The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[Elioenai26]

It's ironic, isn't it? Elioenai26 argues that many atheists refuse to believe in God for "emotional reasons".

I have said for some, that is the reason.....continue....

Perhaps we should be as uncharitable as he is by assuming that he believes in God for "emotional reasons"? Emotional reasons such as not wanting to believe that he is "an accidental collocation of atoms with no intrinsic worth, no intrinsic value, no destiny, and no different fundamentally than a maggot or worm."

You seem to be mad at me for repeating what atheists themselves have said.

Why would you be angry at me? Why not be angry with them?

I am not making this stuff up. I have better things to do than sit here and conjure up lies in thin air to make atheism look pitiful. Atheism would be a pitiful view even if I was not here to point out what some of its own have said.

Personally, my relationship with God is not based on some blind faith or belief. Rather, I know God exists. I know He exists just like you know that your best friend or significant other exists.

Therefore, I know I am not an accidental collocation of atoms.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not "pretending" you said anything like that at all.

I am plainly stating that that is what you are if you deny the existence of God.

If there is no God who made you in His Image, then you are an accident, a miniscule speck in a colossal accident of cosmic proportions. You, like the cockroach or worm, have no ultimate purpose, you were not made for a specific end, you have no intrinsic worth or value imbued upon you by a Creator who made you, you are simply atoms arranged in a certain way and one day, when your biological functions cease due to age, illness, disease, you will cease to be. You will return to the dust from whence your ancestors arose....

You are the accidental result of natural forces acting upon matter. The cosmos is indifferent to you, you are nothing special at all in the face of the vast cosmos. You are no better off or no worse off than the maggot that eats its fill on a dead dog's guts.

To think any differently is to be guilty of species-ism.

Read Nietzsche's the Madman....

Jean-Paul Sartre observed, several hours or several years make no difference once you have lost eternity. Sartre writes elsewhere of the "nausea" of existence.

Camus expresses the same sentiment. At the end of his brief novel The Stranger, Camus's protagonist finds that in one overwhelming epiphany that the universe has no meaning because there is no God to give it meaning.

Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher in the end confesses: "We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality." Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.

​

One philosopher has written: "Human life is mounted upon a subhuman pedestal and must shift for itself alone in the heart of a silent and mindless universe.''W.E. Hocking, Types of Philosophy (New York: Scribner's, 1959), 27.

Bertrand Russell wrote that: we must build our lives upon "the firm foundation of unyielding despair." Bertrand Russell, "A Free Man's Worship," in Why I Am Not a Christian, ed. P. Edwards (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 107.

​

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god#_edn6

Ernst Bloch when speaking of how modern men who deny God in order to live, must borrow the belief in immortality writes: "modern man does not feel the chasm that unceasingly surrounds him and that will certainly engulf him at last. Through these remnants, he saves his sense of self-identity. Through them the impression arises that man is not perishing, but only that one day the world has the whim no longer to appear to him." "This quite shallow courage feasts on a borrowed credit card. It lives from earlier hopes and the support that they once had provided." Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, 2d ed., 2 vols. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1959), 2:360-1

​

When addressing the American Academy for the Advancement of Science in 1991, Dr. L. D. Rue saw where all of this hopelessness and meaningless was leading to and advocated that we deceive ourselves by means of some "Noble Lie" into thinking that we and the universe still have value. (Loyal D. Rue, "The Saving Grace of Noble Lies," address to the American Academy for the Advancement of Science, February, 1991)


So KC, if there is no God, then like these men have concluded, you are no better off or worse off than anything else that has ever lived and perished.

This is atheism, this is what you must come to terms with.

​

​

​

​

​

​

More quote-mining. Less than a day ago you insisted that you weren't "insinuating anything" about atheists and their capacity to act morally. Today you go beyond insinuating nihilism to declaring that atheism and nihilism are practically equivalent.

