Morality is STRONG Evidence for God | Come DEBUNK Us Live!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- SUPPORT CAPTURING CHRISTIANITY NOW BY CLICKING THIS LINK TO BECOME A PATRON: / capturingchristianity
Dr. Bobby Conway recently completed his PhD on the moral argument for God's existence. In this episode, we're inviting skeptics of the moral argument to come and provide their best objections.
💸 Want to support CC? capturingchris...
✨ Free books! tinyurl.com/CC...
📱 Business inquiry? capturingchrist...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I absolutely love these call in livestreams.
I’m in the middle of the one with Father Lampert but wanted to come comment and tell you thank you! These are great.
Morality has always been a problem for religion. A theist individually can be moral, but has no way to explain through faith why any act is right or wrong.
Went to college with Bobby and Heather! Good folks!
Thought for a second Johnny Knoxville was on
💀
These live call ins are the best. I’d watch these every day
Have you seen the one where Cameron drops *Pine Creek* Doug as soon as he sees him on the screen he was so terrified ? 😏😅🤣 He even deleted the numerous super chats that simply asked why he would not let him on to speak to Sye. Pine Creeks livestream of him trying to have a discourse here ended up with more viewers than Camerons actual show 🤭😅🤣🤣😍
Thank you brother! Great video!
The gastronomic argument was really weird because it was a bad parallel. Yes, we subjectively experience good and bad in both cases, but the difference between the two is that moral experience must involve agents. I hate brussel sprouts, but if I saw other people enjoying it, I wouldn't think they're doing a bad thing. However, if I saw someone sexually assaulting someone else, I would think it's very objectionable, although I'm not the one being assaulted.
He tried to use the Ben and Jerry's example to show how gastronomic realism can seem true and be false. But even in that example, I wouldn't even say it seems true because Ben and Jerry wouldn't care how many people like the ice cream per se. They ultimately only care about whether it can turn a profit.
Guilt is ubiquitous to many social animals, and it's well accounted for on a purely evolutionary model. The ANTICIPATION of guilt is more unique to humans, and we can speculate on its occurrence in other animals, but is also exactly what you'd predict to arise in creatures with the level of consciousness humans have.
Given that we have a natural explanation for the experience of guilt, why would we need or want to propose some additional ontology to account for it? Or, to go the other direction, a purely natural phenomenon cannot account for a supernatural being.
While I largely agree, I don't think that a theist would be moved by your alternative question. As they would suggest that it is the god using this natural process to bring about his will. As such, the existence of the natural process accounts for a god in much the same way as a wind mill generating electricity accounts for humans. Or at least that is how I understand their position. While I do take issue with this type of refutation from several fronts.
I do think it is good to temper the approach according to the audience and the topic. In this way the question of if there is a naturalistic account of guilt I think can be answered pretty easily with a yes. And the statement that as such there is no need to consider that a god is required is at least understandable to theists even if they don't ultimately agree.
Just my thoughts. Have a good day.
@@Boundless_Border I completely agree with you. My question is very deliberately rhetorical, and if anything is an attempt to poke the bear that's at the heart of theistic endeavors.
Ultimately I think of this as another god of the gaps. Both sides observe a real phenomenon, but the theist, unsatisfied with the natural explanation, invents a god that satisfies this gap in their understanding.
@@laddieweidow6119
Fair enough. Good luck in any conversations that spring from this.
Yes all things are accounted for in the model containing a magical dot that explodes and then magically evolves into everything for no reason or explanation. Fantasy of the gaps.
@@ReapingTheHarvest You're pointing out one of the last great hiding places for a god. Nobody knows what happened to cause the rapid expansion of our universe, but theists have evolved their god into a neat little package that just happens to have all the characteristics required to perform that task.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but given the fact that every other god of the gaps has been shown to not exist, it's extremely reasonable to reject this one as well. And that's before addressing all the very special pleading a theist must do to make this argument.
Theist - "Let me tell you all I know about God’s wonderful ways."
Skeptic - "But look at all these things in the world that contradict what you're saying.”
Theist - "Let me tell you how we can't know God's ways."
On this episode of "Atheists Misunderstanding Theology", we have a skeptic who thinks apophatic theology deboonks cataphatic theology.
I too can only look out one of my eyes at once.
