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

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    I don't use the phrase "objective morals" since it admits of equivocations.

    That's not the form the argument, nor the premise I'm critiquing.

    I know.
    I believe I am approaching the problems with WLC moral argument, as well as most other apologist moral arguments. I consider the flaws and problems of what is 'objective morality,' and how it is used and defined is fatal to the argument.

    Actually Truthseeker appears to agree.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-09-2015, 08:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Correction. Where I wrote "any mind," I should have been more specific: "any human mind."

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
123 responses
671 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
13 responses
93 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
87 responses
354 views
1 like
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Gondwanaland, 05-09-2021, 09:23 AM
41 responses
217 views
0 likes
Last Post Christianbookworm  
Started by Machinist, 04-22-2021, 03:58 PM
15 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post KingsGambit  
Working...
X