There was certainly something unique about Hitch. What was it about him that he could have what I think he himself would call friends who were Christians?
"If a well respected scholar with a Bachelor, 2 Masters, and 2 Doctorates can be labeled as a fool, what on earth does that make you?" Brilliant!! Well said.
@edichkaa I agree with William Lane Craig, I have no preference between a Muslim, an athiest, or for that matter a Hindu, an agnostic, or a Buddhist. Some are easier to preach to than others, but they are all in the same boat. There are the redeemed and the unredeemed, and it is because of nothing we have done ourselves, but the work of Christ that has saved us. I won't categorise the unredeemed into bad and really bad, I'll just preach to whoever God puts on my path.
Thanks for the comment. Of course you're not a "Craig-hater". I think YinHoNg was just over reacting to some of your statements. That said, I do share his frustration when people downplay Craig's credentials. I frequently come across people who do that every now and then, which is quite strange since it's very easy to find out about his prominent reputation in this area. Anyways, I know you don't share the same respect for him as I do, but I'm curious, what Theists do you consider respectable?
I would agree that feelings and perceptions are more susceptible to bias, but that doesn't mean one can't rely on them at all. Nothing is verifiable without presupposing the reliability of your senses in the first place. In order to test whether a wall is there you would have to rely on your senses to do it. Any sort of test you could think of couldn't be done without your senses. Finally, like our intuitions, our main senses aren't always perfect. People can see things that aren't there.
I think the point is that we rely on our experiences to tell us something about the physical world. For example, we all reasonably rely on our sense experiences such as touch, taste, see, hear etc to tell us something about the objective physical world around us. In the same way we rely on those experiences to rationally ground knowledge of the world we can also use moral experience to ground knowledge of moral values. This is how Craig is using our moral intuitions to ground objectivity.
The fact that we all agree that self sacrifice to save others is a morally good act, it stands to reason that this moral thought exists without consideration of independent existence. And it stands to reason that since we all agree, it is not a subjectively good act, which makes it objective. And if something is subjective, it's not objective; if something is objective, it's not subjective.
Cont... One thing I do disagree with you on though is your claim that Craig is only big in theology and evangelism. That's not true. Craig is a major figure in philosophy of Religion, so much so that he is considered one of the top philosophers of Religion in the world today. If you take any course in University on philosophy of Religion I can guarantee that you'll come across Craig's works. I've taken a few such courses (at a secular University) and he's in all the textbooks.
And, again, I didn't say other Christians will do the same as well. I was talking about hell and I said that if we have different stances on damnation, then it makes our beliefs SUBJECTIVE. And since so many Christian denominations have different views on hell and damnation, then this means that their views are SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE. And since the issue of hell and damnation is SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE, then you cannot use damnation as the foundation for your fallacious argument.
The experts on "morality" would be Psychologists, Sociologists and Psychiatrist and other researchers in the field human psychology. If Dr Craig is interested in aspects of human psychology it would certainly benefit him to read up on their literature and attend some of their conferences. It would also be worthwhile submitting some of his own research papers to some of the Universities for peer review by these experts.
Not all philosophical arguments if any are meant to give 100% proof to persuade you on delivery. But this argument is persuasive to people because in the end they have to decide wether or not they think human life has intrinsic value. So you don' t have to agree, but just you disagreeing does not invalidate it. There are things that cannot be proven, and we all have to decide what we truly believe in the end.
@theman And what does the definition of Objective, that you gave, have anything to do with for instance, claiming that sacrificing yourself for the good of others, is an Objective act?
@DandAinTac He wasn't making that kind of argument here. He was just saying that on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, there is no objective morality, as many atheists seem to affirm by the normative statements they often make.
I also used to think that feelings and perceptions don't count as evidence but upon further reflection I don't see why not. We all rely on our senses to tell us truths about the world. We rely on our eyes to tell us if there is wall in front of us. If we see one we recognize that as evidence for a wall. The same is true for our other senses (ie. touch, hearing etc) If we can rely on those senses for truth then why can't we rely on our sense intuitions about morality as evidence for their truth?
@Russ How does the word occur, literally translate, to meaning "NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A CAUSE"? How does talking about words occuring, literally translate, to saying the Universe never occurred?
@benaberry Assuming there is a God - the creation of the universe is the greatest of the miralces. Resurection is small in comparison, I don't know why you find it so hard to comprehend. You talked about reason before. I think it is reasonable and logical to believe the first hand testimonies of witnesses to Jesus' life, minstry, death, and yes his resurection. Almost all being martyred for their belief. Unreasonable and illogical would be to dismiss their testimonies.
You misunderstand him. He is saying that theism is the more coherent world view to fathom if you believe in objective moral values. The issue is not in this case how we come to knowledge of moral truths. That's another discussion.
"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And who exactly goes in the fire? How long does it last? Is it eternal? Do I get to sin all I want and hopefully get away with a quick annihilation before I go into eternal non-existence. What will it be like? Is it a metaphor? Doesn't bother me.
Makes sense and puts you way ahead of him. In this clip and in debates where he has attempted the Moral Argument, he says we feel "deep down" that there are objective moral values. That's not philosophy and any evolutionary biologist would just laugh and accuse him of projecting and confirming exactly what the biologist is alleging: that moral intuitions come from inside us. Actually any subjectivist would say this. The biologist just adds that everything inside us comes from evolution.
The point of sensory experience is to verify that there is something out there, not that it has a particular color, taste, feel etc. In the same way, intuitions are to verify the facts of moral values, not to delineate their subjective qualities.
"but that any type of force or punishment, especially on the level of eternal damnation, means you don't have a choice, you're being forced(coerced)" First of all, you can't compare immediate horrendous punishment to possible punishment down the line. It's just not the same.
I'm not supposing that they're equivalent. I already admitted that our intuitions are likely more susceptible to bias. My point is that there is no good reason why we should totally disregard our intuitions as evidence for the truth of objective morality. It seems we can still trust them, despite the fact that they may be unreliable at times, as is the same with our other senses occasionally.
"If not, what makes one sacrifice for others, objectively good, while another sarcifice for others, would not be?" Because in my case, everyone sane, rational, competent, and appropriately informed would agree that sacrificing yourself to save strangers is a good act, that makes it objectively good...
Well my point is that our moral intuitions are very much analogous to our other senses. Just as our intuitions (or feelings and perceptions as you would call them) can be wrong, so can our physical senses. Just as we can rely on our physical senses, so can we rely on our intuitions about certain moral actions. The ultimate point I'm getting at here is that there isn't really any good reason to abandon our intuitions on morality anymore than there is for our physical senses.
