Debunked²: Prophet of Zod and the Euthyphro Dilemma
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video, I expound on a simple misunderstanding of the Prophet of Zod.
Prophet of Zod's video: • Will William Lane Crai...
William Lane Craig on the One Minute Apologist: • 128. What is The Euthy...
I just call Zod “Fuzzy Face.”
Ooohhhh, first response video.. exciting!
Third, actually. I've made two to Rationality Rules. :)
@@ApologeticsSquared oh yeah, well this is still the first response where you analyzed their videos
I have a square head, he has a static head, it's the same idea. 🤣
You did a great job! Thanks for doing this!
I miss Shwilliam Wane Cwaigs beard. RIP WLC beard 😢
The part where prophet zod writes etc next to God is good is the part where I realized that he doesn't understand the phrasing of the statement.
Dang Bro, you are a tour de force of logic and theology!
Keep teaching as long as you're able to
Will do :)
Really helpful video thankyou!
Glad it was helpful!
In his Reasonable Faith book, Craig writes, "Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God. Neither are God’s commands arbitrary, for they are the necessary expressions of his just and loving nature. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so forth, and his commandments are reflections of his own character. God’s character is definitive of moral goodness; it serves as the paradigm of moral goodness. Thus, the morally good/bad is determined by reference to God’s nature; the morally right/wrong is determined by reference to his will. The divine will or commands come into play as a source of moral obligation, not moral value."
So Craig, and many others, make a distinction between values (good/bad) and duties (right/wrong), hence the 2nd premise of his moral argument: objective moral values and duties do exist. Moral duties are grounded in divine commands, which are necessary expressions of his nature.
Wielenberg makes a criticism of Adams' theory, which Craig borrows: "It might be thought that Adams’s theory provides a foundation for such ethical facts; doesn’t the theory tell us, for instance, that the fact that the Good exists is grounded in the fact that God exists? The answer is no; since the Good just is God, the existence of God cannot explain or ground the existence of the Good. In the context of Adams’s view, the claim that God serves as the foundation of the Good is no more sensible than the claim that H2O serves as the foundation of water. Indeed, once we see that, on Adams’s view the Good = God, we see that Adams’s theory entails that the Good has no external foundation, since God has no external foundation. It is not merely that Adams’s view fails to specify where the Good came from; the theory implies that the Good did not come from anywhere."
In other words, how can God's nature ground the good if it's identical to the good?
Craig say that on his view objective moral values and duties exist, but this seems false. God exists, but does God's nature also exist as an object? I understand a nature to be a set of essential properties, but Craig doesn't think properties exist due to his austere nominalism. So it seems like moral values don't exist on Craig's view. How about obligations? God issues commands. That's fine. But do the commands themselves exist as objects? I don't think so. So it seems duties also don't exist on Craig's view. Of course, Craig might say his second premise should be read in a neutralist fashion, but his talk of "ontological foundations" make it seem as he's using "exist" in a heavy duty sense.
I don't think these criticism are all that devastating. I don't know if Craig would agree with this theory, but you could lay out a theory like this:
God's nature grounds what is good in that the closer a thing approximates God's nature, the more good it is. Since God's nature is identical with itself, it is the most good thing possible. This is not to say that "the good" is identical with God's nature. "The good" is identical with "that which approximates God's nature."
I myself am a pretty hardcore nominalist. I think we do not need to say that, "There is an actually existing abstract entity, and this entity is an obligation to not murder." Rather, we can simply say that, "We are obligated to not murder." Likewise, I don't see why God's nature needs to be an "object" to ground morality. God's nature is the collection of traits that inform His will. I think you can make sense of this without positing His nature as an object. But if it already informs His will without being an object, why can it not inform what is or is not moral without being an object?
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Craig (and Adams who he follows) want an identity relation somewhere. Where Craig places the identity relation varies. Sometimes he says the Good is identical to God, sometimes it's identical to God's nature, and sometimes he says, "Moral values are identified
with certain attributes of God , and moral duties with what God command." If austere nominalism is true, only in the first of the three cases does objective value exist. There's still the problem for duties though. I don't think Craig thinks actions exist, and a command is an action, so I don't think Craig thinks that obligations exist.
On one plausible reading of the 2nd premise of Craig's moral argument, he's saying that moral values and duties really do exist in a heavy duty sense. In his book Reasonable Faith, he writes, "Moral
ontology deals with the _reality_ of moral values and properties (176)." His italics around "reality" indicate to me that he's making a heavy duty existence claim. Craig often talks about how he's dealing with moral ontology, and not (say) moral semantics. In Craig's criticism of Atheistic Moral Platonism, he finds it difficult to comprehend how the property of justice can *exist*. Here it seems he's using "exist" in a heavy duty sense. As far as I know, Craig has never talked or written about an austerely nominalistic atheistic morality. Perhaps because, on that view, only concrete particulars exist and no properties. I'm with you in that I don't think the existence of natures of properties matters to "grounding" morality, but it seems to me that Craig has different ideas.
@@DarwinsGreatestHits - This is a Misreading of what Craig said. I also do not see how "Identifcal to God: differs from "dentical to God's Nature" as if God and God's Nature are Separate things. They are not. Further, When He says Moral Values are identified
with certain attributes of God, He is not saying Moral Values Collectively as a Whole are Identified with the same Specific Attributes of God collectively as a Whole. Rather, a Specific Moral Value is Identified with a Specific Attribute or some Specific Attributes of God.
And drop the silly Talk of "Heavy Duty" Existence. It means Nothing.
Duty and Justce both Exist in The Vies presented Above. I don;t see Why You;d say Otherwise.
@@skwills1629
>>This is a Misreading of what Craig said.
What part am I misreading?
>> I also do not see how "Identifcal to God: differs from "dentical to God's Nature" as if God and God's Nature are Separate things.
Craig doesn't hold to divine simplicity as understood by medieval thinkers, so he would treat them as separate. Furthermore, God's nature wouldn't be an existing thing on Craig's nominalism. If God and God's Nature are the same thing, then how do you make sense of this sentence: "God has a nature"? Does it mean God has a God, since they are the same thing?
>> Further, When He says Moral Values are identified
with certain attributes of God, He is not saying Moral Values Collectively as a Whole are Identified with the same Specific Attributes of God collectively as a Whole. Rather, a Specific Moral Value is Identified with a Specific Attribute or some Specific Attributes of God.
From what I've read of Craig, the one and only moral value he speaks of that's to be identified with an attribute of God is goodness; I don't think he's thinking of the so-called thick virtues.
>>And drop the silly Talk of "Heavy Duty" Existence. It means Nothing.
Well, it seems you disagree with Craig then. See www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/doctrine-of-god-part-21/excursus-on-natural-theology-part-18
"Heavy" and "light" existence are Craig's own words. He also uses those words in his book "God and Abstract Objects."
@@DarwinsGreatestHits - It is Really Annoying how Militant Atheists like You use Bully Tactics. I gave an Explanation as to what You Misread Already. Asking it when You even Responded to it is Dishonest.
Also, No One Cares in This Context if Craig believes in Divine Simplistic or not. You cannot Separate Somethings Nature from that Thing. That includes God. God is not Distinct from God's Nature. If God Exists then God's Nature Exists. Nature describes How something is Innately, and is not something that Exists Independent to the Thing it is he Nature of.
And Really, drop the Silly Atheist Word Games. Saying God has a nature is not saying God has a God it is Saying God has a Way God is.
Atheist Arguments today are Such Sophist Nonsense.
Its like Bill Clinton asking us to Define the Word The.
I also doubt You've Read much of Craig's Work. And I am not even a Fan of His. But Honestly what You are saying Here is Torturing the Meaning of what is said.
Also, Heavy is not "Heavy Duty" and Craig is still not saying "Heavy Duty" Existence. Instead of Mindlessly repeating Garbage from Zod and Plink and the Other Clown Atheist TH-camrs, Why not read what Craig Actually says? It is Obvious You are repeating Nonsense from Agenda Driven I Have No Religion Thus I have No Biases Atheists.
So... Jealousy to the point of killing for being jealous is a... virtue? An extension of love?
