess moral values/actions. The most common guideline presented by secularists is that an action is good if it promotes wellbeing. If we agree on wellbeing as a basis for morality, then we can have objective moral values. Now, a theist might ask that why should morality be about wellbeing, meaning that why should we hold those actions good which promote wellbeing. And that's true, having wellbeing as a basis for good/bad is purely subjective decision. But that problem doesn't disappear with god. In theists' general view god is/represents goodness. Seculars may, however, just as well ask that why should we assume that god is good or that god's moral values are good. This is solely a subjective assumption made by theists. So, defining moral guidelines is subjective, but once we have agreed on them (be it wellbeing, god's values, or something else) we have objective morality.
Your conclusion that morality comes from god doesn’t follow from the premise that morality exists outside of humans, unless you are talking about some other god other than the Christian, Jewish or Islamic god. What we know about those god’s aren’t moral so they can’t be moral. If we assume that what we know from the holy books isn’t true, then we know nothing of god and therefore cannot discern his/her/its characteristics to say he/she/it is moral and thus to say that is the source of morality.
The strongest version of the moral argument thus far, in my opinion. My faith was being attacked, I needed this badly. Thank you so much.
Love you man, praying for you today brother
No morality can be justified by anyone, being it God or whoever that is.
You and me both. May your faith grow strong and sturdy.
@@Hugowtum So you reject moral realism?
@@Ikthus me and you both, I'll be praying for you brother.
Probably my favourite RUclips channel. Christian apologetics is needed. Some of us do it a little here and there, but you lot prepare and present this stuff to spread it far, all while remaining characteristically "RUclips". You're doing a service and we thank you for it.
You're fantastic. I can't believe I just found you
Thanks!
lol, fancy seeing you here!
雨Jacob 雨 what do you mean?
InspiringPhilosophy (Ultimately) People don't intend to do wrong to others because even when they do, they are only pursuing their desire for Happiness at whatever cost they understand as fitting (Passion fueled by purpose in choice.).
Selflessly,
Ps. All things humans do, are and can always be reduced to Hope and Love as we seek Happiness! _Human Nature Pattern
(Pursuit of Happiness 1st Read) facebook.com/notes/eternal-optimism/eo-pursuit-of-happiness-1st-read/10159904079405720/
Yeah me too.This channels amazing-God bless.
I can sense this is good, useful, logical and clearly discussed content. I'm rewatching it many times to wrap my head around it. It is deep.
Im a theologist and im also studying a philosophy degree now; your content is really cool dude, keep goin ;)
We cannot prove that unicorns, leprechauns and pixies don’t exist, these are unfalsifiable hypotheses. However, we can determine if something is logically possible to exist. If something is defined in such a way that it contradicts its own definition, then it is logically impossible to exist and therefore cannot even be imagined in your head, let alone exist in real life. A square circle, for example, is logically impossible, because it contradicts its own definition, and therefore a square circle cannot possibly exist, even in the unknown.
Objective morality is logically impossible to exist. Morality consists entirely of should statements. Should statements cannot be objective. If someone says to you, why ought X be true? you could furnish an answer, but the other person could reply with the same question ad infinitum. If you say that X ought to be true because of Y, someone could ask you why ought Y be true? If you say that Y ought to be true, because Z, someone could ask you why ought Z be true? Your chain of answers can’t go on forever, sooner or later, you must admit that you are ultimately just expressing an opinion.
From here on out, the term moral objectivist refers to a person who believes in objective morality and a moral relativist refers to a person who believes that all morality is purely opinion based.
Two atheists are in a room just the two of them. One believes that all morality is purely opinion based, while the other believes that morality is objective. As non-believers, they both believe that morality comes from the principle of empathy. If you do not want to die, you should not kill innocent people. If you want your property to be respected, you should not commit vandalism. The atheist who believes in objective morality believes that it is objectively wrong to cause unnecessary harm to your fellow human beings. The atheist who believes that all morality is opinion based holds the opinion that you should not cause unnecessary harm to innocent people, but he is merely expressing an opinion when he does so.
The following hypothetical conversation occurs between the two atheists who disagree on objective morality.
Moral objectivist: Sexual assault is objectively immoral.
Moral relativist: I believe, as a matter of logical principle, that sexual assault is immoral, but that is just my opinion.
Moral Objectivist: No, it is objectively true to say rape is wrong.
Moral Relativist: How do you know?
Moral Objectivist: It causes unnecessary suffering to innocent people.
Moral Relativist: Why shouldn’t we cause unnecessary suffering to innocent people?
In the above hypothetical, the moral objectivist and the moral relativist both believe that sexual abuse is immoral. However, one believes the objective nature of morality, while the other does not. The relativist cannot demonstrate that there is any objective reason why he should not harm others, it is just his opinion.
The above hypothetical effectively proves that a world in which the concept of morality is derived from the principle of empathy does not offer up any basis for objective morality. However, even if you believe in a higher power, that is still no reason to assume that objective morality exists, as even if there is a God, you still have no way of knowing what moral rules, if any, God wants us to obey.
Now imagine an atheist who does not believe in objective morality and a devout Christian, who does believe in objective morality, are in the same room together. They have the following conversation.
Christian: Rape is objectively immoral.
Atheist: I believe that sexual assault is immoral, but it is only my opinion.
Christian: No, objective morality is real.
Atheist: How do you know that sexual assault is objectively immoral?
Christian: Because God deemed it immoral.
Atheist: How do you know that God deemed it immoral?
Christian: It says so in the Bible.
Atheist: How do you know that the Bible was written by God?
Christian: How do you know that the Bible was not written by God?
Atheist: If a Muslim asked you how you know that the Quran was not written by God, what would you say? Whatever your response would be to a Muslim asking you why the Quran isn’t real, that is myn explanation as to how I know that the Bible is not real.
Christian: God communicates his moral values to us through our conscience.
Atheist: There exist school shooters who claim to be doing God’s will. The 9/11 terrorists believed that they were doing what they were doing out of love for their religion. It is not just Muslims who do that. There have been cases where Christians have committed rampage shootings in God’s name.
Christian: Some people have misguided consciences, but there is an objective truth, defined by God, about what is and is not moral.
Atheist: If you and another person of the same religious faith have two different ideas about what is and is not moral and both of you derived this belief from what your conscience was telling you, how do you know which one is correct?
@@julianbigelow2794
“There have been cases where Christians have committed rampage shootings”
“We can not prove that unicorns”
Ho the irony!! Really your actually using the “unicorn”
argument!! Look up (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy) and (Category Error Fallacy). Not to mention the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy) and (Pretended Neutrality Fallacy)!! The list of logical fallacies goes on!!
Sorry but people who claim to be “Christians” who have committed crimes have clearly done so despite Christs teachings not because of Christs teachings, whereas an atheist/relativist/sophist has no such prohibitions only their arbitrary subjective preference, arbitrary subjective taste, an arbitrary social construct, arbitrary cultural relativism, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!!
Sorry but the fact is that in a ultimately amoral, that is in a ultimately purposeless, ultimately pointless, ultimately meaningless universe there are no absolutes, no universals, no prescriptive laws of logic!! Equally, there is no absolute objective standard as it’s all just equivocation and prevarication, that is ultimately purposeless, ultimately pointless and ultimately meaningless, amoral word games!! The fact is that this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is nothing more substantive than the delusions of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur!! Pond slime evolved to an higher order!! The meanderings of a determined machine, a biological and chemical robot!!
Sorry but under this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism your very ironic absolute truth claims are nothing more substantive than the delusions of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas. It’s just brain chemicals and nothing more substantive than the brains user illusion of self!! The ultimately meaningless science project of vinegar and baking soda accidentally bubbling over!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!! Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
The survivors of the Soviet Gulags reported that as they were being tortured by Stalin’s guards, the atheistic guards could be heard saying…
“There is no God, no heaven, and we may do as we wish”.
Which is obviously true if atheism is true so they were just being “logically” consistent with this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, atheistic nihilistic, fatalistic b…sht!!
“DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music” [emphasis added].” (Richard Dawkins) That proselytising from Dawkins would be laughable if it wasn’t such a green light and an inspiration for all the narcissists and psychos out there!!
Im not making any appeals to authority but according to the psychiatrist, scientist and survivor of the Nazis death camps Victor Frankl….
“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone.
I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazi like to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.” (Victor Frankl).
Frankl’s words are sobering and should give us pause as we consider what our philosophers and scientists are teaching the next generation in our own sacred halls of learning. Are we teaching students that they are nothing more substantive than the product of their environment, not responsible for their actions? Are we teaching them to view good and evil not as absolutes, but as variables dependent upon one’s cultural norms, ones arbitrary subjective taste, ones arbitrary subjective preference, an arbitrary social construct, arbitrary cultural relativism, that is as arbitrary as the fact that we evolved five fingers instead of six!!
If so, are we simply hurtling the next generation towards the Auschwitzes, Treblinkas, and Maidaneks of the 21st century?
“We should challenge the relativism that tells us there is no right or wrong, when every instinct of our mind knows it is not so, and is a mere excuse to allow us to indulge in what we believe we can get away with. A world without values quickly becomes a world without value.” (Rabbi Johnathan Sacks: Head of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth).
I like how you left out the atrocities committed by atheists as if all atheists are squeaky clean and don’t spend hours evangelising on RUclips in the name of the cult of rationality and atheism. This is comedy gold and is hilarious. Your patronising saga is testimony to the fact that people develop very bizarre behaviours in the name of atheism.
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source” (Albert Einstein).