Did you at least do the quote-mining yourself? Or did someone else do that for you? You never answered my question about whether you've actually read Nietzsche beyond the snippets you've seen on apologist websites.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have said for some, that is the reason.....continue....




You seem to be mad at me for repeating what atheists themselves have said.

Why would you be angry at me? Why not be angry with them?

I am not making this stuff up. I have better things to do than sit here and conjure up lies in thin air to make atheism look pitiful. Atheism would be a pitiful view even if I was not here to point out what some of its own have said.

And I'm just pointing out what you have said. In this post, you depict atheism as equivalent to nihilism. Presumably you are uncomfortable with nihilism and this constitutes an emotional reason for your theism. See... I can be uncharitable in my interpretation also.

Personally, my relationship with God is not based on some blind faith or belief. Rather, I know God exists. I know He exists just like you know that your best friend or significant other exists.

You keep repeating that you "know", but you stop short of actually demonstrating how it is that you know.

 

[Elioenai26]

Appealing to contemporary philosophers won't save you. We are talking about your arguments, not theirs.

The arguments I use are the arguments they use.

Do you think these arguments I have been using are originally and wholly mine? That I conjured them up one day?

These arguments have been around for hundreds of years. Some of them for millenia....

I've demonstrated your question-begging on at least one previous occasion. Your premises and your conclusion both subsumed the existence of a deity, thus begging the question for a deity.

You have demonstrated you do not know what question begging is. That much you have demonstrated.

Could you elaborate on that? What is the nature of this relationship?

If you are interested in knowing about what a relationship with God is like, go to Him, talk to Him. Read the testimonies of billions who have had this relationship. Read the Bible. Read the Psalms. Read about David who was a man after God's own heart. Knowledge abounds, but knowledge is not sufficient in and of itself to fill that void within you. Only God can.

Was it not Augustine that said:

"Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee."

You're switching the burden of proof.

You insinuate the God of the Bible is fictional. This is a claim to knowledge and as such must be justified.

Which makes the interpretation no less uncharitable than assuming that your belief in a deity stems from "emotional reasons".

The truth, to some, is harsh, especially when it runs counter to everything you hold dear.

 

[Elioenai26]

And I'm just pointing out what you have said. In this post, you depict atheism as equivalent to nihilism. Presumably you are uncomfortable with nihilism and this constitutes an emotional reason for your theism. See... I can be uncharitable in my interpretation also.

Atheism is nihilism. Nietzsche knew this.

Life without God is ultimately nihilistic.

I know this may be hard for you to come to terms with, but I hope it allows you to see how utterly ridiculous atheism is.

You keep repeating that you "know", but you stop short of actually demonstrating how it is that you know.

How do you know you have a relationship with your father? Do you have a father? What is your relationship with your father like?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The arguments I use are the arguments they use.

Do you think these arguments I have been using are originally and wholly mine? That I conjured them up one day?

These arguments have been around for hundreds of years. Some of them for millenia....

Your particular version of the argument is what I've been addressing (i.e., the way in which you've elucidated the arguments in question).

You have demonstrated you do not know what question begging is. That much you have demonstrated.

Fallacy: Begging the Question

By way of illustration, in your version of the moral argument, both your premises and your conclusion subsumed a deity.

If you are interested in knowing about what a relationship with God is like, go to Him, talk to Him. Read the testimonies of billions who have had this relationship. Read the Bible. Read the Psalms. Read about David who was a man after God's own heart. Knowledge abounds, but knowledge is not sufficient in and of itself to fill that void within you. Only God can.

That really doesn't answer my question. You are claiming to have certain knowledge. I am asking you to demonstrate how it is that you have that knowledge.

You insinuate the God of the Bible is fictional. This is a claim to knowledge and as such must be justified.

You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies in this situation. This video should clear up your misunderstanding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY

The truth, to some, is harsh, especially when it runs counter to everything you hold dear.

Apparently, according to you, I hold nihilism dear. You seem to have very little knowledge of what I hold dear. I at least am not uncharitable in my interpretation of your theism, which is more than I can say for you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism is nihilism. Nietzsche knew this.

