Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? SeanMcDowell.org
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2017
- For more information, please read Is God Just A Human Invention? (amzn.to/2ULb5Jp)
READ: "Can Science Ground Morality? No!" (bit.ly/3bxc3yP)
WATCH DEBATE: "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values: Sean McDowell vs. James Corbett" (vimeo.com/9858218)
DESCRIPTION: What is the best way to formulate the moral argument for the existence of God? How powerful is it? Sean briefly answers these questions.
![Mary J. Blige - Breathing (feat. Fabolous) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/snMHObq-6E0/mqdefault.jpg)
The first premise is hopelessly wrong. Just because a concept is "immaterial" does not make it "objective" (one could more easily argue quite the opposite, in fact - that the concept exists only in the mind of the person thinking of it means it is *subjective*). Nor does "objective" existence entail a god. All our "objective" scientific understanding works without invoking the supernatural at all. The evocation of "information" in order to smuggle in a Mind also fails, since all humans have minds which are perfectly capable of developing and communicating this "information". To suggest that it must originate elsewhere than in humans because humans generally agree on what is morally right and wrong is silly on its face. We are all humans. Humans are social animals with the same basic needs and interests - a cardinal one of which in all social animals is "don't kill your kin and don't upset your neighbours". Crude general rules like "don't kill your kin", "don't inflict suffering unnecessarily", and "don't lie" have evolved precisely so that we can cooperate and survive as a social species. Beyond those general principles, the variations between cultures and individuals is vast (think of opinions on gun control, the justice system, abortion, homosexuality etc etc etc)
well whatever, but as there is no god and things are plodding on anyway....
Your argument relies a lot on the idea that all human minds have evolved to have a moral compass. However, how can a moral compass even evolve? How can an idea enter into one's DNA? It can't. A creature cannot learn something in its lifetime and change its DNA to contain that knowledge. It simply does not make sense to say that we have evolved our morality, because thoughts cannot enter DNA, so our morality cannot be learned from generation to generation. Morality must be outside humanity because ALL cultures share morality. You would expect something like morality to develop differently between different cultures if they were never in contact. For example, the people living in the Americas before it was discovered by Europe had morality, but they had not been in contact with anybody else for thousands of years. I'm not talking about opinions, like gun control, or the justice system, I'm talking about morality. The abortion argument, which you mentioned, further proves morality is outside humanity. No one would say getting an abortion is a good thing. They may value the mother having the choice to abort over the life of the child, but you are never going to hear a sincere "You got an abortion, good for you!". I want to ask: Why would you not inflict suffering unnecessarily? Animals do it, and they survive. Inflicting suffering to another human I can see as being negative, but inflicting it on an animal should be totally fine. But it isn't, it should be a totally neutral trait, but in reality, humans are disgusted when they see an animal in pain. Morality is not logical. Also, there is no "objective" scientific understanding, because scientists now work under the subjective opinion that God does not exist. Objective scientific knowledge would lay out the facts and leave it like that, not try to explain it in a way that does not include God. Atheistic science is subjective, not objective.
@@jonathanconey4552 you seem to misunderstand evolution. A trait can be a physical feature like an eye, or a behaviour, like a tendency to act in a certain way under a given stimulus. Cooperative behaviour and tendencies towards reciprocation are examples of behavioural traits. An example: imagine you have two behavioural variants in a population.. One expresses the behavioural rule "When a member of your family asks you for food, always share". The other expresses the rule, "... never share". It's a simple matter to show under what conditions one variant will spread relative to the other. (Robert Axelrod wrote a classic book called "The Evolution of Cooperation" doing just that). The mechanism by which the trait is instantiated in DNA is not hard to understand in principle so long as you understand that some other voluntary behaviours must also be heritable. For example, every individual animal does not have to learn from scratch that to slake a thirst one has to go towards a colourless liquid and suck it up using your mouth or beak. It's basically an instinctive behaviour encoded in the genes. Similarly with traits like cooperation with family members - we feel an emotional drive that "pushes" us towards certain behaviours, just like we have an emotional drive that pushes us towards defensive or aggressive behaviours against a snake or a lion. In addition, we have evolved a lengthy developmental period precisely so as to allow infant humans to learn adaptive social conventions like when to share and with whom. The feeling that harming another animal should usually be avoided is also adaptive. In part, it probably largely derives from the trait of empathy that enables humans to be so good at understanding our own social dynamics and fostering in-group cooperation; in part it could also arise directly from selection for survival behaviours eg if early humans arbitrarily wounded or killed all the living things around them, they might find themselves killing the creatures they need to survive (this is exactly what we do sometimes, when we are placed in a novel environment, as the European settlers did with the buffalo) . Thirdly, again, our developmental period enables us to learn the specific situations and animals that we should kill and those we should not. Native Americans - to take your example - didn't need to learn the fundamental traits of coooperation, empathy etc from any other human populations because we are all one species. And these are so fundamental to the evolution of the human species that they were present in the common ancestor way before H sap dispersed from Africa. But unlike the Europeans, once they'd been establuished in N America for a while, they learned that slaughtering buffalo was not such a great idea. So evolution gives us all the basic moral principles, plus an extended childhood during which we learn how these principles are expressed in practice.