Militant atheists are without doubt the Greatest Pretenders of our age. Apart from pretending that they aren’t religious and fanatical and that rationality, inductive reasoning and empiricism etc does not require faith and unprovable value claims, and that they don’t believe in absolute truth as the absolute absolutely doesn't exist, that freedom of religious expression is the cause of all human misery, that faith is believing without evidence and is in decline when statistically its enjoying a massive increase, they also pretend that they are not even atheists, they just “lack belief”.
Sorry but the claim that no true atheist ever committed genocide is the (No True Scots Man Fallacy)
The fact is that…
“What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing. And as far as we can tell, very few of those carrying out the horrors of the twentieth century worried overmuch that God was watching what they were doing either. That is, after all, the meaning of a secular society.”
Hitlers right hand man Joseph Goebbals wrote in his private diaries in 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons (Joseph Goebbels).
Better for them to deny metaphysics, that is truth, that is value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, objective morality, universals, the conscious agent, free will and with it rationality, truth, and science itself than to admit the soul/self. Once again, the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist manifests the very (dogmatism) of which he accuses the person who believes in ultimate value, and in rationalizing it is willing to contemplate absurdities of which no believer in an ultimate ontological ground of value has ever dreamed!!
Sorry but everyone has the right to believe what they want and everyone including theists have the right to find it totally ridiculous, nihilistic, fatalistic and self refuting!!
I rest my case!!
@@julianbigelow2794
“Objective morality is logically impossible to exist”
“Bible”
“You are ultimately just expressing an opinion”
“Should statements can not be objective”
This is beyond ironic!! Why “should” we take anything you say seriously then? Equally, you are also ultimately just expressing an opinion. Look up (Special Pleading Fallacy) and circular arguments. You just undermined your own argument!!
Sorry but do you even know the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? Philosophical naturalism is a philosophical position buddy not a scientific position! Do you have actual evidence or not that this strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism can even get off the ground? I’ll wait!!
Do you have actual evidence or not that relativism is coherent, that is a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is coherent and can even get off the ground without borrowing from and appealing to metaphysical presuppositions, that is transcendental categories such as Truth itself, that is absolute value claims, ought claims, the prescriptive laws of logic, (conscious agents and free will, that is rationality itself and morals and ethics) including universals, the categorical imperative, the uniformity of nature, empiricism, inductive reasoning, identity over time, the one and the many, the myth of the given, the ultimate axiological etc!!
Sorry but I just (lack a belief) until strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can provide a shred of coherent evidence that the accidental arrangement of the magical “nothing” or even worse the accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea created everything including all of these metaphysical realities and transcendental categories!! Do you have actual evidence or not? I’ll wait!! Look up burden of proof. Look up pretended neutrality fallacy!!
Sorry but everyone must have an ultimate standard that forms the basis of his or her worldview!! The theist, deist, pantheist, panpsychist, panentheist, Spinozist, and especially the strictly reductive materialist, atheist or philosophical naturalist have positive worldviews. Each person believes that his or her worldview provides the positive way to interpret evidence!! Everyone must have an ultimate standard by which evidence is evaluated. That ultimate standard cannot itself be judged by a lesser “neutral” standard, otherwise it would be incoherent! Clearly, a “neutral” position, that is the claim we can not know anything is logically flawed and is a question begging fallacy and a special pleading fallacy of the highest degree!!
“Should statements can not be objective”
That is not the argument for objective morality as monotheists know this already and would easily point out that this is the (Is/Ought Fallacy or the Naturalistic Fallacy) This actually works in the theists favour and points to metaphysical realities!!
The fact is that the “natural sciences” attempts to describe objective reality using the best metaphors but the “natural sciences” can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape regarding what (is) not what (ought) to be!!
Your confusing ontology with epistemology!! Equally, I think what you meant to say was that…..
“You can not get an (ought) out of an (is)” (David Hume).
Why “ought” we take the truth claims of an overgrown amoeba with illusions of grandeur seriously? Why (ought) we listen to the very ironic absolute truth claims of pond slime evolved to an higher order? Why should we believe the myths, delusions and “truth” claims of an evolved ape who shares half their DNA with bananas??
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists!!
Sorry but the fact is that under this strictly reductive, causally closed, effectively complete, nihilistic, atheistic, fatalistic b…sht your very ironic absolute truth claims and “pretended neutrality fallacy” are just a cosmic accident that went neither “wrong” nor “right”, that is neither “good” nor “bad”. Neither “logical” or “illogical”. There are no prescriptive laws of logic or (oughts), “shoulds”, that is morals and ethics as everything just (is) ultimately amoral, everything just (is) ultimately purposeless, everything just (is) ultimately meaningless and there is no objective standard and everything just (is) just totally relativistic!! Basically everything just (is) ultimately meaningless b…sht under your world view and deep down you know it which is why you are wasting your so called finite life ironically proselytising about the meaninglessness!!
Your world view, your absurdity, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!!
When our pride usurps Truth, we walk on the shifting sands of relativism, an ego driven reality!! Evidence to the contrary please!! I’ll wait!!
@@georgedoyle2487 My arguments are self-defeating? How?
You ask me for evidence to support the idea that atheist philosophical naturalism can get off the ground. What does that even mean?
You bring up the idea of absolute truth. There is an objective truth about the age of the earth and the number of electrons in a nitrogen atom, because these are prescriptive statements. Descriptive statements are different. If you believe that morality is or can be objective, where would this objective morality come from? God? How do you know what moral rules God wants you to obey? You could cite the Bible, but how do you know that the Bible was actually written by God? The Bible may have been written by fallible humans for all you know.
You describe the atheist belief about how the universe came to be as the accidental arrangement of nothing. The theory of The Big Bang does not mean that the Big Bang created everything, rather that it is the first thing that everything did. A lot of atheists, myself included, believe that the universe always was. While atheists believe that the universe always was, most theists believe that God always was. Both of these ideological groups believe that something existed without being created. The Big Bang has never been proven as far as I am aware, but neither has God.
Everyone must have an ultimate standard that forms his or her worldview?
My worldview is based on the principle of empathy. I don’t want to die, so I do not murder. I would not want someone to disrespect my property, so I do not steal or commit vandalism.
@@julianbigelow2794
“A lot of atheists, myself included believe that the universe always was”
“There is an objective truth about the age of Earth”
Yep I agree!! There is clearly such a thing as objective Truth. There is clearly an objective truth about the age of the Earth including the age of the universe but this objective truth regarding the age of the universe does not currently support your strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! That is your ideology that “the universe always was”!! It has no scientific and logical grounding. So by your own standard of verificationism this is a philosophical position not a scientific position and clearly a (faith) position at that!!
Sorry I’m not making any appeals to authority or appeals to consensus but this claim that the “universe always was” is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot “Big Bang” and a finely tuned universe hence the Nick name “Goldilocks” universe. So the claim that our “universe always was” is clearly a (faith) position.
Obviously your entitled to your own (faith) position under moral subjectivism as we are all on equal footing at the very least under relativism as we all just create our own truth and meaning under moral subjectivism/relativism, that is under a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism!! My subjective truth trumps your subjective truth. Heads I win tales you lose!! You get the picture!!
The fact is that science itself demonstrates that the theory with the greatest explanatory power and the most parsimonious hypothesis is the “Big Bang” not the steady state theory of the universe as the claim that the “universe always was” is clearly not supported by the scientific literature or the vast majority of scientists in general!!
The steady state theory was debunked decades ago so it looks like “matter”, space and time itself had a metaphysical beginning!! Do you prefer the steady state for ideological reasons or scientific reasons? Just a thought. Just seems a bit hopeful. Again I’m not making any appeals to authority but even Steven Hawking pointed out that…
“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Steven Hawking).
Furthermore, according to the famous atheist philosopher Anthony Flew who spent over 50 years developing some of the most sophisticated arguments against an absolute ontological ground of reality/God that you can find…
“This fine tuning has been explained in two ways. Some scientists have said the fine tuning is evidence for divine design; many others have speculated that our universe is one of multiple others-a ‘multiverse’-with the difference that ours happened to have the right conditions for life. Virtually no major scientist today claims that the fine tuning was purely a result of chance factors at work in a single universe” (Anthony Flew).
Again I’m not appealing to general consensus but the general consensus among scientists is that our universe is clearly fine tuned other wise no one would have bothered investigating the multiverse hypothesis or investing so much money and scientific research in string theory and the multiverse hypothesis. Stories about magical talking puddles, that is the anthropic principle doesn’t really cut it!!
Stories about talking puddles or Anthropic principles and the multiverse are purely speculative and are an argument from ignorance and a question begging fallacy of the highest degree and fail to explain why our universe is in one such fine-tuned state, when “all things being equal”, it was much more likely to develop into chaos!! Tautologies just don’t cut it in science!!
I‘d answer the Euthyphron-Dilemma like this:
P1: Something is ‚good‘ if it does what it was created for, fulfilling the purpose of it‘s existence. (Like, a hammer that loses it‘s head when swinging it is not a good hammer. In German, the word for virtue, ‚Tugend‘ even comes from the verb ‚taugen‘, meaning ‚being useful‘.)
P2: We were created with the purpose of being imagers of God (Genesis 1: 26-27).
C1: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of God.
P3: God is Love (1. John 4:8).
C2: We are ‚good‘ if we are imagers of Love.
What about the verses in the Old Testament that commands to you to kill men who are homosexual?
