where worldview of Jesus repeats the same arguments by William Craig as if they were new or as if he was saying something really creative.
It is not the case that
Everyone seems to inherently filter their decisions through an absolute moral paradigm
and when he writes
It’s easily recognizable that raping, torturing, and murdering are morally condemnable under all circumstances
am not sure what his stand is on state sanctioned murder or war.
He posits
“is torturing babies for fun a morally good thing to do?”
and proceeds to ask
Would anyone of sound mind answer ‘yes’ to that question?
which is an admission on his part that those of unsound mind may disagree. In this case then his earlier arguments only apply to those of sane dispositions. The christian god then is of unsound mind.
In 2 Samuel 12,
15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
who does that to a child?
Then he quotes CS Lewis[ why is it almost all apologists quote him?]. He writes
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust.
How is this profound? Cruel, unjust, crooked, straight are human terms. Those are human ways of perceiving the world. They are not given to us by transcendence. He didn’t need to compare it with anything to arrive at that conclusion. All around him am sure he saw a homeless person, a starving person and an opulent guy. Only a theist would think you need god to see this.
The theist intends to use this argument to show there is a god but commits fallacies as he goes along.
In premise 1, the deck is already stacked in favour of a god. He writes
Premise One: If God Does Not Exist, Objective Moral Values and Duties Do Not Exist
It is one thing to make a claim and another to justify it. We ought, for this argument to have any import be told what these objective moral values and duties are. Besides, I am waiting for a coherent definition of god to use. Our morality has its source in human experience. We are the judges of what is right/ wrong. One should act in such a way that they get the greatest happiness for themselves with the least/ or no harm to others. Only a blockhead needs a god to help with understanding such a simple maxim. A man living alone has no need for morals. Men living in society have obligations to one another or the society would collapse.
I contend that he is wrong when he writes
These widely held moral philosophies of the secular humanists fails to refute premise one because it does not account for how objective moral values and duties would have an ontological basis.
and argue on the contrary that religious morality- whatever that means cannot be a basis for our morals.
When the church killed entire populations as witches, they based their arguments on religious writings. To accuse proponents of secular morals as side stepping issues is to me a definite pointer to beginnings of insanity.
Are we to assume that
If twenty million people are murdered so presumably the remaining portion of the world’s population may flourish, who is the judge of whether this example of murder is objectively morally wrong?
we can talk about acts being moral or otherwise if we can add objective? In counterpoint, would this christian tell us it was morally permissible to turn Lot’s wife to a salt pillar, drown cats and snails that didn’t make it to the ark, give the Canaanites ultimatum to vacate or die? Are these permissible objectively because they had a divine sanction?
To say
They affirm the first premise of the moral argument despite what the secular humanist might say.
assumes that the premise is valid. But this hasn’t been shown as the case.
To argue that we can’t talk about values because objective values doesn’t exist is to me infantile.
In his second premise he writes
Premise Two: Objective Moral Values and Duties Do Exist
but we are not told what these are.
If, for example, I say being stupid is evil, is there some sense we can say it isn’t evil? Or must it be qualified as objectively for it to be worthy of consideration?
This
Nobody could be held morally accountable for their actions because each wrongdoer has their own subjective standard of morality that is different from everyone else’s; and who is to say they are wrong!
for no atheist makes such an argument. I will add though that I have argued that to punish people for their mistakes is to punish them for being men. A man is such as he is, he is not responsible for his birth and as many things go to making a man, society should look itself in the mirror at the people it creates before it starts judging.
I think
We don’t live as though murder, rape, and torture are only wrong for those that think those actions are wrong. We live as though those actions are wrong for everyone because we acknowledge an absolute standard that identifies them as objectively wrong universally.
because they are based on human experience. It is not long ago that some slave master didn’t think of his slave as a human being and would subject them to worse treatment than they could subject their dogs, some people still do. If there is any absolute standard, it is not because of a divine law giver but because we are all men. It’s based or reciprocity.
I contend that
Premise Three: Therefore, God Exists
has not been demonstrated as valid. I will argue further that without man in society, there can be no morals. Only man in society with obligations to his fellows has use for morals and only them can define what is moral. Man has no way of knowing whether gods are or not, what gods are, and has thus no way of telling which would be a divine and non divine command. You don’t need god to know pepper is hot and ripe mangoes are sweet. We say of men who can’t tell the difference between good and bad sociopaths and some other choice words[ interesting thing here is to remember that what good is is an unanswered philosophical question][ refer to the Euthyphro dilemma].
In conclusion, this particular theist has done a poor job of repeating William Craig’s bad arguments. He/ she assumes what a god is, is common knowledge and then goes on to make wild assertions without bothering to demonstrate any.
I know am not going to look for his post where he writes about science not accounting for all truth, but my interest is in knowing what his understanding of science? Does he see science only as sitting in a lab, donning a lab coat looking through a microscope?
No, we can’t
be confident that an absolute standard of morality exists, which ultimately illustrates the existence of God
because this argument is meant to show that, but doesn’t. To ask to take it on your say so is disingenuous.
And no
This practical argument resonates with us, as fallen individuals, more than many other arguments because the rejection of it has implications that are far too extreme for any rational person to embrace
it doesn’t and we are not fallen. Only religion makes man fallen, erects a god to save him from himself and claims to be healing the world. Men are neither good nor bad, they just are but with potential for great deeds and for cruel ones too. The argument that men are fallen has made the christian an impossible citizen of the present world. He is on a journey to the other world, it matters little what happens here.
I don’t know anyone that truly and honestly embraces moral nihilism
you haven’t searched hard enough.
I find the christian apologist a predictable type. They disappoint all the time. A guy starts by making grand claims about a subject then makes deference to the bible. Because the bible says, so it is. Is it a requirement of christian apologetics to repeat the arguments of the apologist in season without adding a single thought of your own and adding a bible passage like that now gives it some authority?
I am persuaded that if we are to make any advances on morality- whatever one believes it means, we must look to man for answers, the natural man, man as he is without religion, without superstition.