Life without God is ultimately nihilistic.

I know this may be hard for you to come to terms with, but I hope it allows you to see how utterly ridiculous atheism is.

I've already corrected you on this misunderstanding multiple times (here is one example). You clearly haven't read any of Nietzsche's works beyond the out-of-context quotes you've seen on Craig's website.

Despite your frequent appeals to "contemporary philosophers" and the "consensus of the scientific community", I suspect that you haven't really read much outside of Craig's work.

How do you know you have a relationship with your father? Do you have a father? What is your relationship with your father like?

I can see my father, I have memories of him, photographs, and various other sources of information that can corroborate the nature of our relationship. Your turn.

 

[Elioenai26]

More quote-mining.

Quote mining is fallacious only if one takes a person's quote and uses it in a manner that "misrepresents" what the author was saying.

I have never done that. I have not misrepresented anyone whom I have quoted.

Less than a day ago you insisted that you weren't "insinuating anything" about atheists and their capacity to act morally.

Yes...go on....

Today you go beyond insinuating nihilism to declaring that atheism and nihilism are practically equivalent.

If one is a consistent atheist, he must be a nihilist. This is controversial only to those who have not come to terms with what atheism entails.

Did you at least do the quote-mining yourself? Or did someone else do that for you? You never answered my question about whether you've actually read Nietzsche beyond the snippets you've seen on apologist websites.

I have read Nietzsche. He is the only person that I know of who could express in words, what atheism really was when it was taken to its logical conclusion.

In a word...."nothingness".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Quote mining is fallacious only if one takes a person's quote and uses it in a manner that "misrepresents" what the author was saying.

I have never done that. I have not misrepresented anyone whom I have quoted.

Wiccan Child has already demonstrated to the contrary.

Your quote-mining is even less impressive when one considers that you didn't even do the original quote-mining.

If one is a consistent atheist, he must be a nihilist. This is controversial only to those who have not come to terms with what atheism entails.

That would be you, it seems.

I have read Nietzsche. He is the only person that I know of who could express in words, what atheism really was when it was taken to its logical conclusion.

In a word...."nothingness".

You clearly haven't read Nietzsche, or if you have, you have understood little of what you have read.

The 'death of God' only presents as a source of nihilism to those who have pinned their entire lives to the concept of God.

 

[Elioenai26]

Your particular version of the argument is what I've been addressing (i.e., the way in which you've elucidated the arguments in question).

The moral argument that I use is NOT MY argument. I did not formulate it. A research professor of Philosophy at Talbot with a Ph.D in both Philosophy and Theology formulated it and defends it in scholarly publications.

I do not have a version of the argument different than his.... I use his argument.

By way of illustration, in your version of the moral argument, both your premises and your conclusion subsumed a deity.

I can see now how you are thinking.

Several things to note:

1. You said both premises "subsumed" a deity. This is false. Premise (ii) of the moral argument that Dr. Craig uses states:

(ii) Objective moral values and duties exist.

I see no "deity" in there whatsoever.

2. The Moral Argument as formulated by Dr. Craig is an example of a "Modus Tollens" argument and is logically valid as is shown below.

Modus Tollens, formally:

P → Q [P implies Q]
¬Q [not Q]
∴¬P [therefore, not P]

The Moral Argument contains "not's" that are appropriately reciprocal:

1. If God does not exist [P], then [→] objective moral values do not exist [Q]
2. Objective moral values do exist [¬Q]
3. Therefore [∴], God exists [¬P]

3. No proponent of the moral argument claims that the reason we should accept (1) is because it is trivially true. Rather he appeals to the reasons atheists themselves give for thinking (1) to be true. As you observe, the atheist like Nietzsche, Russell, or Sartre does not regard (1) as merely trivially true. So dialectically, the theist is in a comfortable position in presenting this argument to non-theists.

