Great video. One question: at 3:15 he mentions that animals have no moral obligations, which is why it’s normal for example, for a cat to kill a mouse. But that’s for the cat to eat the mouse, much like how we kill other species to eat them. And this isn’t considered immoral. Yet in this video he compares a cat killing a mouse to eat, with a human killing another human. How is this comparable? Would it not be a better comparison to compare a human killing another human with a cat killing another cat?
Even if cat kills another cat - it can happened only due to cat's instincts. All animals live only by instincts. Killing for eat or to defend their kittens or in battle for woman-cat) It doesn't matter. Cats do cat's things. But humans do not live by instincts. God said that His laws were written in our hearts. Thats why even atheists can be good. Thats why you do not think that killing another man to get a woman is acceptible. Because we are not animals. We have God's laws in our hearts. We call this - conscience. But it can be corrupted or completely burned if we will live in sinful way for too long. Or if we will be doing some terrible things. With each victim, killers develop a greater tolerance for murder, until they become completely immune to conscience.
Chimps kill other chimps...male lions will kill cubs that aren't their own... Sometimes animals will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent will pick out only one to take care of and nurture leaving the other one to die.
Monkeys kill other monkeys. Male lions kill cubs that aren't their own. Sometimes an animal will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent or parents will choose only one offspring to nurture, allowing the other one to die.
I find it kind of funny a lot of atheists on here saying this video was dumb, there is objective morality and it's whatever I decided it is. Then they list a bunch of different subjective criteria that they have made up.
And more often than not, their opinions are shaped by Christianity and they just don’t know it, because they grew up in a culture shaped by Christian values and simply assimilated them, assuming them to be universal knowledge.
@@gabri41200 So you believe that a person is individually justified in committing whatever acts that they choose to since it's all just subjective? So then you would also believe that a Islamic country imposing sharia law is just as moral as a liberal society with individual freedom? Or the antibellum South was just as moral as the Union North.
@@gabri41200 So you avoided answering my questions. You just tried to go ahead and with another canned response. Do you believe in objective truth? Also what do you ground your world view in?
I'm hoping WLC could enlighten me on a few points: - how do I discover God's "moral commands"? Through scripture, prayer, revelation or does everyone just naturally know what they are? - how many moral commands are there? - what are they? - do they all carry equal weight? - do they require any interpretation? and if so, who's interpretation is objectively correct?
It wouldn't demonstrate that. What it would mean is that God's moral commands are of no practical use. So when faced with difficult moral issues (such as assisted dying, stem cell research, abortion for rape victims), to judge what is morally right or wrong we can't simply refer to the absolute moral values that come from God.@@blusheep2
Start with the greatest command of the 10 commandments ''Love God with all your heart, all your mind and soul'' That means - same as if you met your future spouse - you want to know that person, and in a relationship, you therefore read the Scriptures to find out more. God is wisdom, love wisdom. Read the commands Christ [who is God] made...and others in the NT. The reading and speaking them will foster discernment; There are moral, civil, and ceremonial OT laws - the former only matter for today. Moral laws are 9 of the 10 Commandments [7th day Sabbath is ceremonial]. Those are the moral compass for the searching, unsaved, that should be taught in schools imo
Jesus made all that clear through his teachings since where to read in the old testament until the real explanation to every commandment. You can know more of all that in the Books of Mathew, Marks, Luke or John John
Which specific god is the right objective reference point? If gods between each other differ from one moral nature to another, wouldn't that mean to have god also make it subjective nature as well. How can one tell if they are living in a set of subjective morals or objective morals?
The moral argument deductively concludes to a generic monotheism. One can conclude to specifically the Christian God from Christian evidences, such as the argument for the resurrection. Not knowing more specifics about who God is doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of morality, just as not knowing how the universe was created doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of the external world. We simply see, directly, that certain acts are objectively wrong. - RF Admin
We have a number of levels of understanding to put the empirical issues in order for philosophical truth. WLC´s RF holds up their point below with generic monotheism and Christian forms of evidence. Building on Uni tarian Universalist interfaith and multidisciplinary knowledge, I identify as an interfaith UU Quaker Christian. What we can acknowledge empirically is the historical development and modern existence of University-based UN human rights world community. While allowing for diverse views, the standard has been set by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy proposal, negotiated witth the world community. In fact, University-based culture is Christian and spiritual in origin, so that modern education in Jesus´ legacy of modern democratic society, Civil and Human rights society gives us tools to evaluate our contexts, with laws, the non-binding UN U Dec of HR and its forms of binding conventions. Killing is a serious crime. Sexual behavior has its varying contexts in interpersonal relationships and larger consequences in family situations, even with risks of provoking violence. Moralizing religionists also enter into play. Orientation to develop skills, intelligence, and wisdom in spiritual practice is an informed aspect, no less. Buddhist, yoga, and tai chi related forms of meditation are all part of the most informed context. Did Einstein have affairs? Gandhi had a few kids, and finally vowed chastity, but had an odd manner of testing himself being saved from notorious scandal apparently by his spiritual integrity. Jerry Falwell met scandal with his own lack of control, among others. For example. Being theist doesn´ t end anthropological issues. Conservative Christianity creates its own limitations and tries to impose rules, while progressive Christianity shows how freedom requires learning and operates very much in the full scope of multicultural, continuing ed-related society of modern structured pluralism. For one. American Jewish people and Muslims, among others, also. I knew an Indian guy from Kansas working in soc svc in NYC, for example.
I am theist. Most humans have empathy. People without empathy don't understand why people shouldn't be killed. (But they don't kill people to avoid social exclusion.)
people is more selfish just be real. Empathy didn't help you to get an advantage then why you will give it to people that someday will harm you. School/Office/Public thats why we love family/country than any others.
Laws against killing are pretty prominent. Yet, America has been showing in the mass killing and brutality trends that ideological zealotry in economic materialism, ie profiteering businesspeople, and the like, have pushed people out of their minds. Spiritual practice for interfaith spiritualized practices that are compatible with an authentic high integrity Christianity are what I did, and what makes sense as a goal for learning moral skills.
Basing it on empathy is very dangerous because in the most simplest of examples is that most people would have more empathy for their pet animal than a random stranger they know nothing about.
@accelerationquanta5816 ayo what your statement directly clashes with love your neighbour as yourself Anyone beside you is considered as your neighbour If you are in the park , the people in your park are your neighbours Basically its a law that love everyone as yourself And ur saying dont love your neighbour
These days you see a directly correlation between decrease and emphathy and athiesm These days more atheism that really puts into perspective why people don't care about each other anymore The principal commandment of new testament is "Love thy neighbour as yourself" See ? Christianity was the catylst of empathy Now even less missionaries earlier america used to be
People can call into question the existence of consciousness, since there’s no proof it physically exists, but everyone intuitively knows when other people are conscious.
I agree. Morality is entirely subjective because of the countless factors that can vary the situation. Morality can vary from person to person, or city to city, or country to country. However, there is no "objective truth" when it comes to morality. The commenter above me is referencing a mass subjective agreement, rather than objective fact.
3:05 animals feel and express emotions based on the experiences of their individual and collective actions; some animals more than others. In the case of humans, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for collectivism to stratify what is good and why it is good?
Morals can come from a variety of sources, including cultural and social norms, personal experience and reason, philosophical and ethical theories, and human empathy and compassion. The existence of a god is not a necessary condition for the development of a moral code.
You may be conflating moral ontology and moral epistemology. Moral ontology has to do with the existence of moral truths. Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know these truths. The argument deals with the former, not the latter. As Dr. Craig has always maintained, one needn't believe in God to know that certain things are right or wrong. People may come to know these things via the sources you stated. However, if any of these morals are objectively true, then we need an explanation for them. Since human convention is logically incompatible with objective morality, the explanation cannot be found in humans. This is generally why even atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre recognized that if God does not exist, then neither do objective morals. And, yet, we do seem to all intuitively recognize that some morals *are* objective. Deductively, then, we're led to the conclusion that God does exist. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos This argument assumes that the only explanation for objective morality is the existence of a deity. However, this is a limited and narrow perspective, as there are many other explanations and theories that have been proposed to account for the existence of moral truths. These include human reason, empathy, and social and cultural factors, among others. Additionally, the idea that the existence of objective morality necessitates the existence of a deity is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate and disagreement among philosophers and scholars on this issue. Ultimately, the relationship between morality and the existence of a deity is a complex and multifaceted topic, and cannot be reduced to simple assertions or assumptions.
This is a circular argument. The second premise isn't self-evident. A consistent naturalist could say that morality is just a subjective feeling, and that in nature the only objective moral principle is "might makes right". Or as Thucydides put it "the strong get what they want, and the weak suffer what they must". The fact that in our time, there is widespread belief that slavery/genocide/conquest/etc. is "wrong" doesn't prove that that belief corresponds to anything in reality other than our personal feelings, or that it is binding on anyone who doesn't share those beliefs.
Well, that's the point. In order to be a consistent atheist you have to say that raping children isn't actually objectively wrong, it's just distasteful in our time. The thing is, many (not all, perhaps not you) atheists DO believe in objective morals one way or another. So how can they explain the grounding for such beliefs under atheism? Such people should reconsider. And it's not circular reasoning, because they ground it in "our sense experience tells us morals are objective" is it circular reasoning to say there are physical objects in the world because we can sense them? Of course not. But someone who is blind and without any sense may have a hard time accepting that reality. Just because not everyone is able to sense the moral reality doesn't mean other do not sense it and that is therefore non-existent.
I agree. But does a crisis of morality for human beings dictate that there must be a god that exists in reality? Or are humans simply damned to have evolved to a point of capacity for abstract reasoning that they're tortured by said crisis? Might inspire someone to make up a god.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros no, it wasn't. At the time of ancient Christianity, there was no such debate. Most people believed in objective morality and Christianity just went there as a new typenof it
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim, which should be a red flag to you for all religions. The ones that were falsifiable like the Greek gods being responsible for specific things like the motion of the sun and changing of seasons were falsifiable and so when we simply discovered the real cause of those things we had to stop believing in them. If a God is invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. It gets to a point where you literally can't disprove him. The main religions left today are of that sort. At the same time though, its not anyone's job to disprove a religious person's positive claim that their God is real, and they can't because they aren't and there's no evidence.
It says that if there is no inherent morality created outside of man, then essentially, man can make up whatever disgusting rules he wants and nothing can limit him.
There’s one part of this video that isn’t making sense to me. The part where it asked “is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is already good? Neither, God wills i because he is good” Can someone make sense of this for me? It doesn’t seem to answer the question of whether good things are good because God willed them, or if they were already good to begin with.
Yeah, it doesn't answer the original question. The question's subject is the act or behaviour or belief itself, i.e., how does 'something' attain its status as good? However, the response seems to completely dodge the question by shifting the subject onto God, i.e., God is good rather than the act, behaviour, or belief.
I think the root of the question at hand is this: How do we fundamentally define the word "goodness?" There are many possible answers to this question: - whatever God does - whatever God commands - whatever is beneficial to sentient life - what we happen to like - whatever makes us last longer ... or some combination of these. I think if Craig just gave us a straightforward definition of "good" things would be a lot easier. I am not really sure what Craig believes because it sounds like he is needlessly confusing things to me. Take these quotes from Craig for example: "The theist does not make any claim that 'good' is somehow to be defined in theistic terms, e.g., 'belonging to God’s nature.'" "something is good because of the way God is" (Question 294 on ReasonableFaith) Unless Craig clarified how to reconcile those *with a clear definition of "good"*, I remain unconvinced of his argument.
My morals come from what can cause harm to others. If its helps others its good, if it causes others harm or inconvenience its bad. This applies to how you treat animals too. If you need a book or fake entity to tell you how to be good then you arent good, just afraid of hell.
@@Grundlewald no, I'm not saying that. However you cannot say that your good is actually good if you dont have any moral reference. What you might think is good is possibly evil in somebody else's point of view and if you think that your point of view is superior or more important to that of somebody else, then it also refutes your argument of morality.
the very claim itself that "everything is just subjective" relies on itself being taken seriously as an objective claim it eats itself every religion and culture may differ in what they consider to BE moral, but they ALL believe that morality is Objective. We don't even behave like things are morality subjective, people argue about what is "right" not what we can and cannot constantly. The only people in the world who truly behave as if things are purely subjective, are quite literally in loony houses
What utter nonsence, please tell me precisely WHY do you think human moral reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand. Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ??? Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to .. *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
You lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from christianity even assuming that the christian God exists is the only "God" and is moral. If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion* That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? ) Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality* *CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ?? Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
It doesn't eat itself. The quote is not "everything is just subjective" but rather "morality is subjective". Objective statements about reality can be made whilst still believing morality is subjective - they're independent from one another, not synonymous. We _do_ act like morality is subjective because individual people treat moral dilemmas in different ways. What you're talking about is a broad correlation between people's moral beliefs (most people think murder is bad, for example) but this in no way demonstrates objective morality.
Well, the big problem with saying morality has no inherent value is you take away any power of argument you have regarding morality. Any claim you make on morality in the future will just be laughed at and ridiculed because you already said it matters about as much as "Do you prefer mustard or ketchup on your burger?"
@@theboombody I'm not so sure if your view is entirely correct. Morality being subjective doesn't detract from the fact that we can make generalised claims, based on empirical evidence, in order to choose a 'more suitable' course of action. For example, we can scientifically support the claim that the majority of people value their well-being, happiness and community flourishing. We could follow from this and then claim that choosing an action which benefits this sentiment will be moral for the majority of people, and therefore the utility will be higher. Of course, this isn't bulletproof and when you start to question the more minute differences in reasoning it can become fuzzy, but to claim that _any_ moral claim is no different from one another isn't true from a broader societal perspective.
He claims that "moral experience" shows that moral values are objectively real. Surely "moral experience" is subjective, yet he claims this proves something objective? He also tells us that discrimination is objectively evil. Presumably there's an exception to this for discrimination against gay people.
If something is objectively wrong , its wrong Stealing is always wrong And ig its also that same sex marriage is also condemned in the bible commands So we treat it as a rule
Great video. Moral realism is best explained under the paradigm of theism given a PSR. I think Josh Rasmussen’s formulation of the argument under his resolution to the gap problem is the best explanation for an objectivist view of metaethics. Excellent video!
Except morality, ethics etc is subjective, not objective. Even within Christianity, everyone subscribing to that belief, would have a slightly different view of what is amoral or moral
@@riveratrackrunner Creating evil is not inherently evil; however, committing an evil act is. For example, the creator of the atomic bomb was not evil, but the USA was evil for using it.
@@hobdns5933 if killed a nice family that was Christian or religious or what ever and was a nice person. And I said god the devil made me do it (GoD), I’m I evil?
How does information of the universe manifest itself into physical properties? Edit: Can someone help me out? The only think I can imagine is this. The reason water can be touch because two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule are together. Meaning if this molecules didn't exist, there would be no water to touch. So, the big question is, who made these molecules? Laws creating laws, or a creator creating laws?
@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1 Paul said in Romans 1:19-20 that, ever since the creation of the world, God has made the knowledge of Himself evident to all people: “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (NLT). Humans can take in the beauty and splendor all around and recognize that these created things testify to the existence of God, who is the all-powerful maker of the universe. According to Paul, God has provided sufficient insight into His eternal power and divine attributes through creation so that no one can be excused for missing His existence. Psalm 19:1-4 declares, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world” (NLT). Link: www.gotquestions.org/God-reveal-Himself.html
So Jesus calls himself good? And then says only god is good? Bruh he s claiming that he =God here He should have states that more explicitly though a lot of people would have persecuted him though in israel if he claimed it directly
Thoughts as i watch the video: Using space to say if something is up or down is a bad argument. As up or down chamges depending on where you are. There is no objective up or down. There is no objective reference. Why is Gods viewpoint/morality objective? We can simply agree to be held by Gods standards but that doesnt make it objective. If it is objective, then what makes those standards objective? 2:20 All thats been stated is that a good thing is good because God is good. Is just a round about way of saying something is good because God says it is good. So even if we accept the postulate that what God says is good, it doesnt change that it is only good because God says so. The only other way is God is good because God is held to a different standard that governs whether what god says/does is good. So we must conclude that either anything is good only at God's whim, or God is policing what is good based on knowledge of something else outside of God. 2:35 A live performance is not the standard of High fidelity. The parameters that producers select and control for chamge what the final product is. So even if you sat in the studio while something was recorded, 3 different producers can have 3 different visions on what would make something sound the best. 2:55 Whether or not atheism is true, doesnt affect whether or not an objective moral standard exists. To say the objective moral standard is removed if God does not exists can only be true if God is the moral standard. Which i have already stated can only be true if God created the moral standard. 3:14 Animals do have moral obligations to each other. A pack of wolves live by their own societal rules. And the wolves all subscribe to those rules or risk rejection from the pack. 3:20 if the cat to mouse analogy isnt the same as comparing human to a human. It ahould be compared as a human to the fish. 3:50 is this part of the same argument? A belief in an injustice doesnt make an injustice. If two parties believe they are have been wronged, where does the injustice lie? 4:36 this is just a bad argument. "1) Good football players win world cups. 2) Cristiano Ronaldo has not won a world cup 3) therefore, Cristiano Ronaldo is not a good football player." Or "1) only good basketball players play in the NBA 2) Michael Jordan does not play kn thr NBA 3)Therefore, Michael Jordan is not a good basketball player." 4:51 We still have not proven the existence of objective morals. The existence or non-existence of objective morals does not prove the existence of God. The same way the water cycle doesnt prove the existence of planes.
1:41 in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God. 2:59 I mean yes and no? Everyone forms their own subjective morality, as you previously stated, whether they are religious or not. There may not be moral duties to the Christian God, but there are moral duties that each person defines. I would argue that once again it comes down to societal standards that "lay duties upon us". Once again, people are not going to agree with societal standards but that doesn't mean that the society won't influence people. 3:27 Once again, societal standards based on what is right and wrong. That's why we have laws and the judicial system. If God doesn't exist, human society would not fall apart in chaos and mass death with no consequences. As a society, we give people consequences through the judicial system. I'm not saying that the judicial system has no flaws but we rely on it as human society. 4:30 Sure objective morals won't exist ( Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.) but subjective will and we give ourselves our values and moral duties based on how we see the world. With or without God. Even within the Christian religion, the objective morals from God may differ, at least a little, based on who you ask because everyone may interpret the Bible differently. 4:42 Atheism as a whole is people who disagree on so many different things. Just the same as any belief system. But, based on my perspective that I provided, there is a world of morality without the existence of God, of which to say, in a world with no Christians there will still be morality but it wouldn't be based on a God, it would be either based on the individual or human societies. Let me know your thoughts, any criticisms you may have. My argument isn't in malice but rather a thoughtful one.
"in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God. " 1st problem... if someone decides to live their life like "Hitler the 2nd" or if someone decides to live their life like "Mother Theresa the 2nd", in a non-God world where we all essentially become dust in the end, and cease to exist, it doesn't matter which option you'd choose because the summation of all the choices in your life aren't counting or applying to anything that'll matter once your life is expiring. You won't exist to care what your legacy was, how rich you were, and if anyone loved you after 'cause they'll all be right behind you joining you as dirt. 2nd problem, from a naturalistic world you're begging the question when you say "right" and "wrong", or good and bad. Some societies say women have no rights, some do. It wasn't that long ago till we thought so to, and it was honestly the help of Judeo-Christian values that human beings were made in the "Image of God" (imago dei) and all human beings have equal worth that pushed to equality in western society after the enlightenment, 'cause throughout history... go back to the Greco-Roman empire where almost 50-60% of the population were slaves of some sort from war, and "might makes right", you weren't granted worth it was more of a caste system you had to earn your worth. Also, if you recall it wasn't even that long ago since the Dred Scott decision where African Americans weren't even considered citizens... so the POINT that I'm trying to make is, if you're going to leave it to Cultural Relativism... you'll never have objective moral standards, you'll only have a group of individual "opinions" or "tastes" that will constantly change back and forth over time. One thing that's happening in America with so much child predation and grooming, there's actually groups trying to "normalize" pedophilia and get rid of the whole child consent laws... so there COULD be a time in the future, I'm honestly calling it within our life times, that sex with minors could be some allowable thing the way our society is degenerating. But then... there could be a revolution that decides to swing it back and say once again that's evil 100 years later. You see the point I'm making? What you think is moral or ethical, is really "what's convenient for the 'majority' that they can get away with" at a particular time in history". Why is it ethical that these rich people can keep all this money to their selves in this rich part of the country, how is that fair? Well maybe the MORAL thing to do is for us to get pitchforks and band up and break into their house and steal all their stuff so we can have it. But I thought stealing was a moral wrong? You see how confusing this is... if there's no objective standard you can basically justify almost anything out of convenience/inconvenience to your way of living, and human beings are selfish and will always put themselves first.
First, such societal standards are purely subjective. With no supreme being, objective morality fundamentally ends, as there is no normative patterns of action. People might still believe in "good" and "evil" but they will be totally determined by society and culture, having no objective basis and such no universal need to follow them.
You were repeating the same thing quite a bit but to your entire comment - Most of our societies laws and jurisprudence are based off of religious laws, they didn’t just drop from the ether. If God didn’t exist human society would fall apart, or whoever had the most power would enforce their own subjective laws. What you are saying is that it’s ok to follow societal standards and laws (i know u stated that is has flaws) but the only reason most non-religious people obey the law is because of the fear of imprisonment. No atheist or agnostic cares about the morality of their actions as long as it suits them. They are their own God in their lives declaring what’s right or wrong for themselves. If they try and declare right or wrong for others obviously you would agree that that is unjust and unfair. All ‘societal standard’ is is public opinion which too is subjective and indifferent. Also, you kept saying that even religious people disagree on many things like atheist. that is true but for different reasons to an atheists. there are explicit laws in the Bible that can’t be interpreted differently. There are no Christians who would argue about the meaning of a commandment in the Ten Commandments. Whereas the atheist debating each other is futile because they are not even arguing about something objective or definite. They are literally sharing their own opinions and disagreeing with each other. The different Bible translations you talked about are not different interpretations they are simply different versions of English for different understanding, so maybe for a child or an adult, or some who speak in different dialects. Since you are fine with societal standards without God that means if u found yourself in societies across human history like nazi Germany or Jim Crow America. You would (by your logic) comply to those societies laws and standards JUST because a lot of people have that opinion? If you say you wouldn’t follow those laws because they are not agreeing with your subjective opinion you still have no right to tell anyone owning a slave or anyone killing a Jew that they are in the wrong because morality is nothing more than your opinion to you. If u were to try and stop someone doing that evil, then you would be playing God or tyrant, forcing your opinions on others.
@@CJ-fq2cf Civil societies in existence even before the writings of the Tanakh, or your Old Testament, held that things that created suffering were morally bad. Yes, they may have had civil laws that dealt with matters of worship, but the laws against killing and stealing are almost universally accepted (with or without religious belief) to be just, as these acts cause harm to individuals and society at large. This is the basis for which, over the centuries, humans have based their civil laws. Communities have over time tweaked these standards as were necessary to promote the advancement of their communities, fixing errors along the way to the betterment of society at large. Yes, this makes them subjective in nature, but part of being an adult is recognizing that not everything is perfect and making the attempt to better oneself. As to your second point, we agree that the division of Christianity is a result of doctrinal differences, but before I get into the nitty gritty please refrain from the no-true-scotsman fallacy that is the center of the cock measuring between denominations and attempts to distance oneself from the atrocities committed by those devoted to Christ with whom you may disagree. Take for example the division between the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther. His disagreement was multi-faceted. He disagreed with indulgences (the selling of relics to fill the coffers of the church), the papal hierarchy, the focus of mass being on song rather than on the Bible and the contradictions between papal edicts. In a sense, today Christianity sells Christ for a prayer insomuch as it could be argued that modern Christianity is back to selling a prayer for devotion and often boasting rights in opposition to other groups of local Christians. Atheists don't need to debate the existence of a supreme being credited with creating the universe and everything therein with other atheists since atheists have the same philosophical position when it comes to the unjustified claims of theism. The different Bible translations are updates to the Bible from the original English translations in Archaic forms of the English language, but every time you translate something into a new language, meaning is lost. In English, the Bible can be quite ambiguous or vague at times, which is a good reason for the divisions among Christians, every division claiming to have the only correct interpretation of scripture and downplaying or outright questioning at times the salvation of other denominations (I have witnessed this in several denominations including the Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-denominational churches). We atheists generally disagree on a great many other subjects, but that is non-sequitor to the issue of theism. Lastly, no, if I found myself in the midst of the Nazi regime or Jim Crow America (strange mention considering we are heading directly towards that future), I would be a vocal critic and probably wind up in prison for opposing such things like ubermensch because it would cause immense harm to individual people and society at large. This idea that somehow without a deity promising a reward for following his book or punishment for not doing so will lead to downfall is demonstrably false. In fact, among high income nations, we are the most religious and yet have the worst societal health in the developed world in every metric such as crime, bodily/emotional/mental health, access to healthcare, life expectancy, economic mobility child mortality, teen pregnancy and so on. Religious belief has not contributed to societal health in any way shape or form and the most secular of nations also happen to perform better with citizenry that is better educated and happier.
@@Jaryism IF there is one RIGHT answer among an INFINITE amount of wrong ones then wouldn't it behoove us to make as many guesses as possible just to hedge our bets? Sure we also run the risk of abandoning the right answer if we have find it but certainly knowing the answer even for as little as 5 minutes is better then an eternity of doing the same wrong thing
Yeah great video. But I hate the term Christian Apologetics. It seems like Orwellian New Speak to me. For what does a true Christian have to apologize for?
Immaterial mind or only physical brain? 🤔 If ONLY the physical, then so-called "thinking" is just chemicals and electricity, a brain doing what a brain does, correct? ... Actually, if that is correct, can we know it? If all we are is a brain, what does it even mean to say, "I think..."?
@@jessebryant9233 I'm thinking more along the lines of a computer brain. A computer brain just process information and gives an answer but it can not think. It process vision, hearing, touch sensers, we dont have taste yet. But a brain just process information but it does not think. I was thinking of thoughts are mental? If they are mental then a mind exist, but if the brain process information then it's physical and not mental.
Moral codes are created by humans. You can have objective good within that moral framework. But the choice how to define morally good initially is subjective As far as the rest if the universe is concerned, blind, pitiless indifference is precisely what you get. The fact that you find that unpalatable does not mean you can define god into existence
Yeah but what's the explantion of the creation of those rules? Goodness? That contradicts with survival of the fittest If someone would rob you and then say "hey I was just improving my own chances of survival so I'm justified in stealing form you" Or "my grandma needs money for operation so I stole your bank money"
I disagree that animals have no moral obligation. Their obligation is in survival. If a group of bison over graze and field and do not move to another area, they will die. They have a moral obligation to not die. You may call it instinctual, but there is plenty room for argument here
Chimpanzees: Have been observed engaging in what appears to be lethal intergroup violence. Some domestic cats: May kill small animals, such as birds or mice, for play rather than for food. Dolphins: Occasionally known to kill porpoises or small dolphins just for fun.
1:37 misquote,... actual quote “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Morality is just a system of conduct and values based on biological evolution and historical events. It's a means to keep a tribe united and maximize its evolutionary success. It varies by individual, culture era and species, it is limited to social animals. In the universe there is no good or bad, these are human conceptions. The true God is the Absolute and includes all opposites within itself. It is not good nor evil, it is beyond both.
This is wrong for several reasons. Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief, surely everyone would realize that this culture is morally horrible. Or let's say you read in the newspaper how some psychopath decapitated a little boy, you are horrified again and realize that this person did something objectively wrong. And even you certainly don't live as a moral anti-realist, anti-realists are only anti-realists in language, every time you morally criticize or praise someone, you confirm your belief in objective morality, so it's not just a product of evolution, evolution is just the mechanism by which we discovered moral facts.
@@kenandzafic3948 "Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief." i mean, you guys have a god that told a father to kill their own son. i'm glad both of us find this horrible and insane.
If the reasons, epistemology, you hold a moral value to be true are different from the person who holds the same moral value to be true then you merely agree on the moral value that does not mean you objectively agree since the reasons are not the same. "Hey Mark, why don't you kill people?" "Well Fred, my book says it's wrong and I don't want to suffer for an eternity. Why don't you kill people?" "Well Mark, I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." Same moral conclusions but arrived at subjectively. An objective moral is possible, but objective morality is highly improbable. This is because we do not know all the reasons of all the people's moral values throughout time, so morality is subjective. Why do you need morality to be objective?
It’s not “my book tells me to not kill people” it’s more so “this tells me that there IS an objective morality put into place by God as creator” The New Testament elaborates through Jesus the peak of goodness, “love thy neighbor as thyself” “any man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart” etc. The atheist provides the use of empathy as a means to describe why they do “good” yet fail to describe why our empathy leads us in that direction. Morality can be subjective in the our minds, but the point is that there is no standard and meaning to that morality unless there is a purpose to our own consciousness. If we ARE simply an accident and random processes of nature, what would lead us to believe that we can trust our senses enough to understand the fabrics of our reality? Evolution claims survival of the fittest, how does morality benefit that ideology?