God never Killed Anyone for Being Jealous. And I don't Really Think You Know what Jealous means. Jealous has come to be a Synonym for Envy but Historically it meant Protective or Defensive. This is the way The Term is used in The KJV for example. Its like the Word Sacrifice, or Mystery. Its One where Atheist Objections are based on Modern English Definitions when the Term is not from Modern English Translations, and has been Retained more out of Familiarity in Liturgy and Common Use in Religious Contexts than because they Fit the Modern Definitions. Mystery means Revealed, not Hidden, and Sacrifice means to Make Sacred, not To Give Something Up for Something Else. God is Jealous means God is Protective, not God is Defensive. We still Find this used Today, such as if Someone says We Jealously Guard something. It does not mean We Enviously Guard something.
I. 09:00
1)"god loves you and knows that your greatest pleasure would be found in him so he doesn't want you looking for happiness in false gods"
Loving god says you should be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:16). He saved you from false gods? so he finally will give you his love, right?
Wrong, you will suffer eternal punishment and fire (Matthew 25:41-46). Where is love?
2) "god cared about creating a set apart people through whom he would bless the world with the messiah which reconciled the world to him"
He could bless the world without this. He is omnipotent, isn't he?
3)"complex rules for the israelites to
reveal through symbolism as various traits such as holiness and justice"
Indeed, killing/torturing innocent perfectly symbolizes god's justice but I how does it symbolize holiness?
4)"institutionalized sacrifice made the
israelites aware of god's infinite justice and how the wages of sin are death"
Sacrifices can be performed in many ways but god loves burning flesh. "pleasing aroma" mentioned multiple times.
Also there are other ways raise awareness. Teachers manage to explain holocaust without gassing/shooting down animals.
11:43
II. 1)Is god able to do evil?
2) Has he free will?
I'll try to respond as succinctly as possible:
I.
1) I wasn't dealing with OT capital punishment; just giving (one) account of why God is "jealous."
2) I don't see why not. But I don't see why it's a problem if He does. Plus, the existence of a chosen people created the perfect circumstances for Jesus to come onto the scene.
3) No innocents are killed/tortured. Holiness is God's set-apart-ness, if you will. Laws about ceremonial cleanliness (and tabernacles -- the thing being referenced) reflected this.
4) God's preference can plausibly be attributed to His knowledge that the affect institutionalized sacrifice would have on the Israelites would be more effective than any alternative. This is plausible because such sacrifices would appear to convey much more than mere propositional knowledge.
II. 1, 2) I happened to have made a video on this question: th-cam.com/video/hmGr4i1Ygm0/w-d-xo.html
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared
1) You should. Also you shouldn't ignore Matthew 25:41-46 is not OT.
2) Because treating someone specially because of their race/nationality/ethnicity is unjust.
What are the requirements or conditions to be met? What makes them perfect?
3) It's your sin, not animal's. -> Animals are innocent. Animals are killed. -> Innocents are killed.
4) You said "made the israelites aware" nothing about smth more or effectiveness. Also showing that your sin leads to animals death to teach that your sin leads to your death makes 0 sense and I can easily come up with better alternatives: talking to every Israelite directly, writing his law in skies, writing raw knowledge about his laws into the brain etc. etc
@@melchiordeduser5967God did write raw knowledge into your brain(that's why you inherently know murder is something that isn't very good). And, even Jesus, though sinless, died for your sin. So, the point is that if you don't sacrifice animals, that are sinless by nature, someone will have to get punished, or else God wouldn't be just. A just God would have to punish something, if not the animal, then you. Besides, God is able to give the animal happiness and what not, so killing the animal temporarily is not that bad when you account for the entire worldview, and not just the sacrificial part. I would say that the reason animals are "innocent" is because they are fundamentally different from humans, in the sense that they don't sin because they don't have he knowledge.
And you seem to misunderstand hell. Hell is not punishment, nor is it torture. It is a place where people go because they choose to reject God(I'm not saying because God gave or didn't give enough evidence), so they go to hell and live out their sinful desires there, but they are cut off from God, who is the source of ultimate good. Basically, the gates of hell are locked from the inside. People want to stay there and actively sin(whether it be having constant sex or something) in hell, against God. The fire in hell is not by God, it is the fire of your own sin. God isn't the one doing the "punishing" in a sense, you are. So, if you wanted, you could choose to go to heaven whenever you want, in hell, but those in hell choose to stay in hell. Now, you may ask me, why would they choose to stay in hell? Well, we even have examples on earth. Right at home. There are many porn and drug addicts around. They know it's bad as much as us. However, their sin makes them incapable of stopping, despite the negative consequences and their bad feelings later. After they get that high, or get that orgasm, they feel bad for while, but it becomes a dark addiction that swallows them and ruins their lives. Hell is something like that. You'll know it's bad, but by that point, you'll be in this cycle where you constantly reject God. Because, actually, heaven is harder than hell at first. Heaven is painful at first. But those who love and seek God will endure the cleansing to be with Him. And eventually, it'll all be worth it.
The other problem Zod seems to have is he's mixing this Euthyphro dilemma with another issue, why should we obey God concerning what he reveals to us is moral. These are two categorically different issues, one in the category of meta ethics and the other in the category of normative ethics. But the answer to his question is simple, that what God reveals to us about morality is the nature of what is moral. Therefore this question is identical to asking why we should do what is moral, and I think the answer to this question can be given with Kant's insight of categorical imperatives. Basically we should do what is good because it is good, or we should do good for its own sake. This is simply the nature of what it means to be moral, and thus this explanation is simply a brute fact.
The Same Problem Exists in other Cares. They make Fun of Trent Horn calling Jesus's Existence a Mundane Fact. They don't Know what Words mean and simply decide when Trent Horn calls Jesus's Existence a Mundane Fact he is saying its Hum Drum Ho Him not Important when that is Clearly not the Intended meaning of the Word Mundane. Zod's Video on Friar Joseph and The Thomistic Institute on Why Theology is a Science has Him making all sorts of Unjustified leaps and Assertingt Things said mean X when it is Obvious that They do not Mean X, and then Zod Attacks X and says he debunked it.
Like when Friar Joseph said something Like, and This is not an Exact Quote, Theology is The Study of God, and The Inner Intelligibility Of The Mysteries of God manifest to us in Christ and The Church.
Zod said
Wat is Theology The Study of? God.
What is the Focus of This Study? The Inner Intelligibility of The mysteries. Whatever that means. I Assume it means The Narrative. OK.
And what is the Source of The Study? Christ. meaningless. And The Church.
So Theology is Really Believing the Stories from The Bible that The Church Told You.
That is not a science.
I don't Know what is Worse, The Fact that Zod Thinks Christ is Meaningless in Chri'tianity, the fact that Zod broke up what Friar Joseph Said as if they were 3 Different Things when it was One Thing, the Fact that Zod Thinks Inner Intelligibility of The Mysteries of God is some Bizarre Word Salad, The Fact that Zid Admits He is just Assuming it Means something then Acts as if this Assumption is a Fact to make Definitive Statements about it, The Fact that Zod Thinks it is Meaningless Drivel when its not, and makes No Effort to understand it, or the Fact that Zod gets it Wrong Completely.
He also ignores what Catholics belief. the Church is not ":The Source of Information for The Study":, it is an Object of The Study as to a Catholic The Church is the Extension of God's Will and Sacramental Technology states that Christ is Manifest through the Sacraments to us here and now. The Church is not merely the Source of Information, it is part of what is Studied. It is The Church that makes God Manifest on Earth.
Friar Joseph was not saying Theology is believing the Stories from The Bible because the Church Told You to, He was saying Theology is The Study of The Nature of God and how God made Himself Manifest to us Through Christ and The Church.
His Whole Video from that Point in is predicated on a Fundamentally Wrong Understanding of what was Said. it did not Deter Him.
In that whole paragraph, you never even touched what it meant for something to be good. How can one do good if we haven’t even figured out what it means?
@@JarrodCardinal who's to say we haven't figured it out?
@@chipan9191 I’m asking if anyone has, and if they have, can they clarify what exactly is meant by good?
@@JarrodCardinal if by that you mean a unifying description, I don’t think that’s necessary. We generally know the difference between right and wrong, which means we have figured out what it means even if we may struggle on certain moral nuances.
Atheists not understanding theistic arguments. What's new? 😅
What argument would I, an atheist, not understand?
@@theoskeptomai2535 well you probably don't but there are "some" (many!) Atheists who sadly misunderstand Theistic arguments.
@@lobstered_blue-lobster What argument for the existence of a god would I have misunderstood?
@Breen Mahon Such as?