@@shinywarm6906 I do admit I may have misunderstood evolution. Thank you for correcting me. The issue with stating that because evolution caused objective morality, objective morality must be false, is that it does not disprove the moral argument. Just because you pointed out its origins does not mean that the argument bears any less weight. If evolution was the cause of objective morality, it does not make it any less valid. God could have used evolution to create our moral compass. Also, if moral thought is simply caused by evolution, then every thought is created by evolution, including the thought that evolution gives us all of our thoughts. So why should we believe this thought if its source is simply random chance? This calls into question not only our sense of morality but also our free will. If evolution is the source of our morality, then we do not reason, we simply react based on behaviour in our DNA.
@@jonathanconey4552 thanks. It's time for bed here on the uk but I will reply tomorrow!
Perhaps one of the most flawed pieces of reasoning you are likely to ever hear! Does the existence of other concepts, being that they are too immaterial, require the existence of a deity? The claimed conformity of moral values across humanity across time is false or at least highly questionable. It does not take very much reflection to find examples of wildly differing moral views on the same issue, deeply held. Even if we can point to some conformity of moral values, can we rule out alternative causes for this? Humans are deeply social animals and the success of the species has been based to a great extent on cooperation from earliest times. Behavioural traits that harmed social cohesion, would be disadvantageous for the individual possessing them as those around them would tire of their antisocial and disruptive behaviours and cast them out to fend for themselves. Good luck out there by yourself. Good luck getting plenty of those genes into the next generation. You do not need to accept these arguments in their entirety but that they exist and are rational alternatives to the given explanation casts doubt on the conclusion of the argument presented. If you want to believe in God or gods, do so but no arguments for God's existence work. Faith is what is needed. Read Kierkegaard on the subject.
List ALL the objective moral values and where you discovered them. What is the moral law exactly?
"Everyone knows that torturing an innocent baby for fun is wrong!"
Wait, are you saying that torturing a baby can be right if it's not done for fun?
Of course. God does it all the time. I also think he does it for fun some of the time.
Yes., he has to as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient gawd would be responsible for circumstances that could be regarded torture. E.g. certain diseases. The "for fun part" is a lousy attempt to circumvent this problem as it probably somehow justifies this as "gawds plan" or something.
Well I'm not sure about the fun and torture part, but you will either be blessed, happy, maybe both depending on the translation, if you dash an infant against the rocks according to the Bible.
I am unconvinced that objective moral values exist.
I am not even sure "objective moral value" is a coherent concept to begin with.
@Oscar Perez Is that objectively relevant to my statements?
@Oscar Perez " Either there are facts of reality being true facts or it's all in your mind."
Is it objectively true that your statement is a true fact?
Oscar brings up an interesting point. Your statement in of itself is self refuting because it IS an objective statement. And if objective statements exist, how come objective moral values don't exist?
@@ProoFzorz No, Oscar didn't bring up anything interesting or intelligent. He just whined.
There's no evidence of any such objective moral values in the universe. All morals appear to be subjective.
So how do *you* defend moral realism on Christianity? Why ought we obey God's commands? Is it because God's commands reflect his nature, and you've simply chosen to define the word, "good" (that is, "what we ought to do") as that which reflects God's nature? Why ought that be the definition of "good"? Why should we do what reflects God's nature?
"If objective moral values exist God must exist." You could participate at the Olympics with the leaps you are doing. Even if I grant you the premise that objective moral values exist, it does not follow in any way that a god or gods exist, let alone your specific god.
this is my take on the matter "If objective moral values exist then god does not exist" - sounds just as valid to me.
@@HarryNicNicholas Except that’s not what they were saying at all.
There’s no reason to assert nor claim any gods were responsible for morality.
@@openmindedskeptic9014 Morals coming from a mind would make morals subjective, as that mind would be the subject.
@@openmindedskeptic9014 First of all, Godwin's law.
Second of all, the Holocaust was subjectively wrong. If you would have asked those in charge of those atrocities if they considered what they were doing "wrong", they would have probably considered their actions to be "good". If you would have asked anyone outside of the sphere of influence of the nazis, they would have considered that those actions are "wrong". This would show the subjective nature of morality. Of course, from an evolutionary point of view, killing a member of your own species results in a disadvantage to the species/tribe. But at that point, they considered the jews as subhuman.
I can fault murderers, rapists, pedophiles, because I have morals that have been wired into my brain through evolution. And I have empathy. And just like this, I can also fault your god for killing millions of innocent people with a flood (in the story, at least). But I guess genocide is "good" when your god does it, eh?
You misunderstand the argument entirely. The question here is whether or not God exists. The question here is whether or not God exists. The argument follows, if God DOES NOT exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. But that's the problem. It can be reasonably argued that objective moral values DO exist. If that is the case, then God must exist. Because there is no better explanation on why objective morality exists unless God exists.
There's a lot of problems with this argument but let's look at just one.
Morals are the product of minds - I think that makes sense. People carry out moral actions after having thought about what they should do. Obviously we do this as this is how we are taught to act. So that fact is that minds are needed for morals to exist. So, has anyone managed to show that minds can exist aside from a human body? Has anyone ever observed a mind without a living brain?