@@Username-hd1co In the example it's not empathy it selfish self-preservation, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." We do not trust our senses alone to determine the fabric of reality. We use logic, tools, mathematics, deduction, experimentation, blind tests to reduce biases, philosophy, ethics, etc. Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolution is a theory that provides an explanation of how life became diverse and complex though natural processes just as gravitational theory describes the force between objects. Morality and ideology are most likely products of evolved creatures. I do not understand your question.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 evolution is a theory then? Then your guess is as good as mine. When have we ever witnessed speciation? Your perception of morality also assumes that everyone seeks the good for other simply because in a way we really just wanna look out for ourselves. That is pretty selfish but I could argue that I do good for the benefit of others.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 use science then, let’s use what we know to be true. The universe has a beginning, nothing can come to be out of nothing. What caused that universe? If we don’t know then we don’t know, but again let’s all say we don’t know and not bash each other’s intellect simply because we see intelligent creation as a possibility. Not saying you’re doing that but it opens up dialogue.
@@tayzk5929 we each discover the standards of our moral values as we grow up and live through life. Each of us were pretty much born without any moral values or standards and without anything but a helpless ego that couldn't even survive on it's own in the world. We're born a bunch of socialist communists hanging on our mothers titties and whining whenever we don't have our way. Small children get into fights in kindergarden and later in school, adults may try to break them up, slowly most of us learn empathy and we learn what's good for ourselves and others as well as what's not good for ourselves and others. We learn good from bad, by experiencing it on our own bodies and mirroring our own actions through our consciousness. We are social animals that form bonds with our peers. We live our lives forwards but we understand them backwards, and our conscience shows us our own evil side and teaches most of us to become better human beings throughout our lives. Good and evil is very much a biological phenomenon experienced by living beings, because being alive can range anywhere from feeling ecstatically good and wonderful, to feeling terribly cruel, violent and unfair. There is no God teaching us moral values, rather it is the other way around. We humans make up our own Gods and then we make up the moral values of our make-believe Gods. In the end all of it comes from ourselves, it all comes from our own biology that has evolved throughout the ages combined with our life experience.
Yahweh's inspired word indicates that women are half the value of men, that they are property of men at all stages of their lives. This disparity is a fundamental and inseparable part of Yahweh's objective morality. In modern, post-Enlightenment times, we have discovered that women, including their brains, are the equal of men. We followed the science and our own experience and abandoned Yahweh's primitive, ignorant opinion about women. Long live our thoughtful, subjective, humane morality developed by human consensus for the benefit of humans. May Yahweh rest in peace with Zeus and Thor and all the other angry storm gods who just never were.
† ¹ *Can You Be Good Without God?* • This assumes God exists (no reliable evidence). > By saying moral values are derived from God's nature, you forget that since there is no reliable evidence, any other concept can replace God as a moral basis. Like... self interest and evolution* *What are the basis of objective morality without God?* • This assumes objective morality exists. *Without God, all we're left with is one person's viewpoint. It's like a preference for strawberry icecream. Like subjective morality, It isn't binding for everyone.* • This assumes people can't come to mutual agreements, much like religious people in their own community do. • This assumes people can't disagree with God, which solves nothing. *If God doesn't exist, human behavior should be viewed neutrally like other animals.* • This suggest that if God doesn't exist, you would be okay with murder being considered okay, like a cat and mouse. This is weird and I've never heard a religious person say that. *We know the world is objectively real through our senses* *We know these crimes are always wrong, but is it preference or opinion?* • *It's opinion based on the selfish desires we have. You are personally inconvenienced when something happens to you that you think is wrong. You are emotionally, physically, or mentally satisfied when you do something you think is right and the opposite is for wrongdoing.
† ² Morality is subjective. An enormous group of people can agree with a set of moral standards, but this doesn't mean they are objective. Moral standards tend to be similar due to the fact that they are mainly used to favor utility and self interest. That maybe the only objective fact about morality, but objective morality is more often than not used to mean there is an inherent morality that exists in nature beyond human construction. No action is selfless, despite if it's in our best interest or not. When we do something because we think it's right, it's because we feel good physically, emotionally, or psychologically doing it. The opposite is true for wrongdoing. This is based on our nature, and experiences, and is why different people have subtle differences in consciousness. This is also true when people have to choose between two conflicting outcomes that ultimately never results in a homogeneous outcome between choosers (Lesser of the evils is different to different people). A society of sociopaths will be peaceful and live lawfully if they agree to behave a certain way, much like modern society. The problem is that without a way to reliably verify God's existence, anyone can come up with a replacement for God with completely opposing morals and claim it's objective. But if all morality is objective, we can focus on what matters: how people want to cooperate. It is no longer just a feeling when it's codified into standards of behavior, it's morality.
@Todor Hello Todor, thanks for reading all of that. However, there maybe a critical misunderstanding of my position so allow me to elaborate. Can you explain to someone that doesn't already agree that poop is disgusting 💩. You say cleanliness, I say why. You say health, I say why do we need health. You say life. I say why do we need to live. Look or smell maybe. Many animals don't have such instinctual biases. Many animals thrive on poop, but it's not very beneficial to us in 3 ways: physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's disgusting because we have a selfish bias against it. Same thing with morality ⚖️. Why do we define theft as wrong? Because it bothers us mentally emotionally (conscious) to see it happen to people (or do it). Is it Because we want to feel safe. And why should we. Selfish desire. Yes, it's true that we can be selfish and selfless at the same time, for each selfless act is a selfish one. This doesn't mean we should eat poop for breakfast every Christmas Eve. Nor does this mean we should embrace the likes of unwise dictators. This only recognizes that we defined morality, right, and wrong. The phrases you are familiar with, "objectively wrong" and "objectively right" do not make sense. Here is why: When I said morality was subjective, that means the phrases "right" and "wrong" were subjective. We defined morality, right, and wrong. This doesn't mean that a meaning can't be objective. You'll have to define 2 words first: "truth", and "right(moral context)". For me, something is true if it conforms to reality. It is true that most people prefer not to die, for example. how would you define "right" (and it's opposite, "wrong") without it being based on desire For me, there is simply how we should live and what fundamental rules we live by. Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, a special religious code or document. And why should we choose those? I recognize my biases, and a majority of others' fundamental biases on moral desires. But I do recognize those biases.
@Todor yea, didn't think it would in the long run. probably. Do tell me the false equivalency. Self interest isn't a justification for any action, it's an explanation for morality. I see you acknowledged the lack of obligation. This is a bit like when people say life has no meaning so let's all kill ourselves. Tell me what objective and subjective mean, and tell me what morality means, along with right and wrong. Of course you don't have to, but I'd like to know how you define it. Is morality linked to the meaning of life, and do you think there is a meaning of life?
@@Dragnulls Hello I'm under the impression that morality is something we codified to live together in an agreed manner. What is morality and how is it objective?
@@omegazero5032 You do not believe your own arguments. You believe there's a thing such as right or wrong. It's similar to as if you said that mathematics is logically false, but you continue to add 2+2=4. You can argue that morality is subjective as much as you wish, but that does not change the fact you, and the great majority of people, do not believe such a claim. Also, in your original comment you said that "there's no reliable evidence" for God's existence. It all depends on what you mean by "reliable," but whatever metric you use for God's existence, if we apply the same standard for God's non-existence, there's just as much evidence or less. There are many wrong things in your original comment: 1- Of course the argument assumes objective morality exists, since pretty much everyone agrees with it. Is your lived experience true? Of course it is, and there's no reason to be so unreasonably skeptic about it. 2- Whether people come to mutual agreements says nothing of objective morality- it's irrelevant. Two ISIS member coming to an agreement is no different from a Christian agreeing to voluntary work. Again, people disagreeing with God provides no arguments for or against objective morality. If God exists, and His moral code exists, my disagreeing with His moral code doesn't change anything. 3- The argument does not suggest you'd be okay with murder. You haven't heard any religious person say it yet still. The argument says "if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." In other words, if God didn't exist, we should naturally think just as the rest of animals do; however, we naturally don't feel this way, which points to the conclusion of the argument.
If God existed, why is such intellectual strain necessary to “prove” its existence? Shouldn’t it be obvious? Why wouldn’t God make it more obvious for people who require a higher criterion for evidence? Two possibilities: either God doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care that we don’t believe in him.
Or you proud enough to reject any evidence of God and want to be your own god. The True God are hidden for reason people like you could have a free will to believe in Him or not to believe. It's so obvious. What free will we could talking about if God's presence was open in His full Glory for everyone?
This literally had no explanation. I can agree love is the foundation of morality but why is that? I would say be the opposite is bad, it hurts. It doesn't hurt because God said too necessarily. That's where morality begins, good vs bad is how you feel about an act being done to you and the sympathy or empathy you feel when seeing others endure the same hurt/injustice. To make like go smoother and more positively, do onto others as you'd want done to you. If everyone follows that rule, which is rooted with love (could argue selflessness in a way cuz no act is selfless, moral desert) Then we're a functioning society.
Based on that logic. Stealing and raping is not bad because the stealer and the rapist feel good about it! Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's actually good. So there needs to be an all wise being to tell us which actions are good and bad.
Moral values existed before God came into the picture. They were built over time and developed with experience as civilizations grew. However, religion can inspire morality. For example, if you don’t follow the teachings, you will go to Hell, but if you do, you will end up in Heaven. Without religion, even though humans know fundamental morals, they may not be as inspired as they are by religion. But the problem is, does God know everything? Can God say something that isn’t true? Another issue is that religions differ from one another. What is considered a path to Heaven in one religion might be seen as a path to Hell in another....
very flawed reasoning. are we to assume that before christianity existed, communities were chaotic murderous places, theft was common, people were generally nasty to each other and that they indulged every impulse? also, look at some areas of the world where atheism is high: sweden, denmark, norway, switzerland, new zealand. those countries are consistently ranked as the most livable, high income, quality education, lowest crime rates, low corruption, etc. IF atheism in fact caused people to have a purely individual, chaotic ethic, we would see the opposite in those countries. in contrast, areas that are the least atheist--brazil, philippines, zimbabwe to name just a few--crime is high, education is low, lots of corruption, and a consistently low quality of life index.
All those countries foundations including their values for striving for excelence and avoiding corruption come from the past, when all of europe were protestant christians, they followed biblical standards and that allowed them to be more advanced technologically, economically, morally and politically than most of the world, but catholic countries were far behind that, since it teaches a corrupted christianity, most latin american countries sre mostly catholic in their foundations, which explains why there is a huge difference Once europe was advsnced enough, people wanted to be moral without God, so people wanted to be like christians but without biblical righteousness, and they took the already made foundations by christians and kept advancing, without christianity, modern europe wouldnt be possible, you can try being morally good thanks to God, since he gave you his moral law engraved in your heart, even if you dont believe in Him, but your good works cant save you from your fallen nature, since you sre spirituallybdead, you need to born again for that, good works must be a product of your faith in Jesuschrist, not on your own fallen nature
I agree with you that the argument for God from objective moral values is weak and even sinister, but you're mischaracterizing the (admittedly rather poor) argument. It states that God is the source of objective moral values, not that you must believe in God to be a moral person, or to make those moral values realized.
I believe in God and in a version of the argument from morality, but answering Socrates’ Euthyphro challenge with “neither” is a cop-out. Face the problem honestly.
Why is it a cop-out to say that a false dilemma is a false dilemma? That's rather like saying that "neither" in answer to the question "Do you beat your wife gently or severely?" is a cop-out. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos but that’s not what happened. The video says nothing to establish that it is a false dilemma, and immediately proceeds to argue that God’s commands are the sole source of morality (and thus cannot be further defended; so if he commanded us to murder each other, that would be right?). Thus Dr. Craig (as the defender of the argument from morality typically does) takes the bull by the horns, rather than going between the horns.
@@LarrySanger From the video: "Is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The answer is "Neither one." Rather, God wills something because *he* is good. God is the standard of moral values." - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Thanks for the quote. Right, then: when Socrates' objection comes up, what we are discussing is what makes various items of ethical language (pious, good, righteous, etc.) applicable or not. If Dr. Craig says, "God will something because he is good," this is to grab the dilemma by the horns, not to go between the horns, because the claim, as with Euthyphro, is then that what makes the term in question ("good" in the video, "pious" in the Euthyphro) applicable due to some quality about God (or "the gods"). Whether it is "the gods will it" or "God is good," the implication is that there is nothing about *the world* that makes something good. It is still a cop-out (as all attempts go between the horns are), in this case, because the viewer is left just as ignorant as he was in the beginning what "good" means when it is used in the statement, "God is good." What's "good" mean there? To put it more long-windedly: if God is the sole standard of goodness (which, in a way, I agree with wholeheartedly), and if we cannot refer to anything else in our explanation, this opens the door to the clever (but really not *that* clever) skeptic to point out, "But what does 'good' mean in that statement?" It is helpful to get an example on the table, such as murder. We can *say* murder is wrong because God legislated against it, which is true. But when the skeptic says, "Ah, but what if God had legislated for it? What if God commanded us to kill each other? Would it be right, then?" You can say, "But God is righteous and would never command such a thing," but again the skeptic is perfectly within his rights to ask, "Why not?" Besides, the Bible contains resources to answer the question. For God, *life itself* is holy. The blood represents life, which is why blood sacrifice had its redemptive characteristics in the OT. If you look carefully, every man-oriented law concerned human health and well-being-life. And it man's life that was among the things that were "very good" in the creation; and the great curse of Gen 3 is death. If we ignore these rich resources, found in God's own creation (!), for explaining *why* murder is wrong, and clarifying (with some probability, anyway) *why* God legislated against it, then we come across to nonbelievers as merely glib and frankly stupid. I say all this because that is precisely how the traditional argument from morality struck me as a Ph.D. philosopher, for 35+ years, until I became a believer late in life (at age 52). When we are defending the faith, it is very important that we get the *right* reasons, because weak reasons will tend to confirm people, such as I was, in their unbelief.
@@LarrySanger Note that the argument is not about moral semantics. With G. E. Moore (who rejects theistic ethics), we may agree that "good" is a primitive concept which cannot be defined by more basic terms. The claim that objective morals are grounded in God is about moral *ontology*, not moral semantics. So, the question isn't "What does "good" mean?" but rather "Is theistic ethics, which takes God to be the paradigm of goodness, plausible?" Theistic ethics seems quite plausible, given objective moral truths. All metaethical theories must terminate in some explanatory ultimate, and God, being a maximally great being, seems the least arbitrary stopping point. What of the skeptic's question about murder? His question implicitly assumes that God's nature is not the paradigm of goodness, which is incoherent given that God is, by definition, a maximally great being. So, we may turn the tables on the skeptic: "Why think a thing like that?" - RF Admin Dr. Craig addresses the distinction between moral semantics and moral ontology and the relevance of this distinction here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-plausibility-of-grounding-moral-values-in-god
Subjective morality is giving every single person the authority to decide whether an act is morally justified or not. This is a recipe for pure insanity no matter how you slice it. If it's based on an individual's perspective, then how about subjective reality? Should every person have the authority to create their own little reality and then declare it actuality? If so, where does it end? Should each individual have the authority to decide that the truth is actually a lie, that evil is actually good, or that illusion is actually reality? It's a downward spiral leading to ignorance and self-destruction on a global scale. Even if people don't believe in God as a supreme being, at the very least he's a personalization of an objective reality/morality.
Authority doesn't have to be given. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her morality. Moral assessment is the product of cognition, and therefore, necessarily _subjective._ Moral assessments are not _real._ They are imaginative. Moral assessment requires a reasoning mind. Reality, on the other hand, occurs _independent_ of any human cognitive process and is therefore, necessarily _objective._ Reality is the set of phenomena which occur at a particular point in space (location) at a particular point in time. Realities are _observable_ at the location and time of their occurrences.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Did you even watch the video? Is there an objective morality and does it have authority? I believe there has to be otherwise every individual has the authority to decide what's moral or not. Plus, I don't believe that this 'assessment' is imaginary. It certainly comes with consequences and they don't just affect you.
@@Stranzua I didn't say moral assessments didn't have consequences. Each and every individual is responsible, accountable, and culpable for the intentions, decisions, and actions based upon their moral assessments. No. There is no such thing as objective morality. And no, morality has no authority.
Goodness clearly exists. But only as we define it. A deity isn't necessary to explain. Compassion for our own species is suitable for natural selection. We can observe "mirror neurons" in other primates. Selective pressures would favor compassion, as those who participate in a cooperative tribe were more likely to succeed evolutionarily.
Correction: "...it is NOT possible to "be good without G_d...". You do not have the tools nor standard of behavior. As it is written: "...you shall be holy for I the Lord your G_d am holy...". ..
Ethics is just a social and cultural construct. If you are included in a cannibalistic tribe, then it is ethically good for you to eat human flesh. Is this your argument? Or are cannibalistic tribes not as evolved as you?
@@kenoablan6829 You might think it is ethically good, yes, because it is acceptable to the tribe. There is evidence of this in actual tribes, in Papua New Guinea for instance. They are not "more" or "less" evolved, their social values have evolved differently because they were isolated. It's just common sense really.
@@TheTruthKiwi but the implication of your argument is that everything is acceptable if it is decided by society, and that we are not held by a moral standard beyond our construct and are more akin to animals controlled by instinct.
If there is no creation or God, why are there laws that support a design? No design need not laws or designers? So if there is no God, why physical laws?
There is no good or evil. There are actions that are deemed positive or negative for human interaction and society. These have been ingrained in human behavior over 300,000 years. Murder breaks trust and leads to less than optimal communities, which is why we think of it as "evil".
False. Every human knows the difference between right and wrong. We all know it is morally wrong to lie. We all know it is morally wrong to torture a baby to death for fun. There are so many ways to debunk Moral Relativism that I couldn't even list them all here. But what you lack, in any case, is any proof for your Moral Relativism belief. You just have faith that each person is their own arbiter of moral right and wrong. I thought Atheists were against faith? Truth is - we all must have faith in philosophies because the scientific method has limits so we can't know everything. Examples of Atheistic faith-based beliefs: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, and many more
@@lightbeforethetunnel do they know these things are wrong or do they feel they are wrong? If they know how do they know? What knowledge do they have that shows they know?
@@lightbeforethetunnel Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand. Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ??? Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to .. *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ?? Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because THEY were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔 You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
Craig starts the video with a nice animation of someone kindly helping a kitten out of a tree. I agree that we should care about protecting animals, and we should try to save animal lives by rescuing them from trees or bushes or anywhere else when they are stuck. (Genesis 22:13). “God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values. It’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured.” This is why the *love* of the Lord should be the beginning of wisdom (1 John 4:18). We should love *truth* so we don't get led into deception by a supernatural being 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. We should extend *mercy* to everyone, especially to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 34:6-8). We should be *patient* before we kill people (2 Samuel 6:6-7). We should be *graceful* (Yes: Hebrews 4:16) We should care about preserving life because life is a *holy* gift from God (Leviticus 10:6-10). We should be *good* like the God who loves His enemies (Nahum 1:6-8). We should seek to live in *peace* within our households - even towards those with whom we disagree (Matthew 10:34). We should seek to live in *justice* by making fair laws for everyone (Exodus 20:5). We should love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 25:39-44). We should practice generosity over greed (Joshua 11:12-14). We should practice self-sacrifice over abuse of power (Exodus 21:20-21). We should strive for a society where people are treated *equally* and we don’t discriminate based on race or sex, etc. (1 Timothy 2:11-15). Child abuse is wrong, which is why we should protect children from harmful parents (2 Samuel 12:15). Racial discrimination is wrong. This goes along with the equality and we can see how it plays out in Exodus 11:7. Terrorism is wrong. This is why we should help deliver people from the supernatural terrors we face (Revelation 6:16). It is morally wrong to rape. Yes, I agree. (Though I would love to find a Bible verse that supports this assertion). I'm not sure what I would do if I did not have the Bible to inform me of my deeply held knowledge of morality that is written on my heart. Side note: “Animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong; the cat’s just being a cat.” Yes, this is actually supported in Scripture. The cat does nothing wrong. (Psalm 104:21)
There is always at least 2 subjects in a moral action. There is always an actor and always at least one sentient being effected by the action. If you were the only sentient being on earth and no god existed, nothing would be moral or immoral. Adding a second sentient being allows for actions to be considered moral if one being does something that effects the other. God is just another being that is effected by every action anyone does.
That's only because God is Good Himself. We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature as expressed in His commands to us. But it's not as if necessarily there needs to be two subjects for something to be good or bad. It's only a contingent truth. As you said, even if a person is alone in the entire planet, then his actions would still have moral worth, because the standard of good, like the standard of truth, is personal; it is God. So it's not just any subjects that needs to be present.
@@lupinthe4th400 "We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature" Then God needn't actually exist as anything more than a concept. God's nature is simply an abstract set of qualities and attributes, and Christians believe a God exists that happens to 'embody' that abstract set of qualities. Ironically, trying to wriggle out of the Euthyphro Dilemma this way ends up rendering God's existence wholly superfluous.
@@fanghur Christianity is not a philosophical system, a man-made autonomous project. Of course there needs to be a God as the transcendent, absolute, objective and universal ultimate standard for measuring anything. That's the point of the argument: unless there is no God, there is no standard for moral actions, and I would add that, ultimately, there is no standard for anything. Without a Revelation, man may have imperssions of the world, but no knowledge at all (epistemology). Without His existence, nothing else exists, for God is the necessary condition for the possibility of not only knowing, but existing. It's because of God's Revelation to man through Holy Tradition, that we are able to argue this way. Moral experience confirms us this.
Hmm, I don't find this argument compelling and I don't think it would satisfy an atheist or even someone on the fence. I just don't think you can root your case of objective morality with God because it will be denied by someone that doesn't necessarily believe in God. I feel this video was made for Christians that want to have a shallow understanding of the moral argument, but it's not good for a Christian like me that wants to truly understand the two sides of the coin.
If God is the objective standard of morality, then we should strive to emulate God. Therefore, if God doesn’t intervene to stop people from getting raped or murdered, then neither should we.
This comment conflates metaethics and moral duty. Clearly, as the standard of morality, God has prerogatives which we do not. God is rightfully owed worship and praise; we are not. God may issue commands which, in the absence of his divine authority, would be immoral for humans to undertake independently. But, of course, as that which grounds objective moral values and duties, God himself is not beholden to anyone or anything else. Since he has enjoined us to uphold justice and righteousness, it is our duty to stop an attempted rape or murder. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Even if God has prerogatives which we do not, and even if divine command theory is true, it’s not at all clear why there would be such a radical divergence between what’s good for God to do and what’s good for us to do if both are grounded in the same thing: God’s nature.
@@drcraigvideos The main problem with your argument is the assumption that God is the standard of morality. You essentially say "God is perfect and cannot commit any wrong, thus God commits no harm." Prove thus that God is perfect. I recommend the video "Morality 2: Not-so-good books" by QualiaSoup (archive). It's old, but good.
Ok so we are still fighting the morality wars. The question posed is” without god, can anything be good or evil?” Apart from “of course it can, we decide our own morality “ being an answer, there are other ways of looking at it. One, obviously, is to dismiss the question on 3 grounds ( existence of god, demonstration of his morality, evidence that those following his morality are not particularly , er, moral.) another is that throughout the world, followers of 2700 gods, and followers of none recognise a general standard of morality which cannot have just come from one deity, and observably did not. Like it or not, the confection of a supernatural being who decides the rules leads to planes flying into buildings, to beheadings, to bomb vests at pop concerts, to women being imprisoned for not wearing face coverings. Not because god didn’t decree this, but because he did. Read your holy book. Tell me the bastards who carry western hostage heads around in a bucket are not inspired by their god. Take your godly morality and ram it as far as it will go. Don’t you dare tell me you are more moral than I am.
By indulging in numbers and worst cases exclusively, you miss the very context of this kind of dialogue. We´re not in an immediate and pervading terrorist context. We´re in Jesus´ legacy of University-based, UN human rights world community with structured pluralism. The latter was founded by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy and negotiated with the world community after the massive destruction of WWII. Jesus´ legacy of modern Universities and modern philosophy with empiricism is the object of dispute by most anti-religious anti-theists in their own ideological myth making. So, I recommend getting literate about all that. I got my college degree in bio anthro, worked in social services, did and do personal growth psychology, pursued an interfaith spiritual path into seeing it as an inclusionary progressive interfaith Christian identity, involving Buddhism, yoga, tai chi, etc. Understanding the misbehavior of American and European-led business profiteers, and how Social Europe provides a prominent pro-social standard very suppressed in the US is another good angle to learn about. Understanding the benefits of modern democratic Civil Rights for University-related learning as modernized high integrity spiritual behavior in Jesus´ legacy provides the key kind of historical sociological and psychological foundation for a modernized spiritual-religious identity. And its moral framework. Jesus´ 2 loving Commandments are the foundation of Christianity, not abortion, not fundamentalism, not conservative theology, and not business profiteering in America and competitive, abstracted-pro-rich economics. UN human rights go with University-based culture in Jesus´ legacy to allow for learning in love a range of understandings and skills to sustain structured pluralism. Islamic codes represent a few issues, but are exacerbated by heedless profiteering US and other businesspeople in their own indulgence of the abuse of power and refusal to acknowledge spiritual-religious standards. Consumers and social entrepreneurs can exert their own power and influence if they build their own spiritual-religious practice, as in US food co-ops and EU green power co-ops, for example.
I disagree. Objective moral values are defined within our biology. Human behavior is complex and can vary from individual to individual, but there is a basic foundation that we can observe and study. Therefore, it is possible to discover moral truths by studying human behavior and evolutionary science.
But I fail to see how that makes it objective. If moral values and duties came about by evolution it doesn't mean you are subject to them in any way. Evolution is not an objective standard of authority over you that you should do what evolution tells you. Without an authority that transcends you that you are ultimately accountable to you can not claim that it is objective.
@@wheretruthleads 1. An authority just determining objective standards isn't objective either. It's the just subjective point of view of said authority. 2. I can break the rules and morals made by the authority just as well. There is also no difference here. 3. Evolution has selected out over a vast period of time, individuals that are bad for society, this has also manifested in moral values. 4. Assuming there is a god, it would make sense that said God would use a tool such as evolution to define moral values within our DNA. 5. It makes it objective, because you can't just go and deny evolutionary realities. It won't make your DNA different. It won't change the way the chemistry in our head works. It's a materialized fact. Just as it is an objective fact that we have to breath air, to not die.
@@wheretruthleads 1. They don't, look around you. 2. The answer that you probably rather want is "because of authority", which is true, if there is an authority, people might be frightened to act against those laws. But that still doesn't establish the law itself, it just enforces it.
@primax2162 Yes, people obey laws because they acknowledge an authority that they are accountable to. We believe there are moral laws that are held to a higher standard than even the laws of man that we believe we should all be accountable to. But it only makes sense to place the moral law above the law of man or to claim we all should be accountable to them if there is a moral law giver that we are accountable to that is greater than man. If you say this moral law giver is actually evolution it does not make sense that we are more accountable to "evolution" than our current authorities. If you say there is no law giver at all then it doesn't make sense that we hold the moral law in any reguard at all. Like you said, we obey laws because we acknowledge the authority of the one who gives them.... If you don't acknowledge a moral law giver it seems silly to think we need to uphold ourselves and others to moral laws in any objective way.
I really do not agree with this. I m not an atheist, but I know atheists who are extremely "moral" in many ways. For example, I know some atheists that are extremely anti prostitution, anti fornication, anti pornography. They don't just think it's "wrong", they think it's horrifying. It more than just a matter of "right or wrong" to them. It's certainly a moral issue for them, regardless of whether they think God exists or otherwise.
@misterslippy3977 Not your God. In my moral foundation, things like genocide, drowning people, retributive 'justice', making/allowing fathers to sacrifice their daughters, etc. are very obviously wrong. So if our shared moral intuitions do indeed stem ultimately from a God, then that ends up being an argument AGAINST Christianity, not an argument for it. And if you try to retort by saying that we can't trust our moral intuitions since we are "fallen" or whatever other misanthropic descriptor you prefer, then you'll have entirely undercut the second premise and the entire argument can be dismissed as indefensible. Either way, it does not help Christians argue their case.
Great video! However, in my opinion, opinions on stuff like terrorism is subjective, but just happens t be widely shared. Take something like pirating games. Some people think it is bad, others do it on a daily basis. Another thing - this only applies to the Abrahamic god.
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Right is good, wrong is bad. What is right and wrong? Right and wrong can only be determined by a set goal or destination established. For instance, if you wanted to travel from N America to S America the quickest way, you must travel south. That would be right and thus good. So is pirating good for society or bad for society? Well what is our goal for society? The greater good? Well isn't pirating a form of thievery? Well we know thievery is wrong for society and thus bad. Well if our objective is what's good for society, then pirating wouldn't be right and thus bad because it is a form of thievery which is wrong/bad for society.
@@usupreme this is subjective. for some people thievery is right, and they don't care about the so-called 'greater good for sciety'. while i totally agree with you, good or bad is subjective
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Do you think those people who think thievery is right think it's right for someone to steal from them? Personally I don't think so. So I don't think anyone truly think thievery is right, and right meaning how it should be in society.
@Acceleration Quanta i believe you forgot the phrase used in 4:10. We as humans seem to have a standard for what is good and what is evil, if ALL moral is subjective you as someone who neglects the existence of objective morals have to understand you cannot argue that anything done is bad. If you did that would be just your opinion on it, and your opinion is not more valid than someone else's. So, you need to understand you cant say anything about what is just or not. Next time you see a kid being raped and killed you cant say thats something wrong. If a friend of yours is shot at the street because they were someone of color, you have got to respect the muderer's opinion on it and remember to not say anything about the atrocities done at the holocaust, Hitler thought it was OK. If you are neglecting objective morals, you have no right to say that those things are bad, because on a subjective worldview they arent.
