The Moral Argument

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, it is.
From the OP:
(emphasis added)

Ok. Start by proving that objective morality exists and we can go from there.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ok. Start by proving that objective morality exists and we can go from there.

Page 25 and still on square one, I see.

Firstly, it's not objective morality that's in question. It's 'objective moral values'. Values are only an aspect of moral philosophy, not the entirety, but that's the kind of confusion that results from your complete lack of epistemology.

Secondly, you are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours. It will never not be yours. You haven't even coherently defined 'objective value' - which is a complete oxymoron - let alone met your burden.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. Start by proving that objective morality exists and we can go from there.

See that's what I've been saying about your argument not fitting in with this one. Sapiens needs to prove all of those premises to reach that conclusion, but yours just shows two possibilities and makes you pick. I still find your stance fascinating, and viable in that I would have to choose between believing in one or the other, but it would require an entirely different argument to prove that God exists, and that He has some objective purpose for us to make your argument prove that objective morals exist.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Page 25 and still on square one, I see.

Sure, for every person who jumps into the thread who has not read the first 25 pages to get on the same page....yes...we have to go back to square one.

Firstly, it's not objective morality that's in question. It's 'objective moral values'. Values are only an aspect of moral philosophy, not the entirety, but that's the kind of confusion that results from your complete lack of epistemology

.

Objective moral value based on what standard? We talked about that.

Secondly, you are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is yours. It will never not be yours. You haven't even coherently defined 'objective value' - which is a complete oxymoron - let alone met your burden.

I already proved it. Find one thing you feel is objectively moral or immoral without God. All I have to do is find one person who disagrees to prove that moral to me subjective and meaningless.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

See that's what I've been saying about your argument not fitting in with this one. Sapiens needs to prove all of those premises to reach that conclusion, but yours just shows two possibilities and makes you pick. I still find your stance fascinating, and viable in that I would have to choose between believing in one or the other, but it would require an entirely different argument to prove that God exists, and that He has some objective purpose for us to make your argument prove that objective morals exist.

I agree. But the moral arguement is not intended to prove or disprove the existence of God. All it does is prove that the existence of God is required for objective morality to exist. Thus, If you believe objective morality exists, you have to believe God exists.

 

[Moral Orel]

Firstly, it's not objective morality that's in question. It's 'objective moral values'.

You know what? I totally missed that distinction too. I got all caught up arguing point to point that didn't make sense, I didn't think about what things, specifically, ought to be proved. Plus I came in here with all the expectations of a Craig fight that I've seen so many times, I expected it to go like that, and in some ways it did, some ways it didn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the moral arguement is not intended to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Then why phrase premise 2 in the way that Sapiens did? And isn't that how WLC does it as well? And isn't he the author? (I'm not 100% on that last question, but still pretty sure).

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then why phrase premise 2 in the way that Sapiens did? And isn't that how WLC does it as well? And isn't he the author? (I'm not 100% on that last question, but still pretty sure).

I don't know. From what I have studied. The moral argument does not prove that objective morality exists.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know. From what I have studied. The moral argument does not prove that objective morality exists.

WLC likes to charge atheists with acknowledging that torturing little children for fun is objectively immoral, so if he's the author, then you kind of hi-jacked this, haha.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know. From what I have studied. The moral argument does not prove that objective morality exists.

I found this:

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

So Craig get's credit for phrasing it the way Sapiens does, but "through the centuries"? It could have had a lot of forms over time, but the way it is phrased here and Sapiens' way isn't your way. So I guess it's you and me versus Sapiens! Haha!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

WLC likes to charge atheists with acknowledging that torturing little children for fun is objectively immoral, so if he's the author, then you kind of hi-jacked this, haha.

Haha. Well then..

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I found this:

The moral argument for the existence of God has been stated in a variety of ways through the centuries. One way in which the basic argument has been worded is as follows (see Craig, n.d.; Craig and Tooley, 1994; Cowan, 2005, p. 166):

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

Premise 2: Objective moral values exist.

Conclusion: God exists.

So Craig get's credit for phrasing it the way Sapiens does, but "through the centuries"? It could have had a lot of forms over time, but the way it is phrased here and Sapiens' way isn't your way. So I guess it's you and me versus Sapiens! Haha!

Well. I would argue that love is objectively morally good.

 

[anonymous person]

A contemporary proponent of the Moral Argument is Dr. Craig.

He explains:

By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god#ixzz43NachoCS

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Objective moral value based on what standard? We talked about that.

That is for you to demonstrate. Once again, it is you who believes in the oxymoronic non-concept of 'objective value'.

I already proved it.

No, you absolutely did not. You haven't even coherently defined 'objective value', let alone proved it.

Find one thing you feel is objectively moral or immoral without God. All I have to do is find one person who disagrees to prove that moral to me subjective and meaningless.

Thanks for proving my earlier point - you are stuck on square one.

You are still confusing standards with value. Standards - like wellbeing and harm - are objectively quantifiable. I require no invocation of Yahweh or any other imaginary being to have them.

Whereas, values are necessarily subjective. Even if Yahweh existed, it would not be the case that his values are somehow magically objective, or that you'd even be able to discern what those values are given your lack of any epistemology whatsoever.

So in summary,

-You still have not made any sense at all of the contradictory concept of 'objective value' - which I must reiterate once again, is your burden, and no one else's.