So, we cannot accept that a god, with a mind to think things out, is not obvious that a god even might exist in the form most Christians claim (non-physical, outwith time etc.). The thing to be shown is how such a being is possible never mind how anything can be done, even thinking, without time. When time stops so does everything else.
Oh, and obviously there are no Objective moral values from a god as the only thing gods appear to be good at is having their priests write stuff in books. So it would be simplicity itself to show people the holy book which details all the moral principles required as well as show why, if such a god were possible, such god only gives this vital information to out group over the others. Actually, though, Evolution explains morals better than any claims of gods since it is provable and actually happened!
But morals cannot be the product of minds because if they are passed on from generation to generation you would expect them to change. But they don't, they are consistent, and have been for thousands of years. The people living in the Americas before it was discovered by Europe should have had a totally different sense of morality, but they did not.
Your second point, that God cannot exist because we do not have an example of a mind without a body does not quite make sense. I would totally agree with you if you were talking about a human. But, we're not, we're talking about God. You are trying to fit something as great and massive as God into the relatively small box called humanity. Can you image a fourth-dimensional object? No, no one can. You can conceptualize it, but you could not imagine it, not in its entirety anyway. So the fact that God cannot exist if limited to 3 dimensions is not only surprising but also obvious. The idea of a maximally great being (God) is so much larger than our 3 dimensions that it does not make sense to try to understand him in his entirety. It is true that an object of our level cannot exist without time. But what about a fourth-dimensional object? What about a fifth? What about an infinitely-dimensional object? Absolutely. Time only limits those things which are of a lower dimension than it. So, because God is a higher dimensional being than it, he is not limited by it. Even the definition of God disproves the time issue. If God is maximally great (meaning that something cannot exist which is greater than him) then he cannot be limited. Saying that God cannot exist because he would be out of time, and thus cannot do anything, is disproven by his definition.
On your third claim. If you discount everything in the universe as chance and only make room for God as far as writing the Bible is concerned, then I can see why you would say that God only seems to be good at making priests write stuff down. Everything in the world is affected by him. If you look at the history books, Christianity was started by one man with nothing to gain. A man who taught, knowing his teaching would lead to his death and did it anyway. His disciples then followed his teachings, to the death, proving they truly believed it. From there it spread unnaturally quickly. No matter what happened throughout history, on a global level, Christianity always grew, through persecution, and war. God's existence is proven by the fact that, even though the whole world fights against it, Christianity still grows, and has never been larger than it is today.
I also want to point out that if you say "OBVIOUSLY there are no Objective moral values from a god" you must be missing the point. If professional skeptics cannot easily disprove this argument, I highly doubt you can do so. In order for this argument to still be standing, it must have survived the level of scrutiny which you are applying to it. The statement is not even close to being obvious.
Finally, you say that evolution explains morality. How does saying that evolution is the cause of moral thought disprove the moral argument? You just stating where it originated, not how it is disconnected from God. If evolution is the root of morality and God is the driving force of evolution, then God is the driving force and originator of morality. Also, if you say that evolution is the creator of moral thought, then it is the creator of all thoughts, including the thought that morality comes from evolution. The implications of this are enormous. If all thought is like morality, simply a construct of evolution, then no thought can be trusted, and reasoning does not exist, because you simply follow the ideas hardcoded into your DNA. If evolution is the root of moral thought, then free will dies.
@@jonathanconey4552 "But morals cannot be the product of minds because if they are passed on from generation to generation you would expect them to change" - So the fact that owning slaves changed from being the norm (and condoned in the bible) to being an abhorrent action is not considered change?
@@vladd415 Yep. This fact of slavery changed. But it changed towards the good. If people knew that was wrong and followed the principles of good morals, they knew that was wrong because it's obvious like the example that Sean gave about torturing a baby.
@@leonardodasilvagarcia673 Yes, it's a fact that the cultural opinion on slavery changed. You are arguing that the Bible is inherently evil because it condones slavery.
As for torturing babies, Sean Carrol talked about torturing a baby for fun being bad. Well, let's remove the "for fun" modifier from it. Is torturing babies evil?
But... objective moral values don't seem to exist. So... I guess just 25 seconds in this argument falls apart.
Also, there is no reason to think that there is only 1 thing that could account for objective morals or that it is due to your specific version of God.
Claiming _"Its obvious"_ is a pathetic dodge.
Wow, the mental gymnastics are Olympic level in this video.
Is it objectively true that moral values don't seem to exist?
@@mr.clandestine7259
You cannot get an ought from an is. Truth regards what is, whereas morality regards what ought to be. Even if we say that it is objectively true that moral values don't exist (which, by the way, is a strawman) that wouldn't be a contradiction.
02:00 I'll tell you what you're doing wrong here. Your instructing students to do something wrong to prove something is wrong is itself morally ambiguous but then you're also instructing them to take an action that could lead to them being assaulted.
THAT'S IMMORAL.
According to the bible, god tortured Job for a bet. God is the source of morality therefore torture and gambling is moral, going off your argument.
Don't forget he also made David's baby suffer for like a week before it died.