I agree with the video, but do not agree the "love your neighbor as yourself" should be used to prove the point. That is a subjective statement, as "yourself" is being used as the standard. It should be "love your neighbor as God loves your neighbor".
That is well put, but the golden rule says that whatever you do, you should also do to anyone else. What you don't like being done unto you, you shouldn't do unto others.
As much as I'm a believer the morale argument has seemed kinda weak to me. Yes it's true that you cannot have an objective moral standard without God. But that does not prove God, we can simply live with arbitrary laws that are randomly generated by dna dictating our Morales in our brains, or by society pushing certain moralistic standards. Maybe if you could somehow document that every single society that has ever existed has had the same morale standards as the 10 commandments you could argue that it's weird how every single society has had the same morale values, but in the end they all differ somehow, and thus it can be explained away as random arbitrary randomness.
The majority of metaethicists (including ones who are theists, even though the majority aren’t) would not agree with you. This argument simply is not taken seriously by actual philosophers who specialize in moral philosophy and metaethics.
We have no reason to say GOD is our reference point. Instead it is more truthful and logical to say our reference point is based on the well being of others.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez but 'good' isn't a measurable property of anything. It results purely from our own emotional judgements about an act. There is nothing 'objectively' wrong with wilful murder, it is only our judgements about it that make it wrong.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez all the qualities you just mentioned are subjective. They all have different definitions to different people. And if you're talking about Yahweh, then by no means is he any of those properties.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez declaring a god to be good then using that to infer that everything it does is good is a logical fallacy. If god is truly good (and omnipotent) then the perpetration of atrocities is inexcusable. And what about Ezekiel 9:5-6, where Yahweh commands the killing of babies *without pity* ?
There is an example about a cat eating mouse. They do it because they need it for energy. We also kill some animals and eat them because we need their energy. That example doesn't make sense. Or you may say two wild animals kill each other but they are not put in jail. They are indeed animals. Their brains are not as evolved as ours. We have logical thinking. We do good things to prevent bad consequences. We have empathy feeling. Our actions are based on intuition. If we were like animals, we would also kill each other when hunting the animal we eat, or when our living area is getting captured by others. Just like animals. But we don't do these things because we are the result of evolution. Additionally, that argument mentioned in the video is disrespectful towards atheists. That argument claims that atheists are not moral people. But you can never judge a person by the category they are in. Deists or Theists can also murder people or do morally wrong actions even though their religion or their god requires the opposite. It's the same for atheists. Morality does not only depend on your religion or the belief in god and it doesn't mean others (atheists) are immoral. Of course, all those religions and beliefs in god have an impact on people's morality but that's just a small percentage.
It seems like you're conflating the objective standard of morality (or the claim thereof), with individuals will or desire, and ultimate caring out of that standard in their lives. So they may or may not carry out the standard, but I think it's a differently question of whether people carry out the standard or not is indicative of whether the standard actually exists. However, people have been arguing this probably for all of history, and both sides will probably say that they can clearly refute the other's argument, but ultimately people will decide based on their belief.
@@mpersand _"but ultimately people will decide based upon their beliefs"_ WHICH ARE *SUBJECTIVE* !!!!! that's the whole definition of "subjective" ( mind dependent ) Objective means true irrespective of the conclusions of a mind.
@GetsaucedOn Oh the irony, you lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that its YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from religion. If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion* That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? ) Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality* *CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ?? Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
@GetsaucedOn You say I have "no foundation for my morality" How utterly ignorant, to me and like minded people "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
@GetsaucedOn You mention Hitler, you do realise that Hitler stated on many many occasions that he was a Catholic don't you ??? Both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ... You know that on the belt buckle of every german soldier it said "Gott mit uns," God on our side? Did that actually therefore make it so or does their subjective opinion not matter in the slightest as I believe ?? There are a thousand quotes that I could paste on here that would at the very LEAST demonstrate that Hitler used religion as justification for the nazi "final solution". But I will refrain from doing so as my point is made. However I will just state this approximately 93% of the German state consisted of Christians and more than 50% of the waffen ss were practicing catholics. Yet the church saw fit to excommunicate only ONE and that was not for his actions in " the "final solution" but for........ Marrying a protestant. 🤔
But how can God's nature be good and just if there can be no goodness or justice that does not originate from God? This video's answer to Euthythro's dillemma does not seem to make any sense.
God's essence is morally perfect, that is, God is simply good; instead of connecting goodness with abstract objects, you connect it with God, and there is nothing illogical, God is simply a morally perfect being.
@@tomasrocha6139 1.Circular reasoning is the fallacy where you start with a conclusion. 2. We start here with the fact that there are moral facts, that is, that moral realism is correct. Now it must be based on something that is morally perfect. 3. These can be natural facts, abstract objects or God, and by simply eliminating the first two options, we arrive at the fact that God is the basis of objective morality because God is good. So this cannot be a better argument because there are no fallacies in it, one can only try to refute some of the premises of the argument, but its logical form is unquestionable nor does it have informal logical errors like circular reasoning.
@@tomasrocha6139 1. No is not a non sequitur. Here's the argument: 1) Morality is objective 2) Objective morality can be based on natural objects, abstract objects or on God. 3) Objective morality is not based on natural and abstract objects. 4) Objective morality is based on God 5) God exists. You can only disprove this argument by disputing a premise. It seems to me that you are just throwing around logical fallacies instead of using them in the correct way. So learn what logical fallacies are.
If God do exist then he created us with a mind of our own, to think and decide for own along with our fellow. If we are just supposed to follow everything that's written in let's say the bible, then we might aswell be just mindless robots or loyal dogs who'll follow everything that their master wants them to do. If he does exist and he created us as sentient and smart beings then we must act and be smart beings who must base our beliefs on things that are argued, reasoned, thought-out, we must base our ways in logistics, studies and evidences and not just because someone said so. Because if the only thing that's keeping you from killing, raping, stealing and all sorts of things is because of a book, or because you are afraid that you'll be punished by God, then you are not a good person nor deserve to go to heaven if there is one. What you are really is a selfish and a cowardly person.
I agree with you except the last paragraph. There's a lot of christians that still cling to certain sins because they just don't care. They hope God will forgive them for that one "little" sin they won't let go of. Not every christian will repent and turn to God because of selfishness. If that's the case, don't worry, God sees right through that. He can see the motivation and the intention. I don't believe people just don't rape other people because they're afraid of God. It's because they get their eyes opened. For example I'm not into sleeping around before marriage anymore because my eyes are open now. I experienced the bad repercussions of such things and that's why I don't do it anymore, even though I still think about it from time to time and it's tempting. So it's not just because of the fear that God will send me to hell if I continue to do so. Hope you understand my perspective.
Two false assumptions First the existence of god doesn’t deem bible the true book of his commands and bible couldn’t be farther from that being written by many people Second proving there is no moral duty without a duty maker doesn’t conclude people do these duties just because he wants them to If you show up at the office and work 8 hours but there is no boss or employer does that make any sense for you ,doesn’t it make sense for you to rest and do whatever you want with these hours Everybody knows you should be nice and many are but whats the point in a world without consequences , you just might be arrogant ignorant and hateful and you are not accountable for it We are not saying people wouldn’t be nice if they don’t believe in god but we say should they be nice ( does it makes sense ultimately) in a world without consequences and accountability and credit ? What makes you give money to people when you need it yourself, nothing in this world makes you ! You should believe in another world to be sacrificing that much
This is nonsensical. If God exists and is the basis for morality (the point of this video, which you have said nothing to refute) then that alone doesn’t prove that He is the Christian God who inspired the Bible. There are many arguments showing that that’s who He is, but they aren’t the point of this video. If Christianity is true, THEN if you actually did use your God-given intellect, with sincerity, then you would conclude that the Bible is true as well. You wouldn’t begin with blind adherence to a book for no reason, and that isn’t what the Bible even instructs us to do. The claims and content of the gospel were recorded into books for wide, uniform distribution, just like all claims and data are recorded. People believe in Jesus because of the specific content and ideas in His message.
@@mustafaalnoori5213 - just used the bible as an example since its the most popular one - not necessarily but most people uphold such moralities for the great desire of salvation resulting in blind faith where critical thinking and actual empathy is used no longer. Is it right to believe or agree on something that oppreses other people just because your God said so? - first of all a job is a consensual piece of work in which you applied knowing the rules and regulations needed to receive your paycheck - very different from life. I never said that rules or consequences are to be dismissed, but should be base on reasoning. Using your very own analogy, if employees are not allowed to move their furnitures or relocate according to their need because that's the order in their office, or when they are required to dance even if it has no connection to their job, are they supposed to just follow it or agree with it? Or should they talk to their bosses and reason with them to change it and if face with terrible attitude or overall toxic environment, resign? - again is something bad because it's bad or because there are consequences base on just an arbitrary reasoning. - is murder wrong because you will be imprisoned? Or you will be imprisoned because it's wrong? Definitely the latter but your understanding seems to me that something must have a consequence first in order for it to be wrong. May there be law or none, may people follow it or no doesn't change the fact that something is right or wrong. And as I said, if the only thing that's keeping you from doing something bad is a punishment, then can really be considered a morally right person?
@@AbsentMinded619 God is simply the creator of human beings, he is what he is regardless of what we know and think of him if he truly does exist. Using the bible is again just an example since the christian god is the most popular around the globe. This is the thing even for a creator, if one has given you sentience or ability to live and comprehend the things around you, given you feelings, emotions and what not, that creator has no right to just do anything he wants to do to you without valid reasoning. He can definitely, no one can stop him absolutely but deciding what goes on or not to a sentient life just for the reason that you've created it in the first place is not a valid reason. If I gave you a gift and you took it, that gift is no longer mine but yours to use, If I want to use it or destroy it your consent is very much needed. I am open to the possibility of a supreme being or deity but what certainly keeps me from being religious aside from the fanatics themselves are the true nonsensical rulings on religious texts that has no concrete, valid and evident origin. If God from the bible does exist and everything that he said and ordered have their reasons to which I don't know or I am incapable of understanding, then I am wrong. But until I know his reasons then I won't be following those that are ridiculous rulings of him. I won't be wasting my life abiding by the laws of someone who I'm not even sure exist. Because if god from the bible does exist and is truly omnibenevolent, then he's gonna favor those that argue and question things before doing something than those that are blinded by faith.
How can someone PROVE that it is because of god? just becaues a book says so? Humanity has used all forms of deities throughout history to fill the gap of what cannot be proven or understood. The fact that we cannot explain where morality comes from does not mean it has to be automatically from a god. Asuming al atheists are inmoral would mean jails should be full of atheists or that all acts of inmorality are done by atheists.
Then tell us where your objective moral compass comes from. Every measurement in existence has default measure to go back to. Yard, foot, metre long poles; weights of 1 pound, 1 ounce etc.... are still kept by Govts today ...it;s the default someone invented a long time ago. WHO HAS YOUR ATHEIST MORAL BENCHMARK OF GOOD AND EVIL? OR YOUR ORIGINAL MORAL MEASURING ROD? WHERE IS IT? WHO MADE IT? A STRAIGHT CANON OR PLUMB LINE, UNIVERSALLY SOUGHT, OBSERVED BY 'GOOD' PEOPLE WHO SEEK THE HIGHEST STANDARDS Who made your mathematical laws - 2 and 2 makes 4? It existed before matter, or matter couldn't be matter, it needs math laws.
How about the faith-based (religious) beliefs Atheists adhere to, like: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Uniformitarianism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, etc... Atheists believe philosophies like these without the ability to know (scientifically verify) they're true. Is that make believe? Much worse, many of them are self-refuting
@@lightbeforethetunnel You are right here, which science can only go off what man has knowledge of already and nothing more. Only man comes up with the research for the books of science then that would mean man knows very little about how the world works but the Bible explains so much more than even science could ever comprehend for itself.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Nice strawman. Atheism is simply a negative claim about god. A negative claim's evidence is that the positive claim it corresponds to lacks evidence itself.
@@Pepsi-Mann21 While atheism can be described as a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not merely a negative claim. Atheism also encompasses a positive assertion that there is no sufficient evidence or justification for the existence of a god or gods. Therefore, atheism entails both a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists and the positive claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. It is essential to recognize the active stance of atheism as a position that takes a stance on the existence of deities rather than simply being a passive lack of belief.
What I don't understand about the moral argument is the difference between God and the moral law. It seems that in the video the objective law are God's attributes. But can't there be a law in it self
The claim in the video is that humans don't need to believe in God to act morally. Rather, the claim is that without God, there doesn't seem to be a foundation for objective moral values and duties. If you reject that claim, then how do you explain the existence of objective morals? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos lol objective morals require no more than an agreed upon reference point in order to function. What makes you think that YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the percieved whims of the "God" you hold as the one true God must be that reference ??
@@trumpbellend6717 Something is objectively true if it is true independently of our subjective opinions of it. So in what sense are morals objective if they are based on "an agreed upon reference point?" - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? this is not the case. But let me give you an analogy perhaps then you will understand. Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God. We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜 Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ??? Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to .. *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ?? Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because they were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔 You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
@@drcraigvideos Let me elaborate for you i shall deal with it in respect to both the christian and secular perspectives this is going to entail a rather long response I'm afraid I apologise in advance. I have used 2 small copy & paste pieces of data at the start the rest is all my words So please bear with me and read through to the end . Ok let's start with the christian perspective as it's by far the most complicated. Theological morality revolves around the concepts of Sin and objectivity neither of which stand upto scrutiny. Sin is a percieved transgression against specific gods wishes yet if we are talking about what SIN is and the objectivenes of a god there are only 2 billion Christians out of 7 billion people on earth so that's 5 billion people dont even think the god with the talking snake & donkey Is the correct one. Let's break that down before we address christianity shall we. of followers: Here are just 20 of the most popular gods out of THOUSANDS Christianity: 2.1 billion Islam: 1.3 billion Hinduism: 900 million Chinese traditional religion: 394 million Buddhism: 376 million African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million Sikhism: 23 million Juche: 19 million Spiritism: 15 million Judaism: 14 million Baha'i: 7 million Jainism: 4.2 million Shinto: 4 million Cao Dai: 4 million Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million Tenrikyo: 2 million Neo-Paganism: 1 million Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand Rastafarianism: 600 thousand Scientology: 500 thousand Ok now let's move onto the one that's the correct religion in *your subjective opinion* Christianity is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist - the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone. According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025. Do they all agree about the trinity ? Is the pope the head of the church? Can priests marry ? Birth control ? Sexuality? Can women be ordained ? How to attain salvation? The nature of mary ? Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism Freewill vrs predestination ? Eternal security ? Faith vrs works ? Heaven ? Hell? Evolution? Alcohol? Literal or aligorical? The trinity ? I'm going to stop here because I could literally go on for hours. They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE* All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue. Now if YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion* Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality* But let's just suppose there is *A* god for the sake of argument, and his intent was to convey his moral objectivity to us via scriptures. ( _extremely unlikely god would choose this method in my humble opinion_ ) has he been successful? I think we can all agree that need for apologists and interpretation of copies of copies of translations has led to vast numbers of wildly differing beliefs and even none belief. That's just in regard to the god of the bible, Not to mention all the other current and past gods people believed in. So I think we can all agree he has failed in achieving objectivity with regard to morality in this respect. Under the current world theology, objectivity does not exist. *HOWEVER* there is still the possibility of a more deist god who exists and has a objective moral standard as yet not conveyed. This god may agree with my moral views about our current proposed gods scriptures containing unjust and imoral teachings, for all we know. Or maybe his objective morals could be something that we all would find abhorrent who can say. *This kind of objectivity would be a bit like getting a set of wardrobes from IKEA with no construction manual. Utterly useless* , we would just have make do the best we can ourselves regardless of whether the manuals exist or not is irrelevant without knowledge of what they say. A god that is not detectable in the real world is of no more use than a god that does not exist. So in short for me the objectivity of any gods proposed or otherwise is either none existent or irrelevant. In either case It would be illogical to base morality on this undetectable concept.
Russ Shafer-Landau is a prominent metaethicist who defends and argues for moral objectivity without God, and I think he succeeds. I am a moral objectivist and it’s compatible with the belief that God doesn’t exist. Though I am an agnostic myself. One view might be that the moral laws are timeless and thus could not have been created. Another interesting path is to go gown a Euthyphro style objection that includes the rebuttal of God’s nature to demonstrate that morality should be thought of as seperate to God (and that this is no necessary problem for theists).
There is no thing such as objective morals, because they are constantly changing with time. Stoning me for being gay or parading around a women in a muzzle for disobeying her husband would be morally right back then but not now. If you can’t change with time, there is something wrong with either you or your religion, and if you are a good person just because god told you so, then you aren’t actually a good person.
Understood. In that case, I would appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into your perspective on morality and assess its coherence. May I pose a few questions to facilitate this? 1. If morality is solely dependent on societal consensus, wouldn't it imply that moral principles are subjective and vary from culture to culture? Does this mean that any action deemed morally acceptable by a particular society is indeed morally right? 2. If moral values are subject to change, how can we discern which changes are progressions towards a better understanding of morality and which ones are regressions? Is there an objective standard by which we can judge these changes? 3. Considering your example of stoning homosexuals or subjugating women, would you agree that these practices are morally wrong in the present context? If so, what is the basis for your judgment? Is it solely a personal preference or does it stem from a deeper understanding of human dignity and equality? 4. If moral principles are constantly changing with time, how can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if there are no objective moral standards to reference? Can we simply dismiss actions of the past as morally right or wrong based on our present perspective? This aligns with the first point, exemplified by the case of Nazi Germany. If one subscribes to the notion of subjective morality, does it imply that the moral convictions held by the Nazis render their actions morally justified? 5. If there are no objective moral values, how can we address issues such as human rights, justice, or the dignity of every individual? Are these concepts merely subjective preferences or do they hold a deeper significance? If morality is subjective anyway, then what is even of the purpose behind engaging with these matters. If we were to just collectively accept that injustice holds moral validity, rendering it no longer problematic, what would be the underlying rationale for addressing these issues? 6. You mentioned that being a good person simply because God commands it doesn't make someone genuinely good. Let's delve deeper into your understanding of what it means to be a good person. What qualities or virtues do you consider necessary for someone to be considered truly good? Rather than a question, what follows is a counterargument I wish to present concerning moral subjectivism; Subjective morality, although it may initially seem appealing, is inherently flawed and logically absurd. It leads to a self-contradictory position where individuals are left with no basis to differentiate between moral beliefs, rendering any moral judgment or discourse meaningless. If morality is purely subjective and dependent on personal opinion or societal consensus, then there can be no objective grounds to condemn actions like genocide or cruelty. The absence of objective moral values undermines the very foundation of ethical discussions, as it reduces morality to mere preferences, eroding the principles of justice, human rights, and universal moral standards.
Moral standards are good because of God's nature/essence, but how can we tell God's nature/essence is good, is it good because of the commandments or are the commandments good because of God's nature/essence? Why wouldn't we think God is evil? It all comes down to defining the word good. First we define good, if we can define it, allowing us to see God's good essence, I'll be fine with that, but we can't do that, and If we say God is good, taking the bible or any other holy book as a reference, then this doesn't solve anything, and we can take a step back and ask again: Why are the commandments good? From there, all we will have is circular reasoning.
Good video up to 3:26. Up to there all the points where quite coherent. 3:26 has a big problem: 'human kills a child'. Humanity can account why this is moraly wrong without the need of god - there are many reasons (ie pain will be inflicted in the dead child's comunity, not to mention the mother and the close family). Another one (much bigger and problematic than the previous one) is at 4:07 which points the question if slavery is judged good or bad it is a 'personal preference or opinion'. These two are very simplistic and problematic options.
Yes. This is all a great point. But I think using human emotion as an example of effect isn't even necessary to explain morality. (although it is definitely absolutely viable because humans are hardwired by nature for Empathy.) But even without empathy and emotion, morality can still be explained. Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad. A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone. Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems. So, therefore. Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same. Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly. It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is. This video is deeply flawed.
I think you don't understand. Why would it be a problem for me to inflict pain on the dead child's community if there was no God and there were no laws?
@@Halcyon1997 No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I would do it. It's hypothetical of course. If evolution is true, why would I care if I conflicted pain on others. If that would make me happy? You're adding empathy to evolution.
There was no point in the video where it was proven that objective morality exists. It is just assumed. That we experience it the same way that we experience our senses says nothing. The argument is essentially going off of feelings. I feel very strongly that something is wrong, therefore it must be objectively wrong. It's just subjective morality with extra steps
I'll start simple by saying that, for example, you wouldn't want to kill a child because it would inflict deep emotional pain on the community surrounding said child, not to mention the mother. But ok. That much should be obvious to a well functioning and healthy human. But empathy aside, morality is still easily explained. Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad. A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone. Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems. So, therefore. Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same. Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly. It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is.
The argument here is just a version of the same argument Sam Harris put forward in his debate with Dr. Craig: that the property of "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. Of course, Dr. Craig famously showed that there is a "knock-down" argument against this claim, for if it's even possible that the heights of human happiness are occupied by rapists, murderers, etc. then it would obviously not be the case that "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. There would simply be a fluctuating landscape of wellbeing the peaks of which are occupied by both good and evil people. If this is the case, then what you have isn't really objective morality at all. Here's the clip where Dr. Craig lays out this knock-down argument: ruclips.net/video/NxwjTcPW_78/видео.html. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I understand what the knockdown argument is against Sam, and it is certainly effective, and it makes total sense. Sam Harris' argument is like my own, but it is not mine. Mr. Craig's knockdown doesn't work against mine because what makes my own argument work, is that objective good is rooted in tuition of knowing what's action causes what negative affects. It has nothing to do with creaturely flourishing which is ultimately a selfish concept. Now, obviously when it comes to such certain individuals, it's a complicated subject, but simultaneously there is still simplicity. Psychopaths exist but they aren't simply bad because they just so happen to be so. They are in the grouping of the severely mentally broken. Mentally broken people are people that have met the unfortunate path of very bad development of the mind. Usually and arguably always at the hands of others and their parental figures, in conjunction with false perceptions about other people. Fulfillment of such peoples desires are simply purely selfish acts. If they want to actually help themselves, the best they can do is seek as much therapy and spiritual enlightenment as possible and then hopefully achieve healing, so that this way they can get out of the need to hurt others to feel ok, and then replace it with a life of actions that are actually good for them, instead of essentially just putting bandaids on their horribly deep wounds. Very greedy people, like lots of American politicians, for example, are very similar. Bad development of the mind. Mistreated and broken down in their youth so much so that they developed narcissistic qualities based on their feelings of being unloved and have been so mistreated. It's ultimately a compensation of loss, but it doesn't make it ok, it's still selfish narcissism. Thanks for the reply though
@money 1 I understand what objective means. I'm not sure if you do. Cause and effect is objective reality. My call on empathy is being somewhat flawed I'll accept but that wasnt really my point, that was more so the point that most people make, hence why I got it out of the way first. There's nothing inconsistent outside of those two different points. I don't think this is ad populum, ad populum very typically is the "idea of the cattle" for a reason and this argument isnt typical because it is very extraspective, which isnt a very common trait of the kindof person who would rather just follow the crowd. Also what is to steal of theism when my argument is in apposition of it? This is Philosophy I've pondered about throughout my whole life, although I have certainly learned alot of philosophy for the sake of mental clarity, it's much my very own thoughts.
The one thing that no one realizes, the universe is from God, if he says that killing someone is good, it will be good, you are under his rules, and not mere human opinion that will change something.
@@mackanandersson8373 I agree with you, but what I meant is that if he defines what is good or bad, we will not be able to go against it, more and only theory.
@@ltrp3374 right, and I think its lucky that we dont get to decide over good and bad, since we are only human. Its good that God handles those things. He has a wider perspective
I think it’s quite evident that atheists at large and peoples of faith both see an objective morality. Both simply understand such through different lenses and perspectives.
@@oscarmany1 Thanks for your reply Oscar, yes I know about Jesus and the miracles. Today, I don’t know if there would be too many people that do not know of Jesus and do not know something of the story of Jesus. I don’t believe Jesus needs proving. So that tells me something of what you believe, however, not how you see things…
@@oscarmany1 Thanks, I get where you’re coming from better with that. Thankyou and bless your heart and eyes. My perspective is that the creator - God - is in all things, all mothers, people, intelligence and thus in our societies. God is thus amongst us and working in society. Most of our values come from these things - the general sense of care and love of women toward us as children, growing up in a society where we know it’s not going to simply be a-ok to behave out of order etc God is within all this and to feel and see that is perhaps revolutionary. It is definitely the peaceful and liberating revolution Jesus Christ sowed seeds to grow. All we can do is learn from peoples differences and perspectives and grow the tree which god seeded, into human hearts and minds in ways people will relate. Jesus demonstrated this, in the times when he lived as a man. Thanks again brother. I appreciate your thoughtful response
There is no such thing as objective morality, even if a God exists, which most likely isn't at all the case. That is because to determine whether God's morals are objectively good we would have to: a. Judge them by some other standard of morals meaning God's are still just subjective. b. Conclude that anything God does is good. This isn't a solution because that is just the same as saying anything God does is "Godly", which is meaninglessly tautological. This doesn't actually answer the question of how or why what he does is good, leaving it up to us still needing some other moral standard to judge his by, which still means they are subjective.
@@NotChinmayi By MY and most people's SUBJECTIVE standards yes, but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality
@@Shane-5229 begging the question. This is a logical fallacy of which should be utterly ridiculed and laughed at. Dont atheists consider themselves to be intelligent? Not seeing much if any evidence in the responses to this video haha
@@BombBoy96 Kindly explain how I'm begging the question here? I completely and coherently explained how a concept of objective morality falls apart instantly. If you have any objections to this line of thinking, kindly explain why, or how in the hell I am begging the question, or even explain what question I'm begging instead of smugly stating a moronic claim with zero reasoning or evidence to back it up.
@@Shane-5229 "but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality" when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion you are begging the question
What logic people use if the whole universe was suddenly appear with no logical reasons and these people are product of non-logical randomness? How can you even understand something if your brains are completely random? I wouldn't trust such mind. The fact logic and science (what completely based on logic) exists is enough to prove that there is God.
The biggest problem I see in the idea that Christianity is the only source of morality is that morality shifts even among Christianity. For example, the Bible condones slavery and Jesus himself, according to the NT never abolishes it. Some more secular Christians, along with those who were not of the faith led the charge to abolish the practice and some more conservative Christians used the Bible to justify its continued practice. Most of us recognize that owning another human being as property is morally wrong and that has come from our culture, not the Bible. This is one example of how morals, even ones held by Christianity, are demonstrably subjective and evolving in nature. The requirement of 1 John 2:6 is that anyone who applies the label "Christian" to themselves must live exactly as Jesus did. The name Christian wasn't something people claimed they were, but was a Greek slur for the new converts who were transformed and lived like Jesus did. They didn't have to defend the faith, they just lived it. Today, the commissioned report from the Executive Counsel of the Southern Baptist Convention was released. The results are crushing and it took years of pressure from the sexual assault victims and other members to get the EC to actually look into the matter. The findings demonstrate how, for decades, church leaders had ignored, shrugged off and punished the victims of sexual assault who tried to alert church leadership to the criminal acts of their elders and leaders, sometimes rescinding their memberships and booting them from fellowship. This has been occurring for decades and that is just one group of believers. If sexual assault is so prevalent with the tens of thousands of cases like this, maybe the church needs to abandon talking about being Christians and start living like it, as Christ emphasized. "Let your light so shine before men that they may SEE your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven."- Matthew 5:16 Talk does nothing to excuse the thousands of youth who have been the victims of sexual assault by Christians in leadership roles.
The Bible does not condone slavery in the way the word slavery is used today, it actually declares it an abomination to sell human beings like that. The word slavery meant something completely different back then. They were talking about wage-slaves. People who voluntarily agreed to work for someone for free for a few years maximum to pay off a very extreme debt. It was somewhat rare
Exactly.. And it was a way to keep your family out of poverty. There was no social security system in place providing unemployment or food for families who were in great debt.. It was more closely related to "indentured servitude" and were treated so well in Hebrew times that there were laws on how to handle a slave that didn't want to leave.. Very different from American slavery. ☺️
@@lightbeforethetunnel didnt god kill everyone on earth except for noah and friends? Thats got to be the single largest event of maas genocide ever. Are we really going to use this guy as an objective moral standard?