4. The following would be an example of an argument that begs the question:

i. Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.
ii. The moon is not made of green cheese.
iii. Therefore, God exists.

In the above argument, no one would believe the first premiss unless he already believed the conclusion to be true. The argument is thus circular or, as we say, begs the question.

5. You seem to think that if the Word "God" appears in the first premise of an argument and then it appears in the conclusion that this is question begging.

This is just based on a misunderstanding of what a Modus Tollens form is.

The argument has two premises. The first premise is a conditional or "if-then" statement, for example that if P then Q. The second premise is that it is not the case that Q . From these two premises, it can be logically concluded that it is not the case that P.
Consider an example:
If the watch-dog detects an intruder, the dog will bark.The dog did not barkTherefore, no intruder was detected by the watch-dog.According to you, the above would be question begging because "watch-dog" "subsumes" as you like to put it, in both premise (1) and also in the conclusion. But clearly, that is the way the argument is designed!!!!!! The modus tollens or modus ponens has within its premise any entitiy (e) waiting to be brought forth and validated in the conclusion via the laws of logic. So this is simply a valid logic form, not question begging.


So all in all, you objections are not really objections but confusions on what constitutes a valid logical form.


​

​

That really doesn't answer my question. You are claiming to have certain knowledge. I am asking you to demonstrate how it is that you have that knowledge.

Asking me the above is like me asking you to demonstrate how you have the knowledge that your father is your father.

You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies in this situation. This video should clear up your misunderstanding:

I do not need to watch a video in order to know that if you make a claim, you have the burden of proof to support said claim.

Apparently, according to you, I hold nihilism dear. You seem to have very little knowledge of what I hold dear. I at least am not uncharitable in my interpretation of your theism, which is more than I can say for you.

Atheism is what it is.

 

[Aeroflotte]

Atheism is what it is.

I'm feeling cornered in by misunderstanding. Don't make me get all atheist fundamentalist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The moral argument that I use is NOT MY argument. I did not formulate it. A research professor of Philosophy at Talbot with a Ph.D in both Philosophy and Theology formulated it and defends it in scholarly publications.

I do not have a version of the argument different than his.... I use his argument.



I can see now how you are thinking.

Several things to note:

1. You said both premises "subsumed" a deity. This is false. Premise (ii) of the moral argument that Dr. Craig uses states:

(ii) Objective moral values and duties exist.

I see no "deity" in there whatsoever.

2. The Moral Argument as formulated by Dr. Craig is an example of a "Modus Tollens" argument and is logically valid as is shown below.

Modus Tollens, formally:

P → Q [P implies Q]
¬Q [not Q]
∴¬P [therefore, not P]

The Moral Argument contains "not's" that are appropriately reciprocal:

1. If God does not exist [P], then [→] objective moral values do not exist [Q]
2. Objective moral values do exist [¬Q]
3. Therefore [∴], God exists [¬P]

3. No proponent of the moral argument claims that the reason we should accept (1) is because it is trivially true. Rather he appeals to the reasons atheists themselves give for thinking (1) to be true. As you observe, the atheist like Nietzsche, Russell, or Sartre does not regard (1) as merely trivially true. So dialectically, the theist is in a comfortable position in presenting this argument to non-theists.

4. The following would be an example of an argument that begs the question:

i. Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.
ii. The moon is not made of green cheese.
iii. Therefore, God exists.

In the above argument, no one would believe the first premiss unless he already believed the conclusion to be true. The argument is thus circular or, as we say, begs the question.​

5. You seem to think that if the Word "God" appears in the first premise of an argument and then it appears in the conclusion that this is question begging.

This is just based on a misunderstanding of what a Modus Tollens form is.