@@AggoKarmaGaming Where exactly does it say this? Because the word ‚homosexual‘ was made up like, in the 1800s, so it can‘t possibly be in the Bible. Also the Torah is not a legal code like modern laws to be followed by the word. Jesus unmistakably states this. It is a collection of words about how to develop a just character. We also have to consider the socio-cultural context of the time. Not only the word, but even the very concept of homosexuality was not in the heads of people back then, so it is unthinkable for them to write about it. When men had sex with other men back then, it was mostly the violent rape of war captives or minor sex slaves, which makes the death penalty actually sound very fair.
I was scrolling through Facebook then I got a notification that IP uploaded a video I and I was like "hell ya"
If IP was a Muslim channel, it would be "halal ya"
The Moral Argument is the greatest argument for the existence of God Amen✝️✝️🙏🏻🙏🏻✝️
I've never encountered this version of The Moral Argument prior to watching this video yesterday. The version I defend is Craig's modus tollens version. I would disagree that it doesn't account for why God is needed to ground morality. It's true that it isn't explained in the premise, but whenever I or Craig give the DEFENSE of the first premise "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist", that's when the unpacking of why a being like God is needed for morality to be objective. In fact, I do severe unpacking of this in chapter 4 of my book "The Case For The One True God" and explain that not only is God needed to ground morality, but specifically the uniquely Christian conception of God is needed.
That said, I like your syllogism in that it cuts out the middle man and basically entails why God must ground morality right in the syllogism, rather than being part of a defense of the syllogism. It's nice to see a familiar topic dealt with from a slightly different angle.
Evan Minton
I disagree with you. Not only is God coming in the flesh to kill himself or his son is both morally wrong and logically incoherent!
@@malwar21 what?
Okay, let’s look at Wiiliam Lane Craig’s moral argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore, God exists.
I want to focus on the first premise: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Now let’s suppose God doesn’t exist, but a demigod does. Demigod is a necessary being, has the same moral virtues that God has, is equally omniscient, and is very powerful, yet he is not quite omnipotent. For example, let’s suppose demigod is not omnipotent because he cannot make things go faster than the speed of light. I think there are two main conceptions of the philosopher’s God: (1) the greatest conceivable being, or (2) an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect and necessary being. Demigod seems to not satisfy either of these conceptions. So, Craig has to say that if God did not exist, and demigod did exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist.
This seems to be an odd consequence of Craig’s 1st premise. God and demigod are very much alike, save for the fact that demigod can’t make things go faster than the speed of light. How can this difference be a difference-maker when it comes to objective moral values and duties? What do facts about making things travel faster than the speed of light have to do with objective moral values and duties? Since demigod can’t make things go faster than the speed of light I don’t have an obligation to save the drowning baby? The only relevance power might have is the need to hold people morally accountable in terms of heaven and hell, yet demigod has sufficient power for that.
The goal here is to point out that Craig is making a fairly bold claim in this deductive argument. He’s not merely saying that God would better explain or ground morality than demigod or other views would; he’s saying that only God could do that, and it’s far from obvious why demigod can’t do just as well in grounding morality
Maximus Garahan
The problem with your reasoning is that a demigod is defined RELATIVE to God, you’re already presupposing God does exist. Therefore, your argument doesn’t work at it leads to contradictory/absurd conclusions.
@@malwar21 Huh? What I presented is a novel rebuttal. Seems to me, based on your comment, you're unfamiliar with modal discourse.
Whoever writes this stuff is a philosopher after my own heart! (Not that I always agree with you; but I agree with what you're doing and how your mind works...)
Thanks!
List the moral facts. List the moral duties.
Bruuuuh you cannot be serious😂
@axxel9626 you cannot?
@@ericcraig3875 rape, torture, kidnapping, genocide, manipulation ecc...
The most adequate explanation of the moral argument in our time. Very great stuff mate!
Argument presented in video fails at time mark 3:31. Video says that morality is rational enterprise and that non-sentient objects cannot be rational. Those two things are true. Then video gives false conclusion that morality must have sentient source. That is false, because morality being rational enterprise means being moral is rational thing to do, it doesn't mean morality has rational source. Video never proves morality has rational source.
@@goranmilic442 If morality is a rational enterprise and non sentient objects cannot be rational then it logically follows that the foundation of morality must be a rational, sentient being. It is easy logic. You should know that
@@Navii-05 I agree that morality is a rational enterprise. I agree that non-sentient objects cannot be rational. I strongly disagree it logically follows that foundation of morality must be rational and sentient. If foundation of morality is intelligence, that would mean that intelligence can create, change and decide moral rules. Can God decide that rape is good? This works not only with morality, but also with math and logic. Can God decide that 2+2=5 or that A is not equal A?
The video covers that rewatch it
@@goranmilic442 God certainly doesn't change, or decide what is objective morality. In fact, I wouldn't even say God created it. If God is in fact omnibenevolent, then his very essence must be objectively good. So without the existence of morality, you cannot have an omni-benevolent God, since an omnibenevolent God is by definition the embodiment of moral perfection. Therefore, if God is unchanging and uncreated/eternally existing, yet also omnibenevolent, then so must be the rational enterprise of morality. In a nutshell, God didn't “create, decide or change moral rules”, because morality is part of who God is…and God cannot create or change himself.
Hope my explanation helps you understand how morality being grounded in God can make sense.
The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:29
Mathematics is a rational enterprise, but surely it doesn't follow that mathematical facts are grounded in a sentient being, does it? It just means that mathematical facts are discovered through reason.
that is just premise 1 of the argument premise 2 and 3 better explains more
but i have to agree the laws of logic are true and objective why can't morality be similar to the laws of logic not requiring a god
Well, there's a old philosopher that's argues it is lol
ruclips.net/video/CcK33cysY5I/видео.htmlsi=Vk3nIDqMmUF5j2Po
@@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt Oh. Who's that? I must admit I don't know a lot of philosophy.
The end conclusion ties into an atheist argument I see a lot. Well, I guess it's not so much an argument as an assumption they hold that's demonstrated through the way they structure their arguments. They'll say something along the lines of "God must be evil because he'll send you to hell for *disagreeing with him*".
The entire point, which you arrive at here, is that God does not hold opinions, his Word is simply the optimal way to act. In the same way an omniscient being cannot be wrong, an omniscient being cannot "hold an opinion". An opinion is simply a view of what "ought to be", rather than the factual "is". If the creator of the universe thought something "ought to be" a certain way, it would be so. His moral "opinions" is the exact same thing as the moral nature of the world.
Bane? Also, no not all Christians believe in a literal burning hell, and the actual reason for hell is because we are sinners and we didn't accept/ask for the gift of forgiveness.
AdolfHitler EstavaCerto!
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." - Revelation 20:11-15
The Lake of Fire is none else other than the Final Judgement. When Christ returns in the Second Coming, the dead shall be judged according to their works (those who did not accept Christ's gift of salvation), and exactly as the text says, those who are not saved will be annihilated forever from God's memory. After the wicked perish, hell _itself_ and the very notion of death shall disappear as well to make way for God's new creation.
God also doesn't "send" people to hell. He offers salvation freely to all people, which we are free to accept or deny. Salvation, and thus Heaven, is nothing more than a loving relationship with God (not a cloud somewhere in space with a golden gate that St. Peter can open or close), and it'd be impossible to force a free being to enter into such a relationship against their will while maintaining their freedom
I'd argue that it would be evil for God to force everyone to go to heaven if they refused to.
+Bane?
_"They'll say something along the lines of "God must be evil because he'll send you to hell for *disagreeing with him*". "_
Does not a judge do the same, in some effect? The funny thing is that even if God sent people to hell, just for *disagreeing with him*, atheists have no case against him.
Unless, of course, they believe that people fining others for crossing speed limit are evil as well.
Morality is subjective because it's based on our feelings and emotions.If a 10 year old kid's mother died he would cry and he would be sad but it's an objective fact that his mother died,how he feels about it is subjective.If that 10 year old kid's mother died,i would just be sorry for it,i wouldn't cry because i wasn't her son,he was.It's an important thing who you were to the person that died.That's why morality is subjective.
thats not an example of morality thats an example of subjective feelings and emotions which IP doesn‘t argue
Your faulty argument goes to show that you don't simply understand metaethics. Go watch IP's playlist on metaethics
Why don't write a book about this? I definitely would not mind reading it.
Great Vid! Been waiting for a good Break down on the moral argument, God bless.
Epic video. I have a friend at church who disagrees with the moral argument as it's popularly framed, but I think this may just change his mind. Thank you for the awesome information, God bless. :)
It is easy to deny, and yet those who deny fail to live up to implications and where never something wrong happens they do not even notice how fast they become moraly objective.
David Pallmann I agree. Too much work trying to prove objective morality. If anything just keep this one tucked away and use it as a supporting argument like the Teleological argument.
Anjelus I think atheists have a limited range of morals. This system is flawed when someone goes right at the limits, however. It is pretty much impossible to tell if they are right or wrong. Also, IP made some videos on moral realism.
David Pallmann IP made a video defending premise two.
*Po-ké Watch : **_"If an Atheist murders five people and rapes a baby, their response is usually, "Well, morality is subjective, and in my own belief system, I believe this is a really complex issue."_*
If believers put entire Canaanite cities to the sword, all the way down to the infant sucklings, seldomly taking prepubescent girls as war trophies, Christians will be like _"That's moral because God commanded them; they had to kill babies in in self-defense"_
Excellent video and argument. Spot on! This is so logical and so true, it is amazing, sad even disturbing to me that there is so many people who can not understand the facts you listed in this video.
But great to know that some do, even if there are people who seem bend of going against life and nature itself.
