The Achilles Heel of Atheism

[quatona]

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,

So you admit that everything that doesn´t beg the question isn´t included here?

nor do I know of anyone who would take the time to refute it.

The more surprising it is that so many find Craig´s version worth of taking the time to refute it.

Contemporary philosophers are not engaged in debate

So Craig´s argument doesn´t stand on its own feet but makes only sense in the light of what certain contemporary philosophers are engaged in (or what you would me believe they are engaged in)?

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.

So when you/Craig say "independent of subjective human opinion" you actually mean "God" (and exclude all other possibilities by claiming they are not worth being discussed)?
See, that´s why - no matter how much you and Craig are trying to veil it - you are begging the question.

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

Good. So you need to substantiate it.

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

If it were indeed but an ex negativo definition (which isn´t begging the question) you wouldn´t a priori exclude the majority of options that it includes.

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.

Indeed, and since "God" is what those theistic and atheistic philosophers you are talking about are having in mind when saying "objective source of morality" your argument (since as you admit is supposed to be understood in the context of their discussion) is begging the question. You can´t have the cake and eat it, too.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you admit that everything that doesn´t beg the question isn´t included here?

I am not concerned really with what is or is not included. The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God based on there being objective moral values and duties which are best explained by them having their ground in God, as opposed to some explanation such as the by-product of socio-biological evolution, or moral platonism, etc. etc.

If you would like help in trying to refute the argument, I will gladly refer you to some contemporary philosophers who have produced objections to the argument. I am sorry to tell you that when you look at these objections, if you want me to provide them, none of them will contain the charge that Dr. Craig is begging the question.

In fact, I have only seen this charge leveled by people like yourself on internet forums who are not really knowledgeable in philosophy.

So Craig´s argument doesn´t stand on its own feet

Yes, I think it does.

but makes only sense in the light of what certain contemporary philosophers are engaged in (or what you would me believe they are engaged in)?

I do not really understand you here. The argument stands or falls on whether or not its premises are more plausibly true than not. It is not dependent on anything else, not even what other philosophers think about it.

Thus far, no one that I am aware of has been able to demonstrate that either of the two premises are more plausibly false than true.

So when you/Craig say "independent of subjective human opinion" you actually mean "God" (and exclude all other possibilities by claiming they are not worth being discussed)?

We actually mean what we say. No need to change it.

When objective morality is discussed, it is always with regards to human beings. If a philosopher says that morality is objective, then he simply means that certain things are right or wrong regardless of what people's opinions are. If a philosopher says that morality is subjective, then he simply means that certain things are right or wrong and this is determined by the person making the judgment.

See, that´s why - no matter how much you and Craig are trying to veil it - you are begging the question.

I understand that you want to deny premise (1) or (2). You have to in order to maintain your intellectual credibility and atheistic view.

However, you must find another approach than the "question begging" one.

The argument does not beg the question nor does it affirm the consequence. The argument is logically sound and airtight. You have to give a reason as to why premise (1) is more plausibly false.

But to help you out, I will ask you:

Do you believe God exists? Of course you do not.
Do you believe objective moral values and duties exist? I do not think that you do.

So you affirm premise (1). The only way you could deny it is to come up with some sort of good explanation as to how objective moral values and duties could exist apart from a moral arbiter that makes said values and duties obligatory and who transcends humanity.

But if you do not even believe objective moral values and duties exist, then your whole endeavor is one in which you are not defending your actual position, but one in which you simply wish to refute an argument for the sake of refuting an argument.

Why not just rather agree with premise (1) and attack (2)?

Indeed, and since "God" is what those theistic and atheistic philosophers you are talking about are having in mind when saying "objective source of morality" your argument (since as you admit is supposed to be understood in the context of their discussion) is begging the question. You can´t have the cake and eat it, too.

Once again, I understand you wish to refute the argument. Thus far you have failed miserably in that you continue to call it question begging which it is not.

I have already demonstrated in previous posts what a Modus Tollens is, I have also defined what the proponent of the argument means when he uses the word "objective".

I am at once, teaching philosophy, and providing you an argument for the existence of God.

Instead of trying to refute it, just read it and think about it. Meditate on it. Research what a Modus Tollens is and read some of the objections that actual philosophers have regarding the argument.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Don't be coy Tnmusicman, if you had evidence for god, you'd have proffered it by now.