@@newsystembad David raped a woman and killed her husband before that incident. A supreme being has the right and the power to punish, don't you think?
and regarding Job, Satan did that, God simply allowed Satan to do it, there is a difference.
God is patient, and kind, He could stop the sin from happening, but then none of us would have a chance to live if God was dealing out instant judgement on our sins.
If objective moral valued exist then Loch Ness monster( or any other unproven being) must exist.
Objective moral values exist then Loch Ness monster exist.
I got my moral values from Nessie. I don't torture kids for fun, I just do it anyway. So I am more moral than the god of the buybull.
That's nonsense. The Loch ness monster is not the best explanation for why moral values are grounded objectively. Just think about it for a second.
@@ProoFzorz it seems that u misunderstood my point. All apologetics try to tie God for something necessary. Take this moral values argument for example. But here is thing, replace God with any other unproven being ( Nessie, Bigfoot, Werewolf, jackalope, etc) and u will get same result.
@@totalstrangerthing7419 No, that cannot be the case. God by definition, is the greatest conceivable being. A being that which is all powerful, all knowing, wholly good etc. Only if such a being exists will that being be the grounder of objective moral values. If there is such a thing as objective moral law, then there must be an objective moral law giver. The Loch Ness monster is just a supposed lake monster. So you’re committing the logical fallacy known as a false equivalency.
@@ProoFzorz 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. There is no proof of God. "All powerful" is contradiction itself. "All knowing" contradict "free will". And if there is moral law giver that ain't God. U r Christian right? In the Bible world is flat/dome, sun orbits earth l, stars fall from skies, the flood, things we debunked. Also from "10 commandments" law only punish 2, murder and theft. God endorse slavery, we free slaves and give them human rights, woman is there only to serve man, woman now have equal rights, God commited genocides over and over again, the flood, 10 plagues of Egypt etc, thing we see and consider evil. In Numbers, God command Moses to kill every boy, every woman who slept with man, but to spare girls who never slept with man for themselves, we have laws that punish pedophiles and kidnappers. As u can see we today r better being from evil genocidal maniac God from Bible. Do u see my point or I should go on.
"A man's ethical behavior should be based completely on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death." Albert Einstein
People know what's wrong when it happens to them.
If morality were objective, there would be no disagreement on major moral issues
there are such disagreements
morality is not subjective
There would be no disagreement on ANY moral issues. At all.
Well this isn’t true, we know the earth is round and yet people disagree. Morality can’t be objective because it’s by definition subjective, it’s an appeal to emotion. People don’t know things are good or bad which is why no facts are ever presented to demonstrate such a thing instead people feel things to be good or bad.
Let's not forget that god needed to put a rainbow in the sky to remind him not to commit genocide.🤷♂️
He put the rainbow in the sky to remind himself not to commit genocide BY WAY OF WATER. He can still do it other ways.
@Taco Bael so gods just an idiot then? I can get behind that.
@Taco Bael I created three children, so using your logic when they don't listen or do what I ask, that means I'm allowed to kill them? I mean, I'm considered a 'god' because I created life, right? How is it apologists claim we got our morals from god but are not allowed to judge god by those same morals that he , apparently, gave us? The 'do as I say not as I do' is a clear sign of an abusive relationship. 🤷♂️
@@weago666 Yep, he's an idiot. He knew it wouldn't work, yet still did it. He knew there'd still be evil afterward, yet still did it. All powerful, all knowing, yet a total dumbass who loves killing people.
Also mate, I'm an atheist. I know how fucked up Christianity is when you break it down.
@@weago666 you aren't god regardless of how your children were created because you aren't superior to your children
Why do people think a god MUST be good? How do they judge? If you don't already know what is "good", how do (did) you judge your god (story-mythology)? Theistic morality is relative to the theist, just like everyone else.
@Tony Mario See the cruelty in nature. The most creature died in fear and pain. Billions suffer every moment. If there is a creator-god he most sadistic.
*Why* is torturing babies for fun wrong, though? Only because God says so? But *why* does God say so? What's his reasoning? Whatever the reason is, we can use that and don't need God to reach the same conclusion. Alternatively, God has no particular reason for declaring some behaviour right and other behaviour wrong, and it's just his completely arbitrary, subjective opinion.
This "subjective morality" argument from atheists is annoying. Yes it might be just your opinion, but you still have a reason to hold that opinion, which is where objective morality comes in to play. Let's put it this way, if multiple people are looking at a plant that exists, they might be looking at it in a different perspective, but it is still there no matter how differently they will describe it. If morality is truly subjective then that plant that multiple people are looking at does not exist, and everyone is imagining a separate plant in their head that is totally different. If atheism is true, then it is ok to murder.
Religions don't own morality Sean, humans do. Your opinion versus mine is exactly how societies build morality. If an opinion leads to harm, it's generally not preferred over an opinion that aims to prevent or minimize harm. We no longer watch gladiators fight to the death, we no longer own people as property and so on. These are things that society now sees as morally bad where previous societies accepted them as morally okay. Morality does not require gods, it never has. To say it does just shows how your ideology has poised your mind.