@Breen Mahon Well I have examined nearly 50. And all of them either had a false or fallacious premise.
Perhaps you can present one. I will be happy to review it with you. Or you could just cower away. You choose.
This god could end the debate over it's existence if it wanted too but never does. It's hard to tell the difference between a god that doesn't exists and one that never shows itself in either deeds or appearance.
The Fact that You say It instead of He is Really Why I No Longer give Any Creedence to Atheists. Why should I pretend You were Hurt by Religion or that its somehow Christians to Blame when its Obvious You want to be insulting and Demeaning? Why should I Pretend You Think for Yourself when its Clear You repeat garbage from Atheist Websites? Its not even Possible to pretend Any more. you are a Mindless Atheist Drone repeating the Hateful Dogmas of Your Religion. And No, i did not calla mere lack of belief in a god a Religion. I didn't even Call Atheism a Religion. And Atheism is not a mere lack of belief in a god. That Lie was Invented by The Divine Prophet of The Holy Religion Of Atheism Anthony Flew. It is Dogma. You Will prove it when You demand I accept it is True without Evidence and say I am not Allowed to Question it. And by the way, I base the term The Holy Religion of Atheism on The Religion of Humanity by Auguste Compte. Lie all You want about how I called Atheism a Holy Religion. It is No More True than Me calling Humanity a Religion by Mentioning The Religion of Humanity. Also, This Nonsense has been Answered Many Times. You Mindless Atheist Drones need New Material. I also Know You find it Hilarious that a Religious Person calls you Mindless and says You have Dogma because they are the Ones Told what to Think by Their Church an their Pastors. Its not Really going to Prove You don't Act as I say You do and is a mere Diversionary Tactic.
If He showed Himself y'all would dismiss it as an elaborate hoax, a mass hallucination or say he's an alien
@Boat Captain so your all knowing, all powerful god has no idea how to convince of its existence? Kinda pathetic.
@@boatcaptain6288 I call bull on that one chief. A real god would be impossible to deny
@@freshcarrot2253 You've NEVER met anyone who was so stubborn that they'd deny facts of anything even when the facts were shoved in their face? People can be unbelievably obstinate, man
Great response.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) we can possibly use a law of the universe either the 1st law of thermodynamics or 2nd.
Just as the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed but only change forms, God's goodness is an eternal and uncreated aspect of His nature. This goodness, like the constant energy in a closed system, is neither arbitrary nor subject to external creation or destruction. Instead, it is an inherent and perpetual attribute of God, manifesting naturally through His commands and actions. Thus, moral truths are not products of God's will but reflections of His unchanging and eternal nature, similar to how energy persists and transforms within the universe.
I wonder if this can help.
Kind of of similar to the 2+2=4 analogy.
I agree that the way POZ explains the distinction between "inside" and "outside" of God is confusing, but I would say you're missing the point. It would be really useful if someone, for example POZ defined the terms beforehand but no one did so I'm gonna lay out my understanding of it.
The first way I see of defining outside and inside of God is something along the lines of "X comes form inside of God if He has control over it, or X is in some way the result of his actions" and from this follows that "X is outside of God, if He doesn't control it, or it doesn't follow from his actions". You can instantly see how, from the Christian perspective, choosing the "outside" of God option doesn't make any sense, because God is supposed to be omnipotent.
But let's see the implication of those definitions on Craig's answer to the dilemma. If you say the answer is God's nature, you can see how either, God controls His nature, which makes this just a rephrasing of "God's Will", or God doesn't control, or influence it(his nature), which means that His existence is not needed for X{morality)to exist. Also, to argue that God /does/ in fact control his nature is pretty ridiculous,, because the entire idea of someone's nature is that it's outside of their control.
And I think the original dilemma heavily implies this understanding of the issue.
The second way of defining the terms, as far as I can tell, is "X comes from inside of God If it in any way has anything to do with his decisions or qualities" and "outside" would again just be the opposite of that. In this case it's clear that morality coming from God's nature is just morality coming from inside Him. But it's clear this doesn't escape Euthyphro's Dilemma, because if morality can be based on God like this, isn't this at the same level as saying it's based on anything else? Why can't I say morality comes from people's nature? Wouldn't that be at the same level of objectivity? and isn't this just the special pleading fallacy? If you still somehow don't get it, yes I'm saying it's arbitrary.
This also runs into another problem, in fact *the biggest problem of this answer to the dilemma*. See, the thing is, if you're going to say that God's morality is good because his nature is good then either you are using a different basis for morality to judge God(thus making God obsolete), or your argument is circular - you're using God's nature to justify morality, and using that same morality to justify God's nature.
Ok, so to narrow this down the idea behind grounding morality in God's nature is that it is not within his control, and also eternal and unchanging just like God himself is. Your assertion that this means we don't need God to ground morality if this is the case is odd. You asked why humans can't be the source of morality. Well the reason God is the source of morality is because God is literally moral goodness. Humans can't similarly be moral goodness since obviously we aren't morally perfect.
And your "biggest" problem is a misunderstanding. We aren't saying God's morality is good because his nature is good. We're saying God is moral goodness and therefore God is the source of morality. That's a purely meta ethical statement, not a normative ethical one.
I don't Think the Question of if God controls His own Nature or not is Meaningful to the Discussion of Morality in His Creation. I also do not have an Answer for it. But that is not mere Dismissal. I simply see it as Irrelevant. Classical, Traditional Theology explains the Issue. Why would You Think saying Morality is based on God's nature is the same as saying its based on Peoples Nature? Assuming God Exists, so aa not to allow the Sidetrack of prove your god Exists, which is another Subject, and a Distraction here, God is said to Create Everything Else. The way Things are is the way God made them. That cannot be said of People Who Function within the natural laws God established. That is Why it is Different.
Also, Traditionally, Morality was understood not as a Universal Checklist of Dos and Don'ts, but as Living in Accordance to how God Designed You to Live and thus what is Best for You to do to thrive or allow Others to thrive.
Thus, Morality comes from Nature and the natual order of what Works and does not Work. Being Immoral leads to Averse effects by Nature. God is the Author or Nature. He created it. Morality comes from God because God designed the Great Machine, as it were.
Craig is not Arguing that We start with No Morals then proverbially get out a Sheet of paper and, looking at God, Write a List of Morals based on God's Nature. He is saying the Universe itself is based on God's Nature.
@@skwills1629 I was referencing the moral argument. If christians can base their morality on god's nature, then atheists cam base their morality on people's nature and end up with the same level of objectivity. This becomes clear if you think about what it really means for morality to be objective.
Let's take utilitarianism. Because this moral system has a clear definition of good and evil, any action has an objective moral value *under this moral system*. So in this sense it is objective. You can do the same with morality based on god. Stealing is objectively bad under christianity, because it's a violation of one of the ten commandments.
But another issue is: why would you accept a given moral system? Is utilitarian morality objective in the sense that we all objectively should base our morals on it? Or maybe virtue ethics are obectively binding.
I don't see a reason why it would be more valid to accept god's nature as a moral standard than to accept the effects of your actions as a moral standard. In fact, it seems to me that any reason for doing one over the other would neccesarly reference what another person values or the goals they already have, making it very subjective.
I know this is all a tangent but I wanted to explain my point and not just leave you with one vague sentence.
Coming back to the dilemma. I don't think your last point works. Clearly Craig gives God's nature as an answer to Euthyphros Dilemma. So he doesn't say the universe is based on God's nature, he says morality is.
Really, what is the goal of this dilemma?
Is Craig's answer supposed to be an explanation of how christians get their ideas on morality? If so, he fails miserably; in reality christians don't concern themselves with god's nature but with what the bible says, what their churcj says, what's socialy acceptable(that's why no christians burn witches regardles of what the bible says).
Or is he trying to defend the idea of christian morality being objective? He also fails at this as I already explained.
@@Aura-bu9jb - The Moral Argument is not the Subject Here. You also don't Understand it. By the way God is used as a Name, and is not a Title, and even if it was a Ttle its USed in Place of a Name. Spell it Properly. I am tired of Bending Over backwards to Accommodate the Abusive Bullying of Atheists as if its somehow going to Pay Off. Bullying Me by leaving god in Lower Case won't Win Me over. And I am Dyslexic., I have Poor Eyesight. I Capitalise Nouns and Modifiers to Help Compensate. Mocking Me for Random Capitalse will not be Tolerated Either. They ae not Random and Frankly You Idiot Atheist s Preach Your Stupide Moral Superiority as well as Your Rational Superiority and then turn to Ridicule. I say this in Advance. i do not Hate You because You Disagree with Me, but I won't Allow You to be Abusive and Pretend I deserve it.
