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

  • Truthseeker
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.
    It appears without a reasonable response, WLC's Moral Argument is down the toilet.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    The apologist William Lane Craig's moral argument goes something like this:
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-05-2015, 07:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    The apologist William Lane Craig's moral argument goes something like this:
    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.
    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).

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Your OP is largely if not wholly argument from incredulity. Naturally you don't want to respond to the exposure.
    Not an argument for personal incredulity.

    He has not only critiqued other positions but also argued for his first premise, so deal with that.
    Already argued against the first premise.

    There is no burden on me to answer your questions. You have the burden of supporting what claims you've made. Carry on.
    Still no answer to my questions:

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Nothing of substance to respond to there.
    Your OP is largely if not wholly argument from incredulity. Naturally you don't want to respond to the exposure.

    Don't need to, since (as I already explained) his critiquing of the positions mention in his OP, would not serve to support nor defend his first premise. That's a simple point regarding logical reasoning; to say otherwise is to commit to a false ichotomy.
    He has not only critiqued other positions but also argued for his first premise, so deal with that.

    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:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Nothing of substance to respond to there.

    Then cite all his writings about his moral argument, and we'll see if that's true.
    Don't need to, since (as I already explained) his critiquing of the positions mention in his OP, would not serve to support nor defend his first premise. That's a simple point regarding logical reasoning; to say otherwise is to commit to a false ichotomy.

    Originally posted by Paprika
    Originally posted by Jichard
    So far you've said "crap" and called me an idiot:

    Please try to maintain the composure Christians are supposed to have.
    As in the other thread, I'll do as I like.
    As will I.
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    I don't, dumbass.

    I don't need to answer that question. On the other hand you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism, so go do it and stop stalling.
    Still no answer to my questions:

    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.
    Last edited by Jichard; 04-05-2015, 02:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    I already argued against premise 1 in the OP. It was not an argument from personal incredulity.

    doesn't make a lick of sense...implausible...strange, implausible...rather strange
    No need to, since what he wrote neither defends nor supports premise 1.
    Then cite all his writings about his moral argument, and we'll see if that's true.

    So far you've said "crap" and called me an idiot:
    Please try to maintain the composure Christians are supposed to have.
    As in the other thread, I'll do as I like.

    We can proceed on that issue once you address that question.
    I don't need to answer that question. On the other hand you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism, so go do it and stop stalling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    You need to deal with the sub-arguments instead of merely arguing that the argument in whole and part is incredible, or that 'I've never seen anyone offer an adequate defense of it'. Can you actually make a refutation instead of an argument by incredulity, which your OP is?
    I already argued against premise 1 in the OP. It was not an argument from personal incredulity.

    Quote those objections and deal with them. Do you only have silly assertions?
    No need to, since what he wrote neither defends nor supports premise 1. To say otherwise is to employ the false dichotomy I already noted.

    Then show it and cut the crap:
    So far you've said "crap" and called me an idiot:
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Idiot.
    Please try to maintain the composure Christians are supposed to have.

    In any event, you didn't answer my question:

    We can proceed on that issue once you address that question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    No, the soundness of an argument is based on the validity of the argument and whether the premises of the argument are true. I dealt with the soundness of the argument by explaining why one of its premises was false.

    Furthermore, you're confusing an argument for a premise with an argument for a conclusion. Craig may have separate sub-arguments to support specific premises. But I don't need to present those arguments in order to present his argument for his conclusion.
    You need to deal with the sub-arguments instead of merely arguing that the argument in whole and part is incredible, or that 'I've never seen anyone offer an adequate defense of it'. Can you actually make a refutation instead of an argument by incredulity, which your OP is?

    Once again, that would not be a defense of premise 1 nor an argument for it. It would be the false dichotomy I already discussed.

    And Craig has no meaningful objections to these positions, beyond nonsensical stuff like denying (without an argument) the supervenience of the moral on the natural.
    Quote those objections and deal with them. Do you only have silly assertions?

    It's actually quite easy to show.
    Then show it and cut the crap:

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    His 'defense' of the premises constitute his argument for them, on which the soundness of the entire argument is founded on. Deal with all the relevant parts of the argument or not at all.
    No, the soundness of an argument is based on the validity of the argument and whether the premises of the argument are true. I dealt with the soundness of the argument by explaining why one of its premises was false.

