Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm 104 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Ding

  With regard to "objective" v. "subjective", I think a couple of examples might be helpful.

  If we ask, "Which President was better -- Washington or Lincoln?" there is no objectively correct answer. It's all a matter of individual opinion. There's no way to verify that one answer is right and the other is wrong.

  If we ask, "How many amendments to the United States Constitution have been ratified by at least 3/4 of the States?" there is a correct answer (27) that doesn't depend on individual opinions and a way to verify that the answer is correct and that all contrary answers are wrong.

  Suppose we ask, "Is rape morally wrong?" Most of us would say yes but not every in history has agreed (Saddam Hussein and his sons, for example). Is this like the Presidents question -- a matter of personal opinion with no right answer? Or is it like the amendments question -- with a correct answer that doesn't depend on individual opinions and a way to verify that the answer is correct and the opposite answer is wrong?

  Craig's argument is that if there is no final judge on moral issues (God), then all moral statements are relative, like the Presidents question. We could give arguments and reasons for our opinion, but in the end there would be no way to verify that our arguments and reasons were right.

  With regard to the question of whether God's moral judgments are based on whim, C.S. Lewis argued that this is not so, that God's moral judgments are a part of His character, that rape is wrong not because God arbitrarily decided so but because it violates the character and nature of God, and the only way we can know the character and nature of God is for Him to reveal it to us.
• 

  bohm

  Ding -- as you can see, i have truly changed oppinion on how firm my own morals are. im beginning to get what you mean. If the argument from morals has any virtue, i should be the easiest person to win over.

  So is this your argument:

  • Without grounding morals in Gods nature, morals do not get objective value.
  • objectively based moral judgements exist.
  • Therefore God exist.

  So this is what i would like to ask: How does some moral action get value by being part of Gods nature?

  Are moral statements just randomly included in Gods nature, such that rape could just as well be part of his nature than not? if no, why not?
• 

  BurnTheShips

  (I wont insert Craigs argument since you found it erronous).

  I do not necessarily find it erroneous. I find it relatively weak compared to other arguments.

  As for me, I believe that God is the ultimate source of everything.

  Since everything means everything, this, of course, includes moral truths that we both hold as true and agree upon.

  I think evolution can explain a great deal of our morality, and perhaps even all of it, although I have no proof of that either.

  Bohm could say that what we regard as moral law is natural for successfully cooperative, intelligent life like our own.

  I would agree.

  BTS
• 

  bohm

  BTS, but saying God is the ultimate source of everything is a very weak argument; it does not really explain why we have moral in any sence of the word; it could just as well explain the completely opposite moral code!

  So why is the explanation better than me saying: I dont know?

  At some point there is an argument like this:

  • you assumed no-god and derived a poor explanation.
  • i assumed god an derived a better one
  • therefore this make me trust more in God..

  but this require your explanation to be better in some sence; so far its just: "God did it" (morals). It works with everything, it explain nothing.

  you must demonstrate it somehow actually has any value as an explanation before it works
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Bohm, again, you miss the point.

  I believe in a good, truthful God, that created everything.

  It works for me.

  I really don't care what works for you. You will have to figure it out for yourself in the absence of God.

  In the meantime, you can live off our (unexplainable to you) morality until you manage to figure out something better.

  BTS
• 

  bohm

  BTS:

  In the meantime, you can live off our (unexplainable to you) morality until you manage to figure out something better.

  but your morals are not explained either, as i just demonstrated by asking for an explanation which you could no give.

  So the real difference boil down to me still looking for a source of objective moral truth, and you being happy with a source that does not explain morals in a way you can communicate, at least not unless i accept God (the premise i am trying to establish) to begin with... hmm.....

  At any rate (and on topic) i can dismiss the moral argument as an argument for the existence of God.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  but your morals are not explained either, as i just demonstrated by asking for an explanation which you could no give.

  Not could not. Would not. That is a different subject, and one you can easily look up online.

  So the real difference boil down to me still looking for a source of objective moral truth, and you being happy with a source that does not explain morals in a way you can communicate, at least not unless i accept God (the premise i am trying to establish) to begin with... hmm.....

  You still accept plenty of premises, including your own moral code.

  And with that, I'm done with the thread.

  It's a weak argument, as developed by Craig.

  The idea of God as an objective source of moral truth is one that I implicitly accept and you do not.

  There isn't anything left to discuss.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA90IlymdZ4

  BTS
• 

  bohm

  BTS: "You still accept plenty of premises, including your own moral code."

  yes, ofcourse, but could you specify which of my assumptions invalidate what i just said? That i make assumptions does in itself not prove my position wrong.

  at the end of the day, the theist need to shoulder the burden of evidence. I merely point out that has not happened yet. If it has not happened because you do not wish to engage in an argument (but believe you have one nevertheless), then im totally okay with that. But i find it strange that you nevertheless seem somewhat insistent on telling me im wrong without given me any specifics.
• 

  PSacramento

  PS: I can deside whats fair and not fair by referring to some things like: "do unto others what you would like them to do onto you". I can argue from evolution why this is a good idea, but not why its true in some higher meaning of the word.

  Actually, that is NOT proving that you can decide what is fair, but proving you cna decide whatis fair for YOU.

  I would like to slide my tounge over Adriana Lima's body and since I would be ok with her doing it to me, it's all good, right?

  but you have not created an argument for God yet.

  you must explain why God provide a better explanation for morals. So assume God is true, why should i believe in equality? Why is this better explained in your model?

  IF God is true we are all made in his image, hence we are all the same, hence all equal under God.

  It is subjective to an absolute and not relative to time, fashion, POV or anthing else that can "go out of style".

  Again, the burden of proof is on you.

  Not really, since I don't think I can "convert" nor do I try, I simple state my POV, no more, no less.

  I don't have to prove one thing or another, but I do suggest you follow the evidence where it leads you and if you feel it leads you NOT to God, then so be it.

  I just ask that you follow ALL the evidence and not just the parts that suit you.

  And by YOU I mean You as in anyone looking to find "the truth".
• 

  Ding

  Bohm wrote:

  How does some moral action get value by being part of Gods nature?

  I'm saying that God didn't arbitrarily decide that "truth telling is better than lying" and that He might have chosen to value lying over truthfulness. Rather, truthfulness is a part of God's nature which is why that is part of the moral code He imparted to us.

  Are moral statements just randomly included in Gods nature, such that rape could just as well be part of his nature than not? if no, why not?

  Could God have been different? I don't think so, because He is self-existent and uncaused. God is who He is and has been so from eternity past. Why is He the way He is and not otherwise? I don't know. I don't even know if that question has meaning when referring to God. It may be like asking, "What number is 1/0?"

  I don't think God chose to be truthful. It's just a part of who He is and who He always has been. "Truthfulness" was not a pre-existing quality that someone taught Him or imparted into Him. He didn't grow into truthfulness. "Truthfulness" wasn't an external quality that God chose to adopt. God's character defines truthfulness and thereby gives it its existence.

  When Moses asked God, "What is your name?" he was asking, "What are you like? What makes you tick?", not just, "Give me a handle that we can call you by."

  God's reply was, "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14).

  I think that means, "I am the self-existent one and I don't change. I just AM WHO I AM."