I will Break this Down.
"If christians can base their morality on god's nature, then atheists cam base their morality on people's nature and end up with the same level of objectivity."
Its God Capital G. And Do You Know how Absurd this is? I already Addressed it too. You simply chose to Ignore what I Already said. This is Why Talking to My Moral and Intellectual Superiors in the Skeptic Atheist Community is So Bloody Irritating. No, You can;t base Your Morality on people and have the Same Objective Morals as Christians Who base it ion God. And I explained Why. In Detail. And I don't have to do it Again.
"This becomes clear if you think about what it really means for morality to be objective."
You Ignore the Whole God Created Everything Else Part. For some Reason You act like God is just a Guy Who lives in The Universe.
The if God Created Everything Part is somehow not Relevant Enough for You to Pay Attention to.
You are as bad as The Liar of Zod in His Take Down of Fiar Joseph saying Theology is a Science. He completely Misrpresents the Intent of The Video and Actually says Saying Christ is the Source of Information is Meaningless to Christianity. The Joke is,. Friar Joseph never even said that, it was manufactured by Zod in His breakdown of what Theology as a scence Studied, and even in His Made up Strawman he seems to not Understand that You can't Remove Christ from Christianity and be Taken Seriously as a Critic of it.
"Let's take utilitarianism. Because this moral system has a clear definition of good and evil, "
No, Utilitarianism rejects Good and Evil. The Entire Point of Utilitarianism is that Good and Evil are not Real Values but Subjective Judgements based on Cultural History. This is Why Marxist Theorists seldom use the term Evil. it is Why Neitche also Rejected the Condept.
Utilitarianism is based on Pure Pragmatism.
"any action has an objective moral value *under this moral system*."
No, it Doesn't. Utilitarianism is based on Utility. That is Why it is Named Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a bout Maximising Effectiveness based on the usefulness of an Action, Item, or Person.
"So in this sense it is objective. "
Not Morally since the Entre Basis of Utilitarianism is a Rejection of traditional Concepts of Morality in Favour of a Progressive Concept of Usefulness and Efficiency. It is a Forerunner for the Progressive Era and was a Mainstay Model in The Progressive Era. It is also Why Eugenics Caught On so Well.
"You can do the same with morality based on god. Stealing is objectively bad under christianity, because it's a violation of one of the ten commandments."
That's not Really what Christianity Teaches. I simply do not Care about "Other Christians" Who Disagree with Me. Churches don't. None of he 45 Million Denominations Who all hate Each Other and Call Each Other False Christians Damned to Hell and say they are The One True Church even Though None of them Ever denounce each Other as Only Atheist Denounce Bad Acting Atheists Agree with that.
Christianity Actually Taches Morality comes from God and is Creation of The Natural Order, so Stealing is Wrong due to Natural Principles. The Ten Commandments are Simply a Part of a Legal Code tat Serves as a Mean to Teach and Enforce this Principle, but it Already Exists in Nature and Contrary to the Lie You see on Atheist Websites Christians do not Think no One believed Stealing was Wrong until Moses got the Ten Commandments.
You also seem to Ignore the Fact that This is about whether Something is Moral because God says so or does God say it is Moral because it is Moral Independently, and how to Explain Why this is a False Dilemma you have to Consider that if God Exists and Created Everything in The Universe there is No Distinction between the 2.
"But another issue is: why would you accept a given moral system? Is utilitarian morality objective in the sense that we all objectively should base our morals on it? Or maybe virtue ethics are obectively binding."
The Actual Question Asked here, and the ne I Wasted Time giving a Detailed Explanation of, is not about Moral Codes but the Ultimate Origin of Morality in Relation to God.
Also, Utilitarianism is not Objectively Moral by Design. Just t Remind You.
"I don't see a reason why it would be more valid to accept god's nature as a moral standard than to accept the effects of your actions as a moral standard. "
Did You even Read what I said? You aren't even Really Addressing it. The Question is not ab out what Moral Codes We accept.
It is doing Me a Disservice Expecting My Earlier Answer to be Subjected to This as its not what it was Intended to Address and as such of Course Fails to Provide a Reason. Its like if I Compiled a List of Available Houses for You to Buy and You start Asking about Fuel Efficiency and how Fast it can go because All of the Sudden We are discussing Cars now.
What I said is not really about Moral Codes We follow but how Morality and its Origins Relate to God.
"In fact, it seems to me that any reason for doing one over the other would neccesarly reference what another person values or the goals they already have, making it very subjective."
That's Nice. What des it have to do with The PSeudo-Eurythropro Dilemma?
"I know this is all a tangent but I wanted to explain my point and not just leave you with one vague sentence."
I just want You to Remeber what it was I was Answering.
I wasted all that Time Explaining the Actual Question Asked for Nothing.
"Coming back to the dilemma. I don't think your last point works. Clearly Craig gives God's nature as an answer to Euthyphros Dilemma. So he doesn't say the universe is based on God's nature, he says morality is."
Are You Kidding Me? How is this even saying something Different?
I did Explain This Already.
"Really, what is the goal of this dilemma?"
It is the Bastardisation of the Real Dilemma, and i is supposed to Trip Christians up but Fails to if Anyone Thinks about it for more than a Minuet.
"Is Craig's answer supposed to be an explanation of how christians get their ideas on morality?"
No. Its about how Morality Exists at All.
"If so, he fails miserably; in reality christians don't concern themselves with god's nature but with what the bible says,"
Are You Seriously Arguing that to a Christian The Bible says Nothing bout God's Nature and is somehow just a Check List of Morals?
I also have to Wonder ow This is supposed to Apply to Catholics or the Orthodox. Or Anglicans.
"what their churcj says, what's socialy acceptable(that's why no christians burn witches regardles of what the bible says)."
The Bible never says to Burn Witches. It does say Suffer not a Witch to Live, but it doesn't say Burn them. Also, We do Incarcerate them. Witches in The Bi le were Probably those Who made Mixtures of Various Herbs and Roots and Chemicals to Induce Certain reactions. And No, they were not Halers. They were closer to Drug Dealers.
"Or is he trying to defend the idea of christian morality being objective? He also fails at this as I already explained."
Its explaining the Universal Basis for Morality not specifically Christian Morality. And No, You didn't Explain Why. You brouht up a Common Stupid Example of Christians not Burning Witches' even though the Bible says they Should as if this is Somehow a Valid Point when its not.
@@skwills1629 Dude calm down. You can see I spelled it God many times, and the times I didn't weren't by intent. I'm just bad at spelling, especially when I type; and english is not my native language so this was already hard. Have some empathy jeez.
Okay so is God's Nature determined by God or something outside of God?
I mean come on you literally saw zod derive a Euthyphro dilemma from Craig's initial rephrasing IN THIS VIDEO. Yet you still didn't notice that this is STILL the Euthyphro dilemma.
Either answer the damn dilemma or just admit that you can't.
Is there any argument for why God's nature is necessarily one of love? This seems like an arbitrary assertion to me. Mathematical necessities are not like this at all, they're actually necessary because their negation is contradictory. I don't see why God couldn't have had a nature of hate instead of love, for instance.
Stay tuned! I'll have something to this affect in the future. :)
I would like to know how anyone comes to the conclusion that any God is good?
Profit of Zod has the best videos on TH-cam!
Scenario 1
God: do not murder
Me: why?
God: because I say so
Me: why would I care about what you say?
God: I'll punish you if you don't
Me: ok jeez fine, I will not murder
Scenario 2
God: you shouldn't murder
Me: why?
God: because it's in my nature that you shouldn't murder
Me: I don't know if I understand that but why should I care about your nature?
God (option 1): because it's my nature and I am the lord of the universe and your creator
Me: unconvinced
God (option 2): because I'll punish you if you don't
Me: ok fine
God (option 3): because it'll be better for you
Me: does the definition of "better" depend on what your nature is?
God: well no, that'd be circular
Me: then the proper reason not to murder is not because it's in your nature
Scenario 3
Secularist: do not murder
Me: why?
Secularist: the state will punish you if you do
Me: ok fine
Scenario 4
Secularist: you shouldn't murder
Me: why?