If you're citing bible verses, make sure to consider its background or context so you will not make your own interpretation. Wrong interpretation results to wrong application my friend
"The Moral Argument for the existence of God. P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. P2: Objective Moral values and duties do exist. C: Therefor, God exists." This argument is neither valid nor sound. - The first statement is making a negative claim about the lack of existence of a God meaning the lack of existence of OMV. It never says that the existence of OMV substantiates God, that was just implied, and there's no room for unsubstantiated implications in a formal argument. The transitive property applying has not been evidenced, making the first premise irrelevant to the conclusion, making the argument invalid. That sounds like invalidity on a technicality , but that's what argumentation is. If you don't like that, then don't pretend to have logical arguments for believing in God. The technicalities matter. If you wanted to reenable it, you'd need to say, "If objective moral values exist, then God exists." This would still not solve the problem however that the second premise brings up, but at least this argument would have proper form and the conclusion would be necessitated by the premises. - Objective moral values do NOT exist as I've evidenced in the following paragraphs. Morals are found subjectively and sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. For a thing to be objective, it has to be true outside of human perception, as you explained in your video. The property must exist in the thing, not in the subject. Basically it has to be a force of nature. When someone is murdered in cold blood, the badness is not an innate property of that murder, the badness is what we associate with our feelings about that murder. We have sociopaths and genocidal maniacs, and people who might have agreed with that murder as well, which wouldn't happen if it was an objective quality of murder that it was wrong. We would all just agree. This makes the second premise false, and thus unsound. - The conclusion is therefor, not necessarily false, but that's not what arguments do. It's more accurate to say then, that this argument is debunked and the conclusion remains unsubstantiated. God may exist, but he'll need better arguments than this to prove it. Other notes: Objective moral values don't exist even if a God exists since those morals would be subject to God. For a thing to be objective it has to be true outside of perception. A ball dropping is evidence for the objective nature of gravity in our universe and gravity would still exist even if there weren't any humans around to perceive it. The same can't be said of morality. Morality is like language, or culture. It's an emergent property of society that's tricky to define so it's most useful to be a "you know it when you see it." kind of thing. Take "murder is wrong" for example. Seems pretty solid, but what about murdering Hitler to prevent him from killing even more people? Now you have shades of grey, right? Tell me you don't know people who would say "He should be killed" and people who say "He should be captured" as the moral option. Not very objective is it, at least not as objective as, people die when you kill them. But let's assume God is the arbiter of objective morality for as much as that makes sense. Do you understand this God's morality? How is it that you are capable of determining that his morality is objective? Are you even following his morality correctly? If you are, why do so many other Christians disagree with you? Are you going to claim that YOU have the one true understanding of God's morality above others? My point being, even if God's morality is objective, your understanding of it is subjective, leaving us both in equal states of moral subjectivity. You've subjectively said that it's all about God's rules, and I've subjectively said that it's about doing the most good for our fellow man woman and non, subject to the circumstances. I know it's easier to define atheist morality for us, but here's what one atheist's morality actually looks like. To argue anything else is a strawman and you will be promptly ignored.
Too bad that religion has often been the basis of violence. Guess you never heard of the Bloody Conversion or Witch Burning? I love the Golden Rule but most of the Old Testament is dark and tribal, including a documented genocide.
Well, "being good" in this modern world is a lot to do with laws of the land, and penalties for breaking those laws AND, the laws that work best are the ones with high penalties AND with a high detection rate. Here's an example. I was talking to a young person - 25 - about speeding rules, and he was quite honest and said that he rarely kept to them - around town -because he knew the risk of being caught was very small; however, he said that he always observed parking laws because he knew that if he broke them there was a high chance of him being caught. So, a lot of the time, people are "being good" because there are penalties attached to not being good. BTW, it's interesting to note how many of the 10 Commandments have found their way into the laws of the land. In the Western world blasphemy laws have fallen not of use. Not so, of course, in Islamic counties. Also, adultery, for example, isn't against the law in Western counties but is evoked in Muslim counties. It's interesting, to ask why Western counties have "ditched" most of the 10 commandments from the laws of the land.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros But where did you get all this information from about God? Oh yes, somebody told you, or wrote it down in book. Yes, I see...but you don't!
You’re right, but our judicial systems and laws are brought about through our own sense of morality. If we didn’t have a sense of right and wrong, we wouldn’t have come up with prisons, jails, penalties, etc. Precisely why pigs and monkeys don’t have jails and prisons and laws and societies, because of their lack of morality.
@@Username-hd1co "Our own sense" ? Surely, you mean the Government decides, based - sometimes - on pressure by groups who might want change for no moral reasons whatsoever.
@@musik102 no, you’re talking politics. Im saying, within a society of hundreds of millions, there needs to be order, laws, policing, etc. We all can agree on that, but WHY do we? Why can’t we all just live with no ordinance? I’m not saying we should, but why not?
i believe you forgot the phrase used in 4:10. We as humans seem to have a standard for what is good and what is evil, if ALL moral is subjective you as someone who neglects the existence of objective morals have to understand you cannot argue that anything done is bad. If you did that would be just your opinion on it, and your opinion is not more valid than someone else's. So, you need to understand you cant say anything about what is just or not. Next time you see a kid being raped and killed you cant say thats something wrong. If a friend of yours is shot at the street because they were someone of color, you have got to respect the muderer's opinion on it and remember to not say anything about the atrocities done at the holocaust, Hitler thought it was OK. If you are neglecting objective morals, you have no right to say that those things are bad, because on a subjective worldview they arent.
@@JuniorSilva-up9du guess what, not long ago it was moral to have slaves and treat them as objects; now we see it as horrendous. It goes for the same for the other examples. That's because moral laws vary from culture to culture, age to age, places to places. It's not something that hard to see. I'd LOVE to say moral is objective, but that's not how it really is.
@@rennan1173 1. This does not prove moral subjectivism, this is like saying that before people saw the earth as flat and now we see it as round, and this proves that the shape of the earth is subjective, a really powerful argument. 2. Our moral experiences confirm objective morality so the burden of proof is on any skeptic to prove that our moral experiences are false. 3. The moment you accept subjective morality, you can no longer morally criticize anyone, you cannot say anything against slavery, homophobia, rape, pedophilia, you have to accept that you are no better person than Hitler, that you are as worthless as a grain of sand and the like.
@@kenandzafic3948 using the shape of Earth as analogy??? You do realize it's not a social construct as moral and ethics are, don't you? You're giving "analogy is my passion" vibes.
This makes perfect sense if you think about it Like even a terrorist can define good and bad But he would say what he does he justified and give a bunch of reasons Does that make him right? I think right and wrong are fixed and cannot be fluid/changed Killing is wrong period.
Hello fellow atheists, if you want the quick answer, yes you can be good without God, and this video does not prove otherwise, let me explain why: When theists first realized that they were losing their precious "moral" high ground in regards to the realization that atheists do not need the reward of an eternal afterlife to be "good", they quickly panicked and decided that they needed an obvious answer that would make sense and not completely shatter their incredibly dumb reasoning for being forced to act like decent human beings. So what did they come up with? Well it's quite simple, they decided to co-opt the concept of the "moral good" with an all knowing creator, after all since their version of God created everything, then it makes sense(to them at least) that only they would objectively know what the actual meaning and construct of "good" is since it was "written" into their DNA by their oh so wise creator. My advice fellow atheists, remind the smug theists that the only thing their respective religions have done well is scare the early versions of human society into believing they had to be good otherwise they would pay an eternal price in whathever version of hell they believe in, which in turn gave us enough time to create a modern society that allowed us to make our own decisions about the inner workings of the universe(based on scientific understanding) which in turn allowed us to give better meaning and realization to the concepts of "good and evil", and that we as highly intelligent animals can decide that living a "morally just" life does not require a reward to adhere to.
Atheists, most of them, are philosophical naturalists who hold that there is no supernatural and everything in the universe can be explained in reference to physical processes. Atheism combined with philosophical naturalism is a recipe for existential disaster. The formula is simple: no God, which includes the associated concepts of Divine accountability, equals no moral values and purpose. Under naturalism everything that exists is essentially a rearrangement of matter, or at least based on blind, non-conscious physical processes and causes. If you were to pick up a hammer and smash a chocolate bunny and then did the same to an actual person, then according to naturalism, there would be no real difference. The pieces of chocolate and the pieces of human skull would just be rearrangements of the same stuff: cold, lifeless matter. Any difference is just an illusion because everything is based on matter and prior physical causes and processes and thus nothing has any real value. Even Richard Dawkins appreciates the logical implications of naturalism. He argues that under naturalism, everything is meaningless and based on pitiless indifference: *“On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."* *- Dawkins, R. (2001) River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. London: Phoenix, p. 155* A universe made up of non-rational, blind, cold physical stuff is not concerned with our emotions. Yet Atheists who adopt this perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their beliefs. If they did, it would be depressing. The reason Atheists attribute ultimate value to our existence is because of their innate dispositions which in itself an evidence for God's existence. God has placed an innate disposition within us to acknowledge our worth, and to recognise fundamental moral and ethical truths. Only God can provide the intellectual justification for moral values that defines our humanity. This is the Moral Argument for God's existence.
@@moizahmed4705 You do realize that an individual who does not have adhere to a philosophical naturalist approach is more likely to be agnostic, so why you are labeling them as atheists is up for debate, but I suppose that is a question for another time. The perpetual existential disaster you speak of is inherently on the shoulders of theists BECAUSE they cannot come to grips with the undeniable fact that they need to believe that there is a reward for their strict adherence to moral values AND the fact that they are basically puppets tied to their chosen deity's "rules". Why you people decide to not be puppets when you commit wrongdoings and simply blame it on their "inert" evil confounds me, but hey if you guys want to believe that everything good is because of a deity and everything bad is simply because we had it coming or it was part of a grand plan then so be it, everyone has coping mechanisms. It sounds like your disbelief stems NOT from our acceptance of chaotic forces culminating upon humanity(as it exists today) through oceans of time, BUT from a deep seated bitterness that there is no proof that a deity put on his thinking cap and thought "they will be my work of art". Oh I do so love the "nothing matters in the grand scheme of an atheist's universe" argument. Okay let me break it down for you: Our acceptance of a near limitless universe NOT OWING US MEANING does not convey that we cannot put emotional value and importance to matter that has consciousness or not. Will my death mean something to the outer reaches of the universe? I do not believe so, but will I care every day about staying alive simply because I cherish life and because I do not wish to make my family members suffer from a sudden demise? Absolutely. What you theists tend to drag into this "reasoning" for living is that some holy spirit is cheering me on to stay alive, which I can assure you is not, if anything my fellow human beings(and I own a pet, so it's not just humans) keep me going through the "human experience". And keep in mind that I am not even including people of solitary natures, those who stay alive simply to preserve their career, art, or profession. Now what I find particularly vile about your "chocolate rabbit" example is that you are stating that atheists do not have the empathy required to differentiate between the chocolate rabbit and a human being. This is absolute bull** on your part, especially because the entire point of this argument is that Atheists do not need a puppet master to get the anterior insular cortex to process the inner workings of empathy, do you know what kinds of people have no activity in that part of the cerebral cortex?: Psychopaths. Let me assure you, the majority of Atheists are not psychopaths, just like the majority of theists are not looking to go on a religious mass murdering crusade simply to dick measure how awesome their deity is. Oh look, a theist quoting a renowned atheist(who I can admit can be a bit heavy handed with his criticism of religion, but nonetheless speaks the truth) and shamelessly believing said quote brings credence to his viewpoint. This is almost as laughable as the story that conversion camps tell to their captives about how Albert Einstein told of a teacher about how their own atheism is flawed in regards to the concept of light, heat, and the universe. Okay, so first off, that quote from Dawkins was explicitly stating the same points from my previous statement: The universe owes us no meaning or regard, but that despite this chaotic function of the universe, we still choose to have moral values towards our world/reality(fellow living beings, other animals, nature, concepts). Atheists choose to follow the inner workings of our empathy to create our moral values, and yes in effect this gave rise to religion since we needed an easy explanation for good and evil, but now that we have evolved past superstition, it is time to let the fear of the unknown shackles us to an unnecessary concept of what we call the "moral good". You effectively took a quote about how the universe AS IS cannot possibly be the creation of an intelligent being that "loves" us BECAUSE it is so chaotic and ultimately left to the chance encounters of primordial forces to ultimately decide the fate of all life as atheists see it. You(and all other theists) cannot fathom such an acceptance of said "belief", so you decide to warp our understanding of the universe as a hopeless existence simply because we do not need the watchful eye of a deity to decide our fates. Basically, it is not our problem that you cannot have a healthy existence without a deity literally spelling out what is good or bad. You don't get to coopt the concept of morality with religion simply because you can't come up with a good excuse for moralistic atheists. Also, I get it, you need excuses to tell the younger generation that you haven't brainwashed yet into believing your nonsense.
@@pitsburg91 Of course you can be emphatic and differentiate between a chocolate bunny and an actual person by arguing “we have feelings”, “we are alive”, “we feel pain”, “we have an identity” and “we’re human!” But according to naturalism all of these responses can be reduced to rearrangements of matter, or to be more precise, neuro-chemical reactions in your brain. In reality everything we feel, say or do can be reduced to the basic constituents of matter, or at least some type of physical process. Therefore, this sentimentalism is unjustified if you are an atheist, because everything, including feelings, emotions or even the sense of value, is just based on matter and cold physical processes and causes. Yes you can give value to matter that has consciousness but that's self-delusion, you are telling us to play make-belief, it like a child who is about to hit by a ball but closes his eyes and says "it's gone now". Remember, according to atheism nothing has been purposefully designed or created. It is all based on cold, random and non-conscious physical processes and causes. You are basically saying "I know my life is no more valuable than the life of a bacteria but I want everyone to pretend it is because I don't want to accept this harsh reality". But the difference is that Theist genuinely believes that human life is sacred but an Atheist only pretends it is when he doesn't even believe that human beings have a soul. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, provides an apt summary of the concept of human rights and dignity-which ultimately refer to value-in the absence of God: *“Before speaking of human responsibilities or rights, one must answer the basic religious and philosophical question, ‘What does it mean to be human?’ In today’s world everyone speaks of human rights and the sacred character of human life, and many secularists even claim that they are true champions of human rights as against those who accept various religious worldviews. But strangely enough, often those same champions of humanity believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms and ultimately from various compounds of molecules. If the human being is nothing but the result of ‘blind forces’ acting upon the original cosmic soup of molecules, then is not the very statement of the sacredness of human life intellectually meaningless and nothing but a hollow sentimental expression? Is not human dignity nothing more than a conveniently contrived notion without basis in reality? And if we are nothing but highly organized inanimate particles, what is the basis for claims to ‘human rights’? These basic questions know no geographic boundaries and are asked by thinking people everywhere.”* *- Nasr, S. H. (2004). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 275* If you find ethics and morals in life that's due to intoxication of religion because such metaphysical claims are absurd and have no basis or justification under naturalism. You only sober up when you incline towards Nihilism. For an Atheist to say genocide is bad is no different than saying pizza with pineapple is bad, it's just your opinion or dislike which is neither valid nor binding upon others. For example, I believe that Homosexuality is immoral and should be criminalized whereas you probably believe there is nothing wrong with two people of same gender to love each other. But the question is which one of us is correct? Under your Atheistic worldview none of us is correct because morality is subjective to people and thus there are no moral facts. Yet, as I said earlier, many Atheists including yourself who adopt naturalistic perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their worldview. If they did it would be depressing and miserable existence. You having a purpose to continue your life implies that there is a reason for our existence-in other words, some kind of intention and objective. Without an ultimate purpose we have no reason to exist, and we lack a profound meaning for our lives. But this is the perspective of naturalism. It dictates that we merely spring from prior physical processes. These are blind, random and non-rational. Sure you can give purpose to continue your life, be it for your loved ones or to make a world a better place, but denying purpose for the basis of our existence while attributing some made-up purpose to our lives is again, by definition, self-delusion. It is no different from children who pretend to be doctors and nurses, cowboys and Indians, or mothers and fathers. However, we must all grow up and face the truth that life is not just a game.
@@moizahmed4705 Oh wow, your warped and abstract understanding of atheists is WAY worse than I thought. Your first couple of sentences can be reduced to "because you have a clear understanding of the vast expanse of the universe, thereby accepting your own EXCEEDINGLY small part within it, then you must live a disconnected/uncaring life", which is such a vile, and honestly not surprising, way to view atheists simply because you believe a deity cradles your "existence" into some vague afterlife. Our ability to CARE and give meaning to our interactions within THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE is not some cherry picked "make believe" excuse that theists come up with simply because they couldn't explain away our ability to do good without reward or direction from a deity. We KNOW that our place within the universe will ultimately not matter in the grand scheme of this existence, but we can choose to give meaning to our lives based on the various processes of interactions from our senses that have been developed through millions of years of evolution. Your argument is essentially that all atheists see what is at the end of our path, and thus we should have no emotional output once we reach it, and that is just total bull**, it's called enjoying the journey AND acquiring meaning on our own, if you prefer to have your deity amount to a parent telling you the story(do good, go to nice afterlife, do bad, go to bad afterlife) then be my guest, but your emotional and...spiritual way to give meaning to your existence is not the end-all be-all. Hahahahaha, okay okay, so when quoting a well known atheist failed for you(as I explained earlier that Dawkins's quote was about how his study of the chaotic forces of the universe serve as proof that a deity did not create it, and NOT that atheists cannot be moralistically good because of our understanding of the nature of said uncaring universe), next you decided to quote an academic that rejects the theory of evolution simply because it doesn't leave room for divine interaction? You do know this guy has been criticized by other academics who are not shackled by religious traditionalism, case in point: Marietta Stepanyants(Russian Philosopher) explains that his views on the "creation" of current day humanity by means of an omnipotent being is absurd because it offers "horizontal and material causes in a unidimensional world, to explain effects whose causes belong to other levels of reality". Basically, the guy is not basing his understating upon the scientific method, but merely mixing it with his own religious bias. So I ask, what's next, are you gonna quote a flat-Earther next? Nihilism is based upon rejecting religion BECAUSE you put no meaning upon ANYTHING within the confines of one's life. As I have explained before, and will continue to, Atheists do put meaning in life within the confines of OUR immediate vicinity/reality. We choose to care, give meaning, label good and evil not just because of the laws of man, but also because our evolutionary understanding of empathy compels us to as well. We know that our actions will not heavily affect the fate of the universe, but that does not mean we cannot tell the difference between good and evil. You call it an act, I call it seeing life without the lenses of a convenient puppet master who has to spoon feed you the concept of BEING a decent human being, not just to your fellow man, but also to the rest of the creatures that inhabit this world and to nature itself. You theists claim to have dominion over the world, Atheists who have educated scientific understanding of nature know that we can easily f*** up the environment and go extinct as easily as any other creature. Nice little strawman examples, okay let's break them down: Atheist will see the horrors of genocide and feel empathy for the race/ethnicity being wiped out because we have evolved to feel remorse or even pity for the dying. You theists have time and again committed acts of terror simply because a particular region of the world did not believe in the same deity, in that case it was a matter of convert or be wiped out. Oh look, a homophobe, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, so tell me Mr. theist, if your god is real and is busy with the near infinite complexities of the universe, why does he take time off his never ending job to dictate the importance of which gender takes it up the a**? Oh I know I am correct, and so do the many Atheists who easily see behind the conniving excuse of coopting the concept of moral good so theists can feel special about their sense of right and wrong. We particularly know this BECAUSE medical scientific inquiry has dissected the inner workings of the brain, and we have even shown that our empathy can light up certain areas of the brain which in turn are the basis of our morals(no deity is controlling us to be good). Once again, knowing that our lives will be meaningless IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE does not mean we do not convey meaning to our everyday lives and interactions that are within the confines of actual control/efficacy. What I have noticed is that you view atheists as depressed individuals who look up at the night sky and feel empty because we cannot affect the cosmos or continue to exists forever in an afterlife, and thus we simply cannot find meaning in our lifespans. I can assure you that is not the case, and only a zealot with an agenda would see us that way. Your last sentences are just more word salad about finding meaning, I have stated(and will continue to as long as it takes) that we can fine meaning in our everyday lives, we simply know that we cannot affect EVERTHING in the universe and thus have a meaningless "role to play" in the grand scheme of the universe. Religious zealots took the meaningless part to heart and rolled with it, creating a self-serving interpretation of the statement and turned it into their "GOTCHA" argument as to why Atheist can choose the paths of virtue without a deity. I particularly like the "grow up" comment, seeing as how Atheists are the ones who desire a world of meaning that is derived from reason and educated deductions of the inner workings of the universe, you theists are the ones who pretend to have a back-up save file when you die lol
@@pitsburg91 Oh boy you are just waffling at this point whilst having a mental breakdown. Very typical of Atheists when you point out the implications of their absurd worldview. You Atheists may be emotionally justified in believing your lives have a sense of ultimate value, purpose and meaning but intellectually they are groundless and that's the whole point of my argument which you don't seems to understand. Of course we can all play "make-belief" no different than little children but since you have just invented these beliefs you cannot justify them and that's the whole issue. You are kept appealing to "empathy" as if it justifies anything. Again empathy under naturalism can be reduced to neuro-chemical reactions in your brain which is just a natural process or rearrangement of matter no different than a leaf falling from a tree or tornados happening on Mars right now. An Anti-natalists can come up and say "I see a lot of pain and suffering caused by humans to almost all living creatures on this planet and I feel *empathy* for those who are suffering and *anger* on humans so if we just wipe all humanity then we can end a lot of pain and suffering and achieve ultimate peace which would be the greatest moral achievement." How on earth can you Atheists argue with such people that they are wrong when your worldview is as much as absurd than theirs if not more? Point is that dancing molecules in your brain neither justify moral claims nor are they binding upon others. I'm talking about Atheism not Atheists because Atheists are inconsistent with their worldview. Again I want to know if you can justify these metaphysical claims that our lives have a sense of value, purpose and meaning. I'm not interested in knowing that you can play "make-belief" because I know you can. I see children doing it all the time, nothing special, it doesn't make it true.
This is a dreadful argument. There is no such thing as objective morality. I am perfectly OK with that. Morality is an assessment of human actions. There are different standards of morality proposed. Generally people call things that increase harm and decrease wellbeing immoral, and things that increase wellbeing and decrease harm as moral. That is a perfectly acceptable standard even though this video claims there can't be morality without a god. Even people who think morality comes from a god use this method in my experience. This is why even though the Bible clearly says slavely is acceptable, most Christians today agree that slavery is immoral. They don't use the supposed word of God as the standard of morality - they use harm and wellbeing. Other proposed standards for morality are ones that come from the Christian god and one's that come from the Muslim God. So there are three different standards right there. The video give no reason why picking the one it proposes is actually objective. It just claims it without backing it up. That's because that standard is entirely subjective. Different people will use different standards. If the god you believe in says a particular killing/theft is morally right, then the believer will likely say it is morally right. So the morality of an action is subject to the word of a god in that view. That is subjective to its core. Referring to a god does not get you to objective morality. It simply does not exist.
@@Disneydreamgirl33 Because we read what's in the Bible. It's there in black and white. There are even commandments about it. Exodus 21 Leviticus 25 Deuteronomy 15 Colossians 3 1 Peter 2
@@NotChinmayi I'm not sure you took in what my original comment says. There are different views of what morality is. A common perception is that it is about how actions align with what a god does or wants. That is a subjective view. I view morality as how an action relates to wellbeing and harm. That is also a subjective view. Murder is bad when viewed in terms of what I view morality to be because it increases harm. That's how it is wrong according to my subjective view of morality. Alternative views of morality may say it is immoral too, or maybe even moral, but they are all subjective views. Does that answer your question?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video. One question: at 3:15 he mentions that animals have no moral obligations, which is why it’s normal for example, for a cat to kill a mouse. But that’s for the cat to eat the mouse, much like how we kill other species to eat them. And this isn’t considered immoral. Yet in this video he compares a cat killing a mouse to eat, with a human killing another human. How is this comparable? Would it not be a better comparison to compare a human killing another human with a cat killing another cat?
Even if cat kills another cat - it can happened only due to cat's instincts. All animals live only by instincts. Killing for eat or to defend their kittens or in battle for woman-cat) It doesn't matter. Cats do cat's things. But humans do not live by instincts. God said that His laws were written in our hearts. Thats why even atheists can be good. Thats why you do not think that killing another man to get a woman is acceptible. Because we are not animals. We have God's laws in our hearts. We call this - conscience. But it can be corrupted or completely burned if we will live in sinful way for too long. Or if we will be doing some terrible things. With each victim, killers develop a greater tolerance for murder, until they become completely immune to conscience.
@@duelist43Who gave the cat those instincts?
@@PiRobot314 Read my whole comment
Chimps kill other chimps...male lions will kill cubs that aren't their own... Sometimes animals will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent will pick out only one to take care of and nurture leaving the other one to die.
Monkeys kill other monkeys. Male lions kill cubs that aren't their own. Sometimes an animal will have twins or multiple offspring, yet the parent or parents will choose only one offspring to nurture, allowing the other one to die.
I find it kind of funny a lot of atheists on here saying this video was dumb, there is objective morality and it's whatever I decided it is. Then they list a bunch of different subjective criteria that they have made up.
And more often than not, their opinions are shaped by Christianity and they just don’t know it, because they grew up in a culture shaped by Christian values and simply assimilated them, assuming them to be universal knowledge.
As Solomon said, there's nothing new under the sun. Another day, another dipstick sprouts.
@@gabri41200 So you believe that a person is individually justified in committing whatever acts that they choose to since it's all just subjective?
So then you would also believe that a Islamic country imposing sharia law is just as moral as a liberal society with individual freedom? Or the antibellum South was just as moral as the Union North.
@@gabri41200 So you avoided answering my questions. You just tried to go ahead and with another canned response. Do you believe in objective truth? Also what do you ground your world view in?
@@JSRINTX my world view is based in not do harm to others. Simple like that.
I'm hoping WLC could enlighten me on a few points:
- how do I discover God's "moral commands"? Through scripture, prayer, revelation or does everyone just naturally know what they are?
- how many moral commands are there?
- what are they?
- do they all carry equal weight?
- do they require any interpretation? and if so, who's interpretation is objectively correct?
Lets say none of these questions could he answer? How would that go to demonstrate that the conclusion about moral realism is false?
It wouldn't demonstrate that. What it would mean is that God's moral commands are of no practical use. So when faced with difficult moral issues (such as assisted dying, stem cell research, abortion for rape victims), to judge what is morally right or wrong we can't simply refer to the absolute moral values that come from God.@@blusheep2
Start with the greatest command of the 10 commandments ''Love God with all your heart, all your mind and soul''
That means - same as if you met your future spouse - you want to know that person, and in a relationship, you therefore read the Scriptures to find out more. God is wisdom, love wisdom.
Read the commands Christ [who is God] made...and others in the NT.
The reading and speaking them will foster discernment;
There are moral, civil, and ceremonial OT laws - the former only matter for today.
Moral laws are 9 of the 10 Commandments [7th day Sabbath is ceremonial]. Those are the moral compass for the searching, unsaved, that should be taught in schools imo
@doctorlove3119 Paul wrote that the moral law is written on the heart of man.
Jesus made all that clear through his teachings since where to read in the old testament until the real explanation to every commandment.
You can know more of all that in the Books of Mathew, Marks, Luke or John John
Which specific god is the right objective reference point? If gods between each other differ from one moral nature to another, wouldn't that mean to have god also make it subjective nature as well. How can one tell if they are living in a set of subjective morals or objective morals?
The moral argument deductively concludes to a generic monotheism. One can conclude to specifically the Christian God from Christian evidences, such as the argument for the resurrection.
Not knowing more specifics about who God is doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of morality, just as not knowing how the universe was created doesn't prevent one from recognizing the objectivity of the external world. We simply see, directly, that certain acts are objectively wrong. - RF Admin
We have a number of levels of understanding to put the empirical issues in order for philosophical truth. WLC´s RF holds up their point below with generic monotheism and Christian forms of evidence. Building on Uni tarian Universalist interfaith and multidisciplinary knowledge, I identify as an interfaith UU Quaker Christian. What we can acknowledge empirically is the historical development and modern existence of University-based UN human rights world community. While allowing for diverse views, the standard has been set by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy proposal, negotiated witth the world community. In fact, University-based culture is Christian and spiritual in origin, so that modern education in Jesus´ legacy of modern democratic society, Civil and Human rights society gives us tools to evaluate our contexts, with laws, the non-binding UN U Dec of HR and its forms of binding conventions. Killing is a serious crime. Sexual behavior has its varying contexts in interpersonal relationships and larger consequences in family situations, even with risks of provoking violence. Moralizing religionists also enter into play. Orientation to develop skills, intelligence, and wisdom in spiritual practice is an informed aspect, no less. Buddhist, yoga, and tai chi related forms of meditation are all part of the most informed context. Did Einstein have affairs? Gandhi had a few kids, and finally vowed chastity, but had an odd manner of testing himself being saved from notorious scandal apparently by his spiritual integrity. Jerry Falwell met scandal with his own lack of control, among others. For example.
Being theist doesn´ t end anthropological issues. Conservative Christianity creates its own limitations and tries to impose rules, while progressive Christianity shows how freedom requires learning and operates very much in the full scope of multicultural, continuing ed-related society of modern structured pluralism. For one. American Jewish people and Muslims, among others, also. I knew an Indian guy from Kansas working in soc svc in NYC, for example.
Also, the basic morals of all religions are same: Dont kill, rape, steal etc.
@@mms0254 ...unless you are fleecing the goyim or waging jihad on the infidels!
@accelerationquanta5816 Nature has no opinion on what we ought to do, and your opinion is subjective.
I am theist.
Most humans have empathy. People without empathy don't understand why people shouldn't be killed. (But they don't kill people to avoid social exclusion.)
people is more selfish just be real. Empathy didn't help you to get an advantage then why you will give it to people that someday will harm you. School/Office/Public thats why we love family/country than any others.
Laws against killing are pretty prominent. Yet, America has been showing in the mass killing and brutality trends that ideological zealotry in economic materialism, ie profiteering businesspeople, and the like, have pushed people out of their minds. Spiritual practice for interfaith spiritualized practices that are compatible with an authentic high integrity Christianity are what I did, and what makes sense as a goal for learning moral skills.