The argument has two premises. The first premise is a conditional or "if-then" statement, for example that if P then Q. The second premise is that it is not the case that Q . From these two premises, it can be logically concluded that it is not the case that P.
Consider an example:
If the watch-dog detects an intruder, the dog will bark.The dog did not barkTherefore, no intruder was detected by the watch-dog.According to you, the above would be question begging because "watch-dog" "subsumes" as you like to put it, in both premise (1) and also in the conclusion. But clearly, that is the way the argument is designed!!!!!! The modus tollens or modus ponens has within its premise any entitiy (e) waiting to be brought forth and validated in the conclusion via the laws of logic. So this is simply a valid logic form, not question begging.​

You have either misunderstood what I've been saying or you are misrepresenting it (in which case this is a strawman).

I've already explained this, and I've referred you to my explanation multiple times:

I don't think you realise how pompous the above text reads, and I certainly won't go into that. But the objection still holds: the first premise is a tautology. You've defined the concept of 'objective moral values' as "moral values and duties which stem from God as their locus". You go on to say that these objective values do not have a reality separate from God. This means that their objectivity is inseparable from their divine reality. By defining objective moral values in this way, you've made the first premise tautological: If God does not exist, then objective moral values (which are defined as those values which stem from God) do not exist either. I can see why you think that atheists must accept your first premise. They must accept it because it is trivially true.

Begging the question is an informal fallacy in which the content of the conclusion is assumed, either directly or indirectly, in the premises of an argument. By defining 'objective moral values' in the way that you have, your argument begs the question for a deity.

Given that it is an informal fallacy, I have no idea why you're going on about valid logical form.

Asking me the above is like me asking you to demonstrate how you have the knowledge that your father is your father.

I can demonstrate that my father is my father. Can you demonstrate how you have the knowledge you claim to have?

I do not need to watch a video in order to know that if you make a claim, you have the burden of proof to support said claim.

Then you understand that the burden of proof is on you.​

​

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I have read Nietzsche.

No you haven't. You've read what WLC said about Nietzsche.

 

[quatona]

So the Achilles Heel of atheism is that Elioenai doesn´t like that which he considers its implications. Did I miss anything of substance?

 

[Elioenai26]

You have either misunderstood what I've been saying or you are misrepresenting it (in which case this is a strawman).



I've already explained this, and I've referred you to my explanation multiple times:
Begging the question is an informal fallacy in which the content of the conclusion is assumed, either directly or indirectly, in the premises of an argument. By defining 'objective moral values' in the way that you have, your argument begs the question for a deity.

Given that it is an informal fallacy, I have no idea why you're going on about valid logical form.

Dr. Craig did not formulate the moral argument to read as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then moral values and duties that come from God do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties that come from God exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

In fact, the argument in question is formulated as:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. It does not mean "from God".

Even if one, such as myself, believes that objective morality finds its locus in God, my belief is immaterial so long as the word objective in premise (1) is defined as "independent of human opinion".

In fact sir, one thing you have failed to realize is that most atheistic philosophers AGREE with premise (1). They recognize that in the absence of God, there is no good basis for grounding morality objectively in the sense of it being "independent of subjective human opinion".

Again sir, let me reiterate in plain terms, one can hold to any number of views as to where morality comes from, their belief has no bearing whatsoever on the argument SO LONG AS THEY DEFINE THE WORD "OBJECTIVE" IN PREMISE (1) to simply mean "independent of human opinion", no charge can be brought against the argument for question begging.

When presenting the argument, I have always used this definition in defining the word objective IN RELATION TO THE ARGUMENT.

I have stated several times, as you quoted me as having said, that I believe the existence of objective moral values and duties are best explained by God, but I have given reasons as to why I think this.

Notice also, Dr. Craig gives reasons why premise (1) is more plausibly true than its contradictory and the reasons are primarily the same reasons that atheists themselves agree with premise (1).

If Dr. Craig presents an argument in which the first premise is agreed upon by the person to whom the argument is presented, then that is sufficient. That is all that is needed.

If you disagree with premise (1) after being supplied with various reasons why it is true, then you have to come up with some type of response or argument.

