What Is the Best Moral Argument for God? | Dr. Craig & Dr. David Baggett

[@1freedbyjesus]

It's important to remember that Wielenberg isn't a naturalist. His approach to metaethics is specifically non-natural.

[@burga00001]

I just want to say that I've seen a lot of videos featuring Dr WLC and not once have I seen him appear lost for words and say "Wow".

[@CosplayEternity]

I love watching Dr. Baggett in his element. He gets so excited when talking about the moral argument. It was one of the highlights of my M.Div getting to take his class.

[@MaverickChristian]

40:42 - Best question of the stream in my completely unbiased opinion.

[@lynnenevill3449]

LOL 😂

[@josephtattum6365]

Very interesting conversation. I have always framed it as the argument from moral experience. That we experience something informs us of its reality, in one way or another. I experience the world around me, I experience the computer I am typing on right now, and I experience my friends and employees. I don't doubt those realities, so why would I doubt the reality of my experience of goodness. You experience wetness because of water, you experience goodness because of God.

[@Chidds]

I am assuming, like me, you also experience taste, beauty and other psychological sensations related to the physical world. But even though our experiences are real, we still recognise them to be subjective.

[@josephtattum6365]

@@Chidds Right, not sure what point you are trying to make

[@Chidds]

@@josephtattum6365
We do not attribute good taste or beauty to a standard set by a celestial being, so why do it with morality?

[@josephtattum6365]

​@@Chidds Because taste and beauty are subjective standards based in the individuals preference. Morality is not like that morality is grounded in objective reality

[@Chidds]

@@josephtattum6365 Can you substantiate that morality is grounded in objective reality?

[@isaiahceasarbie5318]

Wonderful people!

[@apologetas_yt]

Definitely, W. R. Sorley moral argument is the best!

[@MarkWCorbett1]

Great discussion!

[@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831]

Terrific conversation. I wish you would focus more on moral ontology than cosmology in the future.

[@lanceindependent]

I would have liked to see more discussion about what the moral data in need of accounting consist of. If the supposed data don't entail realism, then antirealist accounts may (and I think would) do a better job of accounting for them, while if the data does entail realism then critics of the argument can simply deny that anyone possesses such data, and then the dispute would move to what the "data" is supposed to be.
I consider moral arguments some of the weakest arguments for God. At least part of the reason for this is that moral realism is less defensible than theism. It's not even clear non-naturalist accounts of realism are intelligible.

[@ricksonora6656]

The strength of the moral argument depends on the strength of one’s conscience. Someone with a strong conscience cannot imagine that torturing puppies for fun is not evil, so this person would intuit universal morality. Someone who dismisses the evil of torturing third-trimester babies for convenience or profit would have a weak, situational morality, and so, would find the moral argument weak. Pragmatically, then, the strength of the moral argument is subjective.

[@landonpontius2478]

What if moral truth is transjective?
This would mean that morality can't be purely objective because it exists in the realm of value, which is inherently subjective. But it also can't be purely subjective because the standards are set by human nature and rationality and therefore exist outside of and beyond each of us as individuals.
Morality gets its structure from the relationship between the objective and the subjective. It can't be one or the other.
It's subjective because it's based in conscious experience. Even theistic morality has to eventually appeal to experience to argue that it has any intrinsic value.
It's also objective because it is a fundamentally social project and one that is governed by shared interests and values. Which is why it has utility and why we're talking about it in the first place.
This is a comprehensive view of morality that does not require the commands of god or a direct appeal to any kind of authority, while also not leaving morality as a simple matter of individual preference.

[@adairzamora4957]

Los comandos morales tiene solamente sentido en un mundo donde son personales no impersonales (donde son cosas donde no hay bien ni mal).
Y lo de la razón, lo refuta Kai Nielsen en Why Should be Moral?.

[@landonpontius2478]

@@adairzamora4957 moral truth is already personal (without god). The answer to "why be moral?" is very simple...because moral action results in a better life.

[@adairzamora4957]

@@landonpontius2478
Lo es porque existe en que lo que trasciende a lo material es personal. Con tu enfoque de no apelar a lo material y lo transcendente a los material, tampoco explica por qué debe ser personal, e.g., la justicia.
Por mucho que digas no es ni material ni extra material, sigues apleando a qué todo a dependido de lo material. Ni han argumentado el por qué es cierta de tu postura.
Respecto a lo de ser moral que dices:
Ese es es el nombre de un trabajo de Kai Nielsen donde explica que la racionalidad, a pesar de experimentar no te lleva a lo que dices que es "mejorar la vida". Ese es el punto del por qué lo cito.
Y sobre mejorar la vida: ¿Cuál es el o los criterios para saber si mejora la vida? Lo que te hace feliz? Lo que te hace sentir bien?