Let me demonstrate this. Is it morally okay for your god to torture babies for fun? Your ideology requires you to answer yes even though you, Sean the human, knows it is not. You, me, everyone is more moral than any god could be so to use a god from your moral foundation seems wrong doesn't it?
"every one of us knows that torturing an innocent baby for fun is wrong" : First, McDowell cannot seriously pretend to be speaking for every human being that ever lived. Here he is merely arbitrarily excluding all the sociopaths in the world who thought baby torture acceptable whenever they wished. At that point, McDowell cannot justify his exclusion of such people except by the weak appeal to the obviously pro-democratic RUclips audience he intends to address. So apparently his first problem is why he automatically assumes that whatever morals most humans agreed on throughout human history, may be safely presumed to represent what God himself believes about moralitry. Most humans in history also thought it immoral to burn little girls to death, but God apparently commanded this in Leviticus 21:9. Why do we cringe when we read that? Is it because we are too limited to appreciate God's mysterious ways? Or because the Holy Spirit is telling us that part of the bible is false?
Second, God tortured David's baby for 7 days before killing it. 2nd Samuel 12:15-18. So apparently, whether baby torture is morally good depends on the situation (i.e., situational ethics). McDowell will trifle that God didn't torture this baby "for fun", but a) that hardly matters to the audience he addresses, who think that baby-torture is wrong whether it was done for "fun" or any other reason, and b) even assuming God tortured that baby for reasons other than "fun", it remains that God tortured a baby when he didn't have to. So why doesn't McDowell condemn anybody who would torture a baby to death when they could just as easily achieve their larger goals in a more humane way? Answer: because this would then prove that the OT God was a sadistic lunatic. Now McDowell will have to argue that God could not possibly have achieved his larger goal without torturing that baby.
If McDowell expects everybody to believe "torturing a baby to death solely for entertainment is absolutely immoral", does he also expect them to believe "torturing a baby to death when the larger goal could have been achieved in a more humanitarian way, is absolutely immoral"?
Indeed, there are two arguments that God could have achieved whatever he wanted without torturing that baby to death: a) Inerrantist Christians believe God was capable of preserving the biblical authors from error, while leaving their freewill intact...so that they believe God can preserve a person from erring without violating their freewill, therefore, God could have telepathically and infallibly motivated anybody to reach conclusions that he allegedly wanted them to reach by observing the torture of the baby, he could have done this without violating their freewill, and therefore, McDowell cannot hide behind "this would have violated their freewills" to escape the question "why didn't god infallibly and telephathically cause whoever he wished to believe and act exactly as he wanted the to?" God can do this without violating anybody's freewill, apparently, so McDowell must face the possibility that God often inflicts suffering that, by God's own estimation, is not necessary to achieving his larger goals.
B) this type of infallible telepathic persuasion is explicitly supported in Ezra 1:1 and many other bible passages. So let's not have any nonsense about "Frank Turek teaches that maybe God knew by the ripple effect that torturing that baby would achieve the maximal good." That's nothing but a "maybe", and if apologists are going to benefit from it, they must extend that luxury to skeptics, who can then say "maybe god is a sadistic lunatic."
Third, McDowell does what Turek does, and commits the fallacy of ad populum, i.e., the most popular beliefs are true. If most people in human history agreed that torturing babies for fun is immoral, then it must be "true" that such act is immoral. That is a logical fallacy. Most people in the last 2,000 years have also viewed Christianity's exclusivist claims as morally repugnant, but McDowell would quickly trifle that the moral majority opinion at that point isn't reflecting anything God placed into their hearts. If McDowell is forced to remain open to the possibility that the moral opinions humans have agreed on in history are "false", then why does he pretend that the popularity of condemning baby-torture makes the immorality of baby-torture absolute?
Fourth, blaming God for the morals people share, violates Occam's razor, because the explanatory theory "god" is by definition an infinitely complex theory, whereas the Razor requires that we find the solution that will account for all data in the least complex way. So it doesn't matter that atheist have difficulty proving baby torture wrong in a universe without god, the fact that any naturalistic explanations are going to be less complex than infinitely complex, is going to require that they survive the Razor. it isn't like morality is some grand infinite mystery, there are plenty of atheists who specialize in moral philosophy, and none of them find any moral of humans to "transcend humanity".
Fifth, atheists can easily explain why most people don't wish to torture babies: It is a combination of the life-instinct which logically requires that enhancing the baby's survival requires ceasing doing something to threaten it's survival, and the way we were raised, and for most of us, that means being raised in a mostly democratic nation where we don't view our opponents as less than human.
Sixth, most Christian apologists agree with Copan and Flannagan that when the bible says God commanded Moses and Joshua and others to slay "all" Cannaanites, this merely means they were commanded to shoo the Canaanites out of the promised land (i.e., dispossession hypothesis). But even if that is true, the outskirts of the promised land constituted a waterless wasteland that would have done little more than cause those Canaanite kids to suffer more extreme hunger, thirst, exposure and abuse by others, than they ever would have when living inside the promised land. So that if God really didn't want Moses to kill all the kids, but only wanted him to shoo them outside the promised land, then God obviously wanted to torture those kids in a way far more horrific than anything they would have experienced in their homestead inside the promised land. If McDowell adopts the Copan/Flannagan disposession-only hypothesis, then McDowell will be forced to agree that his god is far more sadistic than he ever expected.