Secularist: it'll be better for you
Me: by which definition of "better"?
Secularist: yours
Me: I'm in
You also shouldn't murder because of the *real* definition of "better." The definition that is true independent of what you happen to think. It seems quite apparent to me that there is such a definition. But then, what *makes* one particular definition of "better" the real one?
See: the video.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared It doesn't seem apparent to me at all. "Better" seems like such a subjective term! If there is a notion of "better" that doesn't capture what I subjectively think is better, then I don't care about it, whether it comes from God or otherwise. If that notion of better does capture what I subjectively think is better, then I care about it irrespective of whether it comes from God or not. In both cases, this is about personal preference. And in both cases, God isn't really useful to actually convince me to act in a certain way, *unless* you invoke divine punishment. Take that away, and the secularist from before has way better arguments to convince me to not murder.
@@Nickesponja There are grey areas in what makes something "better," sure. But there are obviously at least some cases where we can see that something is objectively better without any room for dispute.
If someone thinks subjectively that peanut butter ice cream is better than chocolate, I could say that I actually like chocolate more but I couldn't say that he was *wrong*. So, there is no objective culinary standard.
If a sadist thinks torturing a child to death is objectively better than nurturing them, I can clearly say that he is wrong. This is so obvious, I don't think it's possible to change my mind. But that means that it is not a matter of preference; there is an objective moral standard.
// If there is a notion of "better" that doesn't capture what I subjectively think is better, then I don't care about it, whether it comes from God or otherwise. //
Well, according to your definition of "better," you are better than the sadist. According to the sadist's definition of "better," he is better than you. If neither of you has something backing up your definition, then you are at an impasse; neither person has a "more" correct definition. But if there is a God who can ground one definition as the correct one, then you have a way of standing above the sadist and saying that he is really wrong, even if you are powerless to stop the sadist. I'm not invoking punishment because it seems obvious that "might makes right" is wrong. Rather, I am saying there is a special *metaphysical* thing that makes morality right. The best candidate for this is the nature of God.
// Take that away, and the secularist from before has way better arguments to convince me to not murder. //
The secularist isn't giving *any* argument to not murder. He's just telling you a fact about your own beliefs. The secularist can do absolutely nothing to tell the sadist that his actions are wrong, because the sadist has different beliefs.
At the end of the day, the secularist may be able to convince you to act in a moral way, but only the theist can tell you why there is a way which is moral in the first place.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared "even if you are powerless to stop the sadist" Well that's precisely the problem! If appealing to God's nature doesn't help you convincing the sadist that he is wrong then you have a perfectly consistent and nice theory of morality... that is absolutely useless! You would still be at an impasse with the sadist. You simply would think he is objectively wrong rather than subjectively wrong... which makes absolutely no difference to anyone but you, including the sadist!
On the other hand, if instead of just saying "you shouldn't do that because it goes against God's nature", you appeal to empathy, well-being (even the sadist's well-being is compromised by torturing children), etc, you *might* be able to convince him not to do that. You definitely have a better chance with this than with God's nature, simply because most people have empathy and care about well-being whether they want it or not. Is it perfect? No. Is it more useful than appealing to God's nature? Undoubtedly.
@@Nickesponja We seem to be dealing with different problems. You seem to be trying to figure out how to convince a sadist to stop doing wrong things. A very important problem. The problem I am dealing with is even more important: I'm trying to actually figure out why the things the sadist is doing are wrong in the first place! I may not *like* that he tortures babies, just as he doesn't *like* that I refrain from torturing them. My understanding of morality may condemn him, just as his understanding of morality condemns me. I'm trying to show that torturing babies is not just a matter of opinion; that there is a *correct* view on whether or not babies should be tortured, independent of human opinion.
Since torturing babies is wrong, the sadist must be stopped. We agree! But why is torturing babies wrong in the first place? If I'm not a theist, it seems I can't say that it isn't! All I can say is, "I don't like it" or, "It doesn't conform to how I personally want the world to look." Since the sadist can say the same thing about my views, it just happens to be the case that I'm going to try and stop baby-torture, and it just happens to be the case that he will try to increase baby-torture -- no morality involved. Neither of us has a special claim to being "right" about the way the world ought to be.
Unless of course there *was* a correct way the world ought to be. But then, what defines the way the world ought to be? It seems you would need some metaphysically special thing, grounding that one view of how the world ought to be. Naturalists can't invoke any such thing, though. Theists can.
Have an objectively nice day! :)
There seems to be both a philosophical and a Scriptural problem with dividing God’s nature and will as you have. First is that God is simple, i.e. without parts, and so, by virtue of His simplicity, His nature and His will cannot be distinct parts but must be one. Secondly, 1 John tells us that God is Love (1 John 4:8). Here, to love is an act of the will (St. John cannot be speaking of emotional love), and so to say that God is an act of the will leads us to conclude that His nature and His will are identical.
I think that divine simplicity causes more scriptural problems than it solves, and is also conceptually problematic.
For example, if God is simple, then how could God be triune?
The references verse could be explained quite easily as John not making a literal statement.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared I hadn't thought of a non-literalistic interpretation of "God is love". How do you understand it?
@@Zosso-1618for me, I understand it as God is the source of all love and is love. Much like how the 1kg sample weight is 1kg. It is the purest standard of 1kg and everything that is heavier or less heavy than it is off by 1kg, when compared to this 1kg scale. Or else, there would be no such thing as weight, in a sense. Like how when I say that this object is long, I must have a general, not necessarily accurate, standard of length, or else saying things are long and short are just gibberish.
You miss the point of the dilemma and subsequently the point of Zod's redescription.
This is apparent at the end when you dismiss the critique that shifting it from will to nature is obscuring the main thrust of the critique.
If I simply stated that the nature of humans or one particular human is good then I still haven't answered the thrust of the question of if goodness is are descriptor of things based in relation to a character or if it isn't based in relation to a character.
The issue with basing it in a character is that they simply exist. Defining something like goodness as being more in line with that character is setting yourself up for failure. That character can now do no wrong, and determining good outside of exact things they did or things you know they would do is impossible.
Who decided that God's nature is good or can be defined as good? That only moves the problem it does not solve it.
Jealousy, he doesn't want you seeking love with false gods- ok but feeling jealousy is a sin as defined by god himself, no matter the reason therefore trying to justify jealousy because it is god is just saying that jealousy isn't bad when it's god because god is good (and God is good because that is how he has defined himself.)
Animal sacrifice, you mean to tell me that the only way god could teach is by having them cruelly sacrifice animals, the all knowing god that was the only way? Hadn't he already stated that the wages of sin is death by so many death penalties he put on sin?
I could even add more, like wearing mixed fabrics, Eating shellfish, Slavery (which is whole debate in itself), he's attitude to Rape (which is another whole debate in itself), he's attitude to the treatment of animals (try arguing the problem of evil when it comes to animals, why does a deer get disease?) we could go on and on.
Hello, I’ve wondered in recent days, isn’t relligion just a way of prevention from anxiety of death? We can see, that nearly all religions say something about after life, so doesn’t that show us, that we can say, what Freud said, I believe, that we are religious, not to be stressed of death, to be better for the group, etc.?
I think that your question has two components:
1) Do people believe in their religion as a coping mechanism?
2) Is there a particular religion which is true?
Now, the answer to the first one may be, "Yes! For the vast majority of people, their religious beliefs are held for non-evidentiary motivations." But that leaves the second question completely unanswered. Even if the answer to the first is "yes" for the majority of people, the answer to the second may be "yes," or it may be "no." We need to evaluate the evidence to actually answer the second question. But if that's the case, then why does the answer to the first question matter?
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Sorry for late response, I had notifications off. Thanks for answer, also have a great day!