[@landonpontius2478]

@@adairzamora4957 in a way this is much simpler than you're making it. Moral truth is personal because it's grounded in conscious experience. It's still "objective" in a sense because we are social creatures and moral action is acted out socially.
The bottom line is that moral/pro social behavior produces the best life for the individual. And I mean "best" in every way, including the most pleasurable and enjoyable.
We don't need reference to any god's authority or commands. All of the necessary elements for a comprehensive and rational moral framework are already in place without putting God in the mix.
I don't know what problem the religious argument is trying to solve.

[@adairzamora4957]

@@landonpontius2478
Lo ves simplen porque realmente no has explicado por qué teníamos que ser seres morales.
Este enfoque que doy explica por qué somos conscientes del bien y el mal y del por qué somos serés morales.
Al final, tu postura es ambigua sobre el por qué existe lo malo y bueno y es ambigüo el por qué es bueno lo que dices que lo es.
Lo que dices del placer y lo otro aún no da cuenta de todo:
Por qué sería malo el incesto entre 2 machos o hembras o el incesto que no daña a nadie mientras no haya procreación y sea consensual?
O por qué no sería malo salvar a tu hijo de un sitio que se incendio y se cae a pedazos, ya que eso te pone en riesgo y angustia?
Vuelvo a repetir: no se ha probado que la razón te lleve a lo que dices que es bueno (checate a Nielsen).

[@TheJesusNerd40]

52:00 atheists "Stealing from God" to prove morality and ethics.

[@TMPreRaff]

Is there a "best" moral argument for God? If he doesn't exist, it's all moot.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Yes, among families of arguments, there are usually arguments which are stronger and weaker. For example, an argument with fewer premises, each of which are based on widely held intuitions or observations, will generally be stronger than arguments with more premises the go against intuition or experience. Also, some arguments make unnecessarily strong claims which are more difficult to defend than slightly weaker claims that imply similar conclusions. In other words, yes, there could be a "best" moral argument for God, even if God did not exist. - RF Admin

[@christian-81]

The greatest moral argument for the existence of God is that without God abstract morality is impossible. This would relegate all moral discussions into the context of relativism and you would no longer have any basis to have a moral debate whatsoever.
Without God there is no evil..
Edit: I suppose I should now go watch the video

[@Jewonastick]

Morality IS subjective.
Just visited a torture museum this weekend that once again proved this statement to be true.

[@christian-81]

@E Stok Did you have a problem with them torturing others?
If so, on what grounds were they wrong?

[@sibulelebaneleseptember9540]

I'm Sibulele, a philosophy student at the University of Cape Town. I'm writing an essay on Moral argment essay. is there a way to talk to you and ask questions?

[@Jewonastick]

@@christian-81
People back then thought it was okay to cut someone's had of if they stole something..
Preferably on a full market square for all the town to see.
We now see that as inhumane and overly aggressive.
This shows that morality IS subjective as it has demonstrably changed through time.
My morals are based on me being a human. On my understanding that the dark age way of torturing so many people wouldn't be beneficial to society of which I am part as well.
History clearly shows that our morality has evolved... No god required.

[@bimosunupoernomo7120]

Nothing’

[@steverational8615]

Interesting but I do not follow your claim for why the moral argument is one of the weakest arguments for God particularly in view of the claim that both Craig and Baggett consider it one of the strongest

[@ricksonora6656]

I think the strength of the moral argument is subjective because it depends on the strength of one’s conscience. Details of morality vary with rearing and culture, and then, there are sociopaths.
In addition, morality could have alternative explanations such as natural empathy or pragmatism. Each possible alternative cause weakens the case for universal morality.

[@tartarus1478]

There was a time the moral argument was considered strong but in the modern literature god as an account for moral realism doesn’t fit any of the notions of realism so it’s considered a very weak argument now.
So if we mean mind independence by realism god as a mind will fail as the claim is that god (a mind) is the account for the moral facts and that entails moral facts aren’t independent of gods mind.
Another position on what realism is is stance independence, so the truth of moral facts obtains independent of the attitudes of an agent as if the attitude, desires, dispositions, or nature of an agent satisfies the truth conditions then the proposition is said to be subjective. Like how it’s in my nature to like ice cream and in virtue of this nature i have an attitude toward the proposition “I like ice cream” and my attitude satisfies the conditions to make that proposition true. God as an account for stance independence fails as a result that it’s his commands making moral propositions true.
We could keep going (ideal agent arguments, etc) but currently most philosophers agree the moral argument is weak largely because there’s not a cogent account for what way this would be realism.

[@thebestofallworlds187]

Existence is eternal. There is nothing outside of existence to create it. We know reality is here and exist. There is no evidence of God, but people say he is eternal. Why not just say what we know to exist is eternal instead of making up a God with no evidence?

[@adairzamora4957]

Con la misma razón que rechazas a Dios buscas otra opción. Eso es hipócrit4.
Pero ya se demostró que el universo en finito. La energía se agota, los planetas se alejan, se expande el universo, etc.