What is even more ad and disturbing is that people like you can't see the obvious flaws in IP's reasoning.
@@disrupt94 ok
@@disrupt94 for example? Just saying something doesn’t make it true.
@@PianoKZ IP is assuming and defining everything into place that he needs for his argument.
ruclips.net/video/zjkgD4w9w1k/видео.html&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy
In his defense of moral realism video (needed for premise 2 to hold any merit) he equivocates epistemic truths and moral truth using a fallacious example. Apparently, moral relativism is defeated by moral relativists demanding debate rules to be followed. Of course, this is nonsense.
Demanding that debate rules to be followed is for the purpose of reaching truth. Whether or not such a debate is morally righteous is entirely a different issue. Arguments and statistics are amoral. Application of them can be moral or immoral. Conflating the two to be the same is fallacious.
He also points to demonstrations for human rights, which is honestly an over-generalization of how moral relativists are. Also, it's possible to be a moral relativist and still maintain that my culture has influenced me to the point where I am distressed by atrocities and cruelty.
Then he goes on to a classic argument, "If Moral realism is not true, then genital mutilation, the KKK actions are equally sensible to actions of our own". This is of course a purely emotional argument without any rational merit, but what baffles me is the hypocrisy. The Old testament condones chattel slavery, Rapists being able to marry the victims if the rapists are rich enough, Amalekite infants being cruelly slaughtered in spite of being innocent etc...
All of which condoned or even outright ordered by God. By basing morality on the God of the old testament, IP is essentialy saying that all of these things are not only sane and sensible, they are morally justifiable to the highest degree since they are rooted in the very center of morality.
There's more, but let's move on from the second premise.
Human disagreement means that morality can't come from us? That's fairly simple to solve. We simply have to claim that morality comes from specific humans.
Perfect knowledge of the facts is also a useless argument, that only means that God has a greater potential to be good (if he desires to) or evil (if he desires to), it does nothing for the question on whether or not God is actually good.
He also claim that we humans fail to perform moral duties. What basis is he using to determine that? It can't moral based on God, because that is conclusion he is trying to prove in this video. A classic begging the question fallacy, where the conclusin is used as the ground for one of it's premises to stand on.
There's more, but if you are curious you should honestly study philosophy and pick it apart yourself.
In his video he doesn’t conflate trying to reach truth with morality during a debate he says that such ideals are based on honour for the debate and he even mentions that “why should we care about reaching the truth” he mentions that because he is talking about the inner morals even in debates he isn’t trying to say the reason we have rules for debate so moral reason he even mentions that they are in place to reach truth. Rewatch the video
Excellent, excellent video! You beautifully dictated this argument with skill and precision. Great job.
In reference to P3, one could potentially argue that moral disagreements are rather indicative of morality being subjective, because had there been a set of objective moral facts equal to the laws of logic, they would've been followed by everyone.
Wow. I never thought to present it like that! Very Inspiring...Philosophy. Get it? Lol. Anyways nice video and great
Here is a simple answer to atheist thinking ”why does evil exist”. Evil is not a physical thing, it’s simply a lack of good. The same way cold is a lack of warm, and nothing is a lack of something.
Good presentation! As a side note, this is yet another aspect that ought to make you reconsider your approach to interpreting Genesis, where you either have God call a perfect and mature world a good thing, or a continually evolving and progressing world with torture and rape a "good" thing.
“If objective moral facts and duties exist…….” How then would we define or categorize morality based on societal norms and standards? Definitely neither under Objective(because not all societal morals are universal) nor subjective morality(it’s widely accepted within the society).
Am example;
Pedophilia is morally wrong where I come from. In certain societies, it’s okay. The Bible, Quran, Torah do not condemn it. But you can be Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever and still believe it’s morally wrong based on how and where you were raised or reside. (It is “societal” morality)
If morality is grounded in a supernatural being, and this being doesn’t condemn pedophilia, then that means we as humans defined it immoral. God was not involved. Then why are we against it yet God isn’t?
Meaning morality is neither objective nor subjective.
Watch his other vids on the playlist
I'm only 3 minutes in but its already one of the best videos you've made, much better than the quantum stuff.
I thought you were into quantum mechanics?
Well yeah I just I finished by B.Sc in physics but I don't agree that there's 'evidence' for free will, idealism or strictly even a God from quantum mechanics. I think the moral argument is much stronger.
Andrew Wells That's a fair point. The existence of morality and the conscience mind is quite the spectacle in comparison to plain facts about science. Not to belittle the prior videos. I love those videos.
+Andrew Wells
Hey, your comment caught my attention because I am currently having an ongoing discussion with a theist who was citing experiments with quantum mechanics as support for the idea of a god existing. We struggled to agree on many of his interpretations of the results of these experiments, and we had a different understanding of quantum physics' concepts.
We've been talking on Discord, but I'd be willing to create a Google Plus discussion for this topic. Would you be interested in joining us and sharing your thoughts about this? If not, no worries.
Thanks for your consideration!
Andrew Wells
What made you dismiss the ads mera correspondence, IIT and the kochen specker theorem???
Thank you very much mike jones✝️
Very intriguing argument
Mike, ever had a thought of gaining a professional degree and continue Dr. Craig's career?
I mean he's not getting any younger.
Atheist here, debate me
but seriously, Ive been looking for a good argument for god, so I'd like to have a conversation with you, you seem the mature and reasonable type
Lets see if I understand the argument
Premises
1- Morals can be determined through rationality
2- Moral objectvivity exists, and facts of morality exists
3- Becuase theres morality disagreement amongst humans, morals can't come from humans, becuase humnas in escence are imperfect. (ie we sometime wrong on moral duties)
Arguments
1-If morality is objective, it must be base on an unchanging (thing)
2-becuase morality is ratonal, the base must also be rational (sentient)
3-humans are everchanging and cannot be the source of this morality
therefore, a sentient being apart from humans must exist which is unchanging and objectively moral. this would be (god)
Ill go watch that other video and Ill come back
I wanted to go to that other video you mentioned but you have like 6 years of back catalog, can someone pont me to the video where he bases moral realism?
That Fckin Guy it's one of his latest videos
premise 2 does not lead to "argument"2. premise 2 does not say moral "is" rational.
1. yes buts its not necessary
2. no i do not agree.
.3. Well clearly the argument ends there since we didnt get past the second premise.
1.yes and those unchanging things would be facts.
2.morailty is not necessarily rational but can have standards that you base your rationality for the situation at hand on.
3. No but they could be the source of subjective morality.
that was a pretty big leap, if morals where objective then they would be objective due to factual information, i dont know why after that you assume a god.
society of vanity
if it is reasonable to disagree with the premise, it is reasonable to disagree with the argument.
why cant they be ground in just the *idea* of a perfectly rational being?
Because we are not always rational
@@pragmaticduck1772 But we are rational at least some of the time. So couldn't we invent an idea of a perfectly rational being and ground morality in that?
@@AskMeMaths-m7q i see what you mean but i guess i would ask who's rationality? As it would differ from person to person
if they are grounded in just an idea, then our moral values arent really objective. Besides, the logic follows to God.
Regarding premise 3, why must humans be perfect moral beings in order to establish a useful and beneficial moral system that improves over time as we learn more?
Obviously moral facts can't be objective and subjective at the same time. That's a truism. But if moral facts exist and God is their source, how does that make them objective? God's judgments could be just as subjective as ours but with the power to enforce them on humans. I've never heard a Christian explain how God's moral law is objective without begging the question. You can't independently prove that moral values are "part of God's wholly good nature"; you just assume that God, if he exists, is wholly good. How do you know that God is wholly good?
What we take to be objective moral facts could be the outcome of our evolutionary conditioning. (I'm not saying that it is, merely that it is possible that it is.) When we argue over the "truth" of moral issues, we are arguing over the best strategies for survival. All apologists do to counter this theory is claim that it is the naturalistic fallacy, which is actually the strawman fallacy, because no one argues that we ought to refrain from murder and theft *because* it was evolutionarily advantageous for us to do so. It is just an alternative explanation for why we think we are debating objective truths, rather than strategies for enhancing group survival. And often, people do think they arguing for their sake of their survival. It's quite common for people to morally posture to increase their social status. Increasing your social status increases your access to resources, which increases your chances of survival. Again, not saying this is the basis of moral facts, only that it is possible and that you can't discount it because it is consistent with what we observe.
Follow the logic of the video. We are not arbitrarily grounding moral facts in God, the necessary source is just labeled God. They are objective because the source is unchanging by definition.
What we take to be objective moral facts could be the outcome of our evolutionary conditioning, but that would be how we came to learn moral facts not the ontology of them.
+One Man's Chorus
_" God's judgments could be just as subjective as ours but with the power to enforce them on humans. "_
I think you are misunderstanding what IP means by "objective". The reason, why our judgements are considered "subjective" is because we differ, even with ourselves. If we all, along with every other creature of our type, were making same judgement, then it would most probably have an objective reason behind it.
_"It is just an alternative explanation for why we think we are debating objective truths, rather than strategies for enhancing group survival. And often, people do think they arguing for their sake of their survival. It's quite common for people to morally posture to increase their social status. Increasing your social status increases your access to resources, which increases your chances of survival. Again, not saying this is the basis of moral facts, only that it is possible and that you can't discount it because it is consistent with what we observe."_
The problem with this explanation is that two reasonable and rational people may make different decisions based, even though they are put in similar situation.
Imagine an atheist in Saudi Arabia. What is he getting? And suppose, he is getting something. Then why all others are not atheist. We all have evolved similarly, right?
