Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Peter Kreeft: "If good and evil exist, then God exists"...

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by Michie, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,127
    Likes Received:
    222
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Dr. Peter Kreeft of the philosophy department of Boston College, speaks on the issue of “If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists” in new video for Prager University, an outgrowth of talk show host Dennis Prager’s effort to make some of the finest, most original thinkers accessible to everyone.
    It’s five minutes long and absolutely worth watching:

    Peter Kreeft: "If good and evil exist, then God exists"...
     
  2. Chany

    Chany Imperfect Perfectionist

    Messages:
    6,069
    Likes Received:
    33
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Humanist
    He didn't address moral nihilism. His argument assumes objective morality. The nihilist doesn't believe in morality; they believe humans personally makeup their own and whatever the popular one is the "objective" one.

    It's a great argument if the person isn't willing to give up objective morality, but you'd be surprised how quickly people, especially philosophers, will drop it in favor of their preferences. Also, I'd like to see a utilitarian response to the slavery position.

    It's also interesting to see a new approach for the proof of God's existence, even if it doesn't hold much philosophical water.
     
  3. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,127
    Likes Received:
    222
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
  4. Michie

    Michie Manipulation Resistance Team Supporter CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    83,127
    Likes Received:
    222
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
  5. MKJ

    MKJ Contributor

    Messages:
    12,202
    Likes Received:
    7
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Greens
    Faith:
    Anglican

    I find people will argue that there is no objective morality, but in general they don't walk the walk so to speak.

    That is probably less true of philosophers, but in general most people have things they consider to be basically morally reprehensible. They thing moral relativism sounds nice but they haven't really thought out the implications.
     
  6. Genersis

    Genersis Sorta Still Social Democratic.

    Messages:
    4,962
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    UK-Greens
    Faith:
    Atheist
    What constitutes "walking the walk" when it comes to not believing in objective morality?:confused:
     
  7. Chany

    Chany Imperfect Perfectionist

    Messages:
    6,069
    Likes Received:
    33
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Humanist
    Subjective morality means you can never criticize any group or person for what they do and view as right. According to subjective morality, everyone is on equal moral and ethical footing; there is no way to ever delcare something wrong as you have no authority to or any claim to back it up other than personal preference.
     
  8. Genersis

    Genersis Sorta Still Social Democratic.

    Messages:
    4,962
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    UK-Greens
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Lacking a belief in objective morality really doesn't mean much beyond believing there is no source of inerrant morals.

    It doesn't mean you can't criticise others for what you personally think/feel is immoral, nor try and convince them why you think that way.

    I think a bit of nihilism is being mixed in here...
     
  9. Chany

    Chany Imperfect Perfectionist

    Messages:
    6,069
    Likes Received:
    33
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Humanist
    On what grounds can a person criticize another's morals besides through personal feelings?
     
  10. Genersis

    Genersis Sorta Still Social Democratic.

    Messages:
    4,962
    Likes Received:
    56
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    UK-Greens
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Morals aren't just based on feelings.
    They can be based on things like capacity of an action to harm, fairness, equality, and empathy generally.
    I understand most of those things are subjective to a degree.
    You can criticise someone's morals for not considering such factors.
     
  11. Ccalhoun

    Ccalhoun Newbie

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    If you're truly a nihilist, then you're not going to argue about it. Why would you? Because belief in morality is wrong and nihilism is right? REALLY wrong and REALLY right? If so, then there is a REAL wrong and a REAL right (objective), lol...
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  12. Ccalhoun

    Ccalhoun Newbie

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    "Fairness?" "Equality?". People often wonder how they can be truly free if they are not free to create their own values. Say to the person who demands the right to be free to create his own values that you too demand that right ("Fairness" "Equality"). And that the value system that you choose to create is one in which his opinions have no value at all. Or, a system in which you are God, and rightly demand total obedience from everyone else. --He will quickly protest in the name of truth and justice, thus showing that he really does believe in these two objective values after all.

    If he does not do this, if he protests merely in the name of his alternative value system (which he has created), then his protest against your selfishness and megalomania is no better than your protest against his justice and truth. And then the argument can only come down to brute force. --And that is hardly a situation that guarantees freedom, isn't it?
     
Loading...