Basing it on empathy is very dangerous because in the most simplest of examples is that most people would have more empathy for their pet animal than a random stranger they know nothing about.
@accelerationquanta5816 ayo what your statement directly clashes with love your neighbour as yourself
Anyone beside you is considered as your neighbour
If you are in the park , the people in your park are your neighbours
Basically its a law that love everyone as yourself
And ur saying dont love your neighbour
These days you see a directly correlation between decrease and emphathy and athiesm
These days more atheism that really puts into perspective why people don't care about each other anymore
The principal commandment of new testament is "Love thy neighbour as yourself"
See ? Christianity was the catylst of empathy
Now even less missionaries earlier america used to be
Wasn't ready for the lynching image at the 3:58 mark LOL. Got dark quick up in here.
The whole point this video stands on is that there are objective morals, which can be called into question
People can call into question the existence of consciousness, since there’s no proof it physically exists, but everyone intuitively knows when other people are conscious.
I agree. Morality is entirely subjective because of the countless factors that can vary the situation. Morality can vary from person to person, or city to city, or country to country. However, there is no "objective truth" when it comes to morality. The commenter above me is referencing a mass subjective agreement, rather than objective fact.
3:05 animals feel and express emotions based on the experiences of their individual and collective actions; some animals more than others. In the case of humans, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for collectivism to stratify what is good and why it is good?
Base on an ultimate standard of goodness as a reference?
Morals can come from a variety of sources, including cultural and social norms, personal experience and reason, philosophical and ethical theories, and human empathy and compassion. The existence of a god is not a necessary condition for the development of a moral code.
You may be conflating moral ontology and moral epistemology. Moral ontology has to do with the existence of moral truths. Moral epistemology has to do with how we come to know these truths. The argument deals with the former, not the latter. As Dr. Craig has always maintained, one needn't believe in God to know that certain things are right or wrong. People may come to know these things via the sources you stated. However, if any of these morals are objectively true, then we need an explanation for them. Since human convention is logically incompatible with objective morality, the explanation cannot be found in humans. This is generally why even atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre recognized that if God does not exist, then neither do objective morals. And, yet, we do seem to all intuitively recognize that some morals *are* objective. Deductively, then, we're led to the conclusion that God does exist. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos This argument assumes that the only explanation for objective morality is the existence of a deity. However, this is a limited and narrow perspective, as there are many other explanations and theories that have been proposed to account for the existence of moral truths. These include human reason, empathy, and social and cultural factors, among others. Additionally, the idea that the existence of objective morality necessitates the existence of a deity is not universally accepted, and there is ongoing debate and disagreement among philosophers and scholars on this issue. Ultimately, the relationship between morality and the existence of a deity is a complex and multifaceted topic, and cannot be reduced to simple assertions or assumptions.
@@zachio69 literal chatgpt text
@@Bezorgde_Burger my lord and savior
@@zachio69 chatgpt logic comes from humans💀
So your generated comment could even be wrong its not like chatgpt is perfect
4:37 Clearly, this man has neither heard of Affirming the Consequent Fallacy or Begging the Question Fallacy
This is a circular argument. The second premise isn't self-evident. A consistent naturalist could say that morality is just a subjective feeling, and that in nature the only objective moral principle is "might makes right". Or as Thucydides put it "the strong get what they want, and the weak suffer what they must". The fact that in our time, there is widespread belief that slavery/genocide/conquest/etc. is "wrong" doesn't prove that that belief corresponds to anything in reality other than our personal feelings, or that it is binding on anyone who doesn't share those beliefs.
Well, that's the point. In order to be a consistent atheist you have to say that raping children isn't actually objectively wrong, it's just distasteful in our time. The thing is, many (not all, perhaps not you) atheists DO believe in objective morals one way or another. So how can they explain the grounding for such beliefs under atheism? Such people should reconsider.
And it's not circular reasoning, because they ground it in "our sense experience tells us morals are objective" is it circular reasoning to say there are physical objects in the world because we can sense them? Of course not. But someone who is blind and without any sense may have a hard time accepting that reality. Just because not everyone is able to sense the moral reality doesn't mean other do not sense it and that is therefore non-existent.
so it just distasteful not actually wrong@@spazzyjazzy6367
3:14 but if God is morality, why are we the only species that the "rules" apply to?
Obviously because he have consciousness
I agree. But does a crisis of morality for human beings dictate that there must be a god that exists in reality? Or are humans simply damned to have evolved to a point of capacity for abstract reasoning that they're tortured by said crisis? Might inspire someone to make up a god.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros no but neither can I prove that pink unicorns or leprechauns are "made up" 😜
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros no, it wasn't. At the time of ancient Christianity, there was no such debate. Most people believed in objective morality and Christianity just went there as a new typenof it
It dictates that morality is a human construct
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim, which should be a red flag to you for all religions. The ones that were falsifiable like the Greek gods being responsible for specific things like the motion of the sun and changing of seasons were falsifiable and so when we simply discovered the real cause of those things we had to stop believing in them. If a God is invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, etc. It gets to a point where you literally can't disprove him. The main religions left today are of that sort. At the same time though, its not anyone's job to disprove a religious person's positive claim that their God is real, and they can't because they aren't and there's no evidence.
It says that if there is no inherent morality created outside of man, then essentially, man can make up whatever disgusting rules he wants and nothing can limit him.
There’s one part of this video that isn’t making sense to me. The part where it asked “is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is already good? Neither, God wills i because he is good”
Can someone make sense of this for me? It doesn’t seem to answer the question of whether good things are good because God willed them, or if they were already good to begin with.
Yeah, it doesn't answer the original question. The question's subject is the act or behaviour or belief itself, i.e., how does 'something' attain its status as good? However, the response seems to completely dodge the question by shifting the subject onto God, i.e., God is good rather than the act, behaviour, or belief.
I think the root of the question at hand is this:
How do we fundamentally define the word "goodness?"
There are many possible answers to this question:
- whatever God does
- whatever God commands
- whatever is beneficial to sentient life
- what we happen to like
- whatever makes us last longer
... or some combination of these.
I think if Craig just gave us a straightforward definition of "good" things would be a lot easier.
I am not really sure what Craig believes because it sounds like he is needlessly confusing things to me. Take these quotes from Craig for example:
"The theist does not make any claim that 'good' is somehow to be defined in theistic terms, e.g., 'belonging to God’s nature.'"
"something is good because of the way God is"
(Question 294 on ReasonableFaith)
Unless Craig clarified how to reconcile those *with a clear definition of "good"*, I remain unconvinced of his argument.
God doesn't create what good is he is good making him the reference point
@@Someguy12333Good are sometimes contingent God is nesscary
My morals come from what can cause harm to others. If its helps others its good, if it causes others harm or inconvenience its bad. This applies to how you treat animals too. If you need a book or fake entity to tell you how to be good then you arent good, just afraid of hell.
well what if my idea of good is harming others?
@@sacredgenjutsu2808 then thats on you my friend.
@@Grundlewald then that means your idea of good is no better than any other people's idea of good. So its not really good. Its just an idea.
@@kenoablan6829 so that means that you good is better than my good? Ight.
@@Grundlewald no, I'm not saying that. However you cannot say that your good is actually good if you dont have any moral reference. What you might think is good is possibly evil in somebody else's point of view and if you think that your point of view is superior or more important to that of somebody else, then it also refutes your argument of morality.
What about the categorical imperative? "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you". That seems like an ethical code without god
the very claim itself that "everything is just subjective"
relies on itself being taken seriously as an objective claim
it eats itself
every religion and culture may differ in what they consider to BE moral, but they ALL believe that morality is Objective.
We don't even behave like things are morality subjective, people argue about what is "right" not what we can and cannot constantly.
The only people in the world who truly behave as if things are purely subjective, are quite literally in loony houses
What utter nonsence, please tell me precisely WHY do you think human moral reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
You lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from christianity even assuming that the christian God exists is the only "God" and is moral.
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
It doesn't eat itself. The quote is not "everything is just subjective" but rather "morality is subjective". Objective statements about reality can be made whilst still believing morality is subjective - they're independent from one another, not synonymous.
We _do_ act like morality is subjective because individual people treat moral dilemmas in different ways. What you're talking about is a broad correlation between people's moral beliefs (most people think murder is bad, for example) but this in no way demonstrates objective morality.
Well, the big problem with saying morality has no inherent value is you take away any power of argument you have regarding morality. Any claim you make on morality in the future will just be laughed at and ridiculed because you already said it matters about as much as "Do you prefer mustard or ketchup on your burger?"
@@theboombody I'm not so sure if your view is entirely correct. Morality being subjective doesn't detract from the fact that we can make generalised claims, based on empirical evidence, in order to choose a 'more suitable' course of action. For example, we can scientifically support the claim that the majority of people value their well-being, happiness and community flourishing. We could follow from this and then claim that choosing an action which benefits this sentiment will be moral for the majority of people, and therefore the utility will be higher. Of course, this isn't bulletproof and when you start to question the more minute differences in reasoning it can become fuzzy, but to claim that _any_ moral claim is no different from one another isn't true from a broader societal perspective.
1:28 can subjective “good” be define by a collective consensus or based on some societal norm? I think so.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it true or good. Take slavery for example.
@@owlsrawesomeI totally agree with you. Subjective good isn’t always a “true good.” Slavery was bad.
He claims that "moral experience" shows that moral values are objectively real. Surely "moral experience" is subjective, yet he claims this proves something objective?
He also tells us that discrimination is objectively evil. Presumably there's an exception to this for discrimination against gay people.
If something is objectively wrong , its wrong
Stealing is always wrong
And ig its also that same sex marriage is also condemned in the bible commands
So we treat it as a rule
discrimination against gay people is not what Jesus taught
Great video. Moral realism is best explained under the paradigm of theism given a PSR. I think Josh Rasmussen’s formulation of the argument under his resolution to the gap problem is the best explanation for an objectivist view of metaethics. Excellent video!
Is it ever okay to kill people? Is it always wrong?
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros subjective ASSERTION nothing more.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros dangerous absolutism
Except morality, ethics etc is subjective, not objective.
Even within Christianity, everyone subscribing to that belief, would have a slightly different view of what is amoral or moral
@@trumpbellend6717 no , it’s objective , as the bible proves it in the old and the New Testament .
God likes strawberry ice cream.
@@oscarmany1 if something creates something so evil. Doesnt that make the creator evil aswell?
How do you know bro 💀
@@BruhCredencial It is a critique of the video. It is a logical contradiction to appeal to the preferences of a god as an objective basis.
@@riveratrackrunner Creating evil is not inherently evil; however, committing an evil act is.
For example, the creator of the atomic bomb was not evil, but the USA was evil for using it.
@@hobdns5933 if killed a nice family that was Christian or religious or what ever and was a nice person. And I said god the devil made me do it (GoD), I’m I evil?
How does information of the universe manifest itself into physical properties?
Edit: Can someone help me out?
The only think I can imagine is this. The reason water can be touch because two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule are together.
Meaning if this molecules didn't exist, there would be no water to touch.
So, the big question is, who made these molecules?
Laws creating laws, or a creator creating laws?
@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1
Paul said in Romans 1:19-20 that, ever since the creation of the world, God has made the knowledge of Himself evident to all people: “They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God” (NLT).
Humans can take in the beauty and splendor all around and recognize that these created things testify to the existence of God, who is the all-powerful maker of the universe. According to Paul, God has provided sufficient insight into His eternal power and divine attributes through creation so that no one can be excused for missing His existence.
Psalm 19:1-4 declares, “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world” (NLT).
Link: www.gotquestions.org/God-reveal-Himself.html
@@alinaa00.00 That's right. Thanks.
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
- Mark 10:18
So Jesus calls himself good? And then says only god is good?
Bruh he s claiming that he =God here
He should have states that more explicitly though a lot of people would have persecuted him though in israel if he claimed it directly
So, whatever is commanded by God must be good because God said it, and God indirectly had the Bible written?
I always wanted to make these animation but i dont know how🤔
Thoughts as i watch the video:
Using space to say if something is up or down is a bad argument. As up or down chamges depending on where you are. There is no objective up or down. There is no objective reference.
Why is Gods viewpoint/morality objective? We can simply agree to be held by Gods standards but that doesnt make it objective. If it is objective, then what makes those standards objective?
2:20 All thats been stated is that a good thing is good because God is good. Is just a round about way of saying something is good because God says it is good. So even if we accept the postulate that what God says is good, it doesnt change that it is only good because God says so. The only other way is God is good because God is held to a different standard that governs whether what god says/does is good. So we must conclude that either anything is good only at God's whim, or God is policing what is good based on knowledge of something else outside of God.
2:35 A live performance is not the standard of High fidelity. The parameters that producers select and control for chamge what the final product is. So even if you sat in the studio while something was recorded, 3 different producers can have 3 different visions on what would make something sound the best.
2:55 Whether or not atheism is true, doesnt affect whether or not an objective moral standard exists. To say the objective moral standard is removed if God does not exists can only be true if God is the moral standard. Which i have already stated can only be true if God created the moral standard.
3:14 Animals do have moral obligations to each other. A pack of wolves live by their own societal rules. And the wolves all subscribe to those rules or risk rejection from the pack.
3:20 if the cat to mouse analogy isnt the same as comparing human to a human. It ahould be compared as a human to the fish.
3:50 is this part of the same argument? A belief in an injustice doesnt make an injustice. If two parties believe they are have been wronged, where does the injustice lie?
4:36 this is just a bad argument.
"1) Good football players win world cups.
2) Cristiano Ronaldo has not won a world cup
3) therefore, Cristiano Ronaldo is not a good football player."
Or "1) only good basketball players play in the NBA
2) Michael Jordan does not play kn thr NBA
3)Therefore, Michael Jordan is not a good basketball player."
4:51 We still have not proven the existence of objective morals. The existence or non-existence of objective morals does not prove the existence of God. The same way the water cycle doesnt prove the existence of planes.
1:41 in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God.
2:59 I mean yes and no? Everyone forms their own subjective morality, as you previously stated, whether they are religious or not. There may not be moral duties to the Christian God, but there are moral duties that each person defines. I would argue that once again it comes down to societal standards that "lay duties upon us". Once again, people are not going to agree with societal standards but that doesn't mean that the society won't influence people.
3:27 Once again, societal standards based on what is right and wrong. That's why we have laws and the judicial system. If God doesn't exist, human society would not fall apart in chaos and mass death with no consequences. As a society, we give people consequences through the judicial system. I'm not saying that the judicial system has no flaws but we rely on it as human society.
4:30 Sure objective morals won't exist ( Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.) but subjective will and we give ourselves our values and moral duties based on how we see the world. With or without God. Even within the Christian religion, the objective morals from God may differ, at least a little, based on who you ask because everyone may interpret the Bible differently.
4:42 Atheism as a whole is people who disagree on so many different things. Just the same as any belief system. But, based on my perspective that I provided, there is a world of morality without the existence of God, of which to say, in a world with no Christians there will still be morality but it wouldn't be based on a God, it would be either based on the individual or human societies.
Let me know your thoughts, any criticisms you may have. My argument isn't in malice but rather a thoughtful one.
"in a world without the Christian God, good vs evil is not indifferent. As a human society we deem things to be "right" and "wrong" based on societal standards. While not everyone will agree with the societal standards, they form a base most agree on and others criticize. Societal standards are prone to change, as humans do, but not every part of humanity is tied to the Christian God. "
1st problem... if someone decides to live their life like "Hitler the 2nd" or if someone decides to live their life like "Mother Theresa the 2nd", in a non-God world where we all essentially become dust in the end, and cease to exist, it doesn't matter which option you'd choose because the summation of all the choices in your life aren't counting or applying to anything that'll matter once your life is expiring. You won't exist to care what your legacy was, how rich you were, and if anyone loved you after 'cause they'll all be right behind you joining you as dirt.
2nd problem, from a naturalistic world you're begging the question when you say "right" and "wrong", or good and bad. Some societies say women have no rights, some do. It wasn't that long ago till we thought so to, and it was honestly the help of Judeo-Christian values that human beings were made in the "Image of God" (imago dei) and all human beings have equal worth that pushed to equality in western society after the enlightenment, 'cause throughout history... go back to the Greco-Roman empire where almost 50-60% of the population were slaves of some sort from war, and "might makes right", you weren't granted worth it was more of a caste system you had to earn your worth. Also, if you recall it wasn't even that long ago since the Dred Scott decision where African Americans weren't even considered citizens... so the POINT that I'm trying to make is, if you're going to leave it to Cultural Relativism... you'll never have objective moral standards, you'll only have a group of individual "opinions" or "tastes" that will constantly change back and forth over time. One thing that's happening in America with so much child predation and grooming, there's actually groups trying to "normalize" pedophilia and get rid of the whole child consent laws... so there COULD be a time in the future, I'm honestly calling it within our life times, that sex with minors could be some allowable thing the way our society is degenerating. But then... there could be a revolution that decides to swing it back and say once again that's evil 100 years later. You see the point I'm making? What you think is moral or ethical, is really "what's convenient for the 'majority' that they can get away with" at a particular time in history". Why is it ethical that these rich people can keep all this money to their selves in this rich part of the country, how is that fair? Well maybe the MORAL thing to do is for us to get pitchforks and band up and break into their house and steal all their stuff so we can have it. But I thought stealing was a moral wrong? You see how confusing this is... if there's no objective standard you can basically justify almost anything out of convenience/inconvenience to your way of living, and human beings are selfish and will always put themselves first.
First, such societal standards are purely subjective. With no supreme being, objective morality fundamentally ends, as there is no normative patterns of action. People might still believe in "good" and "evil" but they will be totally determined by society and culture, having no objective basis and such no universal need to follow them.
You were repeating the same thing quite a bit but to your entire comment -
Most of our societies laws and jurisprudence are based off of religious laws, they didn’t just drop from the ether. If God didn’t exist human society would fall apart, or whoever had the most power would enforce their own subjective laws.
What you are saying is that it’s ok to follow societal standards and laws (i know u stated that is has flaws) but the only reason most non-religious people obey the law is because of the fear of imprisonment. No atheist or agnostic cares about the morality of their actions as long as it suits them. They are their own God in their lives declaring what’s right or wrong for themselves. If they try and declare right or wrong for others obviously you would agree that that is unjust and unfair.
All ‘societal standard’ is is public opinion which too is subjective and indifferent.
Also, you kept saying that even religious people disagree on many things like atheist. that is true but for different reasons to an atheists. there are explicit laws in the Bible that can’t be interpreted differently. There are no Christians who would argue about the meaning of a commandment in the Ten Commandments.
Whereas the atheist debating each other is futile because they are not even arguing about something objective or definite. They are literally sharing their own opinions and disagreeing with each other.
The different Bible translations you talked about are not different interpretations they are simply different versions of English for different understanding, so maybe for a child or an adult, or some who speak in different dialects.
Since you are fine with societal standards without God that means if u found yourself in societies across human history like nazi Germany or Jim Crow America. You would (by your logic) comply to those societies laws and standards JUST because a lot of people have that opinion? If you say you wouldn’t follow those laws because they are not agreeing with your subjective opinion you still have no right to tell anyone owning a slave or anyone killing a Jew that they are in the wrong because morality is nothing more than your opinion to you. If u were to try and stop someone doing that evil, then you would be playing God or tyrant, forcing your opinions on others.
@@CJ-fq2cf Civil societies in existence even before the writings of the Tanakh, or your Old Testament, held that things that created suffering were morally bad. Yes, they may have had civil laws that dealt with matters of worship, but the laws against killing and stealing are almost universally accepted (with or without religious belief) to be just, as these acts cause harm to individuals and society at large. This is the basis for which, over the centuries, humans have based their civil laws. Communities have over time tweaked these standards as were necessary to promote the advancement of their communities, fixing errors along the way to the betterment of society at large. Yes, this makes them subjective in nature, but part of being an adult is recognizing that not everything is perfect and making the attempt to better oneself.
As to your second point, we agree that the division of Christianity is a result of doctrinal differences, but before I get into the nitty gritty please refrain from the no-true-scotsman fallacy that is the center of the cock measuring between denominations and attempts to distance oneself from the atrocities committed by those devoted to Christ with whom you may disagree. Take for example the division between the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther. His disagreement was multi-faceted. He disagreed with indulgences (the selling of relics to fill the coffers of the church), the papal hierarchy, the focus of mass being on song rather than on the Bible and the contradictions between papal edicts. In a sense, today Christianity sells Christ for a prayer insomuch as it could be argued that modern Christianity is back to selling a prayer for devotion and often boasting rights in opposition to other groups of local Christians. Atheists don't need to debate the existence of a supreme being credited with creating the universe and everything therein with other atheists since atheists have the same philosophical position when it comes to the unjustified claims of theism.
The different Bible translations are updates to the Bible from the original English translations in Archaic forms of the English language, but every time you translate something into a new language, meaning is lost. In English, the Bible can be quite ambiguous or vague at times, which is a good reason for the divisions among Christians, every division claiming to have the only correct interpretation of scripture and downplaying or outright questioning at times the salvation of other denominations (I have witnessed this in several denominations including the Assemblies of God, Nazarene, Baptist, and Non-denominational churches). We atheists generally disagree on a great many other subjects, but that is non-sequitor to the issue of theism.
Lastly, no, if I found myself in the midst of the Nazi regime or Jim Crow America (strange mention considering we are heading directly towards that future), I would be a vocal critic and probably wind up in prison for opposing such things like ubermensch because it would cause immense harm to individual people and society at large. This idea that somehow without a deity promising a reward for following his book or punishment for not doing so will lead to downfall is demonstrably false. In fact, among high income nations, we are the most religious and yet have the worst societal health in the developed world in every metric such as crime, bodily/emotional/mental health, access to healthcare, life expectancy, economic mobility child mortality, teen pregnancy and so on. Religious belief has not contributed to societal health in any way shape or form and the most secular of nations also happen to perform better with citizenry that is better educated and happier.
@@Jaryism
IF there is one RIGHT answer among an INFINITE amount of wrong ones then wouldn't it behoove us to make as many guesses as possible just to hedge our bets? Sure we also run the risk of abandoning the right answer if we have find it but certainly knowing the answer even for as little as 5 minutes is better then an eternity of doing the same wrong thing
Is it moral to have slaves or kill girls for having sex before marriage? Please explain how you know.
Great video! Here for my Oral Roberts University Christian Apologetics class.
Yeah great video. But I hate the term Christian Apologetics. It seems like Orwellian New Speak to me. For what does a true Christian have to apologize for?
I've been thinking. Is reasoning super natural or the brain process information and makes thoughts?
What do you think?
Is reasoning super natural?
Immaterial mind or only physical brain? 🤔 If ONLY the physical, then so-called "thinking" is just chemicals and electricity, a brain doing what a brain does, correct? ... Actually, if that is correct, can we know it? If all we are is a brain, what does it even mean to say, "I think..."?
@@jessebryant9233 I'm thinking more along the lines of a computer brain. A computer brain just process information and gives an answer but it can not think. It process vision, hearing, touch sensers, we dont have taste yet. But a brain just process information but it does not think.
I was thinking of thoughts are mental? If they are mental then a mind exist, but if the brain process information then it's physical and not mental.
@@Oscar.AnangeloftheLord.Perez.1
Agreed! The "I" is the mind, the physical brain is the CPU.
@@jessebryant9233 Yes
Moral codes are created by humans. You can have objective good within that moral framework. But the choice how to define morally good initially is subjective
As far as the rest if the universe is concerned, blind, pitiless indifference is precisely what you get. The fact that you find that unpalatable does not mean you can define god into existence
Can I steal your wallet?
@brogadierthethird7790 no. But you can give it your best shot see how far you get
Yeah but what's the explantion of the creation of those rules?
Goodness?
That contradicts with survival of the fittest
If someone would rob you and then say "hey I was just improving my own chances of survival so I'm justified in stealing form you"
Or "my grandma needs money for operation so I stole your bank money"
I disagree that animals have no moral obligation. Their obligation is in survival. If a group of bison over graze and field and do not move to another area, they will die. They have a moral obligation to not die. You may call it instinctual, but there is plenty room for argument here
Many animals do not have this obligation, some of them just want to reproduce like bacteria or mosquitoes, etc...
Chimpanzees: Have been observed engaging in what appears to be lethal intergroup violence.
Some domestic cats: May kill small animals, such as birds or mice, for play rather than for food.
Dolphins: Occasionally known to kill porpoises or small dolphins just for fun.
This video will grow old like good fine wine!!!
- Teaching and showing this to my middle school bible study kids this sunday
It will never grow old to me, and wine really isn't good. But glad you show it to study 🙂
1:37 misquote,... actual quote “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
It's not a misquote they just didn't quote the whole thing. And I don't think they took it out of context either
@@carterwoodrow4805 not quoting the whole thing is a misquote.
Morality is just a system of conduct and values based on biological evolution and historical events. It's a means to keep a tribe united and maximize its evolutionary success. It varies by individual, culture era and species, it is limited to social animals. In the universe there is no good or bad, these are human conceptions. The true God is the Absolute and includes all opposites within itself. It is not good nor evil, it is beyond both.
This is wrong for several reasons.
Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief, surely everyone would realize that this culture is morally horrible. Or let's say you read in the newspaper how some psychopath decapitated a little boy, you are horrified again and realize that this person did something objectively wrong. And even you certainly don't live as a moral anti-realist, anti-realists are only anti-realists in language, every time you morally criticize or praise someone, you confirm your belief in objective morality, so it's not just a product of evolution, evolution is just the mechanism by which we discovered moral facts.
"no good or bad"... Yeah killing and torturing babies is not bad/evil. Sure thing.
@@kenandzafic3948 "Imagine if you found a culture where every other child was thrown into a volcano because of some crazy belief."
i mean, you guys have a god that told a father to kill their own son. i'm glad both of us find this horrible and insane.
If the reasons, epistemology, you hold a moral value to be true are different from the person who holds the same moral value to be true then you merely agree on the moral value that does not mean you objectively agree since the reasons are not the same. "Hey Mark, why don't you kill people?" "Well Fred, my book says it's wrong and I don't want to suffer for an eternity. Why don't you kill people?" "Well Mark, I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." Same moral conclusions but arrived at subjectively. An objective moral is possible, but objective morality is highly improbable. This is because we do not know all the reasons of all the people's moral values throughout time, so morality is subjective. Why do you need morality to be objective?
It’s not “my book tells me to not kill people” it’s more so “this tells me that there IS an objective morality put into place by God as creator” The New Testament elaborates through Jesus the peak of goodness, “love thy neighbor as thyself” “any man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart” etc. The atheist provides the use of empathy as a means to describe why they do “good” yet fail to describe why our empathy leads us in that direction. Morality can be subjective in the our minds, but the point is that there is no standard and meaning to that morality unless there is a purpose to our own consciousness. If we ARE simply an accident and random processes of nature, what would lead us to believe that we can trust our senses enough to understand the fabrics of our reality? Evolution claims survival of the fittest, how does morality benefit that ideology?
@@Username-hd1co In the example it's not empathy it selfish self-preservation, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill people." We do not trust our senses alone to determine the fabric of reality. We use logic, tools, mathematics, deduction, experimentation, blind tests to reduce biases, philosophy, ethics, etc. Evolution doesn't claim anything. Evolution is a theory that provides an explanation of how life became diverse and complex though natural processes just as gravitational theory describes the force between objects. Morality and ideology are most likely products of evolved creatures. I do not understand your question.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 evolution is a theory then? Then your guess is as good as mine. When have we ever witnessed speciation? Your perception of morality also assumes that everyone seeks the good for other simply because in a way we really just wanna look out for ourselves. That is pretty selfish but I could argue that I do good for the benefit of others.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 use science then, let’s use what we know to be true. The universe has a beginning, nothing can come to be out of nothing. What caused that universe? If we don’t know then we don’t know, but again let’s all say we don’t know and not bash each other’s intellect simply because we see intelligent creation as a possibility. Not saying you’re doing that but it opens up dialogue.
@@Username-hd1co Is English your first language?
2:30 in that case, then man created God, because man created the standards of our moral values.
No, Man discovered the standards of our moral values. To discover something that is real is different from creating something.
@@tayzk5929 we each discover the standards of our moral values as we grow up and live through life. Each of us were pretty much born without any moral values or standards and without anything but a helpless ego that couldn't even survive on it's own in the world. We're born a bunch of socialist communists hanging on our mothers titties and whining whenever we don't have our way. Small children get into fights in kindergarden and later in school, adults may try to break them up, slowly most of us learn empathy and we learn what's good for ourselves and others as well as what's not good for ourselves and others. We learn good from bad, by experiencing it on our own bodies and mirroring our own actions through our consciousness.
We are social animals that form bonds with our peers. We live our lives forwards but we understand them backwards, and our conscience shows us our own evil side and teaches most of us to become better human beings throughout our lives. Good and evil is very much a biological phenomenon experienced by living beings, because being alive can range anywhere from feeling ecstatically good and wonderful, to feeling terribly cruel, violent and unfair. There is no God teaching us moral values, rather it is the other way around. We humans make up our own Gods and then we make up the moral values of our make-believe Gods. In the end all of it comes from ourselves, it all comes from our own biology that has evolved throughout the ages combined with our life experience.
@@tayzk5929 good!
@@tayzk5929 Basesless assertion nothing more, demonstrate the truth of this??