You have first prove that objective morality exist in the first place. All you have offered is that we are not rational enough to be the source but that doesn't mean a "perfectly rational" being automatically exist. It’s a fallacious syllogism anyway, in that even granting the premises of the first two doesn’t logically lead to the conclusion. Even if we grant that “X existing” leads to “Y existing”, it doesn’t logically flow that “Y exists” means that “X exists”. You can argue that morality existing is a NECESSARY part of showing God’s existence, but that doesn’t mean that morality's existence is PROOF of God’s existence. This is logic 101.
@ One Man's Chorus. Great points about alternative explanation (strategies for group survival) that are obviously SUFFICIENT to the formation of moral code (standard) even if this alternative explanation MAY not be necessary. The first two premises in the syllogism presented in the video require that a sentient being be SOLEY responsible for the formulating moral code. And that 'SOLEY' requires exclusivity, meaning the premises requires that the antecedents be BOTH necessary and sufficient. Of course, even IF ONE ASSUMED the premises met that obligation, one could only argue for the validity of those premises AFTER establishing the existence and authority of the non-human sentient being!
Again, great job!
This is a good argument.
Sorry I don't understand how we came to premise one with so much certainty. Could it not be claimed that morality is an enterprise of intuition or feeling? Perhaps, we find reasons to justify how we feel and our intuitive responses to moral dilemmas?
That would be non-cognitivism. I plan to do a video on that next month, as I mentioned in the video.
Ahh I see - I'll read up on non-cognitivism. To clarify, if we were to assume moral realism to be true, then we'd also accept morality to be a rational enterprise?
Well, to be fair, one can be a natural moral realist and argue moral goodness is equated to something like well-being. So it would be a natural substance, but they would still be cognitivists so they would agree morality is rational and not non-cognitive. However, I plan to a critique of that view later this year, along with the other major views in meta-ethics.
Okay cool, sounds good. I look forward to watching those! You said in the video that premise 2 is likely the most controversial. I suggest the first premise is the weakest. Yeah, not everyone conceptually accepts moral realism to be true in academia, however, I would argue everyone (including scholars) does accept moral realism in everyday life through their actions and responses to moral dilemmas. Just a thought derived from personal observation.
Thanks, I just think it is hard to deny morality is rational enterprise if you are a cognitivist. If someone wanted to argue that moral discourse isn't open to reason then I don't know what to say.
BOMBASTIC!!!!!!
I've watched this videos couple of times and I just couldn't seem to get it. What did it mean "a rational enterprise"?
I'm currently pursuing batchelor's degree (and later master's if God wills it) in Philosophy and History and I realize why emotivism fails and what does it mean for morality to be a rational enterprise.
Your videos on these topics showed me how to debunk David Hume's pressupositions in metaethics and aesthetics.
I often used Craig's version because it's an easily memorable syllogism and the first premise could be defended with prior probability and the second with abductive reasoning and common sense.
I will still try to look more into your version. Thank you again for everything and may God bless you and help you reach more people.
@Oscar Perez thank you, I was going towards that, but I'm glad someone mentioned it.
@Oscar Perez bro , why can't non sentient things be rational? Like , 1 + 1 = 2 is rational and not sentient , right? What's wrong with moral facts and duties existing like laws of logic does?
@Oscar Perez I got that. My point is , what if morality exists like laws of logic or mathematics does? It will be a rational enterprise and could be non sentient , right?
@Oscar Perez if morality is objective , it has to relate to reality and exist because of actions , right?
@Oscar Perez so what if morality exists objectively like the laws of logic? That was my initial question
Evil is the abuse of Good (ontology). We recognise Evil as corrupted Good (epistemology). God is good, and He created all things good.
Examples:
Pain is good, it informs us of injuries. Torture (abusing pain) is evil.
Pleasure is good, it informs us of beneficial things. Fornication, gluttony, etc. (abusing pleasure) is evil.
Free will is good, it makes us intelligent beings. Licentiousness (abusing free will) is evil.
The Moral Argument is good, it points to God. Confounding it is evil, because God made all things good: that - and that alone - we innately know!
EDIT: Not affiliated, just dropping by
Evil is the opposite of good, as negative is the opposite of positive and hatred is the opposite of love.
@@fanghur God has no opposites, because God has no equals.
@@fanghur Oh in case anyone starts conflating God with other non-biblical (ie. fake) versions such as "Allah", the true God is three persons in one, of the same substance (consubstantial).
The Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (or both the Father and the Son).
Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that god told the Israelites that they could own other people as permanent property which they could pass down as inheritance to their children i.e. slavery was good in those times
ruclips.net/video/YRasMdmlx0A/видео.html
What if there are several gods with different moral facts and moral duties?
Your comments five minutes in concerning A.C. Grayling:
I have, over the years, debated at various levels with a great many atheists and I always bring in the moral argument. Every time, with out any exceptions to this rule, my opponent has misunderstood me in thinking that I am claiming that atheists "don't have morality", when in fact, I have emphasised "you can't justify objective morality". Event to the point where I validate the unqualified skeptic's claim that they are "more moral than you are!". I have tried to explain this in a variety of different ways, but the same trap is triggered each time. Very odd indeed.
_"when in fact, I have emphasised "you can't justify objective morality"."_
Nor can you. That's because morality is subjective.
@@AsixA6 why?
@@PianoKZ Why what?
@@AsixA6 Why morality is subjective? If you say morality is subjective then it points that ANYONE can justify their own morality for doing so. Slavery is beneficial to the doer so it must be GOOD. If it is good for them then they are justified in doing so since they're just looking out for their own well-being. If you can get away with a crime that benefits you, IT IS GOOD. So what if others suffer? Survival of the fittest is the only rule in a naturalistic world so they better learn the game and play others. The end justifies the means every time. That's the problem in making morality subjective. It leads to a tyrannical rule where might makes right.
@@silenthero2795 _”Why morality is subjective?”_
*Because morality is a feeling that certain actions are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ to do and feelings are subjective.*
Permit 3 is actually Quite Flawed.This argument confuses
the descriptive (what is) with the
prescriptive (what ought to be). Just
because humans are flawed or
engage in immoral acts doesn't mean
they can not understand or define
what is moral. Morality is about how humans ought to behave, not
necessarily how they behave.
GREAT VID!!!
Could an argument be made that our evolutionary need for "survival" be the reason for our values, not to kill, cause harm etc
Yup, it started tribal based as an evolutionary trait (part of survival of the fittest).
Because of our big brains we can reason what is best for the survival of our group and it's individuals to survive and flourish.
Sometimes that also fails due to our biases against groups of people or individuals. @@KasperKatje
@@ifirespondiamstupid7750 yup, our tribe, country, club, religion etc. first.
A video on how to apply this in a dialogue with someone would be great!
No such thing as Objective Morality. We learn our Morality from the Society we live in and that develops over Time.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty the problem with subjective morality is that there is no presumed authority. It is all founded on personal opinion. However it is clear this is not how morality works within our universe. While we can agree that there is a sense of consciousness within us, we disagree on the authority which established it. Morality is coherent when it is comes from the correct authority. History falls short as an explanation because it is just personal opinions passed on. And personal opinions are not sufficient factors in determining morality. This may be the case for ethics, and each society definitely has their own ethics, yet morality is something that trumps ethics and has more gravity to it. Human beings always try to convince themselves they are doing right even if they know deep down they are doing wrong. How could they possibly feel in the wrong if their own ethics believes it’s right. There is weight to morality, that succeeds personal ethics. Therefore this cannot come from a person. Rather, the correct authority for morality is beyond humanity. This outside authority which design morality must be God.
@@Sadleafsfan.Wrong. Didn't you read the OT?
Your god can't be the standard of the claimed absolute/objective morality.
It's just wishful thinking....eeeeh, wishful believing.
@@KasperKatje there’s a lot more “wishful believing” in adhering to the randomness of Darwinism. There is no basis for objective morality in evolution. Yet we have it in reality. Therefore it must come from God. The Old Testament by no means refutes objective morality. It shows how God created the world and implemented himself as morality. Your personal opinion that God acted immorally has no basis as a counter argument to objective morality.
@@Sadleafsfan. we are not the ones making the false claim absolute/objective morality exists, let alone that a god is the standard.
If that claim was true, owning people, and "eternaly punishing" homosexuals and girls who can't prove their virginity based on the hymen myth etc. should still be moral.
All ordered or condoned by your god.
@@KasperKatje please be serious. There is context to Old Testament stories. You’re being willfully ignorant by taking acts from the OT and singling it out from their origin. If the Bible truly stood for such atrocities, people would not follow Christianity. And Christians are aware to this. Don’t say they aren’t. That’s why even though the topic of slavery is in the Bible, the context of it shows how evil and wrong it is. I would encourage you to find some Christian dialogue on this online. That way you can understand the true context of these actions and what Christain’s actually believe.
I already know Im going to love this one
Your videos are better than any video I could make
This is a good argument, though I still disagree with the main argument of your last video. "Ought" should not be treated as a key word, and epistemic oughts should not be equivocated with moral oughts because they are "similar". There would need to be a proof that having one has the other.
If morality is a figment of our feelings, then we can't be upset with who or what we see as immoral (Hitler, ISIS, Corrupted Politicians, or the drunk father that comes home and beats his family regularly). Plain and simple.
Time to read the comments and see all the atheists say “BuT wHy DoEs EvIl ExIsT”
Evil exists because it is a failure to do what is good. It is the absence of goodness. God did not create evil but gave us free will to do good or not.
If 2+2=4 can exist necessarily without a creator, why can't moral values do the same? Or do we need to extend creation to encompass logics?