Actually I must say I generally agree with your comment. Craig isn't that widely known among the public, sad to say. This is pretty much why I dedicated a channel to WLC videos, so that I could promote him to the wider public. Therefore, I wouldn't really be surprised if Dawkins hadn't heard of Craig then. Today that's not the case and Dawkins now recognizes him as a "widely respected Christian apologist". That said, Dawkins still should have some general idea of who the big fish today are. Cont
I think the very point of the exercise was to show that naturalism/atheism cannot have a standard not that people ever claimed it to be the standard (which quite frankly why would you, when it's obvious that you can't have such a standard). It sounds like you're just affirming Craig's point.
I like Craig points out how Hitchens often misconstrues the moral argument, that you need to *believe* in God to be know moral truths, and then Hitchens goes right on and misconstrues it again, as if he did not comprehend, whatsoever, Craig's point on the ontological foundation for morality.
Again, as I already explained, you cannot demonstrate other things apart from presupposing your senses. Therefore, just as our intuitions aren't demonstrable, neither are our other senses. Everyone must rely on your senses to tell you anything. There is no way to step outside your senses and assess them independently.
He isn't trying to refute the idea of morality being rooted in nature/evolution. He's trying to say that on naturalism that's all morality is though. It's just evolved patters that are beneficial to survival. There's nothing objective, however, about those actions any more then there is something objective about eating meat which we are evolved for. Craig is distinguishing between two issues, one being the root of morality, and the other being the ontological status of moral actions/values.
"The first step towards getting your theology degree is to completely brush aside the majority of your opponents argument and take one small bit out of context and make it seem as if you are actually making a point." No one in this conversation is that I am aware of is on their way to get their theology degree. And the first step to getting your theology is NOT brushing aside anything. Enrolling in a university would be the first step fool.
Practically the whole enterprise of moral philosophy is based in our intuitions concerning them so Craig is right where he should be on this argument. If ethicists can legitimately evaluate moral values based on how well they cohere with our intuitions then Craig arguing for God's existence from objective moral values based in our strong intuitions of them is likewise legitimate.
Craig doesn't argue morals come from the Bible. However, the Bible can be used to obtain moral values from. He also does not argue that morals come from God's commands. I believe his stance on this issue is that morality is a necessary aspect of God's nature. Therefore, things God tells mankind to do are moral, not because he commanded them, but because He is the standard of goodness.
Continued @Russ 1 Tim 1:8-10 "We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,"
It just means to assert it's foundation in something. In other words, to say that morality is grounded in God is just to say that morality's foundation is in God. The point from Craig is that naturalism offers no such foundation and therefore there cannot be an objective standard for morality.
You took it out of context and twisted it. I clearly said that my subjective view was on hell, NOT morality. And since the view of hell is subjective, you can't use it as the foundation of your argument.
Craig says that our strong feeling that some things are "objectively" wrong can't just be socio-evolutionary feelings (that we largely have in common, like we have 10 toes) because ... wait for it ... we have a strong feeling that that those things are objectively wrong. This is circular, makes no logical headway and fails to escape subjectivity. When we feel something is wrong, part of the feeling is that it's generally wrong, simply because people are similar in their hurts and harms.
@mouthyweasel - riigghhhttt! why is it do you think, anonymous internet atheist that none of the other atheist, far more prominent than you, hitchens, harris, dennett agree with your postion, not one has yet taken that position in writing or in the debates that Craig easily thrashed the three of them in? Could it be that you are brighter than these atheists? Please be sensible in your response or don't respond at all, thanks
It ultimately comes down to which way the individual is convinced. There is no way for philosophical arguments to prove anything to anyone who is not willing to accept whatever it is being argued. You may say that I am just being an idiot, and neglecting logic, but that is no more an argument then me telling you the same. Basically if I could some up all of my voluminous arguments into what my point is then I would have to say at some point we must at least agree to disagree.
As a Christian, I have to give credit to Mr. Hitchens for at least debating theists and Christians. Many good conversations have resulted from the fact that he'll engage the other side.
And the question remains: how? Whats great about God morally? By what standard is he the greatest? Or is he good by just his own standard, and thus arbitrarily and subjectively good? In which case, how is that objectively good for us? You can't say that hes absolutely great by any standard. He cant be unlimited in all directions, in ways that conflict, both maximum good and maximum evil. So there does have to be a standard, If he sets it, its subjective. If its objective, lets find it.
To elaborate: He explains how altruistic behaviour is observed in baboons (and I'll add, among many species of animals). He explains exactly how this morality has been beneficial to these (including our own) species' survival. Very clumsily, he abruptly (like a car driving onto a double-height curb) cuts to "but on naturalism, I don't see anything that makes this objectively true."
My objections to Craig's ideas apply to all theism, so there's no one I can recommend. I cannot respect implausible claims so poorly supported by reasons and evidence. And the more Christian that Craig argues his first cause is, the more objections I have. But I distinguish levels of logic/honesty/evasion in response to the objections, and respect people who have a good command of their material. That puts Craig ahead of most of them. And puts you at the top of the pack on RUclips.
But you can't blame him for not explaining all there is to explain about God and morality in one little speech, and if he misses something then you got a hold on him and can say he "Falls apart". There are a number of ways one could explain this. Again, I still think this is a separate question, although I understand your eagerness to hear the further explanation.
1. ) 2 is spelled two. 2. ) Philosophy is not religion. 3. ) The scientific process is how we gather facts and evidence to gain truth. This is the only way. Go research 'The scientific process' and you might start to understand why. I don't even know why I'm dignifying your comment with a response considering, it was one of the most ignorant statements I've read in a long time.
It wouldn't follow from the fact that (1) Craig hasn't grounded morality in the first place to (2) that therefore naturalism can. There's no logical connection. In any case, I think Craig's line of argument here implies that theism would ground morality, given moral experience. He's really just saying that the non-existence of any being to ground morality on naturalism/atheism makes moral nihilism true, which is just to say that theism grounds morality and naturalism/atheism doesn't.
"Craig is a fool. " If a well respected scholar with a Bachelor, 2 Masters, and 2 Doctorates can be labeled as a fool, what on earth does that make you?
"about thinking it's right for a supreme being to offer justice." I brought this up simply because you said, "Your Ad Hoc rationalization does not subvert the fact that your Theological worldview threatens punishments for disobedience and sin, which means Christianity is not moral" But to the contrary, my friend. The Christian God would not be moral if he did not serve, how did YOU put it, punishments for disobedience & sin. So yes, my comment was completely on topic since it refutes ur point.