What a whimsical world you must live in, silently proving your own arguments before even bringing them to the table, expecting us all to blindly nod along and assent to them without thinking, and then just move on to step two like we wouldn't notice 🤣
"So, since the Earth is obviously flat, what do we do next?" haha
@@newglof9558 You so wonderfully miss the joke! And I love that you bring up apophatic and cataphatic theologies. I’m guessing you could study and study and never recognize the ironies within and between them.
@@Papa-dopoulos Whimsy is my goal. And you all not getting the jokes is most of the fun!
@@quantenmoi Nah you’re just rabbit punching. Jab, retreat, then gaslight anyone who counters like we are the blowhards. Meh lol
To clarify, in my section (1:06:15) I would just be careful with the first premise, and clarify that by "guilt" it means a normatively-laden sense of guilt. This strengthens the argument in one respect (it isn't *obviously* unsound) but it also lays its vulnerability bare: Since people can wrongly feel guilt and rightly feel guilt, and there is no universal consensus on this normative question for each instance of feeling guilt, we don't have what we'd need to "get the argument started."
Thank you for hosting this! I really appreciated Dr. Conway's attitude and willingness to listen to constructive feedback here.
love it
What was the special morality Yahweh gave his favorite race - the ancient Israelites? Reading the OT they seem the same exact people as the Assyrians, Hittites and Persians.
Cameron vs Bobby for Best Hair on RUclips.
Signed up 50/mo today. Keep it up my friend.
👍
1:25:00 _"If I wasn't a Christian I probably would just say something like this : "I really have no idea what right and wrong is but I just feel like there's some things that I that I shouldn't do to others"."_
How can someone who did a phd on the topic say that...?
Does he really think that non christians _"have no idea what right and wrong is"_ .... ?
This is borderline ridiculous...
Your idea of morality, as an atheist, is arbitrary if you're to be honest.
@@newglof9558 Define *"arbitrary"* ?
@@newglof9558
🤔Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@newglof9558 Do you think your food and music preferences are arbitrary?
By definition an uncaused cause was not intelligently designed for a purpose by a maximally great being. We must find a way of concluding that it could be capable of morally significant action despite this issue before we can conclude that the uncaused cause is maximally great itself.
Line in the sand is the resurrection
The strength of the moral argument for God really depends on what it's competing with. If there's an explanation for the origin and nature of morality that makes perfect sense within the naturalistic framework, then God isn't really necessary to explain the origin and nature of morality in humans. And this is strong evidence for naturalism -- explaining something that it shouldn't be able to explain.
What IS this argument?
Less me guess TJump. The needle moves more to a God than natural.
@@warondogs8199
[wod]: "What IS this argument?"
First ... do you agree that, if God doesn't exist, then evolution must be a fact whether one likes it or not?
@@Godzilla-x7d
[user]: "...if the naturalist believes in objective morality ..."
There are aspects about human morality that are certainly objective.
@@Godzilla-x7d
[user]: "what do you mean because i do think the mood you are in when it comes to morality is descriptive and can be true or false but morality itself is not true or false and is subjective from person to person"
The behavior is subjectively determined / executed. The consequences of the behavior are not under one's personal control, so they are objective relative to humans.
I can see Cameron is ripping off the AXP format. Surprised he didn’t outright called it “The Theist Experience”
Not a lot of people know this, but they actually were the very first people in history to invent the call-in show format.
@@CapturingChristianity
Hilarious watching you trying to stop pinecreek Doug from entering your live and deleting even the paid comments that referenced it. I presume you also delete comments here that conflict with your desired naratives. 😜
@@trumpbellend6717I'm an agnostic, but that's an extremely uncharitable and ill-evidenced claim.
@@Ash嘉恩071
Have you watched the video ??
God is the greatest possible being.
The greatest possible being encompasses all of existence, not just part of existence.
Good and evil exist.
God encompasses good and evil.
Or how about this:
God is a maximally powerful being.
A maximally powerful being wields all powers, not just some powers.
The powers of good and evil exist.
God wields both good and evil.
@@M3Etasmania I don't know. Maybe because God is evil as well as good, like I just pointed out? Of course, this is all assuming God really exists.