I would argue logic and mathematics is grounded in the existence of everything. Logic is a description of everything that is and everything that is possible, so logic is grounded in existence itself.
Not really. Logic and mathematics is just the way we use to describe things. Without human minds, the concept of logic and mathematics is meaningless.
Thank you for your excellent videos InspiringPhilosophy.
This is one of the best explanations of the Moral Argument yet. I have several questions for you:
1. Is Logic part of God's nature? Or is it separate from Him?
2. Are objective morals properly basic beliefs?
3. What is the most moral thing to do when you are confronted with the Nazi dilemma? (You are hiding Jews in your house and the Nazi's come and ask if you are hiding any Jews.) Should you lie and save the lives of the Jews but break God's commandments or should you tell the truth and keep God's commandments but have the Jews taken away? Some say that God understands the context of the situation and that in this case morals are graded. (It is worse to have the Jews taken than to lie). Morals grounded in an "unchanging" source seems to imply moral absolutism. If morals are graded by God in certain circumstances, doesn't that seem to challenge the notion of morals being grounded in an unchanging source?
Thank you for your help! God bless!
1. I would say so, but I wouldn't use it as an argument for God's existence.
2. Yes, see my video: ruclips.net/video/zjkgD4w9w1k/видео.html
3. You hid the Jews: ruclips.net/video/OdTpjg467WM/видео.html
That is more of a normative ethical question and it would depend on what view of normative ethics you hold to.
Po-ké Watch
These situations are rare but possible.
Could God even tell you to go ahead and lie? If we admit that God could allow us to lie than we are saying that He isn't unchanging because morals are based on Him.
InspiringPhilosophy
What if someone says:
"Logic is an objective truth and it's not grounded in anything so even if Morals are objective they don't need to be grounded in anything either."
Thank you for the responses.
*Could God even tell you to go ahead and lie? If we admit that God could allow us to lie than we are saying that He isn't unchanging because morals are based on Him.*
I think your problem is that you are confusing the term OBJECTIVE with ABSOLUTE.
Absolute morals would be FIXED regardless of circumstances, but objective morals mean that they are true independent of our opinion.
- If moral values were absolute, lying would be ALWAYS bad.
- However, if they are just objective, moral values and duties could be graded.
Norman Geisler says there are prima facie ethical duties like "tell the truth" or "love your neighbor" but these are not all equal. They are graded so that if you come into a moral conflict, your obligation to preserve the life of your Jewish neighbor is greater or supersedes your obligation to tell the truth to the Nazi Gestapo knocking at your door.
www.reasonablefaith.org/objective-or-absolute-moral-values
www.reasonablefaith.org/apologetics-against-christian-apologetics
Alberto R R But that's my point. If objective morals are based on God's "unchanging" nature than aren't we saying that God's nature is changing when He allows us to lie in certain situations?
This world is created with math, it makes reason, it has nature rules. Who has the power to make nature laws sustainable? Who has the intelligence to make this laws work properly? The world is the proof of it's hand craft.
Am i missing something, because it looks to me like every single one of inspiring philosophy's videos is based on an unsupported claim and dodgy premises?
I grant you that this one acknowledges this and refers to others for moral realism etc but they are no better. In the 'defending' video we get premise 1, 'If moral facts don't exist then epistemic facts don't exist'. Sorry, what?
When are theists going to admit they've got nothing?
when are athiests?
because atheism is a not a truth claim nor a belief system like theism is. So the burden of proof is on them.
@@ispd123 Atheism is a truth claim. The word has two defintions.
@@andrerocks8424 Wrong. You are talking about anti-theism. Those are two different things.
@@ispd123 Anti-theism is against theism. Atheism, in the philosophical sense, is the claim that God doesn't exists.
A constant as source of morality = Love
God is Love
Even if you don't use the Bible, you hve to use somethig--the God of Aristotle, the God of Plato, the God of the Bantu philosophers, the God of the Tao maybe even. Even the ancestor worship of Shintoism holds to something greater than any living person. Yes the (orthodox) Christian way is best, but, even these other systems make more sense than anything ungrounded in something higher than human reason.
Makes sense, considering that most human beings are rational creatures.
If God and the gods are the man-made creations they appear to be, then this is a highly unnecessary and ridiculous medium.
M'kay.
Max Kolbe ن why do I need a system like that exactly?
If you want to be trusted, if you want to be seen as honorable, if you want to be surrounded by people who have similar values, you're going to have to work on both having a good value set yourself and recognizing it in others.
How would we respond to someone saying at 2:30, why couldn't God give us perfect moral knowledge? We would still have free will and would not always obey the moral law correctly but at least we'd know when we are doing an immoral act.
ruclips.net/video/Ei0gPoqx_bQ/видео.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thank you, I think I understand now.
Random-RUclips-Comment Cosmological Argument:
Premise 1: Everything that exists had a cause
Premise 2: God exists
Conclusion: God had a cause
You see why those kinds of arguments are absurd?
I reject P1. No one claims everything has a cause.
I claim. Now prove me wrong.
The argument that IP used was the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument. It's different, but still kind of similar.
If you reject some of his premises please state them and your reasons why they are faulty. Then we can have a real discussion.
Likewise, why doesn't he explain why he rejects my premise?
When it comes to theology i started with Reformed Zoomer, Kyle Orthodox and now Inspring Philosophy
i don't see how it follows from the fact that rationality is a rational enterprise that therefore it is derived from a sentient rational source. one could say science is an enterprise of rationality, but science is merely the method of understanding the natural world through observation. could one not also conclude that morality is the observation of moral truths through rational investigation? why must morality itself originate from a sentient rational source?
Science is derived from the natural world though, so it is grounded there.
As for ethics, in simple terms. Moral oughts have to be grounded as well, and since they are prescriptions (commanding), so therefore, it makes sense there would be a prescriber. I explain this in more detail in the video
I would say logic is grounded in the existence of everything since if something exists logic can describe it. Sort of like how the physical laws are grounded in the physical universe.
if the core of moral was that it is simply prescribed, then its core is not logical necessity. so it is not objective.
which debunks the whole argument...
Being prescribed does not entail being subjective. That doesn't follow at all. Also, something can be objective and not necessary. Those two words do not mean the same thing.
i did not claim that being prescribed entails being subjective. but what you wrote so far made it seem like you think morality is prescribed INSTEAD of being a set of logically necessary facts.
please give me an expample of something not being logical necessary but still being objective.
btw.:
as far as i understand it, the theistic worldview includes that gos is logically necessary as well as everything he does.
Are the laws of logic grounded in a rational source? Are the laws of mathematics grounded in a rational source?
Yes.
Please debunk some Rationality Rules lazy and stupid vidéos . I am done of him .
Interesting vidéo thaugh .☺
I did already: inspiringphilosophy.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/rationalityrules-does-not-understand-philosophy/
Im new to your channel, and Ive watched both vids, and (correct me if Im wrong) it seems to me that in the first video you surrender the point of free will, and proceed to only defend the ilusion of it.
you argued that man has enough free will to act upon moral actions, adn that one can focus on a problem as much as one desires to, even if how much one desires to focus on or what prior thoughs are uncontrolable. This is like saying a domino chooses to fall or not base on the ammount of force it had been aplied, and that that domino has free will of its own, or that a glass of water chooses to spill based on how much water it has on it, even if it cant control how much water it has
plus you dont seem to understan quantum physics
You are assuming your conclusion, namely determinism. That when we focus, it is already determined so there is no free will, so you are just arguing in a circle.
Then do explain how I misunderstood the Kochen-Specker theorem or the violation of the Leggett Inequality. Let me guess you are about to talk about how an observer in quantum mechanics is just the measuring apparatus or mention another interpretation of quantum mechanics. I've heard it all and no one has provided an adequate refutation...
no, Im not arguing anything, Im pointing out that in your video you inmediatly concede the posibility of free will, and only proceed to defend the illusion of it. Namely when you said "A man is free enough to make moral decision". free enough, nothing is free enough, either youre free or you arent and its just an ilusion. If you can't choose not even which criteria you use to choose the cereal you ate this morning, then you didnt choose the cereal you ate this morning. It mightve felt to you to have chosen it, but to an outside observer who knows all the variables your decision was calculateable.
The quantum Mechanics bit
your understanding of quantum mechanics isnt wrong, but your understandng of how it applies to our world is. in your video at the 6:12 mark (the original video) you present the argument
1 Ether we live in an indeterministic universe and we have free will, or we live in a deterministic universe and we dont have freee will
2. We have free will
Therefore we live in an indeterministic universe.
I imagine thats a typo and let's suppose that you can prove our universe isnt deterministic at the quantum level, and that some equations are completely random. we _still_ dont have control over the outcomes of those random proceses since our mind dosent exist separate from this world (refering to universe)
so the argument you make later on to prove free will is invalid, as it does not prove that we have free will, but only that it's not imposible. it dosent prove that our free will is the reason for the universe behaving so strangely or why does the universe behave like this even in places where there are no other humans
edit: minor grammar errors
Morality cannot be grounded in evolution because evolution is an ongoing natural process with no direction, suggesting morality is still "evolving" with no end goal in sight. An "evolving" morality cannot be absolute since it may shift depending on the consensus of the majority. If modern civilization "evolved" into a totalitarian dystopia, then morality would "evolve" from empathy to conformity, affirmed by the consensus of the conditioned masses.