@theman77777777232 How does having several papers from a college, make one immune to being labelled a fool?? Is Dr. Hovind immune to being called a fool? Because many people have said that anyway.
Plainly Craig is in the latter camp, progressing from his familiar "Does God Exist?" arguments to the nature of God, miracles, resurrections, religious experience. Can stretch the definition of PoR to include all that but that's theology to me. Wikipedia liberally includes Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Rand in a list of philosophers of religion, along with many theologians, but those 4 names would be a lot less impressive if they'd only worked on PoR and made no further progress in philosophy.
I agree with you bdk. One question I would raise is why does there have to be an supreme objective moral standard and law giver? I find such an argument an appeal to our emotions. If one presented the argument to a relativist, it would have no chance of even starting because it is contingent on an answer of the form:"I believe in right and wrong" The argument doesn't disprove a universe in which there is no moral law giver.
I think Craig is wrong about almost everything, but he is truly an excellent debater within his specialist field. Anyone who takes him on when the topic is his preferred "Does God Exist?" should do some serious homework on Craig's now familiar arguments. Otherwise, they simply will not likely unpack his premises on the night. He is very good at this.
And hence - Craig is guilty of having what is termed a "discontinuous mind." He's under the false impression that those two issues are separate, which they are not. I can illustrate this with a question. Where does one draw the line between our basic morality, rooted in evolution, and "moral actions/values." The answer is there is no line, they are connected. Flagrant and insistent offenses of the latter will likely degenerate into offenses in the former.
What does he flat-out lie about? Can't you just accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your position? Just because they don't doesn't necessarily make them a liar or stupid.
Continued @Russ Further, to elaborate, words exist, because they are the EFFECTS of real existence. This is because words don't occur, until something causes them. Thus they don't have independent existence(concrete existence).
Philosophy of Religion sounds almost respectable. In a way, it's foundational theology, the ground floor that discusses whether the rest of the edifice gets off the ground, it's last brief connection with reality for those who think it doesn't. It's also a narrow slice of metaphysics and epistemology, discussing whether the supernatural is needed and reasonable in those fields. Beyond that brief intersection, two distinct universes of philosophy open up, a godless one and a theological one.
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" Is the fire everlasting or the torment? Is it a metaphor or literal? Can I get away with as much sin as I can without worrying about it too much? I think I could if I wanted to.
@Tobytrim Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is, his description of Hitchens's response to the argument is spot on in al the debates I've seen him in; and I'm a huge fan of Hitchens (I'm a Christian). But Hitchens cannot answer that kind of question in a naturalist worldview.
It's not baffling at all, but I decided to be generous. You deliberately made it sound like Dawkins shrunk from Craig like it was too great a challenge, and was scared of debating a philosopher. I know it's hard for the fanboys to imagine people haven't heard of Craig, but he's only big in theology and evangelism and in a corner of RUclips. He isn't a feature of philosophy degree courses around the world. By the way, Wikipedia says he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute - is that true?
You keep side stepping the issue. I was talking about subjective views on hell, not morality. Christians have pretty consistent views on morality. I never said anything about subjective morality. You are just twisting my word out of context. I said that if we (all sane and competent persons) agree that sacrificing yourself to save others is a GOOD act, then it is an OBJECTIVELY good act. The act itself is a GOOD act; which means that there IS an OBJECTIVE moral.
"subjective approach, to an ethical construct that's supposed to be authoritative and all-encompassing." Thank you. EVERY Christian's personal beliefs on hell are subjective. Exactly my point. You have refuted yourself. But morality is not subjective. It is objective.
U begin w/ a presumption that cripples the comprehension of many atheists. Your postulate is invalid. I KNOW my God. I live w/ Him each day. He Is not a vague sense of well-being. He Is a living Entity Who interacts w/ me through conversation & exchanges that are more real than those between the closest human lovers or relatives. If U live your life as a soul-w/o Spiritual Birth & God's direct guidance-then your "love" for all is in vain as are all your works. Only the Eternal lasts. Bless U
And since everyone sane, rational, competent, and appropriately informed would agree that sacrificing yourself to save others is a good act, that makes it objectively good. Which means that OBJECTIVELY MORAL ACTS DO IN FACT EXIST. Again: "If something is subjective, it's not objective; if something is objective, it's not subjective." source: instruct(.)westvalley(.)edu/la fave/subjective_objective(.)html
Morality has evolved in humans but the point is that on a naturalistic view of the world there is nothing OBJECTIVELY wrong with certain moral actions and vice versa. To illustrate Craig's point better, think of it like this. We are evolved to have sexual desires and procreate. If someone chooses, however, to not act on those desires and instead live a life of celibacy does that make their choice wrong? No it doesn't. So why is it any different for moral actions?
"Craig continues to comprehensively defeat prominent atheists in his debates. " He defeats atheists? Who told you he ever defeated atheists in any debate? Him? Your Christian friends? For every debate like this I've ever seen, both sides going away thinking they completely defeated the other. You can't seriously expect us to just take your word for it that he has defeated all these atheists, especially since I've seen a few for myself, and I would totally disagree.
Just live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Your criticisms could easily apply to any sensory experience. Seeing things with your eyes is a sensation experience. Seeing by itself isn't out there. Same with hearing. Presumably by your own reasoning therefore we would have to reject the validity of our sight and hearing, and indeed all else. The point of all these experiences is to verify that something objective is out there. Intuition is no different. As pain and pleasure can deduce objective objects around us, so can intuition.
I've heard him elaborate his "Moral Argument for God" fully in debates and there's sadly no more to it than in this brief interview. It really does go: "There are objective values. I don't have a clue. Therefore, they must come from God." It's a failure of moral philosophy and a failure to argue God exists. The main incoherence of it (aside from God's non-existence) is: how would God make something be good or bad, i.e. what's (objectively) good or bad about God's alleged values?
And the question remains: how? On all the morality video discussions and indeed whenever God is plugged in to answer a gap: how? What's the explanation? How does a rule being dictated independently of me or independently of all of us make the rule objectively true? How is a rule that's inexplicable, arbitrary and subjective to God objective to us? I don't think God adds anything to the search for objective morals. And similarly this argument does nothing to substantiate God's existence.