“Isn’t religion just a way of prevention from anxiety of death”
This is actually a fallacious assumption constantly used by online militant atheists because it clearly commits the (Genetic Fallacy) because it begs the question that just because you can trace the origins of a belief such as the belief in (life after death) this automatically means the belief is false. Equally, this (Genetic Fallacy) is a (non sequitur) that works both ways as many atheists claim that they’re belief that there is (no life after death) gives them comfort and prevents them from the anxiety of (life after death) because it means they can just get on with their Epicurean lifestyle without guilt and fear of accountability after they die. But this is a (non sequitur) on both accounts as it does not logically follow that just because you can trace the origins of both atheism and theism it means that they are false. Equally, people may later explore the nuances of the belief that (life after death) is possible and the evidence that mind and consciousness, that is reality and existence is more than just the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the “illusion” of stable patterns and regularities. Hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness (The Hard problem of consciousness). A genetic fallacy is an informal fallacy of logical reasoning. It is a type of "red-herring" or irrelevancy fallacy. We commit a genetic fallacy if we argue against an idea or conclusion based on its origin. The way a person comes to hold a position does not have any bearing on whether the position itself is true or false. Nevertheless, there are some instances where the origin of belief or testimony can be relevant to the present truth value of a claim, such as archeological evidence, eyewitness accounts and written accounts etc. But in any event, the truth or falsity of a claim must be adjudicated based on the reasons given for supporting (or detracting from) the premises and conclusion.
But doesn't that trace of history from religion sort of indicate that the majority of these stories were legends passed around through cultures? I mean tons of mythologies involve a battle between a hero and a monster that's a really common group but does that mean that monster and hero actually existed?
@@karlazeen - The Problem is, Religion is a Modern Concept that did not Exist Prior to the 1500's and was the Product of The Protestant Reformation and John Locke. This is not saying that The Worship of gods is New. I Know this is what You think Religion means, but You already expanded Religion to more than just a god Exists and I worship that god or those gods. You claim it is a Coping Mechanism for Death. You also say now All or Most Religions have a Fight between a Hero and a Monster. Its all Nonsense of Course and yet Here You are. its not Like You Buy into Any other Freudian Theories, This One is simply a Convenience. Religion is actually not even Well Defined, and Simply Posting a Cherry Picked Dictionary Definition Whilst Ignoring the Five or Six Other Definitions in the same Dictionary is also Silly.
Religion is simply the Belief System One Holds to. It is not Really all about The Afterlife, or a Hero Fighting a Monster, it is more an accumulated Culture that becomes the framework from which You understand Your Existence. Even those We now say have No Religion Actually do. Its just Beliefs. its not Distinct from other Beliefs.
If morality comes from god, then it’s mind-dependent, ergo SUBJECTIVE by definition.
For morality to be OBJECTIVE, it must be mind-independent, ergo supersedes god.
Congrats, the guy who thinks WLC has good arguments falsifies his own ignorance of the dilemma.
In no way does animal sacrifice (not necessarily pagan) mirror (Jesus’ sacrifice which is human sacrifice (extremely pagan).
Jesus failed the necessary prophecies required to be Messiah.
The Jewish Messiah is not god/divine, does not die, rebuilds the Temple, isn’t a human sacrifice wherein salvation is obtained via drinking human blood and eating human flesh, converts the entire world to Judaism (the fact that Christians exist prove Jesus wasn’t Messiah), rules over the entire world from Jerusalem for 1000 years as a political king of an earthly kingdom, stops all wars, upholds Torah (Jesus spoke against Torah), returns all Jews in the world to Israel… and much more, none of which Jesus accomplished.
If Christian’s bothered to learn basic Hebrew, they wouldn’t believe anything they do about Christianity.
Basing morality on God's nature is arbitrary.
No its not. Existence is based on God's Nature. Why do you Lot always Ignore this Point? I Know You will now say Prove your god Exists but, that's changing the Subject. You assume God Exists the Question and the Existence of God can be Delt with at Another Time. For now, You are making a Claim on Christian Beliefs. Christians do not Think Morals are simply "based on God's nature" as a mere Opinion God made based in how he is. They Think Existence itself is Based on God's Nature.
No it isn't. Cause it's not a choice.
@avivastudios2311 The choice is made by the god character.
If the God can choose anything to be good than that makes "good" completely dependant on the God's whims. If this is true than there is no inherent contradiction in God choosing that hate is good.
If God cannot choose that hate is good then that necessitates a standard that God does not have control over. This would mean the standard of good is independent of God.
Can I ask a question of you, because I have never seen it being posed to any of the usual apologists or their usual interlocutors.
Why is there a constant need for objectivity in morality. I understand that it's a handy apologetics tool, because if you can prove the existence of a morality outside of humanity, you're half way there to proving a deity of some kind (depending on how you define deity). But what's wrong with collective subjective morality. 7.8bn people agree that rape is evil, and only sociopaths think it isn't. That is such a shared view that it feels like objectivity. But it's not. It's a subjective view that happens to be universal. And because it's so universal, well, we're fooled into assuming objectivity. And because 'zoon politicon o anthropos' , we make rules and laws against it. Laws that differ slightly because the collective subjectivity varies subtly from society to society
I'd be grateful for your take on this. I know it's not exactly the euthrypo dilemma, or WLC v Zod, but you seem like someone who might be able to give an enlightening answer.
Imagine a hypothetical world where tomorrow, everyone except you changes their mind about the evilness of rape. It seems very very clear to many people that rape would still be evil. Even if the entire world disagreed, the entire world would be wrong. This fact is difficult to account for if morality is subjective.
There are other arguments as well. For example, people tend to think society is progressing. Belief that “slavery is morally permissible” has decreased over time, and people tend to think of that as progress. But if there is no objective fact of the matter, then that can’t be called “progress.” If morality is determined by consensus, then neither the view that slavery is allowable nor the view that slavery is evil is “right”; the consensus just changed.
The root of their objection lies in the fact that they (i.e atheists) have a very anthropomorphic understanding of the word "God".
If God is metaphysically necessary, then he can't be judged as good or bad. Just like 2+2=4. Or Frank Turrek's moist robots. Without a free-will to make a choice God is not moral at all.
th-cam.com/video/hmGr4i1Ygm0/w-d-xo.html
Metaphysical Nessesity does not mean Unable to make a Choice.
@@skwills1629 Of course it does. Any choice is not necessary by definition.
@@goldenalt3166 - You confuse Substance for Action. God is said to be Metaphysically Necessary for us to Exist. It is not said that God Creating us is metaphysically necessary for Him to Do. It is Rather like a Man being Necessary to Writing a Specific Novel. The Novel's Existence is contingent on The Writer. The Writers Existence is not Contingent on The Novel.
@@skwills1629 That's not what I mean by being metaphysically necessary. I don't mean he's the cause of us. I mean he is a constant. If you can conceive of a reason God exists then he's not necessary.
Nah! If you say that it's God's nature to be good then that would mean whatever his nature is, is good, so you are back to the first option.
This is a good video and corrects many flaws with Zod's response, but you missed touching on the fundamental objection when it comes to arbitrariness. The arbitrariness does not arise because God's nature is arbitrary, but rather that the grounding of goodness in his nature is the decision that is itself arbitrary. Interestingly enough, Dr. Craig effectively argued a similar point in a debate against Sam Harris to debunk Harris' claim that morality could be grounded in the negation of human suffering. While there's nothing wrong with doing so, Craig correctly pointed out that this is an arbitrary choice and thus would not make morality objective in a metaethical sense, as Harris was claiming.
Realy enjoyed the video.
Its weird that Zod would get confused by this. Its a chame knowing that his behaviur reflects the new atheist atitude, asuming ingenuiness over bad thinking.
But I guess thats what ploriferates more in internet culture.
Glad you enjoyed! :)
Wtf is a metaphysical necessity? This is a lot of work to avoid saying you don’t know something.
I Hate how you Lot say You have No Dogmas or Doctrines then Repeat the same Dogmas and Doctrines. By the way its Militant Atheists Who Never say "I don't Know". Also, You can Look up Metaphysical necessity. Craig did not Invent it. Aristotle speaks of it.
Example: If the statement "all swans are white" is correct, then any swan you come across must be white. Now, would you question the logic behind this? Would you say "hey, maybe the concept of deductive reasoning is questionable, even if its premises are right"? It's just how the world is. Another example: If the Earth is round, then it cannot also be flat. You may consider whether either premise is true, but by necessity, the other must be false.
Unless I've misunderstood, your response doesn't even invalidate the dilemma. You must propose a third response to invalidate the dilemma. You have simply replaced Gods will with Gods nature.
Original:
1. Feeding the homeless is Gods will because feeding the homeless is good.
2. Feeding the homeless is good because feeding the homeless is Gods will.
Yours:
1. Feeding the homeless is in Gods nature because feeding the homeless is good.
2. Feeding the homeless is good because feeding the homeless is in Gods nature.
you have misunderstood , cant go prior to nature. gods nature is the justification stop crying
The simple question is Why do you call God's Nature Good? What do you mean when you say Gods Nature is Good?