*man discovered God. Or more well put, God revealed himself to man.
Yahweh's inspired word indicates that women are half the value of men, that they are property of men at all stages of their lives. This disparity is a fundamental and inseparable part of Yahweh's objective morality. In modern, post-Enlightenment times, we have discovered that women, including their brains, are the equal of men. We followed the science and our own experience and abandoned Yahweh's primitive, ignorant opinion about women. Long live our thoughtful, subjective, humane morality developed by human consensus for the benefit of humans. May Yahweh rest in peace with Zeus and Thor and all the other angry storm gods who just never were.
†
¹
*Can You Be Good Without God?*
• This assumes God exists (no reliable evidence).
> By saying moral values are derived from God's nature, you forget that since there is no reliable evidence, any other concept can replace God as a moral basis. Like... self interest and evolution*
*What are the basis of objective morality without God?*
• This assumes objective morality exists.
*Without God, all we're left with is one person's viewpoint. It's like a preference for strawberry icecream. Like subjective morality, It isn't binding for everyone.*
• This assumes people can't come to mutual agreements, much like religious people in their own community do.
• This assumes people can't disagree with God, which solves nothing.
*If God doesn't exist, human behavior should be viewed neutrally like other animals.*
• This suggest that if God doesn't exist, you would be okay with murder being considered okay, like a cat and mouse. This is weird and I've never heard a religious person say that.
*We know the world is objectively real through our senses*
*We know these crimes are always wrong, but is it preference or opinion?*
• *It's opinion based on the selfish desires we have. You are personally inconvenienced when something happens to you that you think is wrong. You are emotionally, physically, or mentally satisfied when you do something you think is right and the opposite is for wrongdoing.
†
²
Morality is subjective.
An enormous group of people can agree with a set of moral standards, but this doesn't mean they are objective.
Moral standards tend to be similar due to the fact that they are mainly used to favor utility and self interest.
That maybe the only objective fact about morality, but objective morality is more often than not used to mean there is an inherent morality that exists in nature beyond human construction.
No action is selfless, despite if it's in our best interest or not.
When we do something because we think it's right, it's because we feel good physically, emotionally, or psychologically doing it.
The opposite is true for wrongdoing.
This is based on our nature, and experiences, and is why different people have subtle differences in consciousness.
This is also true when people have to choose between two conflicting outcomes that ultimately never results in a homogeneous outcome between choosers (Lesser of the evils is different to different people).
A society of sociopaths will be peaceful and live lawfully if they agree to behave a certain way, much like modern society.
The problem is that without a way to reliably verify God's existence, anyone can come up with a replacement for God with completely opposing morals and claim it's objective.
But if all morality is objective, we can focus on what matters: how people want to cooperate.
It is no longer just a feeling when it's codified into standards of behavior, it's morality.
@Todor
Hello Todor, thanks for reading all of that. However, there maybe a critical misunderstanding of my position so allow me to elaborate.
Can you explain to someone that doesn't already agree that poop is disgusting 💩. You say cleanliness, I say why. You say health, I say why do we need health. You say life. I say why do we need to live. Look or smell maybe. Many animals don't have such instinctual biases. Many animals thrive on poop, but it's not very beneficial to us in 3 ways: physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's disgusting because we have a selfish bias against it.
Same thing with morality ⚖️. Why do we define theft as wrong? Because it bothers us mentally emotionally (conscious) to see it happen to people (or do it). Is it Because we want to feel safe. And why should we. Selfish desire. Yes, it's true that we can be selfish and selfless at the same time, for each selfless act is a selfish one.
This doesn't mean we should eat poop for breakfast every Christmas Eve.
Nor does this mean we should embrace the likes of unwise dictators.
This only recognizes that we defined morality, right, and wrong.
The phrases you are familiar with, "objectively wrong" and "objectively right" do not make sense. Here is why:
When I said morality was subjective, that means the phrases "right" and "wrong" were subjective. We defined morality, right, and wrong.
This doesn't mean that a meaning can't be objective. You'll have to define 2 words first: "truth", and "right(moral context)".
For me, something is true if it conforms to reality. It is true that most people prefer not to die, for example.
how would you define "right" (and it's opposite, "wrong") without it being based on desire
For me, there is simply how we should live and what fundamental rules we live by. Egalitarianism, Utilitarianism, a special religious code or document. And why should we choose those? I recognize my biases, and a majority of others' fundamental biases on moral desires. But I do recognize those biases.
@Todor
yea, didn't think it would in the long run. probably. Do tell me the false equivalency.
Self interest isn't a justification for any action, it's an explanation for morality.
I see you acknowledged the lack of obligation. This is a bit like when people say life has no meaning so let's all kill ourselves.
Tell me what objective and subjective mean, and tell me what morality means, along with right and wrong. Of course you don't have to, but I'd like to know how you define it. Is morality linked to the meaning of life, and do you think there is a meaning of life?
@@Dragnulls
Hello
I'm under the impression that morality is something we codified to live together in an agreed manner.
What is morality and how is it objective?
@@omegazero5032 You do not believe your own arguments. You believe there's a thing such as right or wrong. It's similar to as if you said that mathematics is logically false, but you continue to add 2+2=4. You can argue that morality is subjective as much as you wish, but that does not change the fact you, and the great majority of people, do not believe such a claim. Also, in your original comment you said that "there's no reliable evidence" for God's existence. It all depends on what you mean by "reliable," but whatever metric you use for God's existence, if we apply the same standard for God's non-existence, there's just as much evidence or less.
There are many wrong things in your original comment:
1- Of course the argument assumes objective morality exists, since pretty much everyone agrees with it. Is your lived experience true? Of course it is, and there's no reason to be so unreasonably skeptic about it.
2- Whether people come to mutual agreements says nothing of objective morality- it's irrelevant. Two ISIS member coming to an agreement is no different from a Christian agreeing to voluntary work. Again, people disagreeing with God provides no arguments for or against objective morality. If God exists, and His moral code exists, my disagreeing with His moral code doesn't change anything.
3- The argument does not suggest you'd be okay with murder. You haven't heard any religious person say it yet still. The argument says "if God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist." In other words, if God didn't exist, we should naturally think just as the rest of animals do; however, we naturally don't feel this way, which points to the conclusion of the argument.
If God existed, why is such intellectual strain necessary to “prove” its existence? Shouldn’t it be obvious? Why wouldn’t God make it more obvious for people who require a higher criterion for evidence? Two possibilities: either God doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care that we don’t believe in him.
Or you proud enough to reject any evidence of God and want to be your own god. The True God are hidden for reason people like you could have a free will to believe in Him or not to believe. It's so obvious. What free will we could talking about if God's presence was open in His full Glory for everyone?
This literally had no explanation. I can agree love is the foundation of morality but why is that? I would say be the opposite is bad, it hurts. It doesn't hurt because God said too necessarily. That's where morality begins, good vs bad is how you feel about an act being done to you and the sympathy or empathy you feel when seeing others endure the same hurt/injustice. To make like go smoother and more positively, do onto others as you'd want done to you. If everyone follows that rule, which is rooted with love (could argue selflessness in a way cuz no act is selfless, moral desert) Then we're a functioning society.
Yeah, we'll never reach a time when everyone is empathetic. So if it relies on that, it's doomed to fail.
Based on that logic. Stealing and raping is not bad because the stealer and the rapist feel good about it! Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's actually good. So there needs to be an all wise being to tell us which actions are good and bad.
Moral values existed before God came into the picture. They were built over time and developed with experience as civilizations grew. However, religion can inspire morality. For example, if you don’t follow the teachings, you will go to Hell, but if you do, you will end up in Heaven. Without religion, even though humans know fundamental morals, they may not be as inspired as they are by religion. But the problem is, does God know everything? Can God say something that isn’t true? Another issue is that religions differ from one another. What is considered a path to Heaven in one religion might be seen as a path to Hell in another....
very flawed reasoning. are we to assume that before christianity existed, communities were chaotic murderous places, theft was common, people were generally nasty to each other and that they indulged every impulse? also, look at some areas of the world where atheism is high: sweden, denmark, norway, switzerland, new zealand. those countries are consistently ranked as the most livable, high income, quality education, lowest crime rates, low corruption, etc. IF atheism in fact caused people to have a purely individual, chaotic ethic, we would see the opposite in those countries. in contrast, areas that are the least atheist--brazil, philippines, zimbabwe to name just a few--crime is high, education is low, lots of corruption, and a consistently low quality of life index.
How did you get all of that from the video? The moral argument is an argument for generic monotheism, not specifically Christianity. - RF Admin
All those countries foundations including their values for striving for excelence and avoiding corruption come from the past, when all of europe were protestant christians, they followed biblical standards and that allowed them to be more advanced technologically, economically, morally and politically than most of the world, but catholic countries were far behind that, since it teaches a corrupted christianity, most latin american countries sre mostly catholic in their foundations, which explains why there is a huge difference
Once europe was advsnced enough, people wanted to be moral without God, so people wanted to be like christians but without biblical righteousness, and they took the already made foundations by christians and kept advancing, without christianity, modern europe wouldnt be possible, you can try being morally good thanks to God, since he gave you his moral law engraved in your heart, even if you dont believe in Him, but your good works cant save you from your fallen nature, since you sre spirituallybdead, you need to born again for that, good works must be a product of your faith in Jesuschrist, not on your own fallen nature
I agree with you that the argument for God from objective moral values is weak and even sinister, but you're mischaracterizing the (admittedly rather poor) argument. It states that God is the source of objective moral values, not that you must believe in God to be a moral person, or to make those moral values realized.
@@adambamford956 how am I mischaracterizing it?
@@onsenguy because it’s not whether you believe in god that you can be moral, it’s the fact that God exists (according to this dumb argument anyway)
I believe in God and in a version of the argument from morality, but answering Socrates’ Euthyphro challenge with “neither” is a cop-out. Face the problem honestly.
Why is it a cop-out to say that a false dilemma is a false dilemma? That's rather like saying that "neither" in answer to the question "Do you beat your wife gently or severely?" is a cop-out. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos but that’s not what happened. The video says nothing to establish that it is a false dilemma, and immediately proceeds to argue that God’s commands are the sole source of morality (and thus cannot be further defended; so if he commanded us to murder each other, that would be right?). Thus Dr. Craig (as the defender of the argument from morality typically does) takes the bull by the horns, rather than going between the horns.
@@LarrySanger From the video: "Is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The answer is "Neither one." Rather, God wills something because *he* is good. God is the standard of moral values." - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Thanks for the quote. Right, then: when Socrates' objection comes up, what we are discussing is what makes various items of ethical language (pious, good, righteous, etc.) applicable or not. If Dr. Craig says, "God will something because he is good," this is to grab the dilemma by the horns, not to go between the horns, because the claim, as with Euthyphro, is then that what makes the term in question ("good" in the video, "pious" in the Euthyphro) applicable due to some quality about God (or "the gods"). Whether it is "the gods will it" or "God is good," the implication is that there is nothing about *the world* that makes something good.
It is still a cop-out (as all attempts go between the horns are), in this case, because the viewer is left just as ignorant as he was in the beginning what "good" means when it is used in the statement, "God is good." What's "good" mean there? To put it more long-windedly: if God is the sole standard of goodness (which, in a way, I agree with wholeheartedly), and if we cannot refer to anything else in our explanation, this opens the door to the clever (but really not *that* clever) skeptic to point out, "But what does 'good' mean in that statement?"
It is helpful to get an example on the table, such as murder. We can *say* murder is wrong because God legislated against it, which is true. But when the skeptic says, "Ah, but what if God had legislated for it? What if God commanded us to kill each other? Would it be right, then?" You can say, "But God is righteous and would never command such a thing," but again the skeptic is perfectly within his rights to ask, "Why not?"
Besides, the Bible contains resources to answer the question. For God, *life itself* is holy. The blood represents life, which is why blood sacrifice had its redemptive characteristics in the OT. If you look carefully, every man-oriented law concerned human health and well-being-life. And it man's life that was among the things that were "very good" in the creation; and the great curse of Gen 3 is death.
If we ignore these rich resources, found in God's own creation (!), for explaining *why* murder is wrong, and clarifying (with some probability, anyway) *why* God legislated against it, then we come across to nonbelievers as merely glib and frankly stupid.
I say all this because that is precisely how the traditional argument from morality struck me as a Ph.D. philosopher, for 35+ years, until I became a believer late in life (at age 52). When we are defending the faith, it is very important that we get the *right* reasons, because weak reasons will tend to confirm people, such as I was, in their unbelief.
@@LarrySanger Note that the argument is not about moral semantics. With G. E. Moore (who rejects theistic ethics), we may agree that "good" is a primitive concept which cannot be defined by more basic terms. The claim that objective morals are grounded in God is about moral *ontology*, not moral semantics. So, the question isn't "What does "good" mean?" but rather "Is theistic ethics, which takes God to be the paradigm of goodness, plausible?" Theistic ethics seems quite plausible, given objective moral truths. All metaethical theories must terminate in some explanatory ultimate, and God, being a maximally great being, seems the least arbitrary stopping point.
What of the skeptic's question about murder? His question implicitly assumes that God's nature is not the paradigm of goodness, which is incoherent given that God is, by definition, a maximally great being. So, we may turn the tables on the skeptic: "Why think a thing like that?" - RF Admin
Dr. Craig addresses the distinction between moral semantics and moral ontology and the relevance of this distinction here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/the-plausibility-of-grounding-moral-values-in-god
Subjective morality is giving every single person the authority to decide whether an act is morally justified or not. This is a recipe for pure insanity no matter how you slice it. If it's based on an individual's perspective, then how about subjective reality? Should every person have the authority to create their own little reality and then declare it actuality? If so, where does it end? Should each individual have the authority to decide that the truth is actually a lie, that evil is actually good, or that illusion is actually reality? It's a downward spiral leading to ignorance and self-destruction on a global scale. Even if people don't believe in God as a supreme being, at the very least he's a personalization of an objective reality/morality.
Authority doesn't have to be given. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his or her morality. Moral assessment is the product of cognition, and therefore, necessarily _subjective._ Moral assessments are not _real._ They are imaginative. Moral assessment requires a reasoning mind.
Reality, on the other hand, occurs _independent_ of any human cognitive process and is therefore, necessarily _objective._
Reality is the set of phenomena which occur at a particular point in space (location) at a particular point in time. Realities are _observable_ at the location and time of their occurrences.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Did you even watch the video? Is there an objective morality and does it have authority? I believe there has to be otherwise every individual has the authority to decide what's moral or not. Plus, I don't believe that this 'assessment' is imaginary. It certainly comes with consequences and they don't just affect you.
@@Stranzua I didn't say moral assessments didn't have consequences. Each and every individual is responsible, accountable, and culpable for the intentions, decisions, and actions based upon their moral assessments.
No. There is no such thing as objective morality. And no, morality has no authority.
@@Stranzua Yes. Each individual decides what is moral or not.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I'm sorry but we can agree to disagree.
Why the slightly weird English accent?
Goodness clearly exists. But only as we define it. A deity isn't necessary to explain. Compassion for our own species is suitable for natural selection. We can observe "mirror neurons" in other primates. Selective pressures would favor compassion, as those who participate in a cooperative tribe were more likely to succeed evolutionarily.
Correction: "...it is NOT possible to "be good without G_d...". You do not have the tools nor standard of behavior.
As it is written:
"...you shall be holy for I the Lord your G_d am holy...".
..
We naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
Ethics is just a social and cultural construct. If you are included in a cannibalistic tribe, then it is ethically good for you to eat human flesh. Is this your argument? Or are cannibalistic tribes not as evolved as you?
@@kenoablan6829 You might think it is ethically good, yes, because it is acceptable to the tribe. There is evidence of this in actual tribes, in Papua New Guinea for instance. They are not "more" or "less" evolved, their social values have evolved differently because they were isolated. It's just common sense really.
@@TheTruthKiwi So you would agree that genocide is acceptable if the society decides that it is ethically acceptable? Is it also common sense?
@@kenoablan6829 I wouldn't deem genocide acceptable, no.
@@TheTruthKiwi but the implication of your argument is that everything is acceptable if it is decided by society, and that we are not held by a moral standard beyond our construct and are more akin to animals controlled by instinct.
If there is no creation or God, why are there laws that support a design? No design need not laws or designers? So if there is no God, why physical laws?
There is no good or evil. There are actions that are deemed positive or negative for human interaction and society. These have been ingrained in human behavior over 300,000 years. Murder breaks trust and leads to less than optimal communities, which is why we think of it as "evil".
False. Every human knows the difference between right and wrong.
We all know it is morally wrong to lie.
We all know it is morally wrong to torture a baby to death for fun.
There are so many ways to debunk Moral Relativism that I couldn't even list them all here. But what you lack, in any case, is any proof for your Moral Relativism belief. You just have faith that each person is their own arbiter of moral right and wrong. I thought Atheists were against faith? Truth is - we all must have faith in philosophies because the scientific method has limits so we can't know everything.
Examples of Atheistic faith-based beliefs: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, and many more
@@lightbeforethetunnel do they know these things are wrong or do they feel they are wrong? If they know how do they know? What knowledge do they have that shows they know?
Ok then why do you say unfair or when someone betreys you, you say it's wrong.
@@NotChinmayi because you feel it shouldn’t have been done.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ? Let me give you an analogy, perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think of a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because THEY were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔
You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
Craig starts the video with a nice animation of someone kindly helping a kitten out of a tree. I agree that we should care about protecting animals, and we should try to save animal lives by rescuing them from trees or bushes or anywhere else when they are stuck. (Genesis 22:13).
“God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values. It’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured.”
This is why the *love* of the Lord should be the beginning of wisdom (1 John 4:18).
We should love *truth* so we don't get led into deception by a supernatural being 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
We should extend *mercy* to everyone, especially to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 34:6-8).
We should be *patient* before we kill people (2 Samuel 6:6-7).
We should be *graceful* (Yes: Hebrews 4:16)
We should care about preserving life because life is a *holy* gift from God (Leviticus 10:6-10).
We should be *good* like the God who loves His enemies (Nahum 1:6-8).
We should seek to live in *peace* within our households - even towards those with whom we disagree (Matthew 10:34).
We should seek to live in *justice* by making fair laws for everyone (Exodus 20:5).
We should love our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 25:39-44).
We should practice generosity over greed (Joshua 11:12-14).
We should practice self-sacrifice over abuse of power (Exodus 21:20-21).
We should strive for a society where people are treated *equally* and we don’t discriminate based on race or sex, etc. (1 Timothy 2:11-15).
Child abuse is wrong, which is why we should protect children from harmful parents (2 Samuel 12:15).
Racial discrimination is wrong. This goes along with the equality and we can see how it plays out in Exodus 11:7.
Terrorism is wrong. This is why we should help deliver people from the supernatural terrors we face (Revelation 6:16).
It is morally wrong to rape. Yes, I agree. (Though I would love to find a Bible verse that supports this assertion).
I'm not sure what I would do if I did not have the Bible to inform me of my deeply held knowledge of morality that is written on my heart.
Side note: “Animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong; the cat’s just being a cat.” Yes, this is actually supported in Scripture. The cat does nothing wrong. (Psalm 104:21)
Morality is not meaningful if you are only abstaining from rape and murder because God said it's bad
There is always at least 2 subjects in a moral action. There is always an actor and always at least one sentient being effected by the action. If you were the only sentient being on earth and no god existed, nothing would be moral or immoral. Adding a second sentient being allows for actions to be considered moral if one being does something that effects the other. God is just another being that is effected by every action anyone does.
That's only because God is Good Himself. We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature as expressed in His commands to us. But it's not as if necessarily there needs to be two subjects for something to be good or bad. It's only a contingent truth. As you said, even if a person is alone in the entire planet, then his actions would still have moral worth, because the standard of good, like the standard of truth, is personal; it is God. So it's not just any subjects that needs to be present.
@Acceleration Quanta and your justification is?
What about masturbation?
@@lupinthe4th400 "We are good to the degree our actions conform to God's nature"
Then God needn't actually exist as anything more than a concept. God's nature is simply an abstract set of qualities and attributes, and Christians believe a God exists that happens to 'embody' that abstract set of qualities. Ironically, trying to wriggle out of the Euthyphro Dilemma this way ends up rendering God's existence wholly superfluous.
@@fanghur Christianity is not a philosophical system, a man-made autonomous project.
Of course there needs to be a God as the transcendent, absolute, objective and universal ultimate standard for measuring anything.
That's the point of the argument: unless there is no God, there is no standard for moral actions, and I would add that, ultimately, there is no standard for anything.
Without a Revelation, man may have imperssions of the world, but no knowledge at all (epistemology).
Without His existence, nothing else exists, for God is the necessary condition for the possibility of not only knowing, but existing.
It's because of God's Revelation to man through Holy Tradition, that we are able to argue this way. Moral experience confirms us this.
Hmm, I don't find this argument compelling and I don't think it would satisfy an atheist or even someone on the fence. I just don't think you can root your case of objective morality with God because it will be denied by someone that doesn't necessarily believe in God. I feel this video was made for Christians that want to have a shallow understanding of the moral argument, but it's not good for a Christian like me that wants to truly understand the two sides of the coin.
This video made my atheist friend a devout Christian. It’s an excellent argument. We all know evil exists.
If God is the objective standard of morality, then we should strive to emulate God. Therefore, if God doesn’t intervene to stop people from getting raped or murdered, then neither should we.
This comment conflates metaethics and moral duty. Clearly, as the standard of morality, God has prerogatives which we do not. God is rightfully owed worship and praise; we are not. God may issue commands which, in the absence of his divine authority, would be immoral for humans to undertake independently. But, of course, as that which grounds objective moral values and duties, God himself is not beholden to anyone or anything else. Since he has enjoined us to uphold justice and righteousness, it is our duty to stop an attempted rape or murder. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Even if God has prerogatives which we do not, and even if divine command theory is true, it’s not at all clear why there would be such a radical divergence between what’s good for God to do and what’s good for us to do if both are grounded in the same thing: God’s nature.
@@drcraigvideos The main problem with your argument is the assumption that God is the standard of morality. You essentially say "God is perfect and cannot commit any wrong, thus God commits no harm." Prove thus that God is perfect.
I recommend the video "Morality 2: Not-so-good books" by QualiaSoup (archive). It's old, but good.
@@drcraigvideos "Morality 3: Objectivity and oughtness" even discusses the same argument with Dr. Craig that you cite in another one of your comments
Thé most nigga comment i'v see how Can you amulate god 🤪🤪
Well plenty are.
Being good without *believing* in God and being good without the *existence* of God are two very different things. - RF Admin
Ok so we are still fighting the morality wars. The question posed is” without god, can anything be good or evil?” Apart from “of course it can, we decide our own morality “ being an answer, there are other ways of looking at it. One, obviously, is to dismiss the question on 3 grounds ( existence of god, demonstration of his morality, evidence that those following his morality are not particularly , er, moral.) another is that throughout the world, followers of 2700 gods, and followers of none recognise a general standard of morality which cannot have just come from one deity, and observably did not.
Like it or not, the confection of a supernatural being who decides the rules leads to planes flying into buildings, to beheadings, to bomb vests at pop concerts, to women being imprisoned for not wearing face coverings. Not because god didn’t decree this, but because he did. Read your holy book. Tell me the bastards who carry western hostage heads around in a bucket are not inspired by their god. Take your godly morality and ram it as far as it will go. Don’t you dare tell me you are more moral than I am.
By indulging in numbers and worst cases exclusively, you miss the very context of this kind of dialogue. We´re not in an immediate and pervading terrorist context. We´re in Jesus´ legacy of University-based, UN human rights world community with structured pluralism. The latter was founded by FD Roosevelt´s Social Gospel vision and legacy and negotiated with the world community after the massive destruction of WWII. Jesus´ legacy of modern Universities and modern philosophy with empiricism is the object of dispute by most anti-religious anti-theists in their own ideological myth making. So, I recommend getting literate about all that. I got my college degree in bio anthro, worked in social services, did and do personal growth psychology, pursued an interfaith spiritual path into seeing it as an inclusionary progressive interfaith Christian identity, involving Buddhism, yoga, tai chi, etc.
Understanding the misbehavior of American and European-led business profiteers, and how Social Europe provides a prominent pro-social standard very suppressed in the US is another good angle to learn about. Understanding the benefits of modern democratic Civil Rights for University-related learning as modernized high integrity spiritual behavior in Jesus´ legacy provides the key kind of historical sociological and psychological foundation for a modernized spiritual-religious identity. And its moral framework. Jesus´ 2 loving Commandments are the foundation of Christianity, not abortion, not fundamentalism, not conservative theology, and not business profiteering in America and competitive, abstracted-pro-rich economics. UN human rights go with University-based culture in Jesus´ legacy to allow for learning in love a range of understandings and skills to sustain structured pluralism. Islamic codes represent a few issues, but are exacerbated by heedless profiteering US and other businesspeople in their own indulgence of the abuse of power and refusal to acknowledge spiritual-religious standards. Consumers and social entrepreneurs can exert their own power and influence if they build their own spiritual-religious practice, as in US food co-ops and EU green power co-ops, for example.
Why are all those people wrong?
@@jakefink4040 which people?
I disagree. Objective moral values are defined within our biology. Human behavior is complex and can vary from individual to individual, but there is a basic foundation that we can observe and study. Therefore, it is possible to discover moral truths by studying human behavior and evolutionary science.
But I fail to see how that makes it objective. If moral values and duties came about by evolution it doesn't mean you are subject to them in any way. Evolution is not an objective standard of authority over you that you should do what evolution tells you. Without an authority that transcends you that you are ultimately accountable to you can not claim that it is objective.
@@wheretruthleads
1. An authority just determining objective standards isn't objective either. It's the just subjective point of view of said authority.
2. I can break the rules and morals made by the authority just as well. There is also no difference here.
3. Evolution has selected out over a vast period of time, individuals that are bad for society, this has also manifested in moral values.
4. Assuming there is a god, it would make sense that said God would use a tool such as evolution to define moral values within our DNA.
5. It makes it objective, because you can't just go and deny evolutionary realities. It won't make your DNA different. It won't change the way the chemistry in our head works. It's a materialized fact. Just as it is an objective fact that we have to breath air, to not die.
@primax2162 I think we might be talking past each other due to a misunderstanding so let me clarify with a simple question:
Why do people obey laws?
@@wheretruthleads
1. They don't, look around you.
2. The answer that you probably rather want is "because of authority", which is true, if there is an authority, people might be frightened to act against those laws. But that still doesn't establish the law itself, it just enforces it.
@primax2162 Yes, people obey laws because they acknowledge an authority that they are accountable to.
We believe there are moral laws that are held to a higher standard than even the laws of man that we believe we should all be accountable to.
But it only makes sense to place the moral law above the law of man or to claim we all should be accountable to them if there is a moral law giver that we are accountable to that is greater than man.
If you say this moral law giver is actually evolution it does not make sense that we are more accountable to "evolution" than our current authorities.
If you say there is no law giver at all then it doesn't make sense that we hold the moral law in any reguard at all. Like you said, we obey laws because we acknowledge the authority of the one who gives them.... If you don't acknowledge a moral law giver it seems silly to think we need to uphold ourselves and others to moral laws in any objective way.
Yes
No.
I really do not agree with this. I m not an atheist, but I know atheists who are extremely "moral" in many ways. For example, I know some atheists that are extremely anti prostitution, anti fornication, anti pornography. They don't just think it's "wrong", they think it's horrifying. It more than just a matter of "right or wrong" to them. It's certainly a moral issue for them, regardless of whether they think God exists or otherwise.
@misterslippy3977 Not your God. In my moral foundation, things like genocide, drowning people, retributive 'justice', making/allowing fathers to sacrifice their daughters, etc. are very obviously wrong. So if our shared moral intuitions do indeed stem ultimately from a God, then that ends up being an argument AGAINST Christianity, not an argument for it. And if you try to retort by saying that we can't trust our moral intuitions since we are "fallen" or whatever other misanthropic descriptor you prefer, then you'll have entirely undercut the second premise and the entire argument can be dismissed as indefensible. Either way, it does not help Christians argue their case.
Great video! However, in my opinion, opinions on stuff like terrorism is subjective, but just happens t be widely shared. Take something like pirating games. Some people think it is bad, others do it on a daily basis. Another thing - this only applies to the Abrahamic god.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez i know, but the pirating being good or bad is subjective
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Right is good, wrong is bad. What is right and wrong? Right and wrong can only be determined by a set goal or destination established. For instance, if you wanted to travel from N America to S America the quickest way, you must travel south. That would be right and thus good. So is pirating good for society or bad for society? Well what is our goal for society? The greater good? Well isn't pirating a form of thievery? Well we know thievery is wrong for society and thus bad. Well if our objective is what's good for society, then pirating wouldn't be right and thus bad because it is a form of thievery which is wrong/bad for society.
@@usupreme this is subjective. for some people thievery is right, and they don't care about the so-called 'greater good for sciety'. while i totally agree with you, good or bad is subjective
@@ahumanibelieve7786 Do you think those people who think thievery is right think it's right for someone to steal from them? Personally I don't think so. So I don't think anyone truly think thievery is right, and right meaning how it should be in society.