I'm not being coy. Justified belief is what I should have said. I say evidence because to me and others there is evidence.

 

[Tnmusicman]

That's right. This is why I don't believe in the existence of alien life. I merely regard it as rationally plausible that such life exists given that life developed on Earth, and that while I don't know the exact probability that there is other life in the universe, the odds are greater than zero.

I can't say the same for deities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Right but there are others (that are atheists) that DO say there is alien life ( or rather they believe there is). These are the ones I'm addressing with the whole believing without evidence issue.

 

[Tnmusicman]

Nope. It's general practice. Something observed to exist once can potentially exist again if the circumstances for bringing it about are similar. This is a different category of thing to something that has never been shown to exist. You can debate the actual notion of whether it has been proven or not, but the principle is a general one.



Where did I say I believed in them? I said it's more plausible because of that prior, not that they definitely exist by induction.

I'm not saying you personally believe it.

 

[quatona]

I am not concerned really with what is or is not included.

I know you aren´t. I know the entire "independent of subjective human opinion" wording is just an attempt to avoid saying "God" - because saying this would make the circularity of the argument all too apparent.

The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God based on there being objective moral values and duties which are best explained by them having their ground in God, as opposed to some explanation such as the by-product of socio-biological evolution, or moral platonism, etc. etc.

You presented a syllogism. I was addressing it.

If you would like help in trying to refute the argument, I will gladly refer you to some contemporary philosophers who have produced objections to the argument.

Well, either we discuss our arguments or we let others discuss on our behalfs. I am not here for the latter.

I am sorry to tell you that when you look at these objections, if you want me to provide them, none of them will contain the charge that Dr. Craig is begging the question.

Then you needn´t address it when you discuss their objections.
When you want to discuss with people here you better address the objections being made here.

In fact, I have only seen this charge leveled by people like yourself on internet forums who are not really knowledgeable in philosophy.

Ad hominem noted.
Doesn´t mean you have addressed the point.

I do not really understand you here. The argument stands or falls on whether or not its premises are more plausibly true than not. It is not dependent on anything else, not even what other philosophers think about it.

You are the one who keeps bringing up what other philosophers think about it. I was the one who was criticizing this strategy.

Thus far, no one that I am aware of has been able to demonstrate that either of the two premises are more plausibly false than true.

You make the claims, you substantiate them.
As far as premise #2 stands there it´s just an unsubstantiated claim. First of all, you´d have to provide anything that even lends a shed of plausibility to it.
As to #1: Depending on the definition of "objective" used the argument would have to be addressed in various ways. Since you first come up with a particular definition but later say you don´t care what it includes or doesn´t include you don´t appear to be interested in substantiating its plausibility.
In the broad definition it doesn´t point to a God but to countless possible non-human sources. In the way you and Craig actually mean it (without wanting to admit it) it´s question begging.

When objective morality is discussed, it is always with regards to human beings. If a philosopher says that morality is objective, then he simply means that certain things are right or wrong regardless of what people's opinions are.

So philosophers have no positive definition of "objective morality" but are left with an ex negativo definition? And when I take the definition for what it says (excluding people´s opinions and looking which hypothetical non-human entities may have an opinion) it turns out you don´t care and indeed use it just as a synonym for "God´s opinion".

I understand that you want to deny premise (1) or (2). You have to in order to maintain your intellectual credibility and atheistic view.

Poisoning the well fallacy. Cut the disingenious strategies, will you?
I am looking at the syllogism you presented and I see that premises 1 and 2 are lacking substantiation.

However, you must find another approach than the "question begging" one.

So let´s talk about all those hypothetically existing non-human beings that have an opinion. Or admit that you are begging the question.

The argument does not beg the question nor does it affirm the consequence. The argument is logically sound and airtight.

Ipse dixit.

You have to give a reason as to why premise (1) is more plausibly false.

No. You make the argument, you show why it´s plausible.

But to help you out, I will ask you:

Do you believe God exists? Of course you do not.
Do you believe objective moral values and duties exist? I do not think that you do.

So you affirm premise (1).

What?
Not at all. Even a person who doesn´t believe in God and doesn´t believe in objective morality need in no way agree with or affirm the causal connection implied in premise (1).
I don´t affirm the statement "Without pink elephants there wouldn´t be UFOs" just because I don´t happen to believe in either of them.

The only way you could deny it is to come up with some sort of good explanation as to how objective moral values and duties could exist apart from a moral arbiter that makes said values and duties obligatory and who transcends humanity.