Finally, suppose while walking home you discover something nobody else discovered, a man over there raping a little girl in a field. While we could all understand why you'd wish to interfere in some manner to protect the girl, your biblical theology suggests you remain open to the possibility that God doesn't want you to help her. After all...GOD was there before you arrived, and was just standing around, watching the rape, and doing nothing about it. If God himself doesn't wish to stop a rape, than you cannot possibly know, apparent from specific divine revelation to you personally in that situation, that he wants you to try to stop it. You also know about child-sex trafficking in third-world countries, but the fact that you never tried to do anything about it (which is true of the vast majority of viewers) constitutes your own impeachment of your argument that surely God wants you to try and prevent whatever evil is brought to your attention. In that case, the fact that God just stands around doing nothing watching a little girl get raped, leaves the door wide open to the possibility that he does so because he is a sadistic lunatic, not because he has higher mysterious reasons for allowing evil.
McDowell does nothing in this video that even begins to argue that "do not torture babies for fun" is either factual, or transcends human opinion. See more of my rebuttals to the moral argument for God at
turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/08/frank-tureks-absurd-belief-in-objective.html
turchisrong.blogspot.com/2018/09/stealing-from-sense-why-frankn-turek.html
Pretend I'm your professor, and you just handed in what you just wrote (as a theoretical assignment) to me. You turn it in inside a yellow folder. I give you an F because I do not like the color yellow. Honestly, what would your response be?
@@nattlesnake. sorry, but I don't see your point. I gave independent justifications for disagreeing with McDowell, I did not simply state that I disliked his argument.
@@barryjones9362 Yes I know, but what would your response be?
@@nattlesnake. obviously not liking the color of the folder is not an intellectually justified reason to give the student an "F". What is your point? that my lengthy reply to McDowell is no more intellectually justified than the teacher who grades an assignment with "F" merely for not liking the color of the folder it was provided in?
@@barryjones9362 I actually think your reply is very thorough. I could be wrong in presuming you are an atheist, forgive me if I did so. However, you mentioned something in your claim. An intellectually "justified" reason. Justified- having done for a good reason.
Though you may believe that there IS such thing as good and bad or objective truths, and NOT believe in God, there is no reason for you to care whether your actions are good or bad. For if there is no God, we are an accidental arrangement of atoms who should feel no obligation whatsoever to act justly.
Who cares if I give you an F on your test? It may not be justified, but there is no God and no reason to care.
Sure, acting kindly and justly helps society run smoother and brings order. It helps our kind survive and reproduce. But the REAL issue is, if there is no God, we have no purpose, and therefore should not worry about order in society or reproducing. And if there are no obligations to act good or bad, why do we? It's quite easy to claim something, but very hard to live by it. I know you must feel a twinge of guilt after you commit a wrongdoing. Why? There's no reason for you to feel that way. Not a one. but you do.
my intention here is not to argue, and I respectfully await your reply. I know this might not change your mind in the slightest. But when it comes down to it, I love Jesus Christ and want to see as many people as I can in heaven
God Bless.
I have yet to meet an honest religious apologist.
This video didn't change that.
There is NO right and wrong... becuz, God is Consciousness... nondual Consciousness... so, only God exists... so, humans are IN God... so, God alone has WIll... SO, no freewill exists for anything but God. Idealism/nondualism is the answer, my friends.
Is God's character good because he is said so or is are there are external reasons? If there are extrenal reasons they are also valid without god.
Values are not objective moral because there is a consent. The earth was not in the middle of the universe becuase all humans thought so in history.
You bring up the age old "euthyphro dilemma" which has been answered by theologians and Philosophers of Religion long sense. Theologians will bring up something known as "divine command theory". Which states that by definition, God is in the right BECAUSE God is all knowing, all powerful, etc.
@@ProoFzorz Euthyphro dilemma is still true with our circle argument. Can God change his moral or has he reasons? If he has reason, this reason are true also without him.
Also if there would be Gods perfect moral, we cannot know his. Christians/the Bibel are for and against death penalty, slavery etc...
Sorry, the rest of what I typed didn't go through. What I said was, Theologians and Philosophers of Religion have grappled with this problem and have wrote extensively on it for quite some time. Usually, they would retort to something known as "divine command theory" to answer your question.
@@ProoFzorz The "divine command theory" fails: Also christians prefer the human rights like demography and egality and not the bible moral with monarchy and slavery.
@@Trollkvinnan I'm not so sure that divine command theory "fails". What divine command theory tries to capture is, that by definition, whatever God commands MUST be for the greater good. When considering the bad things we see in the Old Testament today, of course we are quick to say that those things are wrong because we deem them to be wrong in OUR society. But it wasn't wrong for THEIR society at the specific given time.
So since objective morals don't exist that means god doesn't exist, right?
That does not actually follow. So that easy out is not available to those that understand logic.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 so you're saying the logic in the video doesn't follow? OP is just using the same logic as the video but in reverse. I do agree that boths arguments don't follow however OP is purposefully using the video's own logic against it
@@Abyzz_Knight
"so you're saying the logic in the video doesn't follow?"