@Acceleration Quanta i believe you forgot the phrase used in 4:10. We as humans seem to have a standard for what is good and what is evil, if ALL moral is subjective you as someone who neglects the existence of objective morals have to understand you cannot argue that anything done is bad. If you did that would be just your opinion on it, and your opinion is not more valid than someone else's. So, you need to understand you cant say anything about what is just or not. Next time you see a kid being raped and killed you cant say thats something wrong. If a friend of yours is shot at the street because they were someone of color, you have got to respect the muderer's opinion on it and remember to not say anything about the atrocities done at the holocaust, Hitler thought it was OK. If you are neglecting objective morals, you have no right to say that those things are bad, because on a subjective worldview they arent.
I agree with the video, but do not agree the "love your neighbor as yourself" should be used to prove the point. That is a subjective statement, as "yourself" is being used as the standard. It should be "love your neighbor as God loves your neighbor".
That is well put, but the golden rule says that whatever you do, you should also do to anyone else. What you don't like being done unto you, you shouldn't do unto others.
Amen
As much as I'm a believer the morale argument has seemed kinda weak to me.
Yes it's true that you cannot have an objective moral standard without God.
But that does not prove God, we can simply live with arbitrary laws that are randomly generated by dna dictating our Morales in our brains, or by society pushing certain moralistic standards.
Maybe if you could somehow document that every single society that has ever existed has had the same morale standards as the 10 commandments you could argue that it's weird how every single society has had the same morale values, but in the end they all differ somehow, and thus it can be explained away as random arbitrary randomness.
The majority of metaethicists (including ones who are theists, even though the majority aren’t) would not agree with you. This argument simply is not taken seriously by actual philosophers who specialize in moral philosophy and metaethics.
We have no reason to say GOD is our reference point. Instead it is more truthful and logical to say our reference point is based on the well being of others.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez but 'good' isn't a measurable property of anything. It results purely from our own emotional judgements about an act. There is nothing 'objectively' wrong with wilful murder, it is only our judgements about it that make it wrong.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez all the qualities you just mentioned are subjective. They all have different definitions to different people. And if you're talking about Yahweh, then by no means is he any of those properties.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez declaring a god to be good then using that to infer that everything it does is good is a logical fallacy. If god is truly good (and omnipotent) then the perpetration of atrocities is inexcusable. And what about Ezekiel 9:5-6, where Yahweh commands the killing of babies *without pity* ?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I recommend this video, which holds good insights despite being 11y old:
ruclips.net/video/hSS-88ShJfo/видео.html
Well, where does that reference point that is supposedly based on the well being of others come from?
It sounds like you're saying that objectivity IS God. And that goodness IS God. Is this what you are saying?
No. Rather, it's that God is the locus of goodness and the ground of objective morality. - RF Admin
There is an example about a cat eating mouse. They do it because they need it for energy. We also kill some animals and eat them because we need their energy. That example doesn't make sense. Or you may say two wild animals kill each other but they are not put in jail. They are indeed animals. Their brains are not as evolved as ours. We have logical thinking. We do good things to prevent bad consequences. We have empathy feeling. Our actions are based on intuition. If we were like animals, we would also kill each other when hunting the animal we eat, or when our living area is getting captured by others. Just like animals. But we don't do these things because we are the result of evolution.
Additionally, that argument mentioned in the video is disrespectful towards atheists. That argument claims that atheists are not moral people. But you can never judge a person by the category they are in. Deists or Theists can also murder people or do morally wrong actions even though their religion or their god requires the opposite. It's the same for atheists. Morality does not only depend on your religion or the belief in god and it doesn't mean others (atheists) are immoral. Of course, all those religions and beliefs in god have an impact on people's morality but that's just a small percentage.
It seems like you're conflating the objective standard of morality (or the claim thereof), with individuals will or desire, and ultimate caring out of that standard in their lives. So they may or may not carry out the standard, but I think it's a differently question of whether people carry out the standard or not is indicative of whether the standard actually exists. However, people have been arguing this probably for all of history, and both sides will probably say that they can clearly refute the other's argument, but ultimately people will decide based on their belief.
@@mpersand _"but ultimately people will decide based upon their beliefs"_
WHICH ARE *SUBJECTIVE* !!!!!
that's the whole definition of "subjective" ( mind dependent )
Objective means true irrespective of the conclusions of a mind.
@GetsaucedOn Oh the irony, you lambast secular morality as being _"only subjective"_ whilst simultaneously being unable or unwilling to accept that YOUR morality is entirely a subjective matter. Its predicated upon the SUBJECTIVE ASSERTION that its YOUR specific God that we should all adhere to. Yet you fail to recognise that a vast array of conflicting and contradictory moral conclusions are derived from religion.
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? )
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
*CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
Please note if you are unwilling or unable to answer this basic question, then at least have the honesty to recognise the hypocrisy of your position.
@GetsaucedOn You say I have "no foundation for my morality" How utterly ignorant, to me and like minded people "Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
@GetsaucedOn You mention Hitler, you do realise that Hitler stated on many many occasions that he was a Catholic don't you ??? Both the Jewish and the Christians hold the OT in common and it is only the belief in in regards to Jesus being the messiah that differentiates them. This difference in theology regarding the rejection and killing of jesus was used by CHRISTIAN Germans as justification for the slaughtering of 6 million. Did their subjective opinion justify the holocaust and somehow make it moral ??? I think not ...
You know that on the belt buckle of every german soldier it said "Gott mit uns," God on our side?
Did that actually therefore make it so or does their subjective opinion not matter in the slightest as I believe ??
There are a thousand quotes that I could paste on here that would at the very LEAST demonstrate that Hitler used religion as justification for the nazi "final solution". But I will refrain from doing so as my point is made.
However I will just state this approximately 93% of the German state consisted of Christians and more than 50% of the waffen ss were practicing catholics. Yet the church saw fit to excommunicate only ONE and that was not for his actions in " the "final solution" but for........
Marrying a protestant. 🤔
But how can God's nature be good and just if there can be no goodness or justice that does not originate from God? This video's answer to Euthythro's dillemma does not seem to make any sense.
God's essence is morally perfect, that is, God is simply good; instead of connecting goodness with abstract objects, you connect it with God, and there is nothing illogical, God is simply a morally perfect being.
@@kenandzafic3948 Saying that God is simply good and that goodness consists of acting as God would seem to be purely circular reasoning.
@@tomasrocha6139 1.Circular reasoning is the fallacy where you start with a conclusion.
2. We start here with the fact that there are moral facts, that is, that moral realism is correct. Now it must be based on something that is morally perfect.
3. These can be natural facts, abstract objects or God, and by simply eliminating the first two options, we arrive at the fact that God is the basis of objective morality because God is good.
So this cannot be a better argument because there are no fallacies in it, one can only try to refute some of the premises of the argument, but its logical form is unquestionable nor does it have informal logical errors like circular reasoning.
@@kenandzafic3948 Its logical form is unquestionable? It's a complete non sequitur.
@@tomasrocha6139 1. No is not a non sequitur.
Here's the argument:
1) Morality is objective
2) Objective morality can be based on natural objects, abstract objects or on God.
3) Objective morality is not based on natural and abstract objects.
4) Objective morality is based on God
5) God exists.
You can only disprove this argument by disputing a premise. It seems to me that you are just throwing around logical fallacies instead of using them in the correct way. So learn what logical fallacies are.
If God do exist then he created us with a mind of our own, to think and decide for own along with our fellow.
If we are just supposed to follow everything that's written in let's say the bible, then we might aswell be just mindless robots or loyal dogs who'll follow everything that their master wants them to do.
If he does exist and he created us as sentient and smart beings then we must act and be smart beings who must base our beliefs on things that are argued, reasoned, thought-out, we must base our ways in logistics, studies and evidences and not just because someone said so.
Because if the only thing that's keeping you from killing, raping, stealing and all sorts of things is because of a book, or because you are afraid that you'll be punished by God, then you are not a good person nor deserve to go to heaven if there is one. What you are really is a selfish and a cowardly person.
I agree with you except the last paragraph. There's a lot of christians that still cling to certain sins because they just don't care. They hope God will forgive them for that one "little" sin they won't let go of. Not every christian will repent and turn to God because of selfishness.
If that's the case, don't worry, God sees right through that. He can see the motivation and the intention.
I don't believe people just don't rape other people because they're afraid of God. It's because they get their eyes opened. For example I'm not into sleeping around before marriage anymore because my eyes are open now. I experienced the bad repercussions of such things and that's why I don't do it anymore, even though I still think about it from time to time and it's tempting. So it's not just because of the fear that God will send me to hell if I continue to do so. Hope you understand my perspective.
Two false assumptions
First the existence of god doesn’t deem bible the true book of his commands and bible couldn’t be farther from that being written by many people
Second proving there is no moral duty without a duty maker doesn’t conclude people do these duties just because he wants them to
If you show up at the office and work 8 hours but there is no boss or employer does that make any sense for you ,doesn’t it make sense for you to rest and do whatever you want with these hours
Everybody knows you should be nice and many are but whats the point in a world without consequences , you just might be arrogant ignorant and hateful and you are not accountable for it
We are not saying people wouldn’t be nice if they don’t believe in god but we say should they be nice ( does it makes sense ultimately) in a world without consequences and accountability and credit ?
What makes you give money to people when you need it yourself, nothing in this world makes you ! You should believe in another world to be sacrificing that much
This is nonsensical. If God exists and is the basis for morality (the point of this video, which you have said nothing to refute) then that alone doesn’t prove that He is the Christian God who inspired the Bible. There are many arguments showing that that’s who He is, but they aren’t the point of this video.
If Christianity is true, THEN if you actually did use your God-given intellect, with sincerity, then you would conclude that the Bible is true as well. You wouldn’t begin with blind adherence to a book for no reason, and that isn’t what the Bible even instructs us to do. The claims and content of the gospel were recorded into books for wide, uniform distribution, just like all claims and data are recorded. People believe in Jesus because of the specific content and ideas in His message.
@@mustafaalnoori5213
- just used the bible as an example since its the most popular one
- not necessarily but most people uphold such moralities for the great desire of salvation resulting in blind faith where critical thinking and actual empathy is used no longer.
Is it right to believe or agree on something that oppreses other people just because your God said so?
- first of all a job is a consensual piece of work in which you applied knowing the rules and regulations needed to receive your paycheck - very different from life. I never said that rules or consequences are to be dismissed, but should be base on reasoning. Using your very own analogy, if employees are not allowed to move their furnitures or relocate according to their need because that's the order in their office, or when they are required to dance even if it has no connection to their job, are they supposed to just follow it or agree with it? Or should they talk to their bosses and reason with them to change it and if face with terrible attitude or overall toxic environment, resign?
- again is something bad because it's bad or because there are consequences base on just an arbitrary reasoning.
- is murder wrong because you will be imprisoned? Or you will be imprisoned because it's wrong? Definitely the latter but your understanding seems to me that something must have a consequence first in order for it to be wrong.
May there be law or none, may people follow it or no doesn't change the fact that something is right or wrong. And as I said, if the only thing that's keeping you from doing something bad is a punishment, then can really be considered a morally right person?
@@AbsentMinded619
God is simply the creator of human beings, he is what he is regardless of what we know and think of him if he truly does exist. Using the bible is again just an example since the christian god is the most popular around the globe.
This is the thing even for a creator, if one has given you sentience or ability to live and comprehend the things around you, given you feelings, emotions and what not, that creator has no right to just do anything he wants to do to you without valid reasoning.
He can definitely, no one can stop him absolutely but deciding what goes on or not to a sentient life just for the reason that you've created it in the first place is not a valid reason. If I gave you a gift and you took it, that gift is no longer mine but yours to use, If I want to use it or destroy it your consent is very much needed.
I am open to the possibility of a supreme being or deity but what certainly keeps me from being religious aside from the fanatics themselves are the true nonsensical rulings on religious texts that has no concrete, valid and evident origin.
If God from the bible does exist and everything that he said and ordered have their reasons to which I don't know or I am incapable of understanding, then I am wrong. But until I know his reasons then I won't be following those that are ridiculous rulings of him. I won't be wasting my life abiding by the laws of someone who I'm not even sure exist. Because if god from the bible does exist and is truly omnibenevolent, then he's gonna favor those that argue and question things before doing something than those that are blinded by faith.
How can someone PROVE that it is because of god? just becaues a book says so? Humanity has used all forms of deities throughout history to fill the gap of what cannot be proven or understood. The fact that we cannot explain where morality comes from does not mean it has to be automatically from a god. Asuming al atheists are inmoral would mean jails should be full of atheists or that all acts of inmorality are done by atheists.
Then tell us where your objective moral compass comes from. Every measurement in existence has default measure to go back to. Yard, foot, metre long poles; weights of 1 pound, 1 ounce etc....
are still kept by Govts today ...it;s the default someone invented a long time ago.
WHO HAS YOUR ATHEIST MORAL BENCHMARK OF GOOD AND EVIL?
OR YOUR ORIGINAL MORAL MEASURING ROD? WHERE IS IT? WHO MADE IT?
A STRAIGHT CANON OR PLUMB LINE, UNIVERSALLY SOUGHT, OBSERVED BY 'GOOD' PEOPLE WHO SEEK THE HIGHEST STANDARDS
Who made your mathematical laws - 2 and 2 makes 4?
It existed before matter, or matter couldn't be matter, it needs math laws.
Religious/spiritual beliefs are indistinguishable from make-believe.
How about the faith-based (religious) beliefs Atheists adhere to, like: Naturalism, Scientism, Materialism, Secularism, Humanism, Uniformitarianism, Moral Relativism, Nihilism, etc...
Atheists believe philosophies like these without the ability to know (scientifically verify) they're true. Is that make believe?
Much worse, many of them are self-refuting
@@lightbeforethetunnel You are right here, which science can only go off what man has knowledge of already and nothing more. Only man comes up with the research for the books of science then that would mean man knows very little about how the world works but the Bible explains so much more than even science could ever comprehend for itself.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Nice strawman.
Atheism is simply a negative claim about god.
A negative claim's evidence is that the positive claim it corresponds to lacks evidence itself.
@@Pepsi-Mann21 While atheism can be described as a lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not merely a negative claim. Atheism also encompasses a positive assertion that there is no sufficient evidence or justification for the existence of a god or gods. Therefore, atheism entails both a rejection of the positive claim that a god exists and the positive claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of a god. It is essential to recognize the active stance of atheism as a position that takes a stance on the existence of deities rather than simply being a passive lack of belief.
What I don't understand about the moral argument is the difference between God and the moral law. It seems that in the video the objective law are God's attributes. But can't there be a law in it self
No, because the law derives from God.
A god is certainly NOT required for humans to be "moral" least of all the christian one
The claim in the video is that humans don't need to believe in God to act morally. Rather, the claim is that without God, there doesn't seem to be a foundation for objective moral values and duties. If you reject that claim, then how do you explain the existence of objective morals? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos lol objective morals require no more than an agreed upon reference point in order to function. What makes you think that YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the percieved whims of the "God" you hold as the one true God must be that reference ??
@@trumpbellend6717 Something is objectively true if it is true independently of our subjective opinions of it. So in what sense are morals objective if they are based on "an agreed upon reference point?" - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Please tell me precisely WHY do you think human reference standards must be "Objective" and "God given" in order to function and serve their purpose ??? this is not the case. But let me give you an analogy perhaps then you will understand.
Our metric reference standards for weights, distance ( kilometers, meters, centimetres ect ) was originaly a man made concept, arbitrary with no divine dictate involved. Yet once it becomes accepted and a consensus reached it functions perfectly. A "meter" is not some vague "about this big" concept that varies dependant on culture or God.
We can OBJECTIVELY measure things within our metric reference framework 😜
Precisely the same applies to our moral reference standard, it too requires only an agreed upon reference standard in order to function. Can you think if a better standard to aspire and adhere to than one based upon human well-being, empathy , equality and respect ???
Do you really think it preferable to base it upon the knowledge, moral values and ideologies of Iron age people that believe it moral to ..
*"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"*
That a raped girl should be stoned to death for not screaming loud enough along with unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) and the people who gather sticks on the wrong day of the week ??
Are YOU going to assert that such things no longer apply because they were moral dictates that applied in a different "time" and "culture" to a specific people ?? 🤔🤔
You see in reality it's YOU that's is advocating for a form of *moral relativism* with your "new covernant" garbage. The very LEAST one would expect of an "objective" moral reference is that its UNCHANGING, regardless of time, place, peoples ect.
@@drcraigvideos Let me elaborate for you i shall deal with it in respect to both the christian and secular perspectives this is going to entail a rather long response I'm afraid I apologise in advance. I have used 2 small copy & paste pieces of data at the start the rest is all my words So please bear with me and read through to the end .
Ok let's start with the christian perspective as it's by far the most complicated. Theological morality revolves around the concepts of Sin and objectivity neither of which stand upto scrutiny. Sin is a percieved transgression against specific gods wishes yet if we are talking about what SIN is and the objectivenes of a god there are only 2 billion Christians out of 7 billion people on earth so that's 5 billion people dont even think the god with the talking snake & donkey Is the correct one. Let's break that down before we address christianity shall we.
of followers:
Here are just 20 of the most popular gods out of THOUSANDS
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
Ok now let's move onto the one that's the correct religion in *your subjective opinion*
Christianity is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist - the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. alone.
According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025.
Do they all agree about the trinity ?
Is the pope the head of the church?
Can priests marry ?
Birth control ?
Sexuality?
Can women be ordained ?
How to attain salvation?
The nature of mary ?
Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism
Freewill vrs predestination ?
Eternal security ?
Faith vrs works ?
Heaven ?
Hell?
Evolution?
Alcohol?
Literal or aligorical?
The trinity ?
I'm going to stop here because I could literally go on for hours. They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE*
All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue.
Now if YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion*
Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality*
But let's just suppose there is *A* god for the sake of argument, and his intent was to convey his moral objectivity to us via scriptures. ( _extremely unlikely god would choose this method in my humble opinion_ ) has he been successful?
I think we can all agree that need for apologists and interpretation of copies of copies of translations has led to vast numbers of wildly differing beliefs and even none belief. That's just in regard to the god of the bible, Not to mention all the other current and past gods people believed in.
So I think we can all agree he has failed in achieving objectivity with regard to morality in this respect. Under the current world theology, objectivity does not exist.
*HOWEVER* there is still the possibility of a more deist god who exists and has a objective moral standard as yet not conveyed.
This god may agree with my moral views about our current proposed gods scriptures containing unjust and imoral teachings, for all we know. Or maybe his objective morals could be something that we all would find abhorrent who can say.
*This kind of objectivity would be a bit like getting a set of wardrobes from IKEA with no construction manual. Utterly useless* , we would just have make do the best we can ourselves regardless of whether the manuals exist or not is irrelevant without knowledge of what they say.
A god that is not detectable in the real world is of no more use than a god that does not exist.
So in short for me the objectivity of any gods proposed or otherwise is either none existent or irrelevant.
In either case It would be illogical to base morality on this undetectable concept.
Russ Shafer-Landau is a prominent metaethicist who defends and argues for moral objectivity without God, and I think he succeeds. I am a moral objectivist and it’s compatible with the belief that God doesn’t exist. Though I am an agnostic myself.
One view might be that the moral laws are timeless and thus could not have been created. Another interesting path is to go gown a Euthyphro style objection that includes the rebuttal of God’s nature to demonstrate that morality should be thought of as seperate to God (and that this is no necessary problem for theists).
There is no thing such as objective morals, because they are constantly changing with time. Stoning me for being gay or parading around a women in a muzzle for disobeying her husband would be morally right back then but not now.
If you can’t change with time, there is something wrong with either you or your religion, and if you are a good person just because god told you so, then you aren’t actually a good person.
Understood. In that case, I would appreciate the opportunity to delve deeper into your perspective on morality and assess its coherence. May I pose a few questions to facilitate this?
1. If morality is solely dependent on societal consensus, wouldn't it imply that moral principles are subjective and vary from culture to culture? Does this mean that any action deemed morally acceptable by a particular society is indeed morally right?
2. If moral values are subject to change, how can we discern which changes are progressions towards a better understanding of morality and which ones are regressions? Is there an objective standard by which we can judge these changes?
3. Considering your example of stoning homosexuals or subjugating women, would you agree that these practices are morally wrong in the present context? If so, what is the basis for your judgment? Is it solely a personal preference or does it stem from a deeper understanding of human dignity and equality?
4. If moral principles are constantly changing with time, how can we hold individuals accountable for their actions if there are no objective moral standards to reference? Can we simply dismiss actions of the past as morally right or wrong based on our present perspective? This aligns with the first point, exemplified by the case of Nazi Germany. If one subscribes to the notion of subjective morality, does it imply that the moral convictions held by the Nazis render their actions morally justified?
5. If there are no objective moral values, how can we address issues such as human rights, justice, or the dignity of every individual? Are these concepts merely subjective preferences or do they hold a deeper significance? If morality is subjective anyway, then what is even of the purpose behind engaging with these matters. If we were to just collectively accept that injustice holds moral validity, rendering it no longer problematic, what would be the underlying rationale for addressing these issues?
6. You mentioned that being a good person simply because God commands it doesn't make someone genuinely good. Let's delve deeper into your understanding of what it means to be a good person. What qualities or virtues do you consider necessary for someone to be considered truly good?
Rather than a question, what follows is a counterargument I wish to present concerning moral subjectivism; Subjective morality, although it may initially seem appealing, is inherently flawed and logically absurd. It leads to a self-contradictory position where individuals are left with no basis to differentiate between moral beliefs, rendering any moral judgment or discourse meaningless. If morality is purely subjective and dependent on personal opinion or societal consensus, then there can be no objective grounds to condemn actions like genocide or cruelty. The absence of objective moral values undermines the very foundation of ethical discussions, as it reduces morality to mere preferences, eroding the principles of justice, human rights, and universal moral standards.
Moral standards are good because of God's nature/essence, but how can we tell God's nature/essence is good, is it good because of the commandments or are the commandments good because of God's nature/essence? Why wouldn't we think God is evil? It all comes down to defining the word good. First we define good, if we can define it, allowing us to see God's good essence, I'll be fine with that, but we can't do that, and If we say God is good, taking the bible or any other holy book as a reference, then this doesn't solve anything, and we can take a step back and ask again: Why are the commandments good? From there, all we will have is circular reasoning.
Good video up to 3:26. Up to there all the points where quite coherent. 3:26 has a big problem: 'human kills a child'. Humanity can account why this is moraly wrong without the need of god - there are many reasons (ie pain will be inflicted in the dead child's comunity, not to mention the mother and the close family). Another one (much bigger and problematic than the previous one) is at 4:07 which points the question if slavery is judged good or bad it is a 'personal preference or opinion'. These two are very simplistic and problematic options.
Yes. This is all a great point. But I think using human emotion as an example of effect isn't even necessary to explain morality. (although it is definitely absolutely viable because humans are hardwired by nature for Empathy.) But even without empathy and emotion, morality can still be explained.
Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad.
A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone.
Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems.
So, therefore.
Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same.
Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly.
It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is.
This video is deeply flawed.
I think you don't understand. Why would it be a problem for me to inflict pain on the dead child's community if there was no God and there were no laws?
@@sherlockhomeless7138 you're kidding right?
@@Halcyon1997 No, absolutely not. I'm not saying that I would do it. It's hypothetical of course. If evolution is true, why would I care if I conflicted pain on others. If that would make me happy? You're adding empathy to evolution.
@@sherlockhomeless7138 that makes absolutely no sense my dude.
There was no point in the video where it was proven that objective morality exists. It is just assumed. That we experience it the same way that we experience our senses says nothing. The argument is essentially going off of feelings. I feel very strongly that something is wrong, therefore it must be objectively wrong. It's just subjective morality with extra steps
Are you able to prove that your senses are truly informing you of the existence of the external world? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos No. I don't think that's provable
@@yoyoyoletslearn7126 And do you trust your cognitive faculties? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos in most cases yes. But everyone can be fooled
@@yoyoyoletslearn7126 Are you rational to trust your cognitive faculties in most cases? - RF Admin
I'll start simple by saying that, for example, you wouldn't want to kill a child because it would inflict deep emotional pain on the community surrounding said child, not to mention the mother. But ok. That much should be obvious to a well functioning and healthy human. But empathy aside, morality is still easily explained.
Doing bad things, creates problems. It's what makes a bad thing, bad.
A problem is a problem because it (*objectively*) has a negative impact on something or someone.
Good things are good because they either fix problems or give something of value (joy, meaning, peace just to list a few examples) and they come without creating problems.
So, therefore.
Having good morals and not wishing to create problems are one in the same.
Lastly, people, on a individual scale, need to not create problems and instead create good for the rest of the society because we are social creatures and we absolutely thrive on social interaction. If we, individually are well liked, by eachother, we benefit greatly.
It's simple. There's really no need for more of an explanation, yet people still just jump to "we have morals because God is love" in a nutshell. There is no basis in tangible and irrefrutable reality for that to be true. But cause and effect, however, is.
Very well said!
@@Ab-ju2rz thanks!
The argument here is just a version of the same argument Sam Harris put forward in his debate with Dr. Craig: that the property of "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. Of course, Dr. Craig famously showed that there is a "knock-down" argument against this claim, for if it's even possible that the heights of human happiness are occupied by rapists, murderers, etc. then it would obviously not be the case that "being good" is identical to creaturely flourishing. There would simply be a fluctuating landscape of wellbeing the peaks of which are occupied by both good and evil people. If this is the case, then what you have isn't really objective morality at all.
Here's the clip where Dr. Craig lays out this knock-down argument: ruclips.net/video/NxwjTcPW_78/видео.html.
- RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos I understand what the knockdown argument is against Sam, and it is certainly effective, and it makes total sense. Sam Harris' argument is like my own, but it is not mine. Mr. Craig's knockdown doesn't work against mine because what makes my own argument work, is that objective good is rooted in tuition of knowing what's action causes what negative affects. It has nothing to do with creaturely flourishing which is ultimately a selfish concept.
Now, obviously when it comes to such certain individuals, it's a complicated subject, but simultaneously there is still simplicity. Psychopaths exist but they aren't simply bad because they just so happen to be so. They are in the grouping of the severely mentally broken. Mentally broken people are people that have met the unfortunate path of very bad development of the mind. Usually and arguably always at the hands of others and their parental figures, in conjunction with false perceptions about other people. Fulfillment of such peoples desires are simply purely selfish acts. If they want to actually help themselves, the best they can do is seek as much therapy and spiritual enlightenment as possible and then hopefully achieve healing, so that this way they can get out of the need to hurt others to feel ok, and then replace it with a life of actions that are actually good for them, instead of essentially just putting bandaids on their horribly deep wounds.
Very greedy people, like lots of American politicians, for example, are very similar. Bad development of the mind. Mistreated and broken down in their youth so much so that they developed narcissistic qualities based on their feelings of being unloved and have been so mistreated. It's ultimately a compensation of loss, but it doesn't make it ok, it's still selfish narcissism.
Thanks for the reply though
@money 1 I understand what objective means. I'm not sure if you do. Cause and effect is objective reality. My call on empathy is being somewhat flawed I'll accept but that wasnt really my point, that was more so the point that most people make, hence why I got it out of the way first. There's nothing inconsistent outside of those two different points. I don't think this is ad populum, ad populum very typically is the "idea of the cattle" for a reason and this argument isnt typical because it is very extraspective, which isnt a very common trait of the kindof person who would rather just follow the crowd. Also what is to steal of theism when my argument is in apposition of it? This is Philosophy I've pondered about throughout my whole life, although I have certainly learned alot of philosophy for the sake of mental clarity, it's much my very own thoughts.
my moral experience tells me that commanding the killing of a baby is immoral but it seems that most of the people hear don"t agree
The one thing that no one realizes, the universe is from God, if he says that killing someone is good, it will be good, you are under his rules, and not mere human opinion that will change something.
That might be true. But he doesnt say killing is good so thats irrelevant.
@@mackanandersson8373 great response.
@@yosefzee7605 thanks man
@@mackanandersson8373 I agree with you, but what I meant is that if he defines what is good or bad, we will not be able to go against it, more and only theory.
@@ltrp3374 right, and I think its lucky that we dont get to decide over good and bad, since we are only human. Its good that God handles those things. He has a wider perspective
I think it’s quite evident that atheists at large and peoples of faith both see an objective morality.
Both simply understand such through different lenses and perspectives.
@@oscarmany1 ok, cheers, and what lense is that? And what do you see exactly ?
@@oscarmany1 Thanks for your reply Oscar, yes I know about Jesus and the miracles. Today, I don’t know if there would be too many people that do not know of Jesus and do not know something of the story of Jesus. I don’t believe Jesus needs proving.
So that tells me something of what you believe, however, not how you see things…
@@oscarmany1 Thanks, I get where you’re coming from better with that. Thankyou and bless your heart and eyes.
My perspective is that the creator - God - is in all things, all mothers, people, intelligence and thus in our societies. God is thus amongst us and working in society. Most of our values come from these things - the general sense of care and love of women toward us as children, growing up in a society where we know it’s not going to simply be a-ok to behave out of order etc
God is within all this and to feel and see that is perhaps revolutionary. It is definitely the peaceful and liberating revolution Jesus Christ sowed seeds to grow. All we can do is learn from peoples differences and perspectives and grow the tree which god seeded, into human hearts and minds in ways people will relate.
Jesus demonstrated this, in the times when he lived as a man.
Thanks again brother. I appreciate your thoughtful response
@@oscarmany1 Thankyou 🙂
@@oscarmany1sorry to inform you, that you have been misled. There is absolutely no contemporary evidence for the supposed life of Jesus.