Oh, so you are already leaving the mere "independent of human opinion" definition behind and add a lot of stuff to it.

But if you do not even believe objective moral values and duties exist, then your whole endeavor is one in which you are not defending your actual position, but one in which you simply wish to refute an argument for the sake of refuting an argument.

Yes, indeed. I am presented an argument and I am scrutinizing whether it holds water.
My position is completely irrelevant for that.
You almost make it sound like there´s something wrong with that, and that everyone should approach these question in the partisan way you do.

Why not just rather agree with premise (1) and attack (2)?

Because both come with their own problems which need to be addressed.
You always keep forgetting that I am not defending a position and am not trying to refute a position but just am looking at the argument as presented.

The main problem with premise (1) is: It´s not a mere premise but a syllogism of its own (with one of the premises being hidden).

I am at once, teaching philosophy, and providing you an argument for the existence of God.

Yes, I am sure that´s what you think you do. :facepalm:

 

[Elioenai26]

Yes, indeed. I am presented an argument and I am scrutinizing whether it holds water.
My position is completely irrelevant for that.
You almost make it sound like there´s something wrong with that, and that everyone should approach these question in the partisan way you do.

In light of the above I would rather refrain from discussing the argument further.

You see, the moral argument, which is NOT what this thread is about, is an argument that is presented, generally to atheists, not so that they can simply engage it as a sort of mental or intellectual exercise with a concern for only refuting it at whatever cost, but rather, it is presented with the hopes that the person will examine it, meditate on it, compare what it argues for with their own personal views, and in the end weigh what the argument concludes.

I do not feel the need to go back and forth with you defending an argument when you admittedly refuse to state your position and defend it (which is what you must do if you deny either of the premises). You continue to repeat over and over again that the argument is question begging.

Instead of seeking to refute the argument, I would recommend you read some introductory work on philosophy, specifically with regards to formulating syllogisms. This would help you immensely to better understand these types of arguments.

I will simply let you ponder the argument, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask!

 

[Ana the Ist]

In recent discussions with sincere nontheists, I have observed an underlying trend in nearly every conversation.

This trend involves the nontheist asserting for sundry reasons which they provide, that theism, specifically of the Christian stripe, is immoral.

Now, it must be stated that in general, this argument is not to prove in a direct manner that nontheism is true or that theism is false, but rather in a manner of sorts to convince the theist, specifically the Christian, that the Abrahmaic God is immoral. If God can be shown to be immoral, then it logically follows that the Christian God is not God at all, for the Christian maintains that God is omnibenevolent or all good.

The reasoning is simply that if God can be shown to be immoral from passages taken from the Holy Bible i.e. the appeal to the the doctrine of eternal punishment, and or by appealing to instances where people associated with the Church have committed immoral acts, then believing in Him and worshiping Him and propagating the gospel is also immoral and therefore the Christian is guilty of immoral acts based upon their adherence to the Christian Faith.

These arguments, according to the nontheist, justifies one in not believing that the Abrahmaic God is God at all, but merely an invention of men's minds. In other words, these arguments are used in an attempt to make a case that the position of one who maintains that this Abrahmaic God is God, and that He has revealed Himself through The Holy Bible is a position that is baseless, inconsistent, internally contradictory, and at best discrepant.
　


Now, before we go any further, we must, for those who are not familiar with the nontheistc position, briefly explain what it asserts.
The nontheistic position is one which is materialistic or naturalistic in nature. It asserts that, contrary to the theistic claim that the universe is created by a transcendant being, that the universe came to be by completely naturalistic explanations. That is, that it is completely materialistic in its composition, and self sustaining meaning that it is not contingent upon anything but itself. This entails the view known as (ex materia) or out of matter. Either the universe has always been and always will be as Carl Sagan put it, or it spontaneously popped into existence of it's own accord.

If we grant the eternal existence of matter and motion, then everything else can be explained by natural evolution. Matter, time, chance, and natural selection are used to explain the existence of life as we know it. It is maintained from this position that even the complex intricacies of human life i.e. the aesthetic, emotional, and mental components of humans can be explained in purely materialistic terms. As Karl Marx explains: mind did not create matter, matter created mind (see MER, 231). According to this view, humans have a material body but not an immaterial soul. Materialism maintains that only the body exists. Thomas Hobbes as an adherent to this view which maintained that: the body is to the mind what the brain is to a dream; mind is simply a manifestation of matter. (Thomas Hobbes [1558-1679]). Therefore, it follows that the mind (no more than chemical reactions in the brain) and matter are one. When the body dies and matter disintegrates, so does the mind and or soul.