Is it Good just because You define God's nature as Good ? Or Is it Good because (you think) He is by nature loving, compassionate and Just?
If His nature is Good just because You have labelled it Good then Good means nothing. Even if God's nature is (actually or possibly) hating and mallicious You would still label it Good.
If you call Gods nature Good because He is loving and compassionate then you are judging God by a standard outside God. How do you know that Love and Compassion are good qualities as opposed to hatred?
solid video
Also, did Zod Really just compare Himself to God? The Whole Table an Guest Analogy fails for One Vital Reason. We are discussing where Morals come from. If they are an Inherent Aspect of Natural Law, and were Created by God, then God certainly has More say over it than Zod and His Guests since Zod did not Determine Their Natures. God determines the nature of the people at the Table. God Also Determined the Table. And the Land the Table is on. And the Universe around it.
Whereas nature could have been Any Way God chose, Zod cannot control The Nature of His ZGuests, or even His Own House.
Flatly stating apologist tropes as if they're self evident and then claiming victory: 15:09
That's not what Happened. And You Lot need to stop Distorting Things. Lying to Win an Argument doesn't Really win an Argument.
Fuckkn waste of time. You guys just go in circles. There’s no common ground. The first question for the debate is, does God exist?
Yes he does
Well what created God's nature? If God has a nature that is not a result of his free will or decisions, then there is something outside of God's control, which means he's not omnipotent. And who created God's nature if he's not omnipotent? Why is he "just that way"?
No, 2+2=4 is true because of how we define the values of 2 and 4. You are just assuming the 'metaphysical necessity' of things which aren't actually axioms. There is 0 evidence or argument that God has to be moral by nature. And you just admitted theists are 'positing' that God is moral by nature.
Not to mention presupposing God is moral immediately slams headfirst at 200mph into the problem of evil, which no Christian has ever answered to the point of rebuting it.
Jealousy -> He loves you so much he'll literally kill you if you don't love him back. Wtf?????
Tribalism -> Why create blessed people in the first place? Why not bless everyone?
Expectation of worship -> Narcissism and egomaniacalism
Animal smoke -> IF YOU DO BAD THING I WILL KILL YOU... but I still love you.
Morality is a complicated question but defaulting to "I have to assume God is real and moral or I have no answer to objective morality" is a LAZY answer.
About your first point, god cannot have a creator because he’s infinite and the absolute.
@@Your_Dad-f5z Notice how you didn't answer my question of 'why he is just that way?' Plus, that's how you're defining god, so it's proof that god is just made up. All christian philosophy is backed on abstractions from the natural world, such as 'plato's world of forms' rather than vice versa. Abstractions from the natural world do not define the natural world. They are human models that humans use to attempt to make sense of their surroundings.
@@imaginative6315
If god is absolute then there’s no why, that’s like asking what’s more north than the North Pole.
@@Your_Dad-f5z Actually there is. Plus, you ignore two questions:
How do we know god is absolute or if there even is a god?
Why is god's goodness just happening to align with what I believe in?
Not very smart, are you?
@@imaginative6315
We can come to the conclusion that the god of the bible exists through 2 things:
1. historical evidence for the existence and resurrection of Jesus
2. research on near death experiences in neuroscience
About 1.: no person in the ancient world has so much evidence for existence and especially when it comes to supernatural things as Jesus and Jesus fulfilled the prophecies from the Old Testament so there’s the historical evidence
About 2.: neuroscience so far shows us that the brain doesn’t generate consciousness, there’s zero evidence for that, there’s correlation but not causation especially when it comes to near death experiences and many of them are verified through the medical staff, look up the research by dr.Sam Parnia for example
I would have insulted you for that statement of yours but I’ll just say: god loves you
Your claim that a loving God takes pleasure in animal sacrifice is absurd. Killing animals for pleasure is morally abhorrent. But you wouldn't recognize that as a theist, would you? Your morals are totally arbitrary, and not grounded in logic and reason. You would find it moral that God commanded a man to be stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Numbers 15 ;32-36
The Problem with The Pseudo-Euthroppro Dilemma is, it is not Really a Dilemma. The People Who Invoke it Fail to Realise that God is the Creator of Everything Else. God's Existence is Assumed in the Question, so Atheists have to Admit God Exists for the Sake of Argument. They Know This is True, and when I Mention it they Admit it is True, yet they Still Act s if somehow it makes sense to Gage Morality separately from God. I Spoke to a Bloke Here Who simply could not Understands His ( Really the Pastors of His Atheist Religion like Zod here) example of an Indifferent god Creating The Universe then Walking way and Allowing Morals to Evolve Naturally is not truly "Independent of God". He also demanded I Accept that This is about what We base Our Morals on when it is Obvious from the Question that it is not, and Insisted it is not about the Origin of Morality but their Direct Source as if that is somehow Different. From what I Gathered, he takes Direct Source to be immediate Source, and sees it as the thing We base Moral Codes on, and Acts as if This is a Totally different Question to the Origins of Morality. But, its not. It is Certainly not to a Christian. Christians say God is the Source of Morality, and Christians say the reason God is the Source of Morality is because God created Everything Else. So even if I were to apply this to personal Moral Codes and not to a Universal Morality Inherent to Existence, Christians Explicitly say they bae their Morals on the Ultimate Source as he called it and Romans 1; 25 says Explicitly not to Worship The Creation but to Worship the creator Instead.
Not that it matters, The Question of if Something is Moral because God said it is Moral or does God say it is Moral because it is Moral is not about Personal Moral Codes and is about the origin of Morality. The Answer to the Question will not give us a Reason to Follow said Morals as it is not what is being Asked. Just as Instructions on How to Built and Install an Oven and an Explanation of How the oven Works and how to use it Will not Teach you how to make Specific Foods.
I do not even need Craig's God is Goodness Line they Ridicule. The Arbitrary Morality Objected to in The Dilemma is that Murder is Morally Wrong Only because God says it is Morally Wrong and God can Change His Mind on a Whim to say Murder is Morally Right if he wanted to. But, This is not the Case.
Traditional Christianity Teaches Morality stems from Natural Law. There is a Natural order to The Universe, and Acting in Certain Ways Yields Results that are Either beneficial, Neutral, or Harmful. These Consequences are the Result of the way Nature itself Functions and are the Basis of Morality. Since God created Nature, these Laws are not Independent of God, but they are only Arbitrary in the sense that God chose to set up The Created Natural Order this Specific Way. In Order for God to make Murder Moral, He'd have to do more than just say it is Moral. God would have to Change something about the Nature of the Created Order. While God is Capable of that, God also declared he would not do this. He would Keep All these Laws Consistent until The End, Only allowing breaches on Rare Occasions, which We call Miracles.
Morality is not simply Divine Decree, as in God said so therefore it is Moral or Not Moral, as if Morality is but a Check List of Rules, Rather, Morality is Produced as a Function of Natural Laws and the natural order and does not Exist independently of The Natural World that grants it Context. Morality did not "Come from" Nature as a separate Thing either, it is a Part of Nature. While Nature is not Identical to Morality, Morality is not Separable from Nature. But this also means that God, Who is the Creator of that Natural Order made it so, and thus it is also not Independent of God.
Zod dude is making sense though.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.
In that case, I can arbitrate that it's morally praiseworthy to ignore any and all arguments you make that supposedly evidence the claim that each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. But it is objectively wrong to ignore evidence. Therefore, it is not the case that each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared Correct. You can choose to ignore what I say. But you aren't able to refute it. Have a wonderful night. Peace.
@@theoskeptomai2535
“You aren’t able to refute it”
Ho the irony!! Is that an objectively “true” or subjectively “true” statement ? Because you’ve just unwittingly claimed that it’s objectively true by stating that he is unable “to refute it” demonstrating that moral subjectivism is circular self refuting and objectively false. This is comedy Gold!! At least be a consistent materialist/atheist!
“logic is an illusion” (Nietzsche)
According to Nietzsche compassion was weakness, cowardice and self-deception and that the Judeo-Christian emphasis on compassion was poison. In drawing these consequences from his beliefs about the death of God and from Social Darwinism, Nietzsche provided the part of the Nazi belief system which ‘justified’ the cruel steps they took to implement their other beliefs.
(Jonathan Glover, Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century).