@megavolt67 ...about what the point of morality will be when Satan is defeated and there is only the "one" way (God's way). I mean, it was apparently free thinking (of a sort) itself that allowed Satan to rebel in the first place, and it's free thinking which will allow folks to either have faith or turn away, so if there's a heaven, will everyone be like-minded? It just seems like proposing God as an answer always seems to raise more questions than anything else.
@lipoicacid The forensic evidence for the resurrection is compelling. This is Craig's forte as well as his mentor Wolfhart Pannenburg. The New Testament is the very best historical account on the life of Jesus that we possess. In it, the Gospels reveal all parties agreeing that the tomb is empty. The question is, what is the best evidence for the disappearance of Jesus' body? Craig's work on his website contains these articles.
@terminat1 when has abiogenesis ever been shown to be false? also, one thing you should know is, the supernatural explanation is ALWAYS more unlikely than the natural one, until it is proven that the supernatural exists, which your side has NEVER done.
"You challenged me to produce scriptures that show that the Bible threatens punishments, for those who disobey in some shape, form, or fashion." I simply asked you to produce the verses so I could show you my SUBJECTIVE stance on these verses. You do realize that a HUGE amount of Christians don't even believe in an eternal hell or a literal being called Satan, right? Sounds VERY subjective to me.
If Christians did have some subjective views on morality, what would that have to do with the fact that at least one objectively moral act EXISTS? Such as sacrificing your life to save others is a MORALLY GOOD act and all sane and competent persons agree, which makes the ACT itself OBJECTIVE, which makes it an objectively moral at.
WLC's arguments are pretty funny; the bible is historical proof of the resurrection, the resurrection is proof of life after death, atheists are just being contrary, etc.
I don't blame the atheists being scared to debate Craig, but at least Hitchens (unlike Dawkins) has the courage to give it a go. Craig is in a class all of his own when it comes to logic and defending the theistic worldview.
There is irony in this press conference.. Contrary to the looks and stance of both speakers (Craig looks scholarly and gentle, Hitchens looks and sits in his chair in a boorish stance),.. .. their words are the opposite because.. ..Craig degrades his opponent arrogantly before and after the debate showing a lack of repect and how un-generous a small man he is.. .. while Hitchens have been respectful not to degrade his opponent's personality or argument, show what a big heart he has..
Q. "what is truth?" A. Science. Q. "how does science get at that truth?" A. Extremely accurately, through a process of elimination called The Scientific Process.
@theman "Sounds VERY subjective to me." ^^^Your Ad Hoc rationalization does not subvert the fact that your Theological worldview threatens punishments for disobedience and sin, which means Christianity is not moral, and is not a ground for objective morality.
I think I grasp the distinction, but with respect I think the issues are only tenuously separated. Morality, in all of its forms, and in any light, is ultimately a subjective issue whether you look at it from a religious or secularist perspective. One sees god as having delivered 'moral' values from what would be his subjective perspective, and the other correctly identifies man as the source of moral standards.
It's pretty rare that he only spews one fallacy in 3 minutes. On top of that, he testifies to actually listen to his opponents. I do however have higher standards for 'awesomeness'.
"I have utterly backed up and proved that Christianity is immoral, and subjective in it's morality." Actually, if you re-read this forum like others will be doing, I allowed you to refute yourself by letting your yourself admit to us that Christian beliefs on hell and damnation are what is subjective.
Again with the 'byproduct of evolution' argument to say naturalist morality is not objective. I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective.
Morality on the other hand objective. If everyone can agree that an act is good or evil, then that act itself is objectively good or evil. Wouldn't you agree that the act of throwing yourself on a grenade to save others is a GOOD act? Don't you think everyone would agree? The act itself now. Not any law or consequence behind it. Is it not objectively good to self sacrifice, give to charity, etc?
This is why I asked, "Many, if not most, who? Atheists? Naturalists?" You still haven't given any specific answer more than, "Many people I meet in real life, whom don't want to label themselves one way or the other... and have no problem saying they know NOTHING about this" These are called agnostics. I was just wondering because anything outside of our natural universe is considered supernatural, which contradicts the naturalistic worldview and most atheistic worldviews, but not agnosticism.
@edichkaa .......... what? "all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on" I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but if this is what you believe, then you aren't a Christian. I'm not making a judgement, I'm just saying that this theology doesn't exist in the Bible, and in fact the contrary exists. What point were you trying to make?
"It wasn't brilliant, science is brilliance and you two seem to have a lack of knowledge of it. " How do we have a lack of it? I haven't said anything concerning science here. All of the conversation has been about either philosophy or the credentials of William Lane Craig, which you amazingly are trying to dispute. You disputing Craig's impressive academic credentials is like a Theist calling Dawkins an idiot who hasn't written anything of value.
The point is that this realization on naturalism is massively contrary to human moral experience. Our experience tends to tell us that there are objectively true facts about the world (ie. it's objectively wrong to murder, rape or torture little children). If our experience tells us that there are objective moral facts then we must ask ourselves what is the foundation for them. It cannot be naturalism as that has already been shown untenable. What about theism or other philosophical worldviews?
@SpearofDestiny0 for clarification, nowhere in the Law does God command death for people who eat unkosher, don't wear one-fabric clothing, don't wear tzitzit on their garments, etc. And veiled women is not mentioned even at all in the Law except a woman being shamed by having her head uncovered. The rules which have to do with wickedness and righteousness are those that are punishable by death.
Hitchens: "I don't believe that a materialistic view doesn't have ethics" Craig: "Naturalistic worlds don't have a FOUNDATION for moral duties". Hitchens is trying to misconstrued the argument again as all atheists do. Naturalistic world has ethics but has no foundation for ethical duties. There's no way atheists can avoid this. Plus subjective morality is wishful thinking: "its wrong because society says it is". So Hitchens IS guilty of wishful thinking.
Speaking as a firm and sincere Christian believer... I really miss Christopher Hitchens. Great writer, engaging speaker, fantastic personality.
There was certainly something unique about Hitch.
What was it about him that he could have what I think he himself would call friends who were Christians?
"If a well respected scholar with a Bachelor, 2 Masters, and 2 Doctorates can be labeled as a fool, what on earth does that make you?"
Brilliant!! Well said.
@edichkaa I agree with William Lane Craig, I have no preference between a Muslim, an athiest, or for that matter a Hindu, an agnostic, or a Buddhist. Some are easier to preach to than others, but they are all in the same boat.
There are the redeemed and the unredeemed, and it is because of nothing we have done ourselves, but the work of Christ that has saved us. I won't categorise the unredeemed into bad and really bad, I'll just preach to whoever God puts on my path.