Also entailed in this view is that humans are different from animals only in that they are on the "highest rung of the evolutionary ladder" so to speak. We are qualitatively no different than any other animal in the animal kingdom. We differ only in degree, not in kind. We have more highly developed abilities than primates, but are not uniquely different than them.This is akin to maintaining that given enough time, one could place a prokaryotic cell in front of a typewriter and eventually it would be able to produce a dissertation on quantum physics.

Now, all of the above of course sounds good if you maintain that you lack a belief in the transcendant. For the atheist, it provides a seemingly solid, scientifically sound explanation for the existence of reality as we know it.

To some it doesnt really matter either way.

Some claim to not know. Some maintain that as humans, they are unable to know how the universe began. Because of this they withold judgment on the matter and are open to various views. This is respectable.

The Achilles Heel for those nontheists who hold to the materialistic and naturalistic explanations of the universe is not so obviously understood and can be enumerated in two parts. Each part has it's on proverbial Achilles Heel or weakness which causes the whole matter to crumble under it's own weight.

First Part - Matter and Mind

The theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
However, the theory of materialism is not made up of matter! The theory about matter has no matter in it. The idea that that all is made of molecules does not itself consist of molecules. For a thought to be meaningful in this theory, it must transcend matter to view it and make an assertion about it. The Achilles Heel here is that if the thought about matter is a part of matter, then it follows logically that it cannot possibly be a thought about all matter. Since itself is a part of matter, it cannot transcend itself to make a statement about all matter. The only way for mind composed of thoughts to make a statement about all matter is for it to be more than matter. Therefore the materialist view is self-defeating.

Second Part - Meaning

In the atheistic view we were not created with any specific or ultimate purpose in mind and are simply the blind byproduct of natural evolutionary process. When we proverbially step back and examine the universe from the nontheistic materialistic naturalistic position, it can be confidently asserted that we are insignificant specks in our vast solar system, which in itself is a mere speck in our galaxy, which itself is one of innumerable galaxies. Our world was no doubt formed in obscurity amongst the vast cosmos and will end in equal obscurity when our sun swallows it up due to tidal interactions. Even if Earth should escape incineration in the Sun, still all its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere will escape into space.The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will likely become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life. So in other words, if humans somehow managed not to obliterate themselves by nuclear holocaust, we will be obliterated by heat and fire. Hmmm... sounds like a passage right out of Revelation!

In other words, there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to our existence. The universe is cold, dark and indifferent to our condition, and one day it too shall more than likely experience heat death.

When we come down from this high view of the cosmos to gaze at the infinitesimally small huamans walking about to and fro on the earth like so many ants, who live, if lucky to the ripe old age of 80 or 90, we are at best, insignificant. With wars, strife, hunger, and numerous other ills, the words of Dawkins here ring true for the atheist.

We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment. (The Selfish Gene 1976, 1989).
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. (River out of Eden 1995).

The nontheist must admit that according to his view, life as we know it is ultimately meaningless, senseless, and indifferent. It would appear that the whole show was rather a bad practical joke which was played on an epic scale by the uncaring silent cosmos.

In this dark melancholy scene, there is something quite peculiar taking place.... There are people on this tiny speck of dust flying through space that have this queer concept of "meaning" and this somehow is wrapped up in an even more strange concept known as "morality". The cosmos looks on as men run to and fro establishing courts of law and penal systems, they go to great lengths to instill virtue and discourage vice, they reward the courageous and honorable and penalize the reprobate and criminal. Not to mention this weird illogical emotion known as love which is seen to compel men and women to do very stange things indeed, like sacrfice what few years of life they have by giving their time, effort, money, and sometimes even their lives, for the ones they love. This same queer emotion is said to be the impetus also for acts such as fornication, rape, and sexual pleasure. You have people flying planes into buildings as an act of devotion to their god, you have people giving their hard earned money to fund billioin dollar research products, and you have many learned men and women who spend their lives in laboratories and classrooms striving with all of their puny little brain matter to see if this meaningless, senseless universe by chance might have caused some other lost, hoplessly lonely lifeforms to exist in the nothingness of space.