That too but YOUR logic is not the logic that you think it is.
"OP is just using the same logic as the video but in reverse. "
No. The video has false premises so it cannot reach a valid conclusion.
"So since objective morals don't exist that means god doesn't exist, right?"
That has a likely true premise but it says nothing in regard to a god. The god could be a Deist god. Morals would still be subjective even if the disproved god of the Bible did exist, the morals in the Bible as expressed in the Ten Commandments are not the morals of the god that allegedly created the Ten Commandments, that are not in Exodus. That god committed Genocide for the second time in Exodus and its supports slavery and infanticide. So morals do not come from it. But that does not prove that its does not exist. The lack of a Great Flood does that.
In any case the god of the Bible is not the only god that is alleged to exist. Some have nothing to say about morals.
"OP is purposefully using the video's own logic against it"
TRYING to do that, and failing. The claim is that objective morals require a god, not that the god created such things but that they cannot exist without a god. A god can still exist without objective moral values.
The god of the Bible is supposed to have wiped out all that breaths or crawls in a Great Flood, that never happened so THAT god is disproved. Not all gods just gods that are supposed to have done that. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the god of the Bible created objective morals, just laws. Including laws that support slavery.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 honestly I don't know what you're arguing against, like your response to me saying that OP is reversing the video's logic is "No, the video has false premises" yeah that's the point
Oh also the premise that objective morals requires a God is faulty. First of all how does the subjective morals of a diety magically equal objective morals? No seriously, it's just objective morality is whatever my God says is moral and what they say is objective because they're perfect, that's special pleading. Then the premise that objective morality requires a god relies on this faulty position.
@@Abyzz_Knight Spot on.
Murder is moral in self defense because that one murder could have stopped the murder of an entire city, but it can also be immoral if you're the person murdering the entire city
murder is unjustified, so self-defense would be justified and therefore not murder
But God cannot account for objective morality.
@Oscar Perez but God isn't the objection of perfection.
@Oscar Perez in order for me to accept that God is the most high, you'll have to show me that He is. Otherwise God's power etc. would just be speculation.
@Oscar Perez I'm not following you. So, what you are saying is that God is all powerful, because you said so? Let me put a quick question to you:
"Why should I believe that God is all powerful?"
@Oscar Perez okay. Thanks for the conversation.
@Oscar Perez I question why you even bothered with this conversation. To tell people you believe something and it's ok that they don't? You didn't really give any rational for why, only you think once should exist because you think it should. This isn't an attack on you, only I question how strong your faith is. Your arguments seemed more to be convincing yourself.
Just something for you to consider. NO need to respond as I don't go back to check comments. If you are happy in your faith then I am happy for you. If you need to convince yourself, there are better ways than weak arguments on youtube.
Excellent argument
Why do physical laws exist at all?
Objective immorality exist
Therefore Sean McDowell must exist
Nothing but assumptions.
False assumptions as he is denying the Bible.
We all know things like murder, lying, stealing, cheating and so on is wrong. We know these because of our conscience. Having these morals points to a higher power due to the fact that everyone knows these things, and without someone who says so thats higher than us, we can't have morals. Also, the order of the universe, the precise force of gravity, and everything else in such a particular order that if any of it were too much or less, everything else would be effected. Therefore, God exists.
Even granting all of that, it still backfires badly on the biblical theist. Because the moral intuitions of most people are very much at odds with the purported actions of the biblical deity. So you either need to reject the reliability of our moral intuitions, in which case you completely undercut any justification for accepting the existence of objective morality in the first place, or else you have to concede that it ends up being an argument that Yahweh is NOT God.
I would say it "points" to a supreme being but not "proof." I have addressed this complex topic in a few videos now. It does make subjective sense that morality and a grand wizard watching coincide. But it isn't proof I would try to argue with the atheist (I'm an unspecified theist). Because I would lose. But if morality is evolved then we should be getting better and not the same. We were evolved when the Third Reich emerged and we are now with Putin destroying Ukraine. So the atheist argument doesn't work either. I would say that animals kill on instinct but humans do it for fun. The big question is why. Cheers, DCF
I feel like it's kind of the cart before the horse. If one wants to argue that "a God created morals", I'd first want you to show, "ok there is a god and here's the proof". THEN I'd be willing to look at the idea, that the god did that. (WHICH god, by the way?)
Is Math spiritual?
This guy using that secret sign like no body business
In the argument, replace the word "god" with anything known to be fictional: Leprechauns, Fairies, Bigfoot, etc.
@@oscarmany1 They are just as much the source of these "objective morals" as God is.
someone answer this... wha if there is a god and it just isnt OUR god. maybe they are the greek gods, or the norse gods? no one has actujaly said in any video ive ever watched, that it is in fact OUR god.
i've always been atheist and my personal feeling is atheists don't exist, we are people who go through life not concerning ourselves with sky daddies or worrying about being burnt when we get cremated.
what i noticed about followers of the christian mythology when i was a child is that althought there are ten commandments "christians" ignored them. not so powerful god eh?