Thanks for the comment. Of course you're not a "Craig-hater". I think YinHoNg was just over reacting to some of your statements. That said, I do share his frustration when people downplay Craig's credentials. I frequently come across people who do that every now and then, which is quite strange since it's very easy to find out about his prominent reputation in this area.
Anyways, I know you don't share the same respect for him as I do, but I'm curious, what Theists do you consider respectable?
I would agree that feelings and perceptions are more susceptible to bias, but that doesn't mean one can't rely on them at all.
Nothing is verifiable without presupposing the reliability of your senses in the first place. In order to test whether a wall is there you would have to rely on your senses to do it. Any sort of test you could think of couldn't be done without your senses.
Finally, like our intuitions, our main senses aren't always perfect. People can see things that aren't there.
Yeah, I have the whole thing, but I can't post due to copyright.
I think the point is that we rely on our experiences to tell us something about the physical world. For example, we all reasonably rely on our sense experiences such as touch, taste, see, hear etc to tell us something about the objective physical world around us. In the same way we rely on those experiences to rationally ground knowledge of the world we can also use moral experience to ground knowledge of moral values. This is how Craig is using our moral intuitions to ground objectivity.
Just look at the way craig sits. Such good posture. He's a stud
The fact that we all agree that self sacrifice to save others is a morally good act, it stands to reason that this moral thought exists without consideration of independent existence. And it stands to reason that since we all agree, it is not a subjectively good act, which makes it objective. And if something is subjective, it's not objective; if something is objective, it's not subjective.
Cont...
One thing I do disagree with you on though is your claim that Craig is only big in theology and evangelism. That's not true. Craig is a major figure in philosophy of Religion, so much so that he is considered one of the top philosophers of Religion in the world today. If you take any course in University on philosophy of Religion I can guarantee that you'll come across Craig's works. I've taken a few such courses (at a secular University) and he's in all the textbooks.
And, again, I didn't say other Christians will do the same as well. I was talking about hell and I said that if we have different stances on damnation, then it makes our beliefs SUBJECTIVE. And since so many Christian denominations have different views on hell and damnation, then this means that their views are SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE. And since the issue of hell and damnation is SUBJECTIVE and NOT OBJECTIVE, then you cannot use damnation as the foundation for your fallacious argument.
The experts on "morality" would be Psychologists, Sociologists and Psychiatrist and other researchers in the field human psychology. If Dr Craig is interested in aspects of human psychology it would certainly benefit him to read up on their literature and attend some of their conferences. It would also be worthwhile submitting some of his own research papers to some of the Universities for peer review by these experts.
Not all philosophical arguments if any are meant to give 100% proof to persuade you on delivery. But this argument is persuasive to people because in the end they have to decide wether or not they think human life has intrinsic value. So you don' t have to agree, but just you disagreeing does not invalidate it. There are things that cannot be proven, and we all have to decide what we truly believe in the end.
@theman
And what does the definition of Objective, that you gave, have anything to do with
for instance, claiming that sacrificing yourself for the good of others, is an Objective act?
@DandAinTac
He wasn't making that kind of argument here. He was just saying that on an atheistic/naturalistic worldview, there is no objective morality, as many atheists seem to affirm by the normative statements they often make.
I also used to think that feelings and perceptions don't count as evidence but upon further reflection I don't see why not. We all rely on our senses to tell us truths about the world. We rely on our eyes to tell us if there is wall in front of us. If we see one we recognize that as evidence for a wall. The same is true for our other senses (ie. touch, hearing etc)
If we can rely on those senses for truth then why can't we rely on our sense intuitions about morality as evidence for their truth?
@Russ
How does the word occur, literally translate, to meaning "NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A CAUSE"?
How does talking about words occuring, literally translate, to saying the Universe never occurred?
@benaberry Assuming there is a God - the creation of the universe is the greatest of the miralces. Resurection is small in comparison, I don't know why you find it so hard to comprehend.
You talked about reason before. I think it is reasonable and logical to believe the first hand testimonies of witnesses to Jesus' life, minstry, death, and yes his resurection. Almost all being martyred for their belief.
Unreasonable and illogical would be to dismiss their testimonies.
You misunderstand him. He is saying that theism is the more coherent world view to fathom if you believe in objective moral values. The issue is not in this case how we come to knowledge of moral truths. That's another discussion.
"And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
And who exactly goes in the fire? How long does it last? Is it eternal? Do I get to sin all I want and hopefully get away with a quick annihilation before I go into eternal non-existence. What will it be like? Is it a metaphor?
Doesn't bother me.
Makes sense and puts you way ahead of him. In this clip and in debates where he has attempted the Moral Argument, he says we feel "deep down" that there are objective moral values. That's not philosophy and any evolutionary biologist would just laugh and accuse him of projecting and confirming exactly what the biologist is alleging: that moral intuitions come from inside us. Actually any subjectivist would say this. The biologist just adds that everything inside us comes from evolution.
The point of sensory experience is to verify that there is something out there, not that it has a particular color, taste, feel etc. In the same way, intuitions are to verify the facts of moral values, not to delineate their subjective qualities.
Glad to see that Hitchens accepted the offer to debate.
"but that any type of force or punishment, especially on the level of eternal damnation, means you don't have a choice, you're being forced(coerced)"
First of all, you can't compare immediate horrendous punishment to possible punishment down the line. It's just not the same.
I'm not supposing that they're equivalent. I already admitted that our intuitions are likely more susceptible to bias. My point is that there is no good reason why we should totally disregard our intuitions as evidence for the truth of objective morality. It seems we can still trust them, despite the fact that they may be unreliable at times, as is the same with our other senses occasionally.
"If not, what makes one sacrifice for others, objectively good, while another sarcifice for others, would not be?"
Because in my case, everyone sane, rational, competent, and appropriately informed would agree that sacrificing yourself to save strangers is a good act, that makes it objectively good...
Well my point is that our moral intuitions are very much analogous to our other senses. Just as our intuitions (or feelings and perceptions as you would call them) can be wrong, so can our physical senses. Just as we can rely on our physical senses, so can we rely on our intuitions about certain moral actions.
The ultimate point I'm getting at here is that there isn't really any good reason to abandon our intuitions on morality anymore than there is for our physical senses.