There is no such thing as objective morality, even if a God exists, which most likely isn't at all the case. That is because to determine whether God's morals are objectively good we would have to:
a. Judge them by some other standard of morals meaning God's are still just subjective.
b. Conclude that anything God does is good. This isn't a solution because that is just the same as saying anything God does is "Godly", which is meaninglessly tautological. This doesn't actually answer the question of how or why what he does is good, leaving it up to us still needing some other moral standard to judge his by, which still means they are subjective.
If there is no such thing as objective morality is killing an innocent bad?
@@NotChinmayi By MY and most people's SUBJECTIVE standards yes, but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality
@@Shane-5229 begging the question. This is a logical fallacy of which should be utterly ridiculed and laughed at. Dont atheists consider themselves to be intelligent? Not seeing much if any evidence in the responses to this video haha
@@BombBoy96 Kindly explain how I'm begging the question here? I completely and coherently explained how a concept of objective morality falls apart instantly. If you have any objections to this line of thinking, kindly explain why, or how in the hell I am begging the question, or even explain what question I'm begging instead of smugly stating a moronic claim with zero reasoning or evidence to back it up.
@@Shane-5229 "but killing innocent people is not objectively wrong, because there is no such thing as objective morality" when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion you are begging the question
People use logic to understand the world, so did people create the world?
What logic people use if the whole universe was suddenly appear with no logical reasons and these people are product of non-logical randomness? How can you even understand something if your brains are completely random? I wouldn't trust such mind. The fact logic and science (what completely based on logic) exists is enough to prove that there is God.
The biggest problem I see in the idea that Christianity is the only source of morality is that morality shifts even among Christianity. For example, the Bible condones slavery and Jesus himself, according to the NT never abolishes it. Some more secular Christians, along with those who were not of the faith led the charge to abolish the practice and some more conservative Christians used the Bible to justify its continued practice. Most of us recognize that owning another human being as property is morally wrong and that has come from our culture, not the Bible. This is one example of how morals, even ones held by Christianity, are demonstrably subjective and evolving in nature. The requirement of 1 John 2:6 is that anyone who applies the label "Christian" to themselves must live exactly as Jesus did. The name Christian wasn't something people claimed they were, but was a Greek slur for the new converts who were transformed and lived like Jesus did. They didn't have to defend the faith, they just lived it. Today, the commissioned report from the Executive Counsel of the Southern Baptist Convention was released. The results are crushing and it took years of pressure from the sexual assault victims and other members to get the EC to actually look into the matter. The findings demonstrate how, for decades, church leaders had ignored, shrugged off and punished the victims of sexual assault who tried to alert church leadership to the criminal acts of their elders and leaders, sometimes rescinding their memberships and booting them from fellowship. This has been occurring for decades and that is just one group of believers. If sexual assault is so prevalent with the tens of thousands of cases like this, maybe the church needs to abandon talking about being Christians and start living like it, as Christ emphasized. "Let your light so shine before men that they may SEE your good deeds and praise your Father who is in heaven."- Matthew 5:16
Talk does nothing to excuse the thousands of youth who have been the victims of sexual assault by Christians in leadership roles.
The Bible does not condone slavery in the way the word slavery is used today, it actually declares it an abomination to sell human beings like that.
The word slavery meant something completely different back then. They were talking about wage-slaves. People who voluntarily agreed to work for someone for free for a few years maximum to pay off a very extreme debt. It was somewhat rare
Exactly.. And it was a way to keep your family out of poverty. There was no social security system in place providing unemployment or food for families who were in great debt.. It was more closely related to "indentured servitude" and were treated so well in Hebrew times that there were laws on how to handle a slave that didn't want to leave.. Very different from American slavery. ☺️
@@lightbeforethetunnel didnt god kill everyone on earth except for noah and friends? Thats got to be the single largest event of maas genocide ever. Are we really going to use this guy as an objective moral standard?
If you're citing bible verses, make sure to consider its background or context so you will not make your own interpretation. Wrong interpretation results to wrong application my friend
@@markleojagong7413 The Bible endorse slavery, there's no interpretation context or background required. The scriptures speak volumes for themselves.
"The Moral Argument for the existence of God.
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2: Objective Moral values and duties do exist.
C: Therefor, God exists."
This argument is neither valid nor sound.
- The first statement is making a negative claim about the lack of existence of a God meaning the lack of existence of OMV. It never says that the existence of OMV substantiates God, that was just implied, and there's no room for unsubstantiated implications in a formal argument. The transitive property applying has not been evidenced, making the first premise irrelevant to the conclusion, making the argument invalid. That sounds like invalidity on a technicality , but that's what argumentation is. If you don't like that, then don't pretend to have logical arguments for believing in God. The technicalities matter. If you wanted to reenable it, you'd need to say, "If objective moral values exist, then God exists." This would still not solve the problem however that the second premise brings up, but at least this argument would have proper form and the conclusion would be necessitated by the premises.
- Objective moral values do NOT exist as I've evidenced in the following paragraphs. Morals are found subjectively and sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. For a thing to be objective, it has to be true outside of human perception, as you explained in your video. The property must exist in the thing, not in the subject. Basically it has to be a force of nature. When someone is murdered in cold blood, the badness is not an innate property of that murder, the badness is what we associate with our feelings about that murder. We have sociopaths and genocidal maniacs, and people who might have agreed with that murder as well, which wouldn't happen if it was an objective quality of murder that it was wrong. We would all just agree. This makes the second premise false, and thus unsound.
- The conclusion is therefor, not necessarily false, but that's not what arguments do. It's more accurate to say then, that this argument is debunked and the conclusion remains unsubstantiated. God may exist, but he'll need better arguments than this to prove it.
Other notes:
Objective moral values don't exist even if a God exists since those morals would be subject to God. For a thing to be objective it has to be true outside of perception. A ball dropping is evidence for the objective nature of gravity in our universe and gravity would still exist even if there weren't any humans around to perceive it. The same can't be said of morality.
Morality is like language, or culture. It's an emergent property of society that's tricky to define so it's most useful to be a "you know it when you see it." kind of thing. Take "murder is wrong" for example. Seems pretty solid, but what about murdering Hitler to prevent him from killing even more people? Now you have shades of grey, right? Tell me you don't know people who would say "He should be killed" and people who say "He should be captured" as the moral option. Not very objective is it, at least not as objective as, people die when you kill them.
But let's assume God is the arbiter of objective morality for as much as that makes sense. Do you understand this God's morality? How is it that you are capable of determining that his morality is objective? Are you even following his morality correctly? If you are, why do so many other Christians disagree with you? Are you going to claim that YOU have the one true understanding of God's morality above others? My point being, even if God's morality is objective, your understanding of it is subjective, leaving us both in equal states of moral subjectivity. You've subjectively said that it's all about God's rules, and I've subjectively said that it's about doing the most good for our fellow man woman and non, subject to the circumstances.
I know it's easier to define atheist morality for us, but here's what one atheist's morality actually looks like. To argue anything else is a strawman and you will be promptly ignored.
God enchanted me, I believe in magic, yes I do.
I love you God.
God is Love. That's the answer! Without consciousness of love (God) then you have no morals.
God is love? If that was all he was, then I'd be happy to say God (love) was real!
Too bad that religion has often been the basis of violence. Guess you never heard of the Bloody Conversion or Witch Burning? I love the Golden Rule but most of the Old Testament is dark and tribal, including a documented genocide.
this video what interesting, but it was so obviously leaning on way rather than being natural.
Well, "being good" in this modern world is a lot to do with laws of the land, and penalties for breaking those laws AND, the laws that work best are the ones with high penalties AND with a high detection rate. Here's an example. I was talking to a young person - 25 - about speeding rules, and he was quite honest and said that he rarely kept to them - around town -because he knew the risk of being caught was very small; however, he said that he always observed parking laws because he knew that if he broke them there was a high chance of him being caught. So, a lot of the time, people are "being good" because there are penalties attached to not being good. BTW, it's interesting to note how many of the 10 Commandments have found their way into the laws of the land. In the Western world blasphemy laws have fallen not of use. Not so, of course, in Islamic counties. Also, adultery, for example, isn't against the law in Western counties but is evoked in Muslim counties. It's interesting, to ask why Western counties have "ditched" most of the 10 commandments from the laws of the land.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros Well, Jesus and the God of the Old Testement are one and same being and so Jesus created the 10 Commandments.
@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros But where did you get all this information from about God? Oh yes, somebody told you, or wrote it down in book. Yes, I see...but you don't!
You’re right, but our judicial systems and laws are brought about through our own sense of morality. If we didn’t have a sense of right and wrong, we wouldn’t have come up with prisons, jails, penalties, etc. Precisely why pigs and monkeys don’t have jails and prisons and laws and societies, because of their lack of morality.
@@Username-hd1co "Our own sense" ? Surely, you mean the Government decides, based - sometimes - on pressure by groups who might want change for no moral reasons whatsoever.
@@musik102 no, you’re talking politics. Im saying, within a society of hundreds of millions, there needs to be order, laws, policing, etc. We all can agree on that, but WHY do we? Why can’t we all just live with no ordinance? I’m not saying we should, but why not?
Moral is always subjective. Have a nice day.
i believe you forgot the phrase used in 4:10. We as humans seem to have a standard for what is good and what is evil, if ALL moral is subjective you as someone who neglects the existence of objective morals have to understand you cannot argue that anything done is bad. If you did that would be just your opinion on it, and your opinion is not more valid than someone else's. So, you need to understand you cant say anything about what is just or not. Next time you see a kid being raped and killed you cant say thats something wrong. If a friend of yours is shot at the street because they were someone of color, you have got to respect the muderer's opinion on it and remember to not say anything about the atrocities done at the holocaust, Hitler thought it was OK. If you are neglecting objective morals, you have no right to say that those things are bad, because on a subjective worldview they arent.
@@JuniorSilva-up9du guess what, not long ago it was moral to have slaves and treat them as objects; now we see it as horrendous. It goes for the same for the other examples. That's because moral laws vary from culture to culture, age to age, places to places. It's not something that hard to see. I'd LOVE to say moral is objective, but that's not how it really is.
@@rennan1173 1. This does not prove moral subjectivism, this is like saying that before people saw the earth as flat and now we see it as round, and this proves that the shape of the earth is subjective, a really powerful argument.
2. Our moral experiences confirm objective morality so the burden of proof is on any skeptic to prove that our moral experiences are false.
3. The moment you accept subjective morality, you can no longer morally criticize anyone, you cannot say anything against slavery, homophobia, rape, pedophilia, you have to accept that you are no better person than Hitler, that you are as worthless as a grain of sand and the like.
@@kenandzafic3948 this does not prove moral objectivism. Only because YOU WANT it to be objective doesn't make it objective.
@@kenandzafic3948 using the shape of Earth as analogy??? You do realize it's not a social construct as moral and ethics are, don't you? You're giving "analogy is my passion" vibes.
Absolutely true you can be good without God
I wonder if "God" is a Subject?
Naaah.... God is super extra special
Argument from personal intuition. And I used to think Craig was smart.
This makes perfect sense if you think about it
Like even a terrorist can define good and bad
But he would say what he does he justified and give a bunch of reasons
Does that make him right?
I think right and wrong are fixed and cannot be fluid/changed
Killing is wrong period.
All morality is subjective.
Hello fellow atheists, if you want the quick answer, yes you can be good without God, and this video does not prove otherwise, let me explain why:
When theists first realized that they were losing their precious "moral" high ground in regards to the realization that atheists do not need the reward of an eternal afterlife to be "good", they quickly panicked and decided that they needed an obvious answer that would make sense and not completely shatter their incredibly dumb reasoning for being forced to act like decent human beings. So what did they come up with? Well it's quite simple, they decided to co-opt the concept of the "moral good" with an all knowing creator, after all since their version of God created everything, then it makes sense(to them at least) that only they would objectively know what the actual meaning and construct of "good" is since it was "written" into their DNA by their oh so wise creator.
My advice fellow atheists, remind the smug theists that the only thing their respective religions have done well is scare the early versions of human society into believing they had to be good otherwise they would pay an eternal price in whathever version of hell they believe in, which in turn gave us enough time to create a modern society that allowed us to make our own decisions about the inner workings of the universe(based on scientific understanding) which in turn allowed us to give better meaning and realization to the concepts of "good and evil", and that we as highly intelligent animals can decide that living a "morally just" life does not require a reward to adhere to.
Atheists, most of them, are philosophical naturalists who hold that there is no supernatural and everything in the universe can be explained in reference to physical processes.
Atheism combined with philosophical naturalism is a recipe for existential disaster. The formula is simple: no God, which includes the associated concepts of Divine accountability, equals no moral values and purpose.
Under naturalism everything that exists is essentially a rearrangement of matter, or at least based on blind, non-conscious physical processes and causes.
If you were to pick up a hammer and smash a chocolate bunny and then did the same to an actual person, then according to naturalism, there would be no real difference. The pieces of chocolate and the pieces of human skull would just be rearrangements of the same stuff: cold, lifeless matter.
Any difference is just an illusion because everything is based on matter and prior physical causes and processes and thus nothing has any real value.
Even Richard Dawkins appreciates the logical implications of naturalism. He argues that under naturalism, everything is meaningless and based on pitiless indifference:
*“On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."*
*- Dawkins, R. (2001) River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. London: Phoenix, p. 155*
A universe made up of non-rational, blind, cold physical stuff is not concerned with our emotions.
Yet Atheists who adopt this perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their beliefs. If they did, it would be depressing.
The reason Atheists attribute ultimate value to our existence is because of their innate dispositions which in itself an evidence for God's existence.
God has placed an innate disposition within us to acknowledge our worth, and to recognise fundamental moral and ethical truths.
Only God can provide the intellectual justification for moral values that defines our humanity.
This is the Moral Argument for God's existence.
@@moizahmed4705 You do realize that an individual who does not have adhere to a philosophical naturalist approach is more likely to be agnostic, so why you are labeling them as atheists is up for debate, but I suppose that is a question for another time.
The perpetual existential disaster you speak of is inherently on the shoulders of theists BECAUSE they cannot come to grips with the undeniable fact that they need to believe that there is a reward for their strict adherence to moral values AND the fact that they are basically puppets tied to their chosen deity's "rules". Why you people decide to not be puppets when you commit wrongdoings and simply blame it on their "inert" evil confounds me, but hey if you guys want to believe that everything good is because of a deity and everything bad is simply because we had it coming or it was part of a grand plan then so be it, everyone has coping mechanisms.
It sounds like your disbelief stems NOT from our acceptance of chaotic forces culminating upon humanity(as it exists today) through oceans of time, BUT from a deep seated bitterness that there is no proof that a deity put on his thinking cap and thought "they will be my work of art".
Oh I do so love the "nothing matters in the grand scheme of an atheist's universe" argument. Okay let me break it down for you: Our acceptance of a near limitless universe NOT OWING US MEANING does not convey that we cannot put emotional value and importance to matter that has consciousness or not. Will my death mean something to the outer reaches of the universe? I do not believe so, but will I care every day about staying alive simply because I cherish life and because I do not wish to make my family members suffer from a sudden demise? Absolutely. What you theists tend to drag into this "reasoning" for living is that some holy spirit is cheering me on to stay alive, which I can assure you is not, if anything my fellow human beings(and I own a pet, so it's not just humans) keep me going through the "human experience". And keep in mind that I am not even including people of solitary natures, those who stay alive simply to preserve their career, art, or profession. Now what I find particularly vile about your "chocolate rabbit" example is that you are stating that atheists do not have the empathy required to differentiate between the chocolate rabbit and a human being. This is absolute bull** on your part, especially because the entire point of this argument is that Atheists do not need a puppet master to get the anterior insular cortex to process the inner workings of empathy, do you know what kinds of people have no activity in that part of the cerebral cortex?: Psychopaths. Let me assure you, the majority of Atheists are not psychopaths, just like the majority of theists are not looking to go on a religious mass murdering crusade simply to dick measure how awesome their deity is.
Oh look, a theist quoting a renowned atheist(who I can admit can be a bit heavy handed with his criticism of religion, but nonetheless speaks the truth) and shamelessly believing said quote brings credence to his viewpoint. This is almost as laughable as the story that conversion camps tell to their captives about how Albert Einstein told of a teacher about how their own atheism is flawed in regards to the concept of light, heat, and the universe. Okay, so first off, that quote from Dawkins was explicitly stating the same points from my previous statement: The universe owes us no meaning or regard, but that despite this chaotic function of the universe, we still choose to have moral values towards our world/reality(fellow living beings, other animals, nature, concepts). Atheists choose to follow the inner workings of our empathy to create our moral values, and yes in effect this gave rise to religion since we needed an easy explanation for good and evil, but now that we have evolved past superstition, it is time to let the fear of the unknown shackles us to an unnecessary concept of what we call the "moral good". You effectively took a quote about how the universe AS IS cannot possibly be the creation of an intelligent being that "loves" us BECAUSE it is so chaotic and ultimately left to the chance encounters of primordial forces to ultimately decide the fate of all life as atheists see it. You(and all other theists) cannot fathom such an acceptance of said "belief", so you decide to warp our understanding of the universe as a hopeless existence simply because we do not need the watchful eye of a deity to decide our fates.
Basically, it is not our problem that you cannot have a healthy existence without a deity literally spelling out what is good or bad. You don't get to coopt the concept of morality with religion simply because you can't come up with a good excuse for moralistic atheists. Also, I get it, you need excuses to tell the younger generation that you haven't brainwashed yet into believing your nonsense.
@@pitsburg91
Of course you can be emphatic and differentiate between a chocolate bunny and an actual person by arguing “we have feelings”, “we are alive”, “we feel pain”, “we have an identity” and “we’re human!”
But according to naturalism all of these responses can be reduced to rearrangements of matter, or to be more precise, neuro-chemical reactions in your brain. In reality everything we feel, say or do can be reduced to the basic constituents of matter, or at least some type of physical process.
Therefore, this sentimentalism is unjustified if you are an atheist, because everything, including feelings, emotions or even the sense of value, is just based on matter and cold physical processes and causes.
Yes you can give value to matter that has consciousness but that's self-delusion, you are telling us to play make-belief, it like a child who is about to hit by a ball but closes his eyes and says "it's gone now".
Remember, according to atheism nothing has been purposefully designed or created. It is all based on cold, random and non-conscious physical processes and causes.
You are basically saying "I know my life is no more valuable than the life of a bacteria but I want everyone to pretend it is because I don't want to accept this harsh reality".
But the difference is that Theist genuinely believes that human life is sacred but an Atheist only pretends it is when he doesn't even believe that human beings have a soul.
Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University, provides an apt summary of the concept of human rights and dignity-which ultimately refer to value-in the absence of God:
*“Before speaking of human responsibilities or rights, one must answer the basic religious and philosophical question, ‘What does it mean to be human?’ In today’s world everyone speaks of human rights and the sacred character of human life, and many secularists even claim that they are true champions of human rights as against those who accept various religious worldviews. But strangely enough, often those same champions of humanity believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms and ultimately from various compounds of molecules. If the human being is nothing but the result of ‘blind forces’ acting upon the original cosmic soup of molecules, then is not the very statement of the sacredness of human life intellectually meaningless and nothing but a hollow sentimental expression? Is not human dignity nothing more than a conveniently contrived notion without basis in reality? And if we are nothing but highly organized inanimate particles, what is the basis for claims to ‘human rights’? These basic questions know no geographic boundaries and are asked by thinking people everywhere.”*
*- Nasr, S. H. (2004). The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 275*
If you find ethics and morals in life that's due to intoxication of religion because such metaphysical claims are absurd and have no basis or justification under naturalism. You only sober up when you incline towards Nihilism.
For an Atheist to say genocide is bad is no different than saying pizza with pineapple is bad, it's just your opinion or dislike which is neither valid nor binding upon others.
For example, I believe that Homosexuality is immoral and should be criminalized whereas you probably believe there is nothing wrong with two people of same gender to love each other.
But the question is which one of us is correct? Under your Atheistic worldview none of us is correct because morality is subjective to people and thus there are no moral facts.
Yet, as I said earlier, many Atheists including yourself who adopt naturalistic perspective do not follow through with the rational implications of their worldview. If they did it would be depressing and miserable existence.
You having a purpose to continue your life implies that there is a reason for our existence-in other words, some kind of intention and objective. Without an ultimate purpose we have no reason to exist, and we lack a profound meaning for our lives.
But this is the perspective of naturalism. It dictates that we merely spring from prior physical processes. These are blind, random and non-rational.
Sure you can give purpose to continue your life, be it for your loved ones or to make a world a better place, but denying purpose for the basis of our existence while attributing some made-up purpose to our lives is again, by definition, self-delusion.
It is no different from children who pretend to be doctors and nurses, cowboys and Indians, or mothers and fathers. However, we must all grow up and face the truth that life is not just a game.
@@moizahmed4705 Oh wow, your warped and abstract understanding of atheists is WAY worse than I thought. Your first couple of sentences can be reduced to "because you have a clear understanding of the vast expanse of the universe, thereby accepting your own EXCEEDINGLY small part within it, then you must live a disconnected/uncaring life", which is such a vile, and honestly not surprising, way to view atheists simply because you believe a deity cradles your "existence" into some vague afterlife.
Our ability to CARE and give meaning to our interactions within THIS PLANE OF EXISTENCE is not some cherry picked "make believe" excuse that theists come up with simply because they couldn't explain away our ability to do good without reward or direction from a deity. We KNOW that our place within the universe will ultimately not matter in the grand scheme of this existence, but we can choose to give meaning to our lives based on the various processes of interactions from our senses that have been developed through millions of years of evolution. Your argument is essentially that all atheists see what is at the end of our path, and thus we should have no emotional output once we reach it, and that is just total bull**, it's called enjoying the journey AND acquiring meaning on our own, if you prefer to have your deity amount to a parent telling you the story(do good, go to nice afterlife, do bad, go to bad afterlife) then be my guest, but your emotional and...spiritual way to give meaning to your existence is not the end-all be-all.
Hahahahaha, okay okay, so when quoting a well known atheist failed for you(as I explained earlier that Dawkins's quote was about how his study of the chaotic forces of the universe serve as proof that a deity did not create it, and NOT that atheists cannot be moralistically good because of our understanding of the nature of said uncaring universe), next you decided to quote an academic that rejects the theory of evolution simply because it doesn't leave room for divine interaction? You do know this guy has been criticized by other academics who are not shackled by religious traditionalism, case in point: Marietta Stepanyants(Russian Philosopher) explains that his views on the "creation" of current day humanity by means of an omnipotent being is absurd because it offers "horizontal and material causes in a unidimensional world, to explain effects whose causes belong to other levels of reality". Basically, the guy is not basing his understating upon the scientific method, but merely mixing it with his own religious bias. So I ask, what's next, are you gonna quote a flat-Earther next?
Nihilism is based upon rejecting religion BECAUSE you put no meaning upon ANYTHING within the confines of one's life. As I have explained before, and will continue to, Atheists do put meaning in life within the confines of OUR immediate vicinity/reality. We choose to care, give meaning, label good and evil not just because of the laws of man, but also because our evolutionary understanding of empathy compels us to as well. We know that our actions will not heavily affect the fate of the universe, but that does not mean we cannot tell the difference between good and evil. You call it an act, I call it seeing life without the lenses of a convenient puppet master who has to spoon feed you the concept of BEING a decent human being, not just to your fellow man, but also to the rest of the creatures that inhabit this world and to nature itself. You theists claim to have dominion over the world, Atheists who have educated scientific understanding of nature know that we can easily f*** up the environment and go extinct as easily as any other creature.
Nice little strawman examples, okay let's break them down:
Atheist will see the horrors of genocide and feel empathy for the race/ethnicity being wiped out because we have evolved to feel remorse or even pity for the dying. You theists have time and again committed acts of terror simply because a particular region of the world did not believe in the same deity, in that case it was a matter of convert or be wiped out.
Oh look, a homophobe, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, so tell me Mr. theist, if your god is real and is busy with the near infinite complexities of the universe, why does he take time off his never ending job to dictate the importance of which gender takes it up the a**?
Oh I know I am correct, and so do the many Atheists who easily see behind the conniving excuse of coopting the concept of moral good so theists can feel special about their sense of right and wrong. We particularly know this BECAUSE medical scientific inquiry has dissected the inner workings of the brain, and we have even shown that our empathy can light up certain areas of the brain which in turn are the basis of our morals(no deity is controlling us to be good). Once again, knowing that our lives will be meaningless IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE UNIVERSE does not mean we do not convey meaning to our everyday lives and interactions that are within the confines of actual control/efficacy. What I have noticed is that you view atheists as depressed individuals who look up at the night sky and feel empty because we cannot affect the cosmos or continue to exists forever in an afterlife, and thus we simply cannot find meaning in our lifespans. I can assure you that is not the case, and only a zealot with an agenda would see us that way.
Your last sentences are just more word salad about finding meaning, I have stated(and will continue to as long as it takes) that we can fine meaning in our everyday lives, we simply know that we cannot affect EVERTHING in the universe and thus have a meaningless "role to play" in the grand scheme of the universe. Religious zealots took the meaningless part to heart and rolled with it, creating a self-serving interpretation of the statement and turned it into their "GOTCHA" argument as to why Atheist can choose the paths of virtue without a deity. I particularly like the "grow up" comment, seeing as how Atheists are the ones who desire a world of meaning that is derived from reason and educated deductions of the inner workings of the universe, you theists are the ones who pretend to have a back-up save file when you die lol
@@pitsburg91
Oh boy you are just waffling at this point whilst having a mental breakdown. Very typical of Atheists when you point out the implications of their absurd worldview.
You Atheists may be emotionally justified in believing your lives have a sense of ultimate value, purpose and meaning but intellectually they are groundless and that's the whole point of my argument which you don't seems to understand.
Of course we can all play "make-belief" no different than little children but since you have just invented these beliefs you cannot justify them and that's the whole issue.
You are kept appealing to "empathy" as if it justifies anything. Again empathy under naturalism can be reduced to neuro-chemical reactions in your brain which is just a natural process or rearrangement of matter no different than a leaf falling from a tree or tornados happening on Mars right now.
An Anti-natalists can come up and say "I see a lot of pain and suffering caused by humans to almost all living creatures on this planet and I feel *empathy* for those who are suffering and *anger* on humans so if we just wipe all humanity then we can end a lot of pain and suffering and achieve ultimate peace which would be the greatest moral achievement."
How on earth can you Atheists argue with such people that they are wrong when your worldview is as much as absurd than theirs if not more? Point is that dancing molecules in your brain neither justify moral claims nor are they binding upon others.
I'm talking about Atheism not Atheists because Atheists are inconsistent with their worldview. Again I want to know if you can justify these metaphysical claims that our lives have a sense of value, purpose and meaning.
I'm not interested in knowing that you can play "make-belief" because I know you can. I see children doing it all the time, nothing special, it doesn't make it true.
Forgive me Father, I'm good and evil. I like both things, I'm very sorry God. I'm sorry dad I have failed you. I'm sorry.
Objective morality comes from objective reality. Not from some guy in the sky that told us so.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez It doesn’t speak, but it provides information for us to evaluate.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez I don’t know if anyone placed anything anywhere apart from ourselves.
@Oscar [EROS] Perez Have any evidence for that?
@Oscar [EROS] Perez The reward is that you know it’s real.
How are you substantiating this claim?
Is something good because God said it's good, or is it good despite God saying it's good? These aren't the same things.
This is a dreadful argument. There is no such thing as objective morality. I am perfectly OK with that.
Morality is an assessment of human actions. There are different standards of morality proposed. Generally people call things that increase harm and decrease wellbeing immoral, and things that increase wellbeing and decrease harm as moral. That is a perfectly acceptable standard even though this video claims there can't be morality without a god.
Even people who think morality comes from a god use this method in my experience. This is why even though the Bible clearly says slavely is acceptable, most Christians today agree that slavery is immoral. They don't use the supposed word of God as the standard of morality - they use harm and wellbeing.
Other proposed standards for morality are ones that come from the Christian god and one's that come from the Muslim God.
So there are three different standards right there. The video give no reason why picking the one it proposes is actually objective. It just claims it without backing it up. That's because that standard is entirely subjective. Different people will use different standards.
If the god you believe in says a particular killing/theft is morally right, then the believer will likely say it is morally right. So the morality of an action is subject to the word of a god in that view. That is subjective to its core.
Referring to a god does not get you to objective morality. It simply does not exist.
why do all you people think the bible says slavery is ok
you realize the bible is a collection of STORIES
the only "rules" are the commandments
@@Disneydreamgirl33 Because we read what's in the Bible. It's there in black and white. There are even commandments about it.
Exodus 21
Leviticus 25
Deuteronomy 15
Colossians 3
1 Peter 2
If there is no such thing as objective morality then why is murder...bad.
@@NotChinmayi I'm not sure you took in what my original comment says.
There are different views of what morality is. A common perception is that it is about how actions align with what a god does or wants. That is a subjective view. I view morality as how an action relates to wellbeing and harm. That is also a subjective view.
Murder is bad when viewed in terms of what I view morality to be because it increases harm. That's how it is wrong according to my subjective view of morality. Alternative views of morality may say it is immoral too, or maybe even moral, but they are all subjective views.
Does that answer your question?
@@philb4462 Bro you are mistaken God is goodness itself.