You even have some people who spend a great portion of the few hours they have on this speck of dust on internet forums who maintain that their God is real and then you have those that say He isn't because He is immoral or that He has not revealed Himself to them via emprically verifiable evidence. These poor creatures sincerely believe that their arguments are meaningful! They appeal to a moral standard to support their position, not knowing that when they do this, they inadvertently contradict their own position. For while maintaining that at bottom, there is no meaning, no design, no purpose, no right, no wrong, no mind but in matter, nothing but the random collocation of atoms and molecules occuring by natural evolutionary processes, they maintain that their statements about this meaningless universe are meaningful! How ironic! They, on one hand, maintain that there is no ultimate purpose for life, no ultimate objective morality, and on the other, use the argument that their opponents are immoral as their discrediting evidence!

These do not see that when they violently react in indignation to the supposed immorality of this God, that they themselves are appealing to something that their position does not allow for. They say they are nothing more than part and parcel with the material universe but do not live as such. For if they did, then they would behave as the animals do. Animals do not sit and hold councils about how to prosecute their fellow animals who have committed crimes. They do not even committ crimes! Lions do not hand out awards or give commendations to the most courageous lions in the sahara, neither do elephants give each other slaps on the back or handshakes for never forgetting their fellow elephant who was stuck in the watering hole. Nor does a cat say that their owner is immoral when he shows favortism to the dog by giving him a Milk Bone!

But all of these things the nontheist would argue are not only "good" but virtuous!!! They would argue that it is good to encourage charity, and discourage selfishness, that it is good to be involved in the abolishment of slavery and numerous other reforms of social ills.

And this is Achilles and his heel being once more vulnerable. For in the very act of trying to support their nontheistic position that all is matter and matter is all, they are forced to assume that at least one part of reality is meaningul and more than matter, namely this idea of justice! For if the whole universe has ultimately no meaning, no rhyme, no reason, then we should never have found out that it has no meaning; kind of like the cave-dwelling fish that have no functional eyes to see or pigment in their skin. They live in total darkness. The word dark, for them, has no meaning.....

Wonderful rant! Now allow me to retort with "The Achilles Heel of Theism".....

Evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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".

The way you have defined 'objective moral values' in premise (1) isn't just "independent of human opinion". You defined 'objective moral values' as values which "stem from God as their locus". Defined in this way, the argument begs the question because it actually reads:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values (defined as values which stem from God) do not exist.
2. Objective moral values (defined as values which stem from God) do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

You recognised your mistake and offered a second definition, according to which 'objective moral values' are independent of personal perception and conception. You have described God as a person. From your definition of 'objective', it would follow logically then that 'objective' values must also be independent of God as he is, in your view, a person.

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".

You constantly appeal to "most contemporary philosophers" as though that is supposed to hold some currency. Even so, you often get it wrong.

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've already shown that to be false. In the first instance, you've defined 'objective moral values' as values which stem from God and whose reality is inseparable from the divine. In your second definition, you've defined 'objective moral values' as independent of personal perception and conception, a definition would preclude personal deities. Now, in your third definition, you want to pretend as though the first two definitions never existed.

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.

I already have. You abandoned the thread.

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.

According to this survey, the majority of atheist philosophers do not agree with premise (1).

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.

From Craig's website? No thank you. I prefer to focus on your defence of the argument and my objections to it.

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.

Notice that you dodged my question. Instead of telling me how you came by the knowledge you claim to possess, you describe a situation in which you are unwilling to believe a certain claim regardless of the evidence presented. You're right: if someone is unwilling to believe that he is my father, then not even a paternity test will be satisfactory for him. But that is beside the point. The problem is the person's unwillingness, not the evidence. I've asked you for evidence.

***********

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.

Considering that, in your view, everything is evidence for God, perhaps you've set the bar so low that virtually anything will simply be construed as evidence for God. The cosmological argument is just as good as the argument from squirrels.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not concerned really with what is or is not included. The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God based on there being objective moral values and duties which are best explained by them having their ground in God, as opposed to some explanation such as the by-product of socio-biological evolution, or moral platonism, etc. etc.

If you would like help in trying to refute the argument, I will gladly refer you to some contemporary philosophers who have produced objections to the argument. I am sorry to tell you that when you look at these objections, if you want me to provide them, none of them will contain the charge that Dr. Craig is begging the question.