Since you disagree with (1) and have already been demonstrated why premise (1) is not question begging, and that the majority of atheistic philosophers agree with premise (1), the burden is now on you to come up with some sort of good reason as to why we should not hold (1) to be more plausibly true than its contradictory.

Would you like me to furnish you with some objections from contemporary philosophers on premise (1)? I do not know that there will be many, but I may be able to dig some up.

I can demonstrate that my father is my father. Can you demonstrate how you have the knowledge you claim to have?

You can't if the person to whom you are seeking to demonstrate this to is unwilling to believe you.

For example, you could give me a picture of a man who you claim is your father. I could say well, he resembles you certainly, but maybe he is just a stranger who happens to look like an older version of you.

Or you could even have him meet me and there while we were face to face, he could say: "I am his father Elioenai26, please believe that I am." I could say, well, I hear you sir, but I tend not to take people at their word merely, but rather would like some type of "empirical" evidence that would prove beyond all doubt that you are his father.

He then could furnish me a copy of your birth certificate with his name and your name on it. I could then say, well sir, I respect that, but clearly this is a copy and is more than likely a forgery. Copies are ok, but the actual certificate would be even better!

He could then go digging for it in his old pile of paperwork and voila! Birth certificate, all original. He could hand it to me and say: "SEE I AM HIS FATHER!" I could say, well, sir, I indeed do respect your vigor and your zeal in proclaiming that you are his father, but since I was not there to actually see you sign this certificate, I cannot trust it.

***********

I hope you and everyone else reading this gets my point.

You can present all the evidence you want that the man whom you call "father" is your father. If I am (for whatever reason) unwilling to accept it, then I can dismiss it on the grounds that it does not meet my expectation criteria for evidence. I can set the bar SOOOOO HIGH that virtually anything offered will simply be explained away....

This is what some dishonest atheists do when presented with evidence of God. I hope you are not one of them.

 

[quatona]

Dr. Craig did not formulate the moral argument to read as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then moral values and duties that come from God do not exist.
2. Moral values and duties that come from God exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

In fact, the argument in question is formulated as:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists

Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. It does not mean "from God".

Well, if that´s his definition (as opposed to a definition that would render the argument circular), "God" in premise (1) and in the conclusion could be replaced by "aliens", "elves" or "sentient, intelligent insects", and the argument would work just as welll.

Even if one, such as myself, believes that objective morality finds its locus in God, my belief is immaterial so long as the word objective in premise (1) is defined as "independent of human opinion".

And more importantly, even if you believe that premise (2) is correct, your belief is immaterial so long as you can´t demonstrate that it is.

In fact sir, one thing you have failed to realize is that most atheistic philosophers AGREE with premise (1). They recognize that in the absence of God, there is no good basis for grounding morality objectively in the sense of it being "independent of subjective human opinion".

Morality independent of subjective human could exist in various ways. I have given three examples above. If it´s true that most atheist philosophers agree with premise (1), they either haven´t thought it through or they were using a different definition than Craig did. I´d bet on the latter, seeing that hardly any of them formed their philosophies in response to Craig´s definition.
Actually, I even question your claim that "most atheist philosophers agree with premise (1)" (when applying the definition above).

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, if that´s his definition (as opposed to a definition that would render the argument circular), "God" in premise (1) and in the conclusion could be replaced by "aliens", "elves" or "sentient, intelligent insects", and the argument would work just as welll.

Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. Or aliens. Or elves. Or any other contingent beings. It does not mean "from God".

 

[quatona]

Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. Or aliens. Or elves. Or any other contingent beings. It does not mean "from God".

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, if that´s his definition (as opposed to a definition that would render the argument circular), "God" in premise (1) and in the conclusion could be replaced by "aliens", "elves" or "sentient, intelligent insects", and the argument would work just as welll.

In theory, one could argue:

1. If sentient intelligent insects do not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, sentient intelligent insects exist.

I do not know of anyone who would argue this, nor do I know of anyone who would take the time to refute it.

