Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
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
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostIf false, then false
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
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostNot an argument for personal incredulity.
Already argued against the first premise.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostRe (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.
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostAt no time can you dismiss any conclusion on the basis that there was no reasonable response.
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI 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.
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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour 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.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
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post1. 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.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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostIt'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.
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostYou'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.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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostIn 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).
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.
Given that premise 2 is true, the conclusion is true; If false, then false.
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.
I wonder if you have read Dr. Craig's rebuttal (link above, here it is again: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostProblems: (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.
Comment
-
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
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostCorrection. Where I wrote "any mind," I should have been more specific: "any human mind."
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
by tabibito
Today, 02:22 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
303 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM |
Comment