In fact, I have only seen this charge leveled by people like yourself on internet forums who are not really knowledgeable in philosophy.

I have a degree in philosophy. Your knowledge of philosophy is limited to WLC's website. You have no reason to be pompous.

I do not really understand you here. The argument stands or falls on whether or not its premises are more plausibly true than not. It is not dependent on anything else, not even what other philosophers think about it.

Then why keep bringing up what other philosophers think about the premises? Why keep bringing up the objections of other philosophers? You did that no more than a few paragraphs above.

I understand that you want to deny premise (1) or (2). You have to in order to maintain your intellectual credibility and atheistic view.

However, you must find another approach than the "question begging" one.

The argument does not beg the question nor does it affirm the consequence. The argument is logically sound and airtight. You have to give a reason as to why premise (1) is more plausibly false.

But to help you out, I will ask you:

Do you believe God exists? Of course you do not.
Do you believe objective moral values and duties exist? I do not think that you do.

So you affirm premise (1). The only way you could deny it is to come up with some sort of good explanation as to how objective moral values and duties could exist apart from a moral arbiter that makes said values and duties obligatory and who transcends humanity.

But if you do not even believe objective moral values and duties exist, then your whole endeavor is one in which you are not defending your actual position, but one in which you simply wish to refute an argument for the sake of refuting an argument.

Why not just rather agree with premise (1) and attack (2)?



Once again, I understand you wish to refute the argument. Thus far you have failed miserably in that you continue to call it question begging which it is not.

This has all been addressed already in the thread on the moral argument.

I have already demonstrated in previous posts what a Modus Tollens is, I have also defined what the proponent of the argument means when he uses the word "objective".

You've offered three separate definitions. Your first definition clearly begs the question. Your second definition precludes personal deities. And now, with your third definition, you wish to sweep the other two under the rug.

Instead of trying to refute it, just read it and think about it. Meditate on it. Research what a Modus Tollens is and read some of the objections that actual philosophers have regarding the argument.

A moment ago you said that what other philosophers think about the argument is irrelevant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Elioenai26 seems to think that our memory of the thread on the moral argument has faded, that we've forgotten about his previous definitions of 'objective moral values', and that what has transpired in that thread is no longer within our grasp. He seems to think that appealing to "contemporary philosophers", even though his own reading is limited to WLC, holds some currency. Presumably, we are supposed to be impressed by hearing "contemporary philosophers think this..." I don't know of any contemporary philosophers who appeal to "contemporary philosophers" in their papers as though it were a point worth mentioning, and repeatedly at that. In fact, it would seem like philosophical bad taste to rely on such appeals as frequently as Elio does. In a philosophy course, that wouldn't earn him any extra points on his final paper. It would be considered a waste of words.

 

[Skavau]

I am not concerned really with what is or is not included. The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God based on there being objective moral values and duties which are best explained by them having their ground in God

The moral argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the *assumption* that objective moral values exist and that their existence indicates the existence of a God. They also misrepresent, twist and distort the notion of "objective moral values" to be indistinguishable to following the edicts of a dictator.

If you would like help in trying to refute the argument, I will gladly refer you to some contemporary philosophers who have produced objections to the argument. I am sorry to tell you that when you look at these objections, if you want me to provide them, none of them will contain the charge that Dr. Craig is begging the question.

In fact, I have only seen this charge leveled by people like yourself on internet forums who are not really knowledgeable in philosophy.

Who cares?

An objection to an idea is valid regardless of whence it came or who said it.

 

[quatona]

In light of the above I would rather refrain from discussing the argument further.

Even though you yourself has brought this argument up refraining from discussing it further is your prerogative.

You see, the moral argument, which is NOT what this thread is about,

Indeed, I have noticed you have a habit of taking your own threads off-topic.

is an argument that is presented, generally to atheists, not so that they can simply engage it as a sort of mental or intellectual exercise with a concern for only refuting it at whatever cost, but rather, it is presented with the hopes that the person will examine it, meditate on it, compare what it argues for with their own personal views, and in the end weigh what the argument concludes.

Since I have told you that it´s the latter which I am doing and not the first, and you are the one trying to defend it at whatever cost it´s pretty obvious that the above is not the reason why you refrain from continuing the discussion.

I do not feel the need to go back and forth with you defending an argument when you admittedly refuse to state your position and defend it (which is what you must do if you deny either of the premises).