Contemporary philosophers are not engaged in debate regarding sentient intelligent insects, elves, or aliens being a possible grounds for objective morality, so although one could argue for such entities, most do not consider it worth the effort. And since no one argues for such entities being the grounds for objective moral values and duties, no one is spending time refuting these arguments that do not exist.

And more importantly, even if you believe that premise (2) is correct, your belief is immaterial so long as you can´t demonstrate that it is.

I agree, one's personal beliefs are immaterial to whether premise (2) is more plausibly true or not.

Morality independent of subjective human could exist in various ways.

There are various views that philosophers hold to.....continue....

I have given three examples above. If it´s true that most atheist philosophers agree with premise (1), they either haven´t thought it through or they were using a different definition than Craig did.

The word "objective" used here in the argument is not controversial. It simply means "independent of human opinion" i.e. the opposite of "subjective".

I think you are way out of line in arguing that atheistic philosophers have not thought through this argument, specifically premise (1). I am willing to say that they have thought through the matter more so than anyone here. Atheistic philosophers have good reasons to not entertain the "bare possibilities" you posit i.e. elves, insects, aliens as being grounds for objective morality.

Theistic philosophers do not argue that insects are a possible ground for objective morality, but rather that God is. Therefore, we should not expect atheistic philosophers to entertain such possibilities (i.e. elves, insects etc.) just because you think they are possibilities. Most of them understand that if a transcendent moral arbiter does not exist to ground morality objectively, then there is really no good reason to think that morality is grounded in "anything out there" or "objectively" or "independent of human opinion". All three phrases are synonymous.

Some posit some sort of moral platonism and they have arguments against premise (1). Some, like Sam Harris, would also disagree with premise (1). They have reasons why and defend them. They represent the minority of course and never in their arguments do they claim that premise (1) is question begging.

I´d bet on the latter, seeing that hardly any of them formed their philosophies in response to Craig´s definition.

Their particular "philosophies" are not formed in response to Craig's work, but rather their arguments for their particular views on morality which contrast Craig's are. Sam Harris for example.

Actually, I even question your claim that "most atheist philosophers agree with premise (1)" (when applying the definition above).

The majority of atheists adhere to moral naturalism i.e. that morality exists solely as part of the natural world. Within this view, there are various views as to how nature can account for "morality". The most popular views by contemporary atheistic ethicists is that our moral capacity stems from a by-product of socio-biological evolution, something that simply aids in our survival. On this view there is no "right" or "wrong" outside of and over humans that lays upon us any moral obligation. The view simply states that we, over the course of time, have developed a sort of "herd morality" where certain acts have been recognized as being detrimental to our survival and so have been deemed disadvantageous. Some acts have been recognized as being advantageous and thus have been deemed beneficial.

There are some atheists who adhere to a form of moral non-naturalism. These atheists here would take issue with premise (1) and provide their account as to how objective moral values and duties could exist apart from God.

One of these has to be true, because if morality exists neither as part of the natural realm nor as part of the non-natural realm, then it follows that morality does not exist as part of reality at all. If morality exists, some type of ontological explanation or other must be correct.

Unless of course one is a moral nihilist.....

 

[Elioenai26]

Notice in premise (1) the word objective simply means independent of human opinion. Or aliens. Or elves. Or any other contingent beings. It does not mean "from God".

I did not see "God" anywhere in the Oxford definition of "objective". I only saw reference to persons and these persons were implied to mean "humans".

That is why I said that objective simply means independent of human opinion.

adjective

• (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:historians try to be objective and impartial Contrasted with subjective.
• not dependent on the mind for existence; actual: a matter of objective fact

And anyway, what would it mean to say that something was independent of God's opinion?


God, by definition does not even have "opinions" in any sense that humans have. For an opinion is:



noun

a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

But what would it mean to say that God who knows all possible states of affairs "formed" a judgment about something??? The idea of forming here is of assimilating information via the five senses and then interpreting said sensory data into a particular view or judgment.

God does none of the above. He does not need to.