Evidence and citations please that what Nietzsche believed about compassion what the Nazis did can be wrong under moral subjectivism or societal relativism.
I rest my case!!
@@georgedoyle7971 Oh the stupidity!! Rufutation has nothing to do with _objectivity._ It has to do with _opposition._ And you can't oppose the FACT that cognition is a _subjective_ enterprise, not an _objective_ one. I rest MY case!!!
@@theoskeptomai2535 - How do You Refute a Contradiction other than by Saying it is a Contradiction?
He starts with the wrong assumption that there can be something outside of God.
Acts and Colossians reads: " *_God is before all things in which everything came to be in where everything lives, moves and have their beings_* ".
How convenient! Another unsubstantiated claim. Shocker!
@@theoskeptomai2535 Not true. It's substantiated. You just don't like it.
@@theoskeptomai2535 how?
@@theoskeptomai2535 - You Lot say That All the Time but if You can't even Define the terms You Use You can't Argue Anything, and God as creator of All Else is Necessarily All Encompassing. That is not an unsubstantiated Claim, it is how God is Defined. it is not Defining God into Existence either. it is Defining Go so We Know what We are even Discussing.
Help!
It's really tough to find an answer to this question from a theist that I can make sense of and easily digest. Perhaps there's some book on it somewhere but my head hurts when I read more than a page of philosophy! (or much else for that matter).
If morality doesn't require of God any will (he wills it because it is his nature is secondary to it depending on his will to be) or intelligent choice or decision or creativity for its existence ... then why does it need to be grounded in anything? Why can't it be the ground without a creative, intelligent, wilful character as its base when none of those characteristics support it?
This does lead to what "feels" like an odd state of affairs, where such an elusive thing to pin down as morals are "just so". But if God doesn't contribute anything to morals except a "ground" then this is "just so" anyway.
Let's look at it this way:
There are two kinds of things: dependent and independent things. Independent things don't need anything else for their existence. They don't need any sort of grounding out side of themselves to exist. Dependent things derive their existence from something else. It's generally thought that we should try to limit the amount of independent things in our worldview (I can go more into why we should if you want). Now, we are looking at two things: God and morality. God is an independent Being. But what about morality? Well, it can either be independent or we can say it's a dependent thing. It would be nice to say it's a dependent thing, cuz then we don't need to add more independent things to our worldview, but what could it depend on? Well, we have a *morally* perfect, independent Being in our worldview! Morality can depend on Him! That's a nice worldview.
Have a nice day! :)
@@ApologeticsSquared you didnt answer it again,
we have a "morally perfect independent being" which "morality depends on". thats quite circular, isn't it? How do we judge his moral perfectection if the morality which we judge him by is dependant on, you guessed it, his own morality.
@@dagan5698 that wasn't really the question he asked, but to answer it... You don't judge him. If God is the source of morality and equivalent to moral goodness, then of course we can't judge him in terms of moral goodness. But I don't see a problem with this.
@@chipan9191 @chipan9191 honestly don't even know what this video is about it's been a half year since I posted that. But what the heck I'm bored. your answer is simply, "we don't judge." Ok, well I'm not sure how you've come to any conclusion then, not really an answer still.
Let me set up a situation:
hypothetically, to determine which God to follow, having already determined through the use of some moral argument that a morally perfect being must exist, one must use their judgement to evaluate which God that is. It seems based on that logic whatever God you chose, no matter their moral proclivity, one could justify that God with the same logic and reason as the OP. So I'm not sure how that gets you anywhere. Would you accept Charles Manson's morality to determine Charles Manson's culpability? I wouldn't. Like how are we supposed to know this god is truly the moral end all be all? I don't know. I recommend watching paulogias video "my morality challenge fail" its like 42 minutes and it sums up my views on that argument quite well.
But again I don't even know what this post is about anymore. Cheers have a good day!
@@dagan5698 yeah, the problem is you're raising a separate issues to the topic here. The question of how morality is grounded in God's nature is much different from the question of how we judge God in a moral sense. They're not even the same subject really. The idea of grounding morality here is that you take the concept of goodness, and that's God. So the problem you're having is you're approaching this from a different order where you're trying to identify God based on his morality. But that would be like trying to identify goodness by how good it is... It doesn't work. And how you judge God doesn't really have anything to do with grounding morality anyways. At this point you're just confusing meta ethics with normative ethics.
i agree. You have a misunderstanding of Prophet of Zod.
The Liar Of Zod doens't Understand what he is Talking about.
@@skwills1629 You don't.😢
@@shadowmomochiuchiha6839 - I have a Degree in Religious Studies. I Actually Do Understand the Topic, and Know The Liar Of Zod Does Not.
@@skwills1629 oooo look at your degree, you must be so clever.😂 lets see you debunk him buddy.
@@shadowmomochiuchiha6839 - This Video already Debunked Him. You can all so Easily Look Up The Pseudo-Eurythropro Dilemma and its Resolutions. Nothing The Liar Of Zod says is Really His Idea, He just Copies the Arguments from Other Militant Atheists, and All of Them have been Addressed before. This is Why All of those in Your Tribal Religion are Indoctrinated to Never Listen to Apologists, and You See Anyone Who Disagrees with You as an Apologist, and Claim Apologetics is Inherently Dishonest. And do Keep in Mind The Lia Of Zod has Out Out Videos saying Christians only Pretend to be OK with Doubt or Christians Pretend to be Picked On and the Like. I don't Need to Be Told I am Lying just by Not agreeing with His stupidity that has been Addressed Before.
If God = good
Then, can what is not good come from God?
depends on how you define "come from God". there is a difference between primary and secondary causes in theology
@@wakeinthecity9 can God cause what is not good
@@Awwfulclasherwhat do you mean by "good". For most philosophers, "bad" is a lack of "good". Because "good" is the standard in which you compare "bad". If you didn't have a concept of good(I'm dropping the quotation marks cause it's too annoying😅), then you wouldn't have bad. So, I would say that God cannot make anything that is bad, because He is the standard of good. Much like how the way we measure 1 cm(a certain distance light travels in a certain time) cannot be anything but 1cm by definition. However, God can give creatures free will, that can then choose to turn away from the standard of good, which we would then call evil. If you still don't get what I mean by this evil is a privation of good thing, think of hot and cold. Hot exists, but cold does not. Cold is merely an absence of hot. I hope that this helped give a bit of understanding. In summary, God cannot directly make something that is not good. But God can make something that is good, like free will for love, that then makes bad, because it is not God and is not the standard of good and can then go away from that standard, making bad. Now, I know I said that it was the summary, but I have one more thing to say(I'm a scatter brain😅), if you want a more personal understanding of good and bad. Look at how, intrinsically, you can do good stuff for the sake of good, but you only do bad stuff for the sake of good and cannot do bad stuff for the sake of bad. So, you will give money to the needy because it is good even if you don't benefit, though you may get good because you feel good from doing good. However, you do bad, like stealing, for a good, like getting money which makes you feel good, in a sense. Some people rape and murder so they can get revenge to feel good, whatever that means. So you can do good for good, but you can't do bad for bad. Nobody does bad things because it makes them feel bad. (By the way, I know I'm making an equivocation fallacy, so don't take my word too literally just focus on the analogy, though imperfect😅)
@@kazumakiryu157 good is that which God wants to occur
@@Awwfulclasher is that a definition of good, or an objection? Because that definition of good still is valid for my point, but it seems a bit too simplistic.
Learn some logic. Try again. Stop defining god into existence.
its God not god, and You need to learn Logic. he did not Define God into Existence.
@@skwills1629does God become angry when you write the word "god"?
@@VigiliusHaufniensis - Given How Your Tribe Ridicules Me for Randomly Capitalising Words even after I Explained to You I am Dyslexic, Legally Blind, and Capitalise certai9n Key Words and its not Random, its Abusive Bullying to Ask this.
@@skwills1629 First of all i have no idea who you mean with "my tribe".
Secondly, you did not randomly capitalise this word, you explicity said
"its God not god" - how is that random if you emphasized this capitalisation yourself?
Therefore I did not make fun of random capitalisation, i asked for the specific motivation behind a specific capitalisation.
And finally, at no point did you ever explain to me that you are dyslexic, what are you even talking about
@@skwills1629
No, it's not bullying. Capitalize the word god implies that the one you worship is the only true one, as the title belongs to him.
It doesn't, so your insistence on the title being capitalized comes off as whining for special treatment for your beliefs.