Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

I don't get why people think WLC's moral argument works

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It appears without a reasonable response, WLC's Moral Argument is down the toilet.
    At no time can you dismiss any conclusion on the basis that there was no reasonable response.
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
      If false, then false
      I think that's wrong. Here's an example: A (God exists) is false but B (objective morality exists) is true. If A then B may still be true, because when A is true then B is true also, but it's still possible for B to be true even though A is false. IOW, A is sufficient but not necessary for B to be true.

      Craig erred, I think.

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

      2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

      3. Therefore, God exists.

      If A then B. If B is true, objective moral values do not exist, that does not logically determine the truth value of A, unless A is so defined that premise 2 is true. If premise 2 is true then B is false. That does not logically determine the truth value of A, either, unless the exception made above is also true. The argument can be said to have a hidden assumption that needs to be explicitly stated.
      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        Not an argument for personal incredulity.
        Your argument is.

        Already argued against the first premise.
        To be specific, he has argued for why his premise is plausible, so address that.

        Still no answer to my questions:

        "So if I offered you reputable definitions/accounts on which divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism, would you accept them? Or would you not accept them, and thus make the same evasive move as the creationist?"

        We can proceed on that issue once you address that. I'm doing this to forestall the evasions, goal-post moving, etc. that I expect you to do once you're provided the definitions/accounts.
        There is no burden on me to answer your questions. You have the burden of supporting what claims you've made. Carry on.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
          Re (3) you appear to think that the existence of something is basis for denying the existence of something else. I doubt that's the case for "human morality" and "objective morality." Possibly, depending on what you mean by human morality, you have committed the fallacy of equivocation. Or this: defining human morality so that it excludes objective morality--that needs justification.
          Your avoiding the main #1 issue. There lacks an adequate definition for 'objective morality.' My line of reason does not exclude 'objective morality,' because I do not know what objective morality is.

          If one is defining 'objective morality' as equivalent to the morality of God the argument is in trouble from the beginning.

          First, specifically define objective morality then we can go on from there.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
            At no time can you dismiss any conclusion on the basis that there was no reasonable response.
            I am dismissing the conclusion based on:

            Problems: (1) Failure to define what are 'objective morals.' (2) It is not logical to conclude that 'objective morals' exist simply based on the premise that they may exist. In other words IF (the possibility) something exists is not a basis to conclude it exists. (3) There is an adequate natural explanation for human morals.

            The lack of response indicates a lack of an adequate argument in support of the WLC moral argument.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              I think that's wrong. Here's an example: A (God exists) is false but B (objective morality exists) is true. If A then B may still be true, because when A is true then B is true also, but it's still possible for B to be true even though A is false. IOW, A is sufficient but not necessary for B to be true.

              Craig erred, I think.

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

              2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

              3. Therefore, God exists.

              If A then B. If B is true, objective moral values do not exist, that does not logically determine the truth value of A, unless A is so defined that premise 2 is true. If premise 2 is true then B is false. That does not logically determine the truth value of A, either, unless the exception made above is also true. The argument can be said to have a hidden assumption that needs to be explicitly stated.
              1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

              2. Objective moral values and duties do NOT exist.

              3. Therefore, God does not exist.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Your avoiding the main #1 issue. There lacks an adequate definition for 'objective morality.' My line of reason does not exclude 'objective morality,' because I do not know what objective morality is.

                If one is defining 'objective morality' as equivalent to the morality of God the argument is in trouble from the beginning.

                First, specifically define objective morality then we can go on from there.
                It's morality that exists independently from any mind. If objective morality does exist, that would be something we can call God. Of course that does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.
                The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

                  2. Objective moral values and duties do NOT exist.

                  3. Therefore, God does not exist.
                  You're making the same mistake as Craig does, in my view. I said that the truth of the consequent in the if . . . then . . . form (IF [premise] THEN [consequent]) does not necessarily determine the truth value of the premise. But certainly you have given an example of why Craig may be wrong.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    It's morality that exists independently from any mind. If objective morality does exist, that would be something we can call God. Of course that does not prove the existence of the God of the Bible.
                    This is a vague problem definition that I eluded to before that would make the argument circular.

                    If one is defining 'objective morality' as equivalent to the morality of God [independent from any mind] the argument is in trouble from the beginning. It assumes God exists in the beginning.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      You're making the same mistake as Craig does, in my view. I said that the truth of the consequent in the if . . . then . . . form (IF [premise] THEN [consequent]) does not necessarily determine the truth value of the premise. But certainly you have given an example of why Craig may be wrong.
                      I agree.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Correction. Where I wrote "any mind," I should have been more specific: "any human mind."
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          In this page http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument
                          Dr Craig offers his own argument, whose premise 1 is different: You switched terms (If objective moral values and duties exist[Term A] then [Term B]--your version but Dr Craig's version is, if B then A).
                          What?

                          This is what I said in the OP:
                          "1. If objective moral values and objective moral duties exist, then God exists.

                          2. Objective moral values and objective moral duties exist.

                          3. Therefore, God exists."

                          What was given at your link was:
                          "1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

                          2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

                          3. Therefore, God exists."

                          The two arguments are logically equivalent. The first premises of both arguments are logically equivalent, since "If X, then Y" is logically equivalent to "If ~Y, then ~X".

                          Your version is not a syllogism.
                          No, it's a syllogism. It's modus ponens.

                          Given that premise 2 is true, the conclusion is true; If false, then false.
                          False, since the second premise is not logically equivalent to the conclusion.

                          Premise 1 is necessary (God's existence and the existence of objective morality are logically linked in some way), but the truth or falsity of the conclusion is always the same as that of premise 2 the way your version is set up.
                          Premise 1 is not logically necessary, as even Craig himself admits (following Robert Adams). Craig does not think premise 1 is a conceptual truth or a logical truth, since he thinks it's a synthetic, non-conceptual, informative identity (he gets this from Adams, who in turn got it from [if I remember correctly] Cornell Realists like Boyd and Sturgeon [themselves inspired by people like Kripke and Putnam]). He has to opt for that position for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Moore's open question argument.

                          I wonder if you have read Dr. Craig's rebuttal (link above, here it is again: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument
                          I've read Craig's work extensively, as should be clear from what I wrote above. And not just what he's written on Reasonable Faith.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Problems: (1) Failure to define what are 'objective morals.'
                            I don't use the phrase "objective morals" since it admits of equivocations.

                            (2) It is not logical to conclude that 'objective morals' exist simply based on the premise that they may exist. In other words IF (the possibility) something exists is not a basis to conclude it exists.
                            That's not the form the argument, nor the premise I'm critiquing.

                            (3) There is an adequate natural explanation for human morals.
                            I know.
                            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Suppose "God" and "objective morality are so defined that either both exist or none exists (no other possibility). Then we do have modus ponens. If God exists, then objective morality exists AND if objective morality exists then God exists.

                              One would want a definition of "God" and a definition of "objective morality" such that neither definition implies the other, do we? What, then, does "if objective morality exists then God exists" mean? I submit that the truth value of the first premise cannot be determined even with premise 2. God could exist or not. Craig's argument fails, IMO.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                Correction. Where I wrote "any mind," I should have been more specific: "any human mind."
                                This reinforces the circular nature of the argument.

                                This is a vague problem definition that I eluded to before that would make the argument circular.

                                If one is defining 'objective morality' as equivalent to the morality of God [independent from any human mind] the argument is in trouble from the beginning. It assumes God exists in the beginning.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                151 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X