Subjective morality would mean morals are based on opinions, not facts. Meaning there are no objective moral values or duties. However, to accept this means you have to willfully live a delusion. You would live pretending that there is right and wrong, when you know there isn’t such a thing. I don’t advocate lying to yourself.
what does living like right and wrong doesn't exist look like for a normal person? also why would living as if right or wrong does exist, regardless of its existence, be a bad thing to do?
@@tonyisnotdeadPeople don’t live out their beliefs, which is good. Most people I dialogue with don’t understand what subjective morality teaches but they say they believe it
Incidentally, that’s why a very large percentage of religious people who claim to be moral realists are actually NOT moral realists, at least not insofar as how actual metaethicists would understand that term.
@@fanghurYea
Oh look, another apologist who thinks he is clever for co-opting the concept of the moral good simply because theists need an excuse for their conversion targets as to why Atheists do not need a reward to be morally good.
Objective morals are not a thing. For you to keep saying they are is disingenuous. Some would say that is morally wrong. See what I did there?
You contradicted yourself. If there were no objective moral values, there'd be no reason for justice for any wrong action being done. But there are objective morals. Therefore, there's a moral law giver, a higher intelligence, being God.
What if jesus/god told you that torturing a baby for fun is moral? Would it be? Are behaviors moral or immoral, only based upon what jesus/god (authority) says or are they moral or immoral objectively like you claim? Otherwise there is a contradiction.
@Oscar Perez light doesn't have vocal cords.
@Oscar Perez still cannot figure out what you are trying to claim
@Oscar Perez Did you "light" not say _"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"_ ???
Don't forget we have multiple examples of God changing his mind on moral issues in the bible. So if tomorrow God were to once again demand we _"Buy our slaves from the heathen around us"_ Or kill people who worship another God then slavery and genocide are no longer abominations, but moral dictates. 🤔
I want to believe in God but this video is….. ridiculous. I’d like for someone to prove that objective moral values exist. You can’t just take one unfounded statement and use that as an argument.
"What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God?"
1) which god?
2) why aren't you presenting evidence for a god rather than arguments for a god?
@Oscar Perez OK, now that you have identified which god you decided to believe in, the next two steps are:
- prove that god exists
- prove that god walked the Earth
@@cnault3244 do it yourself
@@emilemil7826 Why would I prove a claim I have not made? For you to even suggest I prove YOUR claim is childish.
@@cnault3244 if you say you're too lazy then i can give my arguments
@@emilemil7826 "if you say you're too lazy"
I never said that, why are you lying?
" then i can give my arguments"
I am not interested in any arguments, and I doubt you have an argument I haven't heard before.
Give me your evidence.
Thank you so much for this video!!
For false premises that don't even fit the genocidal, slavery supporting and infanticide committing god of the Bible?
@@ethelredhardrede1838 ouuuu 😂😂😂
@@kepgirl143
Is that the best you can do? Braying like a jackass?
Have you read the Bible? How did you miss the genocide in Genesis and Exodus. The infanticide?
Read what the Bible REALLY says.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 omg wow!!
raffael buvchamnn where is your pyjama?
didn't someone write a book that had "thou shalt not kill" in it? followed by instructions on who, how and why you should kill people? didn't the author kill his own son? doesn't this master of the universe forgive people who break his own rules?
how can a follower of the christian mythology claim to have morals?
why do laws exist? i think laws does not exist either...there is no right or wrong. just nothing right?
laws are constructs which do objectively exist as abstract concepts
Not everyone shares the same moral code, making this video pretty pointless. There’s no reason to assume humans hadn’t evolved certain traits on their own and needed an immoral god to do it for them.
@Oscar Perez Evolution favors the fittest and a selfish behavior may actually benefit temporarily from said actions, though the risk of being caught and ostracized by the rest of the group is quite high. This fits in perfectly with the evolution model.
Also what morals are objective?
Morality can only ever be subjective.
@@oscarmany1 Morals are objects, yes. But not objective. Never have the ever been objective. Always they've been subjective.
There has never been a point in human history where all nations, all peoples, shared the same moral code. About literally anything. Name any one thing you think is immoral, I can find you people who disagree.
@@oscarmany1 Yes, even with lying, stealing, and killing. Those have never been agreed upon morally.
@@oscarmany1 What am I lying about?
@@oscarmany1 Killing? The U.S. The military is fine with killing. Then there's state-sponsored executions. And even castle doctrine where killing someone in your home is acceptable. Then there's self-defense.
As for lying, Hollywood is all about lying on screen. Then there's the fact that lying on-air is entirely legal. FOX News and Alex Jones have made that abundantly clear. And that's not even counting the fact that individual people lie for moral reasons all the time, like protecting others from violence or threat.
As for stealing, that's also entirely dependent on the circumstance. It's less legal, but as for moral? I mean, there's the whole "Stealing to feed your family" thing that many people are fine with. And since wage theft is the most common form of theft in U.S. business, clearly a lot of people are fine with stealing.
But also, I never said anything like what you're strawmanning. Want to try again?
hi
Hi
fifi
Hellowr
Tnk u sean
Why? There are no objective moral standards and IF we used the Bible for our morals THEN genocide, slavery and infanticide would be acceptable.