One thing I've noticed is that people who cite divine command theory as a criticism against Christianity seem to be suggesting morality can only be objective when moral principles somehow "exist" by themselves, independently from any intelligent entity. Either that or moral principles come from "inexplicable origins" we have yet to discover. However, I don't see how moral principles could logically be conceived beyond a higher intelligence. It often appears Christians and atheists adhere to fundamentally different premises: Christians believe moral principles require a higher source, while atheists don't. Or if atheists do support a higher origin, they haven't explicitly outlined what type of origin would be sufficient. Nature can't be a sufficient source for moral truth because it is a mindless, impartial, materialistic phenomena, incapable of conceptualizing moral principles, that doesn't "care" what happens to mankind. Plus, if Christian morality is based on divine command theory, then isn't secular morality based on "political command theory" or "popular demand theory"?
Their are no objective morals, all morals are subjective.
Prove it.
Oh, ya, So you don't believe in objective morals do you? I'll just steal your stereo.
Chem....If, as you claim "all morals are subjective.". Then explain when is moral to remove all your skin (while you are alive), then all your organs, then cut you into little pieces and feed you to people calling it stew?
+preto shohmoofc guy
+Idiot atheist
I understand you're being snarky/sarcastic, but if you'd actually like to add something to this discussion, and portray yourselves as thoughtful, critical thinkers, then I'd recommend expressing your disagreement with the OP's claim differently.
For instance you could ask, "If morals are subjective, does this mean any behavior could be considered good?"
Of course you're free to be presumptive of other people's point of view and write provocative jives, but if your goal is to nurture some sort of mutual understanding, then your current strategy is only likely to diminish the possibility of that ever happening.
May you, one day, improve the way you address disagreements.
Cheers! =)
Schrödinger's Cat 1. Not an atheist.
2. I brought up a argument to this discussion, the idea that morals aren't objective.
Well done, some good explanations here
Devils Advocate: couldn't one argue that, like math or logic, that morality is deduced based on conclusions from the world around us? For example, even though arithmetic is a rational enterprise, that doesn't mean it comes from a God. We know that mathematics is true, not because a rational being made it true, but because 2 + 2 = 4 and so on. This would be true in the atheist world and the Christian world, so why not say the same about morality? Why jump to a God?
How we learn what is moral is not the same as grounding ethics. That is confusing epistemology with ontology. I would agree we learn the what is moral from intuition and experience as I explain in my defense of moral realism.
Good point. That would be what I call _Natural Moralism._ Just like our extrinsic senses let us make scientific models about the extrinsic information of all that is not part of us, our intrinsic intuitions let us make moral models about the intrinsic information of each and every one of us.
Because isn't that the rational essence of what metaphors like "from the heart" are trying to express?
Well, but according to premise 1, this source you call God still has to do the rationalizing. Meaning the standard is external to Himself. You reject human rationality because there are disagreements. But this entity that you crop up as the author or source still has to do the rationalizing of moral values for you to accept. If He rationalizes it, then much like us, He has to get it from somewhere. Btw I am not an atheist or an agnostic.
InspiringPhilosophy
Still waiting for your answer:
Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", "THE GOOD" be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"?
and
What would be the consequences of not doing so?
My next video will answer that.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Why, thank you. You'll have to let me know, though. I'm not subscribed to you.
Or you could subscribe :)
It will be out Friday.
ruclips.net/video/fu-5BmAzbrU/видео.html
That's why atheism is dangerous because anyone can be a god and the standard of morality himself, and because of this, war and chaos will follow.
You mean like when god ordered the Israelites to attack the Canaanites?
What do you make of Richard Swinburne's argument that moral truths are actually irrelevant to God? He says that if moral truths are indeed the case then they must be necessary truths (key premise), meaning that they are true whatever else is the case i.e. true whether god exists or not and so moral truths cannot be used to prove existence of god...?
I would simply argue the ontology of them infers a rational necessary source like I did in this video.
Awesome stuff
I think the only way to escape theodicey is the truth of ultimate reconciliation and consummation of all living things to God.
And the counter-argument To the euthyrphro dilemma. Is saying the same thing in 2 different ways and acting like they're different. Something being The grounding of Something being grounded in is the exact same thing.
And if good is God, Can god or the good Change itself to be whatever it wants?
Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"?
Of what relevance would time-bound "praise and worship" be to such "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time"?
How are such time-bound "praise and worship" to be executed? What would be the consequences of not doing so?
Should we not praise what is good?
The question was, "Why?".
Why should this "necessary being, beyond the bounds of time", be "therefore worthy of our praise and worship"?
and:
What would be the consequences of not doing so?
Dear InspiringPhilospophy,
There is one premise that you have assumed without defending it, and it is this: "Moral facts and duties are grounded in something." But could you clarify why moral facts and duties need grounding at all? Couldn't it be the case that they are self-sufficient facts, either necessary truths or contingent truths without explanation (yes, this contradicts PSR)? What about naturalism, which says moral properties are identical to certain natural properties - do these natural properties need any grounding?
Furthermore, I am not sure about your claim:
"Even if someone gave a complete evolutionary account of how morality arose in humans, that would just explain how we came to understand/how we learned moral facts and duties."
which is an often-repeated objection to the darwinian argument, one that I espoused for quite a while. But why assume that a darwinian explanation of moral BELIEFS (the first part of the sentence) is the same as an explanation of how we gained KNOWLEDGE (the second part)? If evolution has given us only moral beliefs, without moral knowledge*, then most, if not all, arguments from the previous video contain premises which we do believe in, but which we have no justification for.
* This is so if evolution was not oriented towards discovering true moral facts, hence no justification is present.
Well as you said, it contradicts the PSR for starters and we should also note rational enterprises do not exist on their own but are contingent on something.
I plan to do a video on ethical naturalism later this year.
That would be to assume evolution gave us beliefs like that. If you take that road you need to question everything. How do you know everything you believe is true?
The existence of psychopaths and sociopaths to me gives me sufficient doubt when I ponder if moral facts exist. In ancient times ( arguably) people lived in small groups and every individual had to act a certain way in order to keep getting food portions and shelter ect so it was rational to act morally ever since the agricultural revolution with the first communities. So I certainly agree with the first premise...I just struggle to accept that moral facts exist because for one person stealing is no big deal and then for another they would be full of remorse and so forth. A callous criminal could be taught Kantian ethics and they still wouldn't care.
I like to think of morality as our 5 senses. They can and should be used to uncover objective truths, but certain people don't have sight, hearing, etc. So to, some people are psycopaths and don't have a conscience
@@obamatime1634 Yes but Moral Relativism debunks that idea...different cultures have different values. Morality is just rules made up to keep society together so it is like a cultural hypnosis.
@@michaelshell331 Different values yes, but the core values are the same everywhere. Even Germany during WW2 had to justify the holocaust by first indoctrinating people into believing the Jews aren't people of the same worth. The majority of the middle east treats woman worse because the people have been convinced through the Quran and Sunnah that they are inferior in intellect and religion.
You will be very hard pressed to find a society that genuinely believes murder or even abuse of a human is 100% morally fine. In every example I am aware of, they have to justify themselves by convincing themselves and others that the people they persecute are less than human.
@@obamatime1634 Except that is precisely why the argument utterly fails as an argument for Christianity specifically. The very moral intuitions that the argument by necessity needs to both appeal to and grant epistemic credence to in order for the second premise to be in any way defensible also overwhelmingly condemn the Biblical deity as an immoral monster. So even granting the argument everything it wants, it ends up being argument against Christianity, since it ends up arguing against Yahweh being God.
@@fanghur What examples are you thinking of?
But the fact that morality can only be ascertained by reason doesn't seem to me to imply that the source must be sentient. There are a number of things ascertained only rationally (like "all rocks are not human") doesn't imply that the thing ascertained (the nature of a rock) is sentient
That is just a logical sentence, we are talking about all of ethics. Plus we are not saying morality can only be ascertained by reason, the first premise is morality is a rational enterprise.
+MrManwookie
You are confusing Truth with Rationality.
What does grounded by mean?
Why can't theists see the problem with this arguement? There is this overriding assumption that morality is objective and has a foundation in something other than ourselves.
We're not born with a "moral compass" and not born with a religion. These things are learned depending on our family and society. Right and wrong are completely subjective concepts, rooted in culture, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Why do different nations, cultures, religions and political affiliations disagree on such things?
The moment you claim the moral high ground you should be ready for scrutiny. For me the most simplistic view is humanism, whether secular or not.
ruclips.net/video/zjkgD4w9w1k/видео.html
Hello. Are you able to do a video on the Life of Jesus before he started his ministry? I really enjoy your videos :)
Thanks, that would just be that He was doing carpentry work.
Referring to P1, moral "facts" and duties can also be deciphered through an emotivist view of morality. Granting the notion that each species looks out for its own survival, there will be an inherent emotion which will make us create normative propositions about how we should act upon one another. Therefore, morality is not necessarily a rational process.
This emotivist view of morality works only in cases where an act is unequivocally right or wrong, cases where rational deduction seems unnecessary because what’s moral is apparent. For instance, killing a baby would generally elicit visceral aversion,or a negative emotion, to an observer, which will cause the observer to say it is wrong even without much rationalization. Nonetheless, if asked why it is wrong, rationality, however small, is still required.
However, in cases where right or wrong is not that obvious, say euthanizing an elderly to “put an end to suffering”, morality has to be painstakingly rationally deduced, which would now require basic moral assumptions to reach a verdict.
Therefore, morality is necessarily a rational enterprise.
Paul circumcised Timothy because he was a gentile (Leviticus 24:10-24). The gentile circumcised in both heart and flesh was the sign of the Messianic Age, that the gentiles would eventually come to obey the whole of God's Law. Morality is what's stated in the Torah.