-You still have no means of discerning what those values are, even if you can coherently define them, given that your moral philosophy has no epistemology to speak of.

Once you're done with those issues, we can move on to any of the numerous other flaws.

 

[Sapiens]

Not at all. These are objections to moral argument, and how it fails to support your theology.

Agreed, but in this thread it has been conceded that your theology allows for serial killers to get a pass, and that those that disbelieve will be held accountable for things beyond their control (disbelief, and the "sins" of their [hypothetical] ancestors).

This is not "justice" and "morality" as the terms are used in the common vernacular.

It is not about what I like or agree with, but how the moral argument fails when applied to a theology that - by the same standard of morality being appealed to - is morally bankrupt.

Concerning your previous post I was answering to, you said you "made no claim of Justice" but you do seem to infer that our theology is not "just".

Could you please remind me why you say it's morally bankrupt?

BTW, sorry if you answered this already... I'm late in the reading process...

 

[Sapiens]

Guilty of actions beyond their control.

Let's check your own moral compass: do you feel it to be moral to hold others for the actions of others, for for actions beyond their control?

I'm not sure if I answered this post already. We are judged only for our sinsé. Agreed, it isn't our fault that we're sinners but we commit sins nonetheless and that's what we're being held accountable for.

 

[anonymous person]

That is for you to demonstrate. Once again, it is you who believes in the oxymoronic non-concept of 'objective value'.

Suppose that the axis powers had won the second world war and that the Nazi's exterminated everyone that was not a Nazi sympathizer so that the only people that existed on earth were those who thought that the systematic extermination of non-Germans was a good thing.

Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in?

No, you absolutely did not. You haven't even coherently defined 'objective value', let alone proved it.

Reference my posts.

I require no invocation of Yahweh or any other imaginary being to have them.

We never said you did.

Whereas, values are necessarily subjective. Even if Yahweh existed, it would not be the case that his values are somehow magically objective,

Sure they would be. For they would be grounded in His moral commands, not our opinions and He would have the authority and ability to judge justly them that disobey Him.

or that you'd even be able to discern what those values are given your lack of any epistemology whatsoever.

The moral argument has nothing at all to do with epistemology. Therefore, any mention of it is irrelevant.

-You still have no means of discerning what those values are, even if you can coherently define them, given that your moral philosophy has no epistemology to speak of.

The argument has nothing to do with epistemology. As such, your comment is irrelevant.

Once you're done with those issues, we can move on to any of the numerous other flaws.

We will await your reply.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Suppose that the axis powers had won the second world war and that the Nazi's exterminated everyone that was not a Nazi sympathizer so that the only people that existed on earth were those who thought that the systematic extermination of non-Germans was a good thing.

Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in?

Yes. Regardless of what anyone thinks, genocide is demonstrably, quantifiably harmful.

Of course, for all you know, Yahweh could be in favor of genocide. You have no means of discerning what is purported commands are.

Reference my posts.

Which ones? I can only assume you mean the definition given by Billy Craig. He seems to actually mean 'objective standard' when he speaks of 'objective value'. He then goes on to make the same basic conflation between the two when comes time to formulate the argument.

We never said you did.

Oh, good. I assume then you've been operating under the confusion this entire time that 'objective values' and objective standards are the same thing, just like WLC. In which case, you agree with me that premise 1 is false, as objective standards - which you and WLC call 'objective values' - can and do exist without the divine permission of god or other magical being.

Sure they would be. For they would be grounded in His moral commands, not our opinions and He would have the authority and ability to judge justly them that disobey Him.

And with that you neatly impale yourself of Euthyphro's horn of arbitrariness.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that you have no means of discerning what Yahweh's moral commands are in the first place, even granting his existence.

The moral argument has nothing at all to do with
epistemology. Therefore, any mention of it is irrelevant.

The argument has nothing to do with epistemology. As such, your comment is irrelevant.

Uh, no. Nice try.

You have no argument to speak of without an epistemology, as it is the only way you will ever get from your massively loaded premises to the conclusion. It is entirely relevant, and I will not let you off the hook for your utter lack of it.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes. Regardless of what anyone thinks,.....

Ok great.

If you still want to remain an atheist, you will have to deny premise 1 which reads:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

Now, you have affirmed that the systematic extermination of a particular ethnic group because they are of a particular ethnicity is objectively bad and wrong.

As an atheist, tell us what grounds these pronouncements. Notice you cannot appeal to human beings because you affirmed that they hold regardless of what human beings think.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That is for you to demonstrate. Once again, it is you who believes in the oxymoronic non-concept of 'objective value'.



No, you absolutely did not. You haven't even coherently defined 'objective value', let alone proved it.



Thanks for proving my earlier point - you are stuck on square one.

You are still confusing standards with value. Standards - like wellbeing and harm - are objectively quantifiable. I require no invocation of Yahweh or any other imaginary being to have them.

Whereas, values are necessarily subjective. Even if Yahweh existed, it would not be the case that his values are somehow magically objective, or that you'd even be able to discern what those values are given your lack of any epistemology whatsoever.

So in summary,

-You still have not made any sense at all of the contradictory concept of 'objective value' - which I must reiterate once again, is your burden, and no one else's.

-You still have no means of discerning what those values are, even if you can coherently define them, given that your moral philosophy has no epistemology to speak of.

Once you're done with those issues, we can move on to any of the numerous other flaws.

I really don't feel like explaining everything all over again. Just make your point or reread my posts.