Actually I must say I generally agree with your comment. Craig isn't that widely known among the public, sad to say. This is pretty much why I dedicated a channel to WLC videos, so that I could promote him to the wider public. Therefore, I wouldn't really be surprised if Dawkins hadn't heard of Craig then. Today that's not the case and Dawkins now recognizes him as a "widely respected Christian apologist". That said, Dawkins still should have some general idea of who the big fish today are. Cont
@Schnigtheatheist Why thank you! It's pretty rare to receive a compliment in an Internet forum.
I think the very point of the exercise was to show that naturalism/atheism cannot have a standard not that people ever claimed it to be the standard (which quite frankly why would you, when it's obvious that you can't have such a standard). It sounds like you're just affirming Craig's point.
I like Craig points out how Hitchens often misconstrues the moral argument, that you need to *believe* in God to be know moral truths, and then Hitchens goes right on and misconstrues it again, as if he did not comprehend, whatsoever, Craig's point on the ontological foundation for morality.
Again, as I already explained, you cannot demonstrate other things apart from presupposing your senses. Therefore, just as our intuitions aren't demonstrable, neither are our other senses. Everyone must rely on your senses to tell you anything. There is no way to step outside your senses and assess them independently.
@SaturdaySoundOffsTV Ugh, this new commenting system on RUclips is ridiculous, the commas are supposed to be quotation marks.
He isn't trying to refute the idea of morality being rooted in nature/evolution. He's trying to say that on naturalism that's all morality is though. It's just evolved patters that are beneficial to survival. There's nothing objective, however, about those actions any more then there is something objective about eating meat which we are evolved for. Craig is distinguishing between two issues, one being the root of morality, and the other being the ontological status of moral actions/values.
"The first step towards getting your theology degree is to completely brush aside the majority of your opponents argument and take one small bit out of context and make it seem as if you are actually making a point."
No one in this conversation is that I am aware of is on their way to get their theology degree. And the first step to getting your theology is NOT brushing aside anything. Enrolling in a university would be the first step fool.
Practically the whole enterprise of moral philosophy is based in our intuitions concerning them so Craig is right where he should be on this argument. If ethicists can legitimately evaluate moral values based on how well they cohere with our intuitions then Craig arguing for God's existence from objective moral values based in our strong intuitions of them is likewise legitimate.
Mark 9:43-48
Luke 16:24
Revelation 20:13-15
Revelation 21:8
Craig doesn't argue morals come from the Bible. However, the Bible can be used to obtain moral values from. He also does not argue that morals come from God's commands. I believe his stance on this issue is that morality is a necessary aspect of God's nature. Therefore, things God tells mankind to do are moral, not because he commanded them, but because He is the standard of goodness.
@lipoicacid a dance?? Do you disagree with the validity of the statement?
Continued @Russ
1 Tim 1:8-10
"We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,"
It just means to assert it's foundation in something. In other words, to say that morality is grounded in God is just to say that morality's foundation is in God. The point from Craig is that naturalism offers no such foundation and therefore there cannot be an objective standard for morality.
You took it out of context and twisted it. I clearly said that my subjective view was on hell, NOT morality.
And since the view of hell is subjective, you can't use it as the foundation of your argument.
Craig says that our strong feeling that some things are "objectively" wrong can't just be socio-evolutionary feelings (that we largely have in common, like we have 10 toes) because ... wait for it ... we have a strong feeling that that those things are objectively wrong. This is circular, makes no logical headway and fails to escape subjectivity. When we feel something is wrong, part of the feeling is that it's generally wrong, simply because people are similar in their hurts and harms.
@mouthyweasel - riigghhhttt! why is it do you think, anonymous internet atheist that none of the other atheist, far more prominent than you, hitchens, harris, dennett agree with your postion, not one has yet taken that position in writing or in the debates that Craig easily thrashed the three of them in? Could it be that you are brighter than these atheists?
Please be sensible in your response or don't respond at all, thanks
It ultimately comes down to which way the individual is convinced. There is no way for philosophical arguments to prove anything to anyone who is not willing to accept whatever it is being argued. You may say that I am just being an idiot, and neglecting logic, but that is no more an argument then me telling you the same. Basically if I could some up all of my voluminous arguments into what my point is then I would have to say at some point we must at least agree to disagree.
As a Christian, I have to give credit to Mr. Hitchens for at least debating theists and Christians. Many good conversations have resulted from the fact that he'll engage the other side.
And the question remains: how? Whats great about God morally? By what standard is he the greatest? Or is he good by just his own standard, and thus arbitrarily and subjectively good? In which case, how is that objectively good for us?
You can't say that hes absolutely great by any standard. He cant be unlimited in all directions, in ways that conflict, both maximum good and maximum evil. So there does have to be a standard, If he sets it, its subjective. If its objective, lets find it.
To elaborate: He explains how altruistic behaviour is observed in baboons (and I'll add, among many species of animals). He explains exactly how this morality has been beneficial to these (including our own) species' survival. Very clumsily, he abruptly (like a car driving onto a double-height curb) cuts to "but on naturalism, I don't see anything that makes this objectively true."
My objections to Craig's ideas apply to all theism, so there's no one I can recommend. I cannot respect implausible claims so poorly supported by reasons and evidence. And the more Christian that Craig argues his first cause is, the more objections I have. But I distinguish levels of logic/honesty/evasion in response to the objections, and respect people who have a good command of their material. That puts Craig ahead of most of them. And puts you at the top of the pack on RUclips.
But you can't blame him for not explaining all there is to explain about God and morality in one little speech, and if he misses something then you got a hold on him and can say he "Falls apart". There are a number of ways one could explain this. Again, I still think this is a separate question, although I understand your eagerness to hear the further explanation.
1. ) 2 is spelled two.
2. ) Philosophy is not religion.
3. ) The scientific process is how we gather facts and evidence to gain truth. This is the only way. Go research 'The scientific process' and you might start to understand why.
I don't even know why I'm dignifying your comment with a response considering, it was one of the most ignorant statements I've read in a long time.
It wouldn't follow from the fact that (1) Craig hasn't grounded morality in the first place to (2) that therefore naturalism can. There's no logical connection.
In any case, I think Craig's line of argument here implies that theism would ground morality, given moral experience. He's really just saying that the non-existence of any being to ground morality on naturalism/atheism makes moral nihilism true, which is just to say that theism grounds morality and naturalism/atheism doesn't.
"Craig is a fool. "
If a well respected scholar with a Bachelor, 2 Masters, and 2 Doctorates can be labeled as a fool, what on earth does that make you?
"about thinking it's right for a supreme being to offer justice."