    Furthermore, you're confusing an argument for a premise with an argument for a conclusion. Craig may have separate sub-arguments to support specific premises. But I don't need to present those arguments in order to present his argument for his conclusion.

    Right. But he has argued for that so go deal with that.
    Once again, that would not be a defense of premise 1 nor an argument for it. It would be the false dichotomy I already discussed.

    And Craig has no meaningful objections to these positions, beyond nonsensical stuff like denying (without an argument) the supervenience of the moral on the natural.

    Asserted, but not shown.
    It's actually quite easy to show. For example, if I wanted to show that Cell Theory is a form of scientific theory, then it would suffice for me to show reputable sources (such as scientists writing in scientific papers) defining what a "scientific theory" is, and then showing that Cell Theory fits under that definition as a type of scientific theory. Parallel points for the moral case, since divine command theory fits the definition of what moral subjectivism is.

    Unfortunately, some Christians evade this point, much as Young Earth creationists evade people who correct them on what a "scientific theory" is by citing reputable definitions/accounts of what a "scientific theory". These creationists due this since they want to hold on the idea that a theory is just an educated guess, given that that makes it easier for them to attack evolution (which they find theologically inconvenient as being just a theory. Hopefully, you won't do the parallel thing for definitions/accounts of "moral subjectivism", just to avoid the inconvenient notion that DCT is a form of moral subjectivism.

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    First, that's Craig's fully argument, as he presents it. Two premises and a conclusion. Now, if you want to discuss his defenses of the premises, that's fine. But that doesn't show that I didn't present the full argument.
    His 'defense' of the premises constitute his argument for them, on which the soundness of the entire argument is founded on. Deal with all the relevant parts of the argument or not at all.

    even if these account were shown to be implausible, then that would not show that Craig's argument is plausible.
    Right. But he has argued for that so go deal with that.

    It's still not clear what you mean by "cite in full to refute in full". In any event, I don't need to. Divine command theory (including the form Craig advocates, as lifted from Adams) is a form of moral subjectivism
    Asserted, but not shown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jichard
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    It does make sense if these accounts can be shown implausible, so you will have to refer to Craig's full argument instead of creating a strawman by treating the abbreviated version as the full one.
    First, that's Craig's fully argument, as he presents it. Two premises and a conclusion. Now, if you want to discuss his defenses of the premises, that's fine. But that doesn't show that I didn't present the full argument.

    Second, your claim is incorrect: even if these account were shown to be implausible, then that would not show that Craig's argument is plausible. You seem to be operating from a false dichotomy, where its either Craig's premise or the options I mentioned, akin to the false dichotomy some theists offer between theism and naturalism. It's a false dichotomy since there are other options, such as moral constructivism, ideal observer theory, error theory, social contract theory, and so on. So just because account X is shown to be implausible, doesn't mean account Y is plausible, especially if Y is not the negation of X.

    I agree that pure divine command theory is inadequate, but again you will need to cite in full to refute in full.
    It's still not clear what you mean by "cite in full to refute in full". In any event, I don't need to. Divine command theory (including the form Craig advocates, as lifted from Adams) is a form of moral subjectivism, and thus does not provide an account of objective moral duties and objective moral values. So DCT would be inadequate for support the argument's first premise. That's why I mentioned this in the OP:
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    And in doing this, Craig commits himself to a wildly implausible subjectivist position: divine command theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    So the first "moral values" portion of Craig's first premise commits him to saying something like God exists if the objective truth-makers of moral statements, moral beliefs, etc. [about what is morally good or morally bad] exist. And that doesn't make a lick of sense. After all, there are plenty on plausible of accounts of the objective truth-makers of moral statements
    It does make sense if these accounts can be shown implausible, so you will have to refer to Craig's full argument instead of creating a strawman by treating the abbreviated version as the full one.

    So, for instance, "that instance of rape is morally bad" is true or false not because of the harm by the rape nor the callousness of the act nor any such plausible answer, but instead because God has such-and-such a nature.
    I agree that pure divine command theory is inadequate, but again you will need to cite in full to refute in full.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
158 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
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