The logic of this argument is just ... disappointing. Even if premise 4 followed from the previous premises, it would not follow that the being described by premise 4 would be the being we would call God. Furthermore even if it indeed was that being, it does not follow that the being we call God (in the context of this argument) actually is God. If you will forgive my pretentiousness, you are committing what I would call the "nominal fallacy" by mistakenly assuming that what you have given the title "God" actually is God. More generally this is a form of equivocation fallacy but instead of using an existing ambiguity in our language to make your argument work you have (without intending it I presume) introduced a new ambiguity in which "God" in premise 5 means "the necessary rational source of morality" when "God" to the audience would something like "a maximally great person, worthy of worship".
Now while both these concepts could refer to the same being, there is basically nothing in this video (except claiming that we have discovered that they are the same on the basis of a rather weak analogy) which give us any reason to believe that. In fact you seem to admit in the video that "God" is merely a title in the context of your argument which would seem to leave open the possibility that "God" in this context does not properly refer to God. You might respond that you have addressed all of this when you stated that any deity which used something else as a source for moral values would merely be a demigod and the source would be God. The problem which arises here however is that this source might not be a divine person but perhaps something more in line with the Platonic notion of "the good" and thus premise 5 is not necessarily true (it does not follow from the premises) and thus the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
The argument is slightly better, and significantly more interesting, than the standard moral argument one often hear, so it wasn't all bad.
Para...You say "mistakenly assuming that what you have given the title "God" actually is God" Then what would you call a non-human source of morality?
I hope IP addresses this. A proof that the "God" in the argument (P4) is equal to the "God" Christians claim (P5) is needed.
Idiot, I would simply call it "the good" but to be frank I think that the idea that morality has a source is a false notion. Morality (or value and rightness more generally) does not need to be explained in terms of something else existing nor should one view it as emanating from something else. Rather it is the standard with which everything else is to be judged and understood. Morality is much like logic or mathematics in this regard, at least in my view.
Personally (maybe I'm going off on a tangent here), if I were to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma I would say that when God says that something is good it is because it is good and that this would still be so if God said the opposite. I might be presumptuous in saying this but I do think that this position has support in scripture, after all in Genesis, after each of his creative acts God saw that what he had created was good. I don't this is likely if God can make things good merely by calling them good or if God himself was Goodness. After all, I goodness wasn't external to God, then wouldn't it go without saying that his creation was good? And wouldn't it exasperate the problem of evil since it would be quite a feat to explain how goodness itself can give rise to evil?
Paradoxarn
"Morality (or value and rightness more generally) does not need to be explained in terms of something else existing nor should one view it as emanating from something else."
So you didn't agree with premise 4?
"I goodness wasn't external to God, then wouldn't it go without saying that his creation was good?"
I hope I understood this question.
Yes. There's no need to say the obvious. But saying the obvious does not automatically mean that God can create something bad.
2+2=4 is only true because everyone has agreed on it. You cannot claim it is absolutely true because absolutes cannot exist without an absolute God.
20“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:21
The defenses of Premises 2 & 3 are strange to me. It doesn't seem to follow that our rationality cannot be the origin of moral facts and duties simply because we are imperfect and contingent. The leap to saying that these things "Must be grounded in a necessary being" seems unjustified.
What is the purpose of morality? What does moral action aim to achieve?
The fundamental question that ethics seems to address is "how should we treat each other?" (in order to have the life we all want)
To say that the answer to that question still exists even if we don't, just as the laws of logic do, strikes me as nonsensical.
Can someone name a moral fact or duty that is not dependent on the existence of moral agents (like humans)?
I like the explanation of the argument but I also think you should clear up exactly what God you are talking about. Most atheists will use the argument of "well, how do we know which God is good?"
The moral argument doesn't argue for a specific God, and when atheists use that it is a red herring.
InspiringPhilosophy I understand that but they usually try to group all gods into the same category, especially Allah.
But if the God of the bible is the one and only true God and the others are false, then would it not be important to specify what God has set the moral standard and why, or is that another topic for another video?
Since this version of the moral argument relies on God being conscious and rational, that would rule out any impersonal God. Since it relies on Him being necessary, that would rule out most, if not all, polytheistic gods. Since it relies on Him being moral, you can argue that it isn't the God of Islam on that ground. Of course, then you have to argue that the God of Christianity is actually moral, which is always a slog when it comes to atheists, but it's doable.
Apart from that, arguments for the existence of God aren't intended to prove the Incarnation or the Trinity or any of the other characteristic features of Christianity. Asking them to do so is a red herring, like IP said.
Why can we say that morality has a source? Can it just exist as a necessary thing? Is it logical for Moral Truths to exist necessarily?
I don't think one can argue they exist necessarily on their own. Laws are not something that exist without some type of material to describe or explain. The physical laws are grounded in the universe. The laws of logic are grounded in all of existence. Moral laws need to be grounded in something as well.
Can someone plz tell me wot he meant when he said "We constantly fail to grasp moral facts"?
This may be a year late but I think what he meant is we constantly fight over what is morally good or morally bad and come to a conclusion at some point or another. Since a moral cannot be good and bad at the same time, therefore our conclusion of what is morally good or bad is fact. Since we are not perfectly moral we fight over what is one or the other.
I believe you jump to a lot of conclusions in this video without sufficient reasons.
It seems to me that the video states that we are not capable of reasoning therefore we need a deity to give or show us objective morals.
Maybe, I read into that incorrectly, but if humans are incapable of truly reasoning then we have no ability to have this conversation in the first place.
I find that the moral argument is extremely flawed.
How can we prove what objective morality is, even if it slapped us in the face?
Where do we find these objective morals? Are they burned deep into our intellect, by a deity, to keep us on the right path? Or do we find them in an old text like the Bible. Are we supposed to find the ten commandments or the randomly written laws and moral codes throughout the Bible as objective morals. In that case I would rather personally live by my own subjective morals. Which brings me to the next question.
Is objective morality even better than subjective? If a moral code/law is objective and never changing, is that a good thing. We can all find what we would consider immoral behavior promoted by the context of the Bible. I think we've all changed our minds on the fact that owning another human being is wrong or forcing woman into marriage is also wrong.
See what you did there at the end of the argument, you said “I think we’ve all changed our minds on the fact that owning another human being is wrong.” There you are using your own subjective morality of what you perceive to be “good” or “evil”. However, since you believe in subjective morality, you don’t have the power to judge another person’s actions based on your own morals. It’s simply hypocritical of your beliefs and many atheists do it. When you reject objective moralism, you reject any idea of there being “good” or “evil” since there is not one human’s subjective morals that are valued higher than the rest. That’s where your argument falls apart because without God, we have nothing to universally base morals on. Unless you can accept the belief that there is no good or bad and that morals don’t exist at all, then your other argument breaks apart. You can’t use your morals to judge someone else’s morals.
If morality is rational, then how come every action is always triggered by impulse or emotion. Half truths can be as bad as full lies.
Objective morality doesn't exist. If you want to know what secular morality systems are based on, its benefit vs harm. Meanwhile, even if there is a god, religion based morality is based on the subjective opinion of that god. This is even weaker than it sounds once you realize that there is no way to demonstrate that gods even exist or what the moral opinions of those gods are. All theists have is a disjointed mess of "he said, she said" sorts of statements where people claim to know what god wants.
We address that: ruclips.net/video/WuF01dvh_hc/видео.html
Also, moral realism is not based on a view of God, it is an argument for God's existence. You have it backwards.
Mind: Free will governing soul.
Body: The flesh of the universe.
Soul: Your essence of personality. Who you are.
We humans are three in one, as God is three in one. God The Father who rules it all. Jesus the son who is the flesh and incarnation of the invisible God. And the Holy Ghost, God's personality who is divine (Morally Perfect).
Much like God. We are three but one. This is how we are like them God.
I often have had people appeal to empathy as a grounds for knowing right or wrong. "I wouldn't do something to hurt that person, because I have empathy with them. I would know how I would feel if someone hurt me." What do you think of that argument?
What about a psychopath who doesn’t have empathy? Doesn’t he have the same moral obligations as someone who does have empathy? (Ex: torturing puppies is an evil act whether a psychopath or normal person does it)
In order to have objective moral values, we need to have basic guidelines by which we assess moral values/actions. The most common guideline presented by secularists is that an action is good if it promotes wellbeing. If we agree on wellbeing as a basis for morality, then we can have objective moral values.
Now, a theist might ask that why should morality be about wellbeing, meaning that why should we hold those actions good which promote wellbeing. And that's true, having wellbeing as a basis for good/bad is purely subjective decision.
But that problem doesn't disappear with god. In theists' general view god is/represents goodness. Seculars may, however, just as well ask that why should we assume that god is good or that god's moral values are good. This is solely a subjective assumption made by theists.
So, defining moral guidelines is subjective, but once we have agreed on them (be it wellbeing, god's values, or something else) we have objective morality.
See here: ruclips.net/video/eFMZF0ygvH8/видео.html
I only see more assumptions but I guess I'll respond in that video.
Your conclusion that morality comes from god doesn’t follow from the premise that morality exists outside of humans, unless you are talking about some other god other than the Christian, Jewish or Islamic god. What we know about those god’s aren’t moral so they can’t be moral. If we assume that what we know from the holy books isn’t true, then we know nothing of god and therefore cannot discern his/her/its characteristics to say he/she/it is moral and thus to say that is the source of morality.
That is assuming an awful lot, more than what the video demonstrates.
Is the god in this video, the bible god?
Great video as always IP