IOW you are unable to defend your argument, and what you actually need is a counterposition to tackle, pretending that this helps the plausibility of your argument. Nothing new here, it´s the pattern common to all your arguments.
I, however, am not a priori denying the premises. I am just noting when they lack substantiation.

You continue to repeat over and over again that the argument is question begging.

Yes, and you continue to dodge the point over and over again.
And, as you have correctly realized we haven´t even gotten to premise #2 which is by far the weaker one.

Instead of seeking to refute the argument,

I never said I was seeking to refute the argument. I said something else. You are a victim to your projections.

I would recommend you read some introductory work on philosophy, specifically with regards to formulating syllogisms. This would help you immensely to better understand these types of arguments.

Irony alert.
You can shove your condescension up a warm and safe place.

 

[quatona]

You've offered three separate definitions. Your first definition clearly begs the question. Your second definition precludes personal deities. And now, with your third definition, you wish to sweep the other two under the rug.

I´d also like to point out that the third definition is so fine-tuned to match the Abrahamic God concept that it would render the argument circular again.

 

[quatona]

Elioenai26 seems to think that our memory of the thread on the moral argument has faded, that we've forgotten about his previous definitions of 'objective moral values', and that what has transpired in that thread is no longer within our grasp. He seems to think that appealing to "contemporary philosophers", even though his own reading is limited to WLC, holds some currency. Presumably, we are supposed to be impressed by hearing "contemporary philosophers think this..." I don't know of any contemporary philosophers who appeal to "contemporary philosophers" in their papers as though it were a point worth mentioning, and repeatedly at that. In fact, it would seem like philosophical bad taste to rely on such appeals as frequently as Elio does. In a philosophy course, that wouldn't earn him any extra points on his final paper. It would be considered a waste of words.

I understand this strategy (as well as many others Elioenai uses regularly) as the concession that he is unable to address the argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Irony alert.
You can shove your condescension up a warm and safe place.

The pompousness is hilarious, isn't it? In the CA thread I was waiting for him to tell Wiccan Child, a theoretical physicist, that he should seek out introductory physics courses.

 

[poolerboy0077]

In recent discussions with sincere nontheists, I have observed an underlying trend in nearly every conversation.

This trend involves the nontheist asserting for sundry reasons which they provide, that theism, specifically of the Christian stripe, is immoral.

That's certainly a favored approach by some atheists but it is entirely inconsequential to one's atheism. Jainism, for example, is virtually a completely non-violent religion. As author and neuroscientist Sam Harris once put it, "The crazier you get as a Jain, the less we have to worry about you." That it is likely the most palatable religion on the planet does not mean it is true. I have a bias, and I think most people--theist and non-theist alike--share in this bias which is that it is better to track reality in the long run than to be delusional. Whether something is useful is wholly separate from its veracity.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's certainly a favored approach by some atheists but it is entirely inconsequential to one's atheism....Whether something is useful is wholly separate from its veracity.

While I agree with the second part, I disagree with the first.

If Christianity taught hate instead of love, self-centeredness instead of self-denial and self-sacrifice, apathy as opposed to compassion and concern for one's neighbor, then even if Christianity were "true", I would not practice it.

Likewise, if Christianity were proven false, which incidentally, it never could be, I would still be a Christian in the sense that I would still seek to pattern my life after the life of Christ.

Knowledge by no means is evil in itself, but knowledge tends to "puff up" while love "builds up".

The words of the Apostle Paul are so pertinent here. He says:


If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Therefore, I would much rather be guided by love and order my life around this principle, than to seek mere knowledge which can in no way in and of itself commend me to God or my neighbor.

Surely it is a saying worthy of acceptance, that men care not how much thou knowest, until they know how much thou carest.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

You know, I've been around quite a while. I always thought that I knew my own thoughts and feelings. But thankfully you've come along to correct me and tell me what I actually believe - and it makes so much sense that some random stranger on the internet would know what I believed better than I do. What would I ever have done without you correcting what I think I think about issues like this?

But getting back on track, do you have any sort of testable hypothesis about your god concept, or was your claim of empirical evidence for it a mistake?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Which ones, specifically? Let's see some actual quotes with references to the full context.

You've made lots of claims about what I've said and believe, and you've been pretty spectacularly wrong. If I can find mistakes in something as simple as quoting within a single thread, I have no reason to think you're any better at remembering and paraphrasing the beliefs of other random people.