@@M3Etasmania No, that couldn’t possibly be true! Sure, there’s no tangible evidence for the Christian God or gods in general. That's why we philosophize! I mean, everyone knows how successful metaphysics in the absence of science has been at discovering what actually exists! 😉
In regard to your first argument: What do you mean by "encompass"? And what consequences is that supposed to entail? Also, your argument is assuming a non-privation view of evil, so why would the theist accept such a view of evil?
In regard to your second argument: What is "the powers of good and evil" supposed to mean? What is an "evil power"? And how are you defining "omnipotence"? Because I don't think you have really grasped what is meant by omnipotence.
11:10 That's beautiful
Humans have consciousness and can’t deal with it yet. We don’t want to die.
Promoting books, I understand. But promoting graven images like, what’s it been, not a year after becoming Catholic… it’s almost satirical.
Don’t get me wrong, I value & appreciate this channel! A lot. I guess no one’s perfect.
On gastronomico realism, on the example about ketchup or onion icecream, such strange flavored icecreams do exist and are eaten by some, seems to me that ti equate morals and food preferences Is absurd and any similarity between the twos Is irrelevant
I prefer the flavour of vanilla ice cream over strawberry. Do we need an invisible being to provide an "objective" best ice cream flavour standard? 🤔 Are those who agree with my preference not justified in buying vanilla over any other flavour when we go shopping absent an "objective" standard or "meaning" to our preference ?? 🙄🤭
I also have preferences with regards to living in a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. Are those that agree with my preference not justified in attempting to actualize it absent an "objective" standard or meaning to our preference ?? Does this require the existence of an invisible magical "God" ?? 🤔
I don’t really get why you couldn’t have this YT channel without all the big money problems? You don’t hear this often from medium sized content creators so I just wonder why your channel is so dependent on funds when others can, maybe with smaller visions etc.
Manage to have their streams and videos on YT without going into debt situations. Of is the main problem that it’s about money for you so you can remain doing this full time? I just font understand why you can’t change the model of this channel so it won’t cost you anything or at least as much as it does apparently
Sure, I’m happy to provide an explanation. Not all medium sized channels are identical. I mentioned in other videos that our currently monthly revenue from RUclips ads is only around $2k per month ($24k/yr minus taxes). Even though we have a lot of subscribers, that doesn’t mean we get a lot of monthly views. Other channels with the same size subs might be getting 10 or more times the monthly views that we do, meaning that they can rely solely on ad revenue (or on that plus sponsorships). We don’t have that option.
Also keep in mind that not everyone relies on income from their RUclips channel (or associated ministry) to make their living. I do.
For more info, I recommend watching my recent announcement video with Jimmy Akin!
Thanks for your feedback brother. God bless and all the best for your channel as well!
Imagine being in 2024 and being a Platonist.
Even worse: Imagine being in 2024 and being a nominalist!
@@newglof9558 Hey at least nominalism is only 600 years behind instead of 2400.
Imaginge being an Epicurean (99% of atheists) in 2024.
@@D12Minthat's interesting. Can you be more specific?
Imagine still believing our moral status the result of a talking serpent convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being called Yahweh in 2024
Gastronomical realism....lol. Ok, thats a novel approach but, as we will see, not an especially compelling one as a defeater for moral realism. If the good in gastronomical realism is centered on taste taste then it is clearly subjective. However if it is instead centered around survival, then every food can be ranked objectively as to its value or even need for survival. Take water for example. 3 days without water intake (in some form) is fatal in humans. Water would likely be at the top of any objective valuation of "food and drink" in terms of survival.
In Gastronomical realism that is centered on survival it is objective because the laws around survival are transcendent. In the same way, moral realism is objective because the moral law giver is transcendent.
Nonbeliever here:
Yes, I thought of that as I was watching. But I also think it can get theists to look at morality in a similar light.
Brother you need help ? Boy you got no clue what someone as poor as me goes through I personally thought of opening a Christian channel where I read direct scripture and I would never charge anyone I would only accept what ppl on their own free will donated but I could go homeless and I would still only care about saving souls and not money and I have a family to take care of ...
"God" is the most immoral thing ever. Lol
is a deist who reads the Qur’an and the Bible in Islam, yes, specifically with regard to forgiveness, but in Christianity, no. Also, in Christianity, blood must be sacrificed for forgiveness, and an innocent person like Jesus must be sacrificed, unlike Islam.