I brought this up simply because you said, "Your Ad Hoc rationalization does not subvert the fact that your Theological worldview threatens punishments for disobedience and sin, which means
Christianity is not moral"
But to the contrary, my friend. The Christian God would not be moral if he did not serve, how did YOU put it, punishments for disobedience & sin. So yes, my comment was completely on topic since it refutes ur point.
@theman77777777232
How does having several papers from a college, make one immune to being labelled a fool??
Is Dr. Hovind immune to being called a fool? Because many people have said that anyway.
Plainly Craig is in the latter camp, progressing from his familiar "Does God Exist?" arguments to the nature of God, miracles, resurrections, religious experience. Can stretch the definition of PoR to include all that but that's theology to me. Wikipedia liberally includes Hume, Nietzsche, Russell and Rand in a list of philosophers of religion, along with many theologians, but those 4 names would be a lot less impressive if they'd only worked on PoR and made no further progress in philosophy.
I agree with you bdk.
One question I would raise is why does there have to be an supreme objective moral standard and law giver? I find such an argument an appeal to our emotions. If one presented the argument to a relativist, it would have no chance of even starting because it is contingent on an answer of the form:"I believe in right and wrong"
The argument doesn't disprove a universe in which there is no moral law giver.
I think Craig is wrong about almost everything, but he is truly an excellent debater within his specialist field. Anyone who takes him on when the topic is his preferred "Does God Exist?" should do some serious homework on Craig's now familiar arguments. Otherwise, they simply will not likely unpack his premises on the night. He is very good at this.
And hence - Craig is guilty of having what is termed a "discontinuous mind." He's under the false impression that those two issues are separate, which they are not. I can illustrate this with a question. Where does one draw the line between our basic morality, rooted in evolution, and "moral actions/values." The answer is there is no line, they are connected. Flagrant and insistent offenses of the latter will likely degenerate into offenses in the former.
What does he flat-out lie about? Can't you just accept the fact that not everyone agrees with your position? Just because they don't doesn't necessarily make them a liar or stupid.
Continued @Russ
Further, to elaborate, words exist, because they are the EFFECTS of real existence. This is because words don't occur, until something causes them. Thus they don't have independent existence(concrete existence).
Philosophy of Religion sounds almost respectable. In a way, it's foundational theology, the ground floor that discusses whether the rest of the edifice gets off the ground, it's last brief connection with reality for those who think it doesn't. It's also a narrow slice of metaphysics and epistemology, discussing whether the supernatural is needed and reasonable in those fields. Beyond that brief intersection, two distinct universes of philosophy open up, a godless one and a theological one.
This was big time. It even had a press conference haha
"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
Is the fire everlasting or the torment? Is it a metaphor or literal? Can I get away with as much sin as I can without worrying about it too much? I think I could if I wanted to.
@Tobytrim Whether or not Craig's argument is weak, which I don't think it is, his description of Hitchens's response to the argument is spot on in al the debates I've seen him in; and I'm a huge fan of Hitchens (I'm a Christian). But Hitchens cannot answer that kind of question in a naturalist worldview.
It's not baffling at all, but I decided to be generous. You deliberately made it sound like Dawkins shrunk from Craig like it was too great a challenge, and was scared of debating a philosopher. I know it's hard for the fanboys to imagine people haven't heard of Craig, but he's only big in theology and evangelism and in a corner of RUclips. He isn't a feature of philosophy degree courses around the world. By the way, Wikipedia says he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute - is that true?
You keep side stepping the issue. I was talking about subjective views on hell, not morality.
Christians have pretty consistent views on morality.
I never said anything about subjective morality. You are just twisting my word out of context. I said that if we (all sane and competent persons) agree that sacrificing yourself to save others is a GOOD act, then it is an OBJECTIVELY good act. The act itself is a GOOD act; which means that there IS an OBJECTIVE moral.
"subjective approach, to an ethical construct that's supposed to be authoritative and all-encompassing."
Thank you. EVERY Christian's personal beliefs on hell are subjective. Exactly my point. You have refuted yourself.
But morality is not subjective. It is objective.
U begin w/ a presumption that cripples the comprehension of many atheists. Your postulate is invalid. I KNOW my God. I live w/ Him each day. He Is not a vague sense of well-being. He Is a living Entity Who interacts w/ me through conversation & exchanges that are more real than those between the closest human lovers or relatives.
If U live your life as a soul-w/o Spiritual Birth & God's direct guidance-then your "love" for all is in vain as are all your works. Only the Eternal lasts.
Bless U
And since everyone sane, rational, competent, and appropriately informed would agree that sacrificing yourself to save others is a good act, that makes it objectively good. Which means that OBJECTIVELY MORAL ACTS DO IN FACT EXIST.
Again:
"If something is subjective, it's not objective; if something is objective, it's not subjective."
source:
instruct(.)westvalley(.)edu/la fave/subjective_objective(.)html
Morality has evolved in humans but the point is that on a naturalistic view of the world there is nothing OBJECTIVELY wrong with certain moral actions and vice versa. To illustrate Craig's point better, think of it like this. We are evolved to have sexual desires and procreate. If someone chooses, however, to not act on those desires and instead live a life of celibacy does that make their choice wrong? No it doesn't. So why is it any different for moral actions?
"Craig continues to comprehensively defeat prominent atheists in his debates. "
He defeats atheists? Who told you he ever defeated atheists in any debate? Him? Your Christian friends?
For every debate like this I've ever seen, both sides going away thinking they completely defeated the other. You can't seriously expect us to just take your word for it that he has defeated all these atheists, especially since I've seen a few for myself, and I would totally disagree.
Just live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Your criticisms could easily apply to any sensory experience. Seeing things with your eyes is a sensation experience. Seeing by itself isn't out there. Same with hearing. Presumably by your own reasoning therefore we would have to reject the validity of our sight and hearing, and indeed all else. The point of all these experiences is to verify that something objective is out there. Intuition is no different. As pain and pleasure can deduce objective objects around us, so can intuition.
I've heard him elaborate his "Moral Argument for God" fully in debates and there's sadly no more to it than in this brief interview. It really does go: "There are objective values. I don't have a clue. Therefore, they must come from God." It's a failure of moral philosophy and a failure to argue God exists. The main incoherence of it (aside from God's non-existence) is: how would God make something be good or bad, i.e. what's (objectively) good or bad about God's alleged values?
And the question remains: how? On all the morality video discussions and indeed whenever God is plugged in to answer a gap: how? What's the explanation? How does a rule being dictated independently of me or independently of all of us make the rule objectively true? How is a rule that's inexplicable, arbitrary and subjective to God objective to us? I don't think God adds anything to the search for objective morals. And similarly this argument does nothing to substantiate God's existence.
@megavolt67 ...about what the point of morality will be when Satan is defeated and there is only the "one" way (God's way). I mean, it was apparently free thinking (of a sort) itself that allowed Satan to rebel in the first place, and it's free thinking which will allow folks to either have faith or turn away, so if there's a heaven, will everyone be like-minded? It just seems like proposing God as an answer always seems to raise more questions than anything else.
@lipoicacid The forensic evidence for the resurrection is compelling. This is Craig's forte as well as his mentor Wolfhart Pannenburg. The New Testament is the very best historical account on the life of Jesus that we possess. In it, the Gospels reveal all parties agreeing that the tomb is empty. The question is, what is the best evidence for the disappearance of Jesus' body? Craig's work on his website contains these articles.
@terminat1 when has abiogenesis ever been shown to be false?
also, one thing you should know is, the supernatural explanation is ALWAYS more unlikely than the natural one, until it is proven that the supernatural exists, which your side has NEVER done.
"You challenged me to produce scriptures that show that the Bible threatens punishments, for those who disobey in some shape, form, or fashion."
I simply asked you to produce the verses so I could show you my SUBJECTIVE stance on these verses.
You do realize that a HUGE amount of Christians don't even believe in an eternal hell or a literal being called Satan, right?
Sounds VERY subjective to me.
If Christians did have some subjective views on morality, what would that have to do with the fact that at least one objectively moral act EXISTS? Such as sacrificing your life to save others is a MORALLY GOOD act and all sane and competent persons agree, which makes the ACT itself OBJECTIVE, which makes it an objectively moral at.
WLC's arguments are pretty funny; the bible is historical proof of the resurrection, the resurrection is proof of life after death, atheists are just being contrary, etc.
I don't blame the atheists being scared to debate Craig, but at least Hitchens (unlike Dawkins) has the courage to give it a go. Craig is in a class all of his own when it comes to logic and defending the theistic worldview.
There is irony in this press conference..
Contrary to the looks and stance of both speakers (Craig looks scholarly and gentle, Hitchens looks and sits in his chair in a boorish stance),..
.. their words are the opposite because..
..Craig degrades his opponent arrogantly before and after the debate showing a lack of repect and how un-generous a small man he is..
.. while Hitchens have been respectful not to degrade his opponent's personality or argument, show what a big heart he has..
Q. "what is truth?"
A. Science.
Q. "how does science get at that truth?"
A. Extremely accurately, through a process of elimination called The Scientific Process.
@theman
"Sounds VERY subjective to me."
^^^Your Ad Hoc rationalization does not
subvert the fact that your Theological worldview threatens punishments for disobedience and sin, which means
Christianity is not moral, and is not a ground for objective morality.
I think I grasp the distinction, but with respect I think the issues are only tenuously separated.
Morality, in all of its forms, and in any light, is ultimately a subjective issue whether you look at it from a religious or secularist perspective. One sees god as having delivered 'moral' values from what would be his subjective perspective, and the other correctly identifies man as the source of moral standards.
Craig needs to stop assuming objective morality exists. He just asserts it, never gives conclusive reasoning behind it.
even if you believe that, which is not the case, Craig still has a straight up Ph.D in the philosophy of science.
It's pretty rare that he only spews one fallacy in 3 minutes. On top of that, he testifies to actually listen to his opponents. I do however have higher standards for 'awesomeness'.
"I have utterly backed up and proved that Christianity is immoral, and subjective in it's morality."
Actually, if you re-read this forum like others will be doing, I allowed you to refute yourself by letting your yourself admit to us that Christian beliefs on hell and damnation are what is subjective.
Again with the 'byproduct of evolution' argument to say naturalist morality is not objective. I'd like to know if craig actually thinks the laws of physics are not the byproducts of our universe initial conditions, and say they're not objective.
Morality on the other hand objective. If everyone can agree that an act is good or evil, then that act itself is objectively good or evil. Wouldn't you agree that the act of throwing yourself on a grenade to save others is a GOOD act? Don't you think everyone would agree? The act itself now. Not any law or consequence behind it. Is it not objectively good to self sacrifice, give to charity, etc?
This is why I asked, "Many, if not most, who? Atheists? Naturalists?"
You still haven't given any specific answer more than, "Many people I meet in real life, whom don't want to label themselves one way or the other... and have no problem saying they know NOTHING about this"
These are called agnostics. I was just wondering because anything outside of our natural universe is considered supernatural, which contradicts the naturalistic worldview and most atheistic worldviews, but not agnosticism.
@edichkaa .......... what? "all things are equal and god is in everything so everything and everyone is god and there is no evil cause everything is from god and god is love and on and on"
I'm not sure if I misunderstood you, but if this is what you believe, then you aren't a Christian. I'm not making a judgement, I'm just saying that this theology doesn't exist in the Bible, and in fact the contrary exists.
What point were you trying to make?
@Russ
"abstract objects"
^^No idea what this is supposed to mean
"It wasn't brilliant, science is brilliance and you two seem to have a lack of knowledge of it. "
How do we have a lack of it? I haven't said anything concerning science here. All of the conversation has been about either philosophy or the credentials of William Lane Craig, which you amazingly are trying to dispute. You disputing Craig's impressive academic credentials is like a Theist calling Dawkins an idiot who hasn't written anything of value.
The point is that this realization on naturalism is massively contrary to human moral experience. Our experience tends to tell us that there are objectively true facts about the world (ie. it's objectively wrong to murder, rape or torture little children). If our experience tells us that there are objective moral facts then we must ask ourselves what is the foundation for them. It cannot be naturalism as that has already been shown untenable. What about theism or other philosophical worldviews?
@SpearofDestiny0 for clarification, nowhere in the Law does God command death for people who eat unkosher, don't wear one-fabric clothing, don't wear tzitzit on their garments, etc. And veiled women is not mentioned even at all in the Law except a woman being shamed by having her head uncovered. The rules which have to do with wickedness and righteousness are those that are punishable by death.
Hitchens: "I don't believe that a materialistic view doesn't have ethics"
Craig: "Naturalistic worlds don't have a FOUNDATION for moral duties".
Hitchens is trying to misconstrued the argument again as all atheists do. Naturalistic world has ethics but has no foundation for ethical duties. There's no way atheists can avoid this.
Plus subjective morality is wishful thinking: "its wrong because society says it is". So Hitchens